When Basketball Stars Attack!

^.^

Alrighty, by now, we all have heard about the basketbrawl game between the Denver Nuggets and the New York Knicks. Lots of stuff happened, lots of players got suspended, and both teams got fined $500,000.

However, what may not have been apparent was the sort of "secret" fight that started at the game, and has continued since.

See, Denver was ahead going into the final minutes of thegame, yet they still had their star players in the lineup. This infuriated Knicks coach Isiah Thomas, who thought that Denver was trying to run up the score. At one point, Thomas apparently told a Denver star player that he should not be in the game...apparently forgetting that he was the coach of the Knicks, not the Nuggets.

Anyway, apparently Isiah Thomas told Mardy Collins to blatantly foul J.R. Smith, and from that point, the proverbial excrement hit the fan.

Knicks coach Isiah Thomas certainly did his ball club no favors by exacting revenge on the court, and if he is not fined by the NBA, then something is wrong. But the supposed running up of the score in that game was *his* fault, not the Denver Nuggets, and not their coach George Karl. The blame for this debacle can be put squarely on the shoulders of Isiah Thomas, and the looser has-been basketball team that the Knicks have become. As Yahoo sports writer Dan Wetzel put it:

"If (Nate) Robinson really wants this to end, if he wants the MSG boos silenced, then he should get his teammates to compete hard the first 46 minutes, not just foul hard in the final two.

If Thomas wants to stop people from running up the score on him, then he should have built a better club. He shouldn't have wasted all that money on illogical signings, outrageous trades and heartless characters.

No, Thomas and his guys weren't the only ones in the wrong Saturday. The Nuggets have their own issues. But when it was over, at least they weren't crying, at least they weren't punking. "

And don't get me wrong...I'm not in the tank for the Denver Nuggets. In fact, the only time I follow the NBA is when something this insane happens, and to me, these things are just one more example of something that could be a role-model for kids, turned into Saturday Night at the Fight Club.

People expect bloody brawls at hockey games, and the occasional football game. Heck, the fans make more trouble in international soccer, and even sedate games such as baseball have their share of brawls.

I imagine soon that they'll start advertising golf as an oportunity to cave someone's head in with a metal club. How about bowling...ever try shot-putting a bowling ball at someone?

I echo the sentiments of Mr. Wetzel...if Isiah Thomas was so concerned about being embarrassed, then perhaps he should build a team that is not such an embarassment. When the University of Wyoming football team got slaughtered this year by BYU, I didn't see football coach Joe Glenn whine and cry about it. We got beat by a high-calibre team, and we went forward about our business.

Perhaps the pros need to learn something from the college-level sports they spend so much money recruiting from.

---
John B.
Blog Guy

Comments on the Holidays

^.^

Christmas has become a battlefield between two competing lines of thought. On the one hand, we are told by the secular-progressive Liberalistas that we can't have too much Christmas. For example, in Chicago, there was something called "Christmarket", a Christmas-based open market for vendors and such. The market was full of Christmas stuff on sale, it is decorated with Christmas decorations, and it is *called* a name that links it heavily to Christmas.

The problem the city of Chicago had was that New Line Cinema was sponsoring the event, and they wanted to put film snippets of their new movie "The Nativity Story" on some big-screen TVs. The city objected, saying that the big-screen TV ads might offend people...as if the rest of the Christmas festivities at this event would somehow get missed.

In Seattle, the airport recently restored Christmas trees to the premises after they figured they would not get sued by a Jewish rabbi who wanted a menorah displayed.

These are just two examples of PC intolerance relating to "overt dispplays" of Christmas...during a time of the year supposedly devoted to observing...Christmas!

On the other hand, we have people who are fighting the over-commercialization of the season, and to a point, they have a valid case. I mean, the day after Labor Day, you start seeing holiday decorations for a holiday that is 2 1/2 months away. Ever notice how the latest Elmo monstrosity materializes on the market in late November? Or how Sony and Nintendo time the release of the latest game system so that parents can throw one under the tree?

So, to a point, the people who preach against the commercialization of Christmas are right...and this is coming from someone who is going to Ft. Collins and Denver to look for a Wii on Friday...

However, there comes a point where the preaching really *is* preaching.

In this case, we have Molly Humphrey, a editorial writer for the University fo Wyoming's school newspaper, who wrote a column on December 7th entitled: "What Has Christmas Become?"

In this column, Ms. Humphrey quotes Gandhi, who said: "I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians, they are so unlike Christ." This from a person who earlier in the semester complained that Christian evangelism was rampant on the campus, and a threat to diversity within the student body.

This is not the first time that Ms. Humphrey has been the subject of a Politics City article. The others were posted on September 16, and October 13.

While some of Ms. Humphrey's comments are correct, such as the admonition that Christmas is about Christ, not about accumulation, when it comes from her mouth, this all sounds like someone just trying to whip the Christians again. It's like the Jews getting lessons in Judaism from Joseph Goebbels.

When Ms. Humphrey shows a shred of understanding about what Christmas is about, THEN I may have more respect for what she is saying. Until then, she is a Liberalista bombthrower.

---
John B.
Blog Guy

Pelosi's Gift

^.^
So here I am, trying to find some good news to balance out all of the bad election results, as well as the almost celebratory mood on NPR and the Democrats this morning, and then they play Nancy Pelosi's remark:

"The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty to Washington DC, and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."

And with those words, what I am calling Pelosi's version of the "no new taxes" promise, she has just condemned the Democrat majority to two years, and possibly endangered the party's hopes for 2008.

The reason is the same reason that the "no new taxes" promise was not about to work. It's a global statement, and once it is disproven, it becomes an albatross to hang around the neck of your opponents, in this case, the Democrats.

So enjoy your majority while it lasts, Ms. Pelosi. You have two years to make sure that your party is as clean as the wind-driven snow, because the second it is not, you and your party are DONE.

---
John B.
Blog Guy

A New Course for America

^.^

Well, with 1% of the votes reported, and with polls not even closed on the West Coast, Republican control of Congress is doomed...they're going to lose about 7000 seats in a body of 435, and Republicans will be swept out of power from positions all across the country. Even your local dog catcher might be swept out of power.

SO, given that Nancy Pelosi is about to become the new Speaker of the House, and in spirit with the Liberalista call for a change of course in Iraq, I have decided that BY GOD, they are right. We need a change of course in Iraq.

Of course, the Liberalistas have not told us what change of course they want, although we KNOW...but still, being specific on an issue counts, so with that in mind, let me propose my idea for a change of course in Iraq...

NEW US MILITARY STRATEGY IN IRAQ

First off, we shouldn't leave, like the Liberalistas want...not until th job is done, and the military has a lot of work to do if we want to get the country into shape.

The problem with our military in Iraq is that we are fighting too nice. Even worse, we are building schools and hospitals and the like...all these things that ingratiate ourselves to the civilians, when we should be building big bristling military bases and tightening our grip on the country.

When some idiot insurgents dare to attack our forces, our military men should simply open up and waste anyone and anything in sight. And not to stop there, within two minutes, squads of reinforcements should descend like locusts on the area, eliminating all potential for resistance. Anything that has a gun...dead. Anything that raises a hand, even to surrender...dead. Anything that breathes...dead.

The US military should become a thing to be feared, even from our Iraqi allies in the government. In fact, when our military comes on the scene for diplomatic or parade events, it should be followed by Star Wars' "Imperial March".

At the beginning of the Iraqi war, our attitude was that we should go in and turn the place into a parking lot, show no mercy to anyone, pacify the entire country, and THEN work to rebuild the country. According to most people, that has not happened, but if the Liberalistas want a strategy that does not include anything that can be seen as "cut and run" from the scene, my plan is a viable option, much in the same way that the Nuke the Moon article is a viable option for US policies in general.

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

John B.
Blog Guy

The Latest Molly Humphrey Tripe: On Kinsey Sicks

^.^

The following is a letter to the editors at the Branding Iron, the campus nwespaper at the University of Wyoming. My comments on the situation follow...

---

^.^

Ms. Humphrey has done it again.

If the BI wanted to prove that it is in the camp of the far Left,
Ms. Humphrey has provided ample proof. Her latest waste of
ink goes on about diversity and the beliefs of other groups
of people, and how the Kinsey Sicks production represents
the University of Wyoming because there are people whose
sexual tendencies differ from the norm.

But what about the "norm" for Wyoming? Unlike what
Hollywood and the Wyoming Tourism Board might have
you think, Brokeback Mountain does not even come close
to representing the culture of Wyoming, and the culture
of this state is one of the reasons students come to
Laramie for higher education.

What is wrong with presenting Conservative, or even
simply mainstream culture at UW, Ms. Humphrey?
Why must everything that is anti-American, anti-
Christian, anti-White, and anti-male be extolled
praised, and pushed by the BI and Ms. Humphrey
in particular? What about whose who happen to BE
Christian, white, male, or those who happen to support
our President, and his Iraq policies? Why does the BI
neglect this segment of our culture?

John Brengman
UW alumni
2004 graduate, History BA

---

Now, one thing I forgot to put in this letter is that I don't have any problem with diversity. It is a valuable lesson that must be learned before young people are confronted by it in the "real world".

However, to say that a trans-gendered performance such as Kinsey Sicks represents the University of Wyoming, or this state in general not only ignores the true culture of the state of Wyoming, but it offends a LOT of people, both on and off the campus. If Ms. Humphrey was talking about the culture of San Francisco, or Berkeley, or Columbia University, perhaps she would be correct in saying that a trans-gendered performance where one man gropes the breasts of another man (dressed up as a woman) represents the mainstream of thought and culture.

Such a thing is far from the mainstream of thought and culture in Wyoming. Recent history in this very city is an example of just how that is not the case, and if the man being groped in the picture presented on the front page of the Branding Iron on October 10th were a woman, I doubt Ms. Humphrey would have written such a glowing commentary. Just as at the same time, Ms. Humphrey feels she can be as anti-Christian, and anti-Bush as she pleases, but she doesn't say a damned thing about the values that most Americans hold dear. She has proven herself to be a real Liberalista. Once again, if the picture on the front page of the BI had been of a man groping a woman, I doubt Ms. Humphrey would have praised it as trans-gendered expression within the context of "art".

But why not? If the extreme homosexual "culture" is to be praised, why not write an editorial supporting the groping of women? My letter to the BI was meant to support the REAL mainstream in society, but this article is meant to suggest not only that, but that the other extreme is also possible. As George Carlin once said, "I think rape is hilarious."

My point is that while we have the right of freedom of speech, and that freedom is expressed at the risk of offending others, there are two lines that have to be watched. The BI crossed the first line when Ms. Humphrey extolled the virtues of the gay lifestyle...once again showing her Liberalista slant. The BI crossed the second line by publishing a photo of an act that would be grounds for disciplinary measures from the university, and criminal charges from the police had it not been within the context of "art".

Ms. Humphrey needs to wake up and realize that she's not in New York City or San Francisco.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

Oh For the Good Old (Cold War) Days

^.^

Time for a short history lesson, or two...

Back in the 1960s, President Kennedy was told that there were nuclear missiles located in Cuba, 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Kennedy reacted by establishing a blockade around Cuba, challenging any Soviet ships that came close. The globe came the closest it has ever came to a nuclear war, but the Soviets blinked and pulled the nuclear weapons out of Cuba. The US later pulled some missiles out of Turkey.

In the 1980s, President Reagan met in Iceland with Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev. The positions of the two men were as different as their ideologies. Mr. Gorbachev told President Reagan that the Soviet Union would dismantle a number of nukes if the United States would dismantle the same number of weapons. Mr. Reagan basically replied: "No, YOU dismantle your nukes, we're going to build 'Star Wars'."

The press of course, thought that Mr. Reagan was ruining the summit, and Mr. George Schultz said at the time that it was one of Mr. Reagan's finest moments. Mr. Schultz of course was Mr. Reagan's Secretary of State.

I give you these glimpses into history as a way to compare the way these issues were handled as opposed to the way the rhetoric from North Korea and its insane sycophant leader are dealt with.

For instance, the NoKo nutjob running the country says that he's developing nuclear weapons to defend his country from an attack from the United States, but when the United States says that they are strengthening our missile defenses to respond to such a threat, the NoKos call the move a provocation.

Most recently, I have been listening to the rhetoric coming from the NoKo leaders. Remember now, this is a man who loves James Bond movies, French wine, and porbography. He has said that any sanctions levelled against North Korea will be considered an act of war.

What the HELL does he think nuclear tests are? A box of chocolate and a dozen roses?

The Liberalistas in this country are now whining that we should talk in bi-lateral talks with North Korea, while the Bush administration says that the multi-lateral talks are designed to put some pressure on the NoKos...the logic goes that if the NoKos violate an agreement with the 6-party talks, the NoKos will be ticking off five countries, not just simply the United States.

The Bush administration has the right idea. With the insanity that exists at the top of the leadership of North Korea, to agree to face-to-face, two-party talks would be the height of stupidity.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

When You Have Half the Story...

^.^

Quite a number of recent events have proven to be very disturbing. As if the murder of six Amish schoolgirls in Lancaster County, PA was not enough, the fanatic nuts at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS were about to protest at the funerals of these schoolgirls, and were only stopped when FOX News' Mike Gallagher gave them an hour of air time on his show to spout their message.

Also recently, an anti-abortion group protested at the University of Wyoming, the protest was complete with pictures of unborn fetuses and such. This came a week after ANOTHER group of radical religious protestors showed up on campus.

Before I get into the Westboro situation, I need to address these groups that come onto campus.

In fact, I have noticed two different reactions from college campuses when confronted by messages or groups they don't like. On the one hand, you have places like Columbia University, whose students staged a violent interruption of a set of speeches being given by the Minutemen, the group stationing itself along our southern border to assist the US Border Patrol. The scene turned into full-blown chaos in something I'd expect out of the Muslim world.

The other side of the coin is displayed in places like the University of Wyoming. Since I live here in Laramie, where the univsersity is located, I get to watch the reaction of the students here to pretty much anything that happens. The reaction of the UW students to the radical groups that showed up here has been "Why do these people have to inflict themselves on us?" This is problematic only in that the UW students don't understand that although the message these people present is reprehensible, they have a First Amendment right to be on campus...something that the students at Columbia University seem to have forgotten.

Now to the Westboro nuts...

The message that these "Christians" put out is that God hates sin, God hates the sinner, and sinners are going to Hell. They think that just about everyone outside of their church fall into the category of the unwashed sinners, so we're all doomed to eternal torment.

The thing is that while elements of their message are correct, the delivery sucks. These idiots stand outside funerals for US military men, they threatened to do the same in the case of the Amish schoolgirls, and they routinely show up here in Laramie every October to celebrate the death of Matt Sheppard.

The Westboro nuts are good at hammering home the God is vengeful message, but they fail to complete the other half of the story. Yes, God is a wrathful God, and he hates the Sin that all of us have because of Adam, and therefore, he hates the unrepentant sinner. However, through the grace of God, and by the sacrifice of his Son, we have a way to be redeemed.

The Westboro church members, most of which belong to ONE family don't seem to understand this fundamental part of the Christian faith. Instead, it seems as though only members of the Westboro church are redeemed...Christianity to them is a rather exclusive group...namely themselves.

There is also the idea that men should not be judging other men in matters such as this. And thankfully we aren't given that power. If we were, Hitler wouldn't have had to used the Nazis as the vehicle for his horrid crimes.

He could have entered the Church and risen to a position of power.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

Anger Management

^.^

On this last Sunday's FOX News show, FOX newsman Chris Wallace interviewed former President Bill Clinton in the aftermath of Clinton's global initiative conference. Mr. Wallace explained that there were ground rules set up for this interview, that half of the fifteen minutes would be given over to discussing the global initiative, and the other half could be about anything else.

The part of the interview that was not about the global initiative was a whole lot more entertaining than the part that was. For those of you who missed the interview, or in case you want to make some popcorn and watch the fun again, you can find the video at the FOX News website. ( http://www.foxnews.com )

Chris Wallace asked Mr. Clinton why he didn't do more to get Osama bin Laden, this in light of the fact thatUS interests had been hit in 1993, 1997, and 2000, and given the fact that Osama bin Laden celebrated the withdrawal of US forces from Somalia.

Mr. Clinton had a right to be angry, although I can not believe that he was blind-sided, as he seemed to suggest. He's a public figure, a Liberalista who was coming onto FOX News, he should have known that he was not getting soft questions.

Clinton however went overboard, accusing Chris Wallace of playing a hatchet job for the right-wingers. He accused Wallace and FOX News of double standards, not asking these sorts of questions of the Bush administration. If anyone watched FOX interviews with Donald Rumsfeld for example, they would see that Clinton didn't know what he was talking about.

Clinton also held up Richard Clark's book as though he were Hugo Chavez at the UN General Assembly. Mr. Clark worked in every administration since 1980 and has become an expert on terrorism issues. Clinton said that Clark's book supported the assertion that the Clinton administration was more aggressive in "getting" Osama bin Laden than the Bush administration. Clinton said that a strategy plan was handed to the Bush administration, and Bush apparently sat on it for eight months.

The problem is that Richard Clark says no such thing...and this is backed up by people like Condi Rice and Mary Matalin, who were there in the first eight months of the Bush administration, and they report that the Clinton's handed off no such anti-terror strategy. The intel report saying the bin Laden was planning attacks in the US was a general report with nothing specific to act upon.

Clinton was angry in the wake of the ABC film that said that he was too distracted by Monicagate to take out Osama bin Laden. The idea that a president could not do more than two things at once is ludicrous. It would take less than ten seconds to order the military or intel boys to waste the terrorist raghead and then the President could go back to dinner.

Dick Morris further indicted Clinton for his failure to get Osama bin Laden. In 1999, the CIA got information that Osama bin Laden would be in one place for a week, and he in fact, *was* there for that week. The CIA agents who had Osama bin Laden in their sights asked for authorization to take him out, and there was almost crying in the room when that authorization was NOT given...this according to Dick Morris, who worked with the Clinton administration on a wide number of issues.

In the FOX interview, Chris Wallace spoke truth to power, and the Liberalistas are reacting as though the biggest crime in humanity has been comitted...unfortunately for them, they are acting out on the biggest stage in the world.

Conservatives simply need to sit back, munch on the popcorn, and watch Clinton and the Liberalistas implode.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

Laramie's Newest Liberalista: Molly Humphrey

With the start of the new school year, the University of Wyoming has
welcomed a new editorial staff, and one editorial member has already
stood out for outlandish and vacuum-headed editorial columns...thereby alerting
everyone who reads the Branding Iron that she is a full-fledged Liberalista.

From her first few columns, it sounds like Ms. Humphrey is going to be a "guest" of this blog an ample number of times.

On Sept. 7th, Humphrey wrote an editorial entitled "President Bush: the next Hitler?", where she made the statement that the Bush administration has copied many of the techniques used by the Third Reich in their detention of terrorist suspects, and the use of tapping the phone conversations coming in to American citizens from people who could very well be Al Qaeda followers.

Humphrey uses the BBC website to back her statement that the phone tracking program is a violation of American citizens' rights. The New York Times should be dismayed that Humphrey did not get her information from their pages, but instead had to resort to going to the BBC...a trully honest and objective source with no hint of anti-Americanism whatsoever...(insert sarcasm here).

Ms. Humphrey apparently feels that the rights of the terrorists trump the rights of American citizens to remain alive in our own country, because make no mistake...while Ms. Humphrey rants about how the terrorists' "rights" are being violated under US laws that don't apply to people who are not citizens, while she argues against programs that monitor the phone calls of terrorists who are calling in to the United States, those same terrorists are continuing to plot ways to attack the United States and the West, and to do so in ways that would make 9/11 look insignificant.

While commenting on the transfer of fourteen high-level Al Qaeda prisoners from CIA custody to the US prison at Guantanamo, President Bush said that the CIA uncovered plots in the works to attack Western nations...he was specific when he mentioned a foiled attack at Heathrow Airport, in London.

The United States is bending over backwards to give the terrorists rights they don't have so that everything is on the up-and-up with the world community. By doing so, we risk not getting the information we need to prevent a future terrorist attack simply because we were not able to use sufficient pressure on the terrorists to get them to divulge what information they have. If we are hit again, part of the blame will go to Ms. Humphrey and the rest of the Liberalistas, who figure we shouldn't be mean to the terrorists.

As if this first editorial wasn't enough, Ms. Humphrey follows up on Sept. 14 with a column entitled "Universities are for Exploring Thought, Not Controlling It", where she launches on an air-headed tirade against Christian culture.

Her first statement reads: "Everyday students walk on campus and encounter missionaries," as if we were talking about Nigeria and not Wyoming. I graduated from the Univeristy of Wyoming in 2004 and I can tell you I had to fight off the hordes of people waving Bibles in my face like mad just trying to save my soul.

Aside from the utter stupidity of that statement, Ms. Humphrey continues on to whine about the effect of such outreach on the college campus, saying missionaries "colonize the minds of those they convert and ruin culture."

Humphrey asks: "Has the UW become a place where free thought no longer exists within the student population? Must we be subjugated to propaganda telling us how we should feel about our actions, not allowing us to explore them?"

The problem here is that Ms. Humphrey only believes that freedom of speech is good so long as she is not inconvenienced by it. As long as no voice that could be in any way construed as objectionable to her reaches her ears, she is fine with freedom of speech. However, if anyone dares to express a Christian view to her, she is offended.

Ms. Humphrey seems to forget the unwritten rule of the First Amendment. We all have freedom of speech, that is true...but none of us are entitled to an audience. This is true in two places...

I can hear you now, saying "Well, if you don't like Ms. Humphrey, why are you reading her columns, why are you writing about her?" To that, I respond that I am a History graduate, an observer of the news of the day, a political policywonk, and a blog writer. I hope that all of this will one-day become a paying job, and as such, it is my job to look out for things to report on, and to talk about. Ms. Humphrey, as a person who's views might infect young people through the printed pages of the Branding Iron, is someone I should be reading if I am to be able to make a thoughful reply.

More important to the conversation however is the ability we all have to simply walk away from a conversation that we object to. There is nothing holding Ms. Humphrey or anyone else to the vicinity of the "missionaries" as they work the crowd. In fact, on the way to a job interview on the campus, I was stopped by the Gideons, who were doing what they normally do...handing out Bibles to any that wanted one. I didn't have the time to stop right away, but I went back after the interwiew and had a good conversation with them. See, I excercised my right not to be an audience in one instance, and my right of free speech in the second.

Finally on this subject, Ms. Humphrey suggests that the presence of "missionaries" on the campus ruins culture. She rightly supports the idea that students should be exposed to other cultures, but then she misses one rather vital point. Religion is a huge part of cultures all over the world, from Japaese shintoism, to Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. When an American visits a foreign place, they should be encouraged to see for themselves the richness that religion adds to that culture. Ms. Humphrey also misses the fact that other people from around the world come to the University of Wyoming, and while they are here, they may wish to see what American religion is like...in other words, they may want to see for themselves the richness that religion adds to OUR culture.

Ms. Humphrey can plug her ears and rush past the Navigators' booth all she wants, but this does not entitle her to impose her own fascist brand of anti-religion on everyone else. She is so quick to label President Bush a fascist, and to accuse Christian religion of subjugating the minds of UW students...let's see how she likes the label when it is applied to her.

As with anyone else who appears as a "guest" of this blog, Ms. Humphrey is welcome to respond. If she does, her comments will be printed in their entirety.

John B.
Blogger Guy

Lieberman vs Lamont, Round 2

^.^

First, a note of administrivia... I have enabled moderation of reader comments. This is in the wake of the link note spam that the comments section to this blog has received. I apologize for any inconvenience this spam note may cause, but I have found there is nothing I can do about it since it was posted before I instituted the moderation. I will be ready for such stuff in the future tho...

And now, on with our regularly scheduled article...

Last night was perhaps the biggest grouping of the Fall 2006 political primary season, with primary elections in both Connecticut and Georgia.

All I have to say about the Georgia primary is THANK GOD THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD, as Congressman Cynthia McKinney crashed and burned, losing a run-off election to challenger Hank Johnson, who ran on a platform of not being Cynthia McKinney.

Now to the main subject of this article...

Three-term senator Joseph Lieberman lost his re-election bid to Liberalista Democrat Ned Lamaont. Lamont, who has been called "over his head" by Dick Morris, who helped Lamont on a statewide race in the past. Morris believes that Lamont will lose in the November general election.

The thing is, the Democrats believe so too. Lamont is now working on getting Lieberman to drop out of the race, saying that the people have spoken...to which I respond, Yes, they elected you as the Democrat candidate, but that doesn't stop Lieberman from running as an independent.

From the Republican point of view, we will be able to paint Lamont, and any who support him as weak on the War on Terror, and weak on national defense, and rightfully so! A look on Lamont's website says that Israel ought to give up land for peace in their current conflict aaginst Lebanon! Yes, Israel should cede land to a bunch of terrorists who inhabit a land that is partially governed by those same terrorists...because this has worked so well the last few times it has been tried...

Yes, I am glad Lamont is the choice for Democrats in Connecticut...because Republicans will use him as the poster child for the Liberalista Left, and NEWSFLASH folks, the country is not that far left...we don't all cheer behind MoveOn.org as they launch their little volleys of bombs at George Bush and the Republicans. We don't all believe that our forces should cut and run from Iraq, leaving that country to disintegrate into sectarian civil war. I am not saying Conservatives agree with the Bush administration 100%, but we're far from being ready to sign up on the Sorosmobile.

The thing is, the Democrats won't lose anything. Lieberman has said he plans to run as an "independent Democrat" which to me means that once he wins in November, he will rejoin the Democrat party, and there is no doubt in my mind that the party will have him back...come on, when the chips are down and it comes to the numbers game in the US Senate, the Democrats will want Joe Lieberman as one of THEM simply because it gives them one more Democrat.

However, the damage will have been done. The election of Ned Lamont may have secured the US Senate for the Republican party in the November election.

So, GO LAMONT! Let's hear all about how you hate the military, how you want us to retreat from Iraq, and how you think the Bush administration has led us down the wrong path.

You'll find out shortly just how wrong you are about the poliitcal views of the American people.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

Land in the Middle East (Views on the Area, Pt 1)

^.^

Views of the Area will be a series of essays on specific regions of the world, and the various political, economic, social, military, and historic forces that shape these regions, along with my own opinions on all of these.

The first part of this essay in Views of the Area will look at what is quite possibly the basis for most of the problems in the Middle East, the issue of land, and who owns which part of it.

In 1947, the United Nations took up the matter of the creation of both a Jewish and Palestinian state. David Ben-Gurion announced the independence of Israel in the next year, and the new state was immediately attacked by its neighbors.

Since that time, many arguments have been made about who owns what land in Israel and the surrounding region...in fact, the possession of certain parts of land have become the main sticking points in talks between Israel and the Palestinians...all other issues not withstanding, of course...

The Palestinians claim they own the land that Israel sits on, simply because they were there before the Jewish state was created. It must be stated however that as far as modern history is concerned, Jews have been living in the area since at least 1891, when local Arabs protested the settling of Jews in Palestine. Prior to this, the story of the region was largely one of some variety of Arab or some other dominance...with a few breaks provided by the Crusades.

The Palestinians of today say that they have been forced from their homes and livelihoods by an Israeli state that is hostile to them, and as a part of their talks with Israel, they demand a "right of return," which is to say, these displaced Palestinians want to be able to return to what was their homes.

This sounds like a great idea. Certainly, no one would be opposed to people returning to their homes. However, historically, no such right exists. Jews were uprooted from their homes in Germany before and during WWII, Germans were uprooted from their homes in Poland after WWII, all sorts of "population transfer" happened in the Balkans during the 1990s...basically, anywhere there is a refugee problem, there is the possibility of a permanent displacement. Even a natural disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina, which slammed into the southern coast of the United States caused a wave of population displacement, and it is certain that not all of the people who lived in those areas will be returning to their homes.

Israel opposes the Palestinian right of return for two reasons. The first is that by leaving, the Palestinians forfeited any ownership of the lands...whether this is justified or not is not the point, this is one view held by the Israelis. Are they supposed to let houses sit abandoned? Are they supposed to let farms sit idle? The other reason Israel does not like the Palestinian right of return is because if such a thing were granted, there would then be the possibility that a flood of Palestinians returning home would tip the demographics in Israel, and suddenly, the Jweish state would lose its Jewish character. This is why Israel left the Gaza Strip last year...they have no intention of absorbing a large number of Palestinians into the Jewish state.

This can be taken too far. There is the story of a Palestinian hotel in Jerusalem which was to be closed because local Jews had managed to buy the land underneath the hotel. Some people might see the border wall that Israel is constructing to be another example of Israel going too far, but in this case, it is something that has worked so far in Gaza, for the most part...which is why people are complaining...anything that ensures the security of Israel is bad for the Palestinian whackos who are only interested in killing innocent people in shopping malls or streetside cafes.

On the other hand, you have the radical Arab view that Israel should not exist at all. The Iranian maniac-President calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, and in fact, Palestinian maps of the area show it as being completely owned by the Palestinians. By listening to this kind of rhetoric, it is easy to see their view of who owns what. It doesn't bode well for Israel, and it would seem to make negotiating with the Palestinians to be an excercise in futility, after all, if the group you are talking to is out for your annihilation, is anything they agree to really worth the paper it is written upon?

However, Israel can play the game too. After all, this is all a matter of who was inhabiting the area first, and if you go back to the Bible, Israel should own everything it has now, plus most of Syria, and good chunks of both Lebanon and Iraq, because under King David, and then King Solomon, the biblical state of Israel dominated the Middle East. If you go back further, you have Canaanites, Jebusites, and such, but those peoples don't exist anymore.

So, perhaps it;s time that the Palestinians quit playing the little games with who owns what parcel of land, and get to some of the real issues in the argument between them and Israel.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

* Information taken from "The Palestine-Israeli Conflict", by Dan COhn-Sherbok and Dawoud El-Alami (Copyright 2001-2003).

The term "population transfer" was used by the British to describe the forced dislocation of Germans from what became western Poland in the aftermath of WWII.

Thoughts on the World Cup

^.^
Well, first off, thank GOD it's over.

While it has been interesting to hear which national team was facing off against another one, I must say that I had little interest in who Ghana or the Ukraine were playing. I did perk up some interest when it seemed possible that Germany and France might be the finalists...I would have loved to see some of the old rivalries from back in the 40s come back on the soccer field.

Now of course, the interesting thing...what the entire world is talking about is the headbutt heard 'round the world, as France's star player head-butts an Italian player, and gets red-carded. The game ends in a 1-1 tie, so they go to penalty kicks, and since the French star is not available for penalty kicks, it is very possible that the French lost the World Cup because of his lame-brained move to head-butt an opposing player.

You would think the French might be mad. You might think this guy would be run out of the country.

Instead, he is praised by the French president, and invited over for lunch.

It almost makes me wish that we treated OUR OWN athletic stars like that. Barry Bonds boosted up on drugs? Not only could he admit it, but he could go on breakfast cereal boxes with the message: "Don't worry kids, DO DRUGS and you could be like ME!" Perhaps Bonds could visit the Department of Justice!

Or, how about Mike Tyson, of boxing fame, who bit Evander Holyfield's ear during a fight. I can see it now... "If you don't like chicken or beef, but still want your protien, may we at Tyson Foods suggest a radical alternative: CANNIBALISM! Yes, did you know that four out of five dieticians prefer broiled human flesh over more mainstream meat products?" And Mike can go to Washington too, and he can talk about taking a bite out of crime...or something like that...

Anyway, the World Cup is over, and France lost...like the sore losers that they are. My day was good!

John B.
Blogger Guy

The Palestinian Mindset

^.^

Late in June, Palestinian militants slipped across the border from Gaza into Israel via an underground tunnel. Once in Israel, the Palestinians attacked a nearby observation post, killing two IDF soldiers, and kidnapping a third, a young man named Gilad Shalit.

Until now, the Israeli response to terrorist attacks has been measured. Militants fire Kassam rockets into Israel on a daily basis, and quite frankly, these attacks have received barely a yawn, proportionally speaking...basically, while Israel will remove the threat if they can do so with minimal effort, the Kassam attacks are nothing to invade Gaza over...

The kidnapping of Gilad Shalit was different. To do this, Palestinians had to cross into Israel and take someone. So the Israelis respond in a big way, and tanks are soon seen advancing into the Gaza Strip, much to the displeasure of the Palestinians, who immediately start howling with indignation over the Israeli actions.

Please note! The Palestinians weren't complaining to the militants, demanding that they do what's best for the Palestinian cause and hand over their hostage. Instead, the Hamas-led Palestinian government has done nothing but stone-walled the situation, and complained when the IDF came into the Gaza Strip, and complained some more when the offices of the Palestinian prime minister were bombed.

The Palestinian response has been the tired and worn excuse that they have the right to defend themselves against the Israeli occupation...this despite the fact that the IDF left Gaza last year, and despite the fact that Gilad Shalit was in *ISRAEL* when he was kidnapped.

Even if I was to stipulate that the Palestinians have the right to "defend" themselves against the Israeli occupation, I would be at a loss to see how a militant attack that kills two IDF soldiers and captures another, an attack carried out on Israeli soil can be considered a form of defense.

I believe by now that I have made my point. Now, the Palestinians are demanding the release of 1000 prisoners from Israeli jails before they will give Israel information regarding Gilad Shalit. Not release these prisoners and we will release our hostage...release the prisoners and we may give you information on his condition...or something like that...

Israel is perfectly correct to reject that "offer" of information. Israel should in no way compromise with these terrorist criminals. Israel should issue a demand... Either Gilad Shalit is returned to Israel unharmed by the end of the day, or Israel should go into Gaza and level the place. Use high-energy explosives and destroy every building in the Gaza Strip. Of course, this will cause hundreds of thousands of refugees, but that's not Israel's problem.

Then turn to the West Bank. Once again, either Gilad Shalit is returned by tomorrow at sunset, or the IDF goes in.

See how quickly Gilad Shalit is returned.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

Ward Churchill Revisited

^.^

Last February, I gave my opinions on Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado, who referred to people working in the World Trade Center as "Little Eichmanns" in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

As far as I am concerned, I would not want to be associated with such a person, and if I were the university in Boulder, I would work toward dropping this guy like a rock. Sure, Mr. Churchill has a right to free speech, but as I have said before, just because you can asy something doesn't mean you should.

As I said last year, "I find these views to be utterly insulting and nonsensical, and I for one find comfort in the fact that the majority of the reaction on this subject from responsible human beings has been pretty much right where it should be...outright and utter condemnation."

However, I also said that Ward Churchill would be fired, but that it would not be because of his "Little Eichmanns" comment. Rather, Churchill will be fired because of his impropriety surrounding what was called in a statement by the Chancellor of the university, "research misconduct"...in other words, he plagarized some materials from others, and he simply made a whole bunch of stuff up.

Other allegations stem from the charge that Churchill misrepresented his ethnicity in order to gain employment at the university, and then to gain "credibility and an audience for scholarship", to quote the UC Chancellor's statement...which means that he tried to claim he was part American-Indian to give his research work more credibility and to give himself more academic standing. The committee that studied these allegations said that these particular accusations might represent "research misconduct and failure to meet the standards of professional integrity."

About mid-way down the statement, the Chancellor levels the verdict in this case:

"Today, I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of Colorado, Boulder."

Of course, this is not quite over. Mr. Churchill may appeal the case, and it will then be heard by a special committee. He has also said that if he is fired by the university, he will turn around and sue them.

I think that the university should stick to their guns and rid themselves of an embarassment.

As a recent student, I must say that the primary goal of any facility of higher education is to provide students with what they need to get and keep a job within the American workplace. Most of everything else is window dressing.

Because of this, and because of the fact that students and parents PAY for the education they get at universities, while academia may like to trumpet their First Amendment rights, your First Amendment rights stop at the classroom door. I don't pay for YOUR opinions, or YOUR agendas. I pay for facts.

So, where do opinions come into the classroom, and they rightly do in some cases? When a discussion drifts into opinion, or when a professor asks for opinions, then I wouldn't have a problem. The presentation of opinions is an excellent way to challenge people's beliefs, which should happen. However, the professor should never present his or her opinions as the concrete fact, and students should never be tested on their professor's opinions, nor should they be penalized if they disagree with their professor. Now I must say that when I was able to detect a slant with a professor, they were never a part of the tests for those classes.

Another issue that comes up is that Ward Churchill's research has been spoiled by the use of bad research work, and flat-out plagarism. These are the bane of journalism, of general research work, and within my field of politics and history. People doing research in areas that Churchill worked in will not be able to faithfully use his works to support their arguments. Churchill's findings themselves should not be taken on their own, and basically, all of this becomes a big problem for people who advocate or are interested in these topics.

All around, research misconduct and plagarism are a big headache for professors who are professional in their work and their studies, as well as a big headache for students interested in turning in quality research.

The time for bashing Mr. Churchill over his insane comments is over. The "jury" has spoken in the case of his research misconduct and plagarism, and the verdict is clear.

Ward Churchill's days at Colorado University are numbered, and we should thank the leadership at the university for their decisive action.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

Liberal Media Traitors

^.^

The Liberal media types have demonstrated that they are anti-American, and more specifically, anti-Bush. Anything that harms this country, or anything that might bring down the Bush administration, the Liberalistas thoroughly enjoy.

For example, in the United States, we have no problem referring to the fight against Osama bin Laden and his AL Qaeda cohorts as the War on Terror. No fooling around...no ambiguity...the context we are putting forward is pretty clear.

However, if you listen to the BBC, you will hear things like "America's war on terror," "the Bush Administration's war on terror," or "the so-called war on terror." It's as if not only did the attacks on September 11, 2001 not happen, but apparently, neither did the attacks in Bali, Madrid, and London, just to name a few. These sorts of things make me wonder whether the British media realizes that they too are involved in what President Bush has called the WORLDWIDE War on Terror. When the BBC uses the sorts of phrases that they do, they undermine our own efforts, because they fail to provide a united front against our mutual enemy. Not only this, but any effort to show the other side of the story...to show that the insurgents have their point against the "occupation forces" simply lends aid and comfort to the enemy.

However, the BBC can almost be forgiven. After all, they see themselves as cultured, and they see themselves as acting within the boundaries of objectivity. There are no such shelters given to the Liberal media in the United States.

The Liberal media has made their money on supporting Liberalistas in government, whether they were doing a good job or not...in fact, in some cases, the office holder barely needed to be competant to gain the support of the Liberal media.

To say that the Liberals were dismayed at the outcome of the election in 2000 would be an understatement of titanic proportions...in fact, that's why they spent a month trying to have recount after recount on top of recount after recount, because no matter what they did, they could not find enough hanging chads to give the election to Al Gore.

This is the basis for the Liberal hatred of President George W. Bush...the idea that he "stole" the election, and that he was not legitimate. Even the election of 2004 did nothing to change this...once again, Liberals screamed that the vote in Ohio had been stolen.

September 11, 2001 gave Liberals virtually nothing to move with. After all, the attack had happened on Bush's watch, and both he and the administration were quick to rally around the flag, and the hated fumes of patriotism were so thick in the air that the Patriot Act managed to get by both chambers of Congress and was signed by the President. Even the attack on Afghanistan could not be used by Liberals at the time it was launched...it was a largely successful war that got rid of the regime that harbored Osama bin Laden.

Iraq has been different. Despite all of the evidence presented by the administration to the contrary, Liberals have refused to believe that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda, they refuse to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction, and if it would have kept Bush from attacking, the Liberalistas would have said that Saddam was a nice guy who never oppressed his people, and was never a danger to his neighbors.

Since the US-led invasion of Iraq, and the overthrow of Saddam, the Liberal media has not missed one instance where they could blame the US or the Bush administration for some wrong. The death toll among Iraqi civilians was too high, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Graib was torture, the treatment of prisoners ar Guantanamo Bay is torture, the government is spying on arabs in the United States, and so on and so on. If the US forces in Iraq were to clean up the country tonight, if the Iraqi government were solidified, and if US forces were in the air on their way home, the Liberalistas would find some way to blame some small part of it on Bush.

As if the recent leaking of telephone monitoring was not enough, the New York Times released details on Bush administration monitoring of an international banking system, that tracks the transfer of money across international borders. This fact is important. The SWIFT system only keeps track of monetary transactions if they cross an international border...so when I write a check to pay my utility bill, SWIFT is not going to see it. If I pay rent on a condo in Abu Dhabi, then SWIFT will make note of it.

The Liberalistas have jumped all over this story, crying out that Americans' rights are being violated once again by an administration that is too secretive, an administration that wants to know private details of citizens' lives, an administration that is over-reaching, an administration that has lost the focus in the War on Terror and really should be continuing the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Except, as has been pointed out in several Conservative media outlets, the information carried by SWIFT is *NOT* private information. It is about money transactions between banks! Person A in Bank A sends money to person B in Bank B. Bank A wipes the money from their books, and sends a note to SWIFT informing Bank B to add the money to their books.

The United States used "broad subpoenas" to gain access to the SWIFT records, which show the name and address of known terrorists who are using international banking to move money around the world. In other words, the Feds were acting legally in gaining these records which allowed them to keep tabs on terrorists and their money.

With the outing of this program, it is likely that the terrorists will try to switch their money transfers to some form that does not use the international banking system. This may be a bit hard considering the reach and scope of the international banking system, but now that they know that it is one of the ways that we track them, they will probably try to avoid the system.

The Liberalistas and the media have taken a tool that the government has been using in the War on Terror and thrown it away. It is one thing for the BBC to sit in London and be delusional about somehow being a safe distance away from the global War on Terror.

It is quite another thing to be an American newspaper that is doing their best to aid the enemy.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

On Ann Coulter

^.^

As you may know, conservative commentator Ann Coulter has put out a book entitled "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", and in it, she makes some statements that on first blush, seem to be beyond the pale.

The assertion that the media and the liberals have pcked up on is found in Chapter 5 of the book, where Ann talks about how liberals have reacted with outrage to the fact that rather than a media monologue, todays's citizen is treated to a dialogue, where BOTH sides of the political spectrum have a voice. The liberals who used to run the media don't like this one bit, so they had to come up with some vehicle that would allow them to push their message without anyone being able to dispute it.

The perfect vehicle for the liberal message has been people like Cindy Sheehan, and the women that Ann Coulter refers to as the "Jersey Girls"...women who lost their husbands in the attacks on September 11. On pages 102-103 of "Godless", Coulter goes on to describe how the Jersey Girls have taken their anti-Bush campaign to the media...who just gobbles this stuff up. They've attacked Bush for not responding to the 9/11 attacks quicker, and they've acted as though all of the events on that day were about THEM, as if the pain felt by the rest of the nation matters nothing.

Then Ann gets to this statement:

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

This of course gets the liberal bleeding hearts all worked up into a tizzy. How COULD she be so mean? This has led to even some conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly saying that she went too far in her remarks. Some lawmakers in New Jersey tried to get the book banned from the bookshelves (as if people could not jump the state lines and buy the book in Pennsylvania or something...) Hillary Clinton called the comments "mean to women".

Of course, all of the attention has only helped sales of the book, which has reached the #1 spot on the New York Times list.

Now that we have the facts and background, it's time for my take on the situation, and my take is:

GOOD FOR ANN! YOU GO, GIRL!

Now of course comes the question of why I think this way, and it is simple. This is in the spirit of levelling the playing field a bit. The left has had bomb-throwers like Al Franken and Michael Moore since the 1990s, but somehow when a conservative emerges that is not soft-spoken and defferential, we're supposed to send them to the gallows? I think not!

Ann Coulter has said something that needs to be said, even within the controversial statements in Chapter 5 of her book.

Think about it this way... When I say something privately to someone else, it is none of your business what that is, and you have no right to criticise it. However, when I step on THIS platform, and give you my opinion on something, you are encouraged to respond...whether you agree with me or not. Unchallenged beliefs are worthless.

The same is true of the Jersey Girls. It is one thing to be a victim, and we all sympathize with the Jersey Girls in the loss of their loved ones, and we all sympathize with Cindy Sheehan in the loss of her son.

However, when you as a victim step onto the political stage and make policy statements, your opinions and statements become fair game for criticism.

Once you get past the "mean" in Ann Coulter's statement about the Jersey Girls and if you read it in the context of the rest of the chapter, you see the point she is trying to make...that liberals have tried to hide their message behind other people's misery...beause we dare not speak bad of those who have recently went through a tragedy.

Ann Coulter has seen through this tactic, and she has spoke out about it in Ann Coulter fashion, by being a firebrand, a controversial figure...someone who will always get a LOT of press simply for being the way she is.

The Left has Al Franken, Michael Moore, the Jersey Girls, CIndy Sheehan, SUFP and the rest of the anti-war ranters, the Daily Kos, and etc...

We have Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter!

Good for our side!

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

C2C: Secret Societies Are Gonna Kill Us All!!

^.^

This is the second in what will be a series of essays on why Coast to Coast AM is actually dangerous to American society.

The last time I talked about this, I talked about how C2C is so self-absorbed with what they believe to be their role in US politics. At the time, the story of Dubai Ports World was making all sorts of splashy news, and C2C took credit for breaking the story, pushing the story, and then claiming credit when the deal fell through. Of course, the story broke months before C2C was even aware of it, and although the C2C audience is large, it is largely comprised of people who are out there on the fringes, listening to conspiracy theorists, alien stories, ghost stories, and etc.

C2C even admits that they have guests on who are outside the mainstream of society, in part because these people would never see the light of day on a regular television show or on the radio. The show is basically entertainment for those who are likely to believe that if the aliens don't get us, we'll either be killed by the secret government agents, or blown up by whatever asteroid hits planet Earth.

Anyway, last night's show featured a discussion on the Bilderberg Group, a supposedly secretive group that recently held its annual meeting in Ottawa, Canada. The discussion was moderated by George Noory, and had bomb-thrower Alex Jones, researcher Jim Marrs and journalist Daniel Estulin. Please note that Mr. Jones was the person who organized this discussion, with help from the show's producer.

The following is a couple excerpts from the C2C website information on the discussion, so you can get a bit of a feel for what was discussed...

"...They want to bring about globalism-- a one-world government and economy-- but they are trying to push it through using secrecy and deceit, Marrs commented..."

"...Their real name though is the Synarchist Movement, he [Estulin] said, and the group of around 125 wields so much control because many of its members are the heads of nations or powerful organizations such as the Central Banks & NATO..."

"The Bilderberg group was mainly founded with Nazi money, said Jones, who pointed out that until recently the US press never reported on the group-- but now the secretive yearly meeting is starting to get mainstream news coverage...."

"Marrs added that it appears they are "running scared" as though they were on a deadline, possibly due to upcoming geophysical changes."

When taken at face value, all of this sounds really SCARY! Secret organizations that want to take over the world are plotting to do so through the corporate boardrooms and the political smok-filled chambers of power? And they control the economy through globalism and the World Bank? And they control politics through electing those that serve their whims? And they want to wipe out 85% of humanity?

Sounds really scary. We should do something about these people.

Except that these groups are not that secretive, and not that scary.

First, the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR, the main American "secret" group often supplies people to appear on spots on FOX News and other news outlets. Another "secret society" even allowed the BBC to enter their property in the UK and interview people. And look at this Ottawa meeting...Alex Jones made a big deal about how these people like to conduct their proceedings in private, yet these people checked in to a meeting room in Ottawa, and Alex Jones stood outside with a bullhorn and went about exposing the group as much as he could.

For a group that is supposed to be a secret, there is certainly a lot of information on them.

And look at the situation we are left in. We are at the mercy of these people. Why? Because if we believe the conspiracy theorists, the bad guys already control the highest echelons of not only our own government, but governments all over the world...not to mention many of the major businesses, and much of the media world as well.

However, if we use the prism of the conspiracy theorists of C2C and look at the gigantic world order of the Illuminati, we see a plot to take over the planet that would make the villain of Inspector Gadget (Dr. Claw) proud. You see, the Bilderberg group controls NATO, and NATO is involved in both Serbia and Afghanistan...both powerhouses in the world of global politics...I mean world finance...I mean military force...I mean...you get the picture.

The cabal of C2C conspiracy theorists were then asked what should be done to curtail the power that this group holds, and the first response was "Outlaw TV." Like PBS, and cable TV are responsible for the secret societies and getting the word out to the masses... Rather than join a massive campaign to out the bad guys, we're supposed to censor ourselves a bunch. Sounds like a nice plan.

And they put so little faith in the nation-state, a system of governance that has been around for quite a while, if you go back to the founding of Rome. Nations are generally strong, resilient things which tend to ward off upheavals such as wars, depressions, rebellions, and natural disasters. In the case of secret societies, I have to believe that if nation-states were that damn weak, that we would be under the heel of the Illuminati by now.

In the end, we're talking about people who believe that George Bush was directly responsible for the attack on 9/11. They don't believe that the Pentagon was hit by a plane...rather a missile of some sort hit the building. These guys see government prison camps and black helicopters where-ever they look.

As far as I can tell, the conspiracy theorists on C2C are worth a hearty laugh...not a shiver of fear.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

C2C Commentary: Mother Nature is Gonna Kill Us All!

^.^
My current job as a newspaper carrier requires that I be up at 2:30 AM to be delivering newspapers, which are supposed to be on my subscribers' porches by 6:30...and they are...and my subscribers LOVE me.

It also means that I listen to at least one hour of Coast to Coast AM, which runs from 11 PM to 2 AM, and then the first two hours are repeated on the local radio station. I ususally listen to the hour up until 4 AM and then switch to the local NPR station to catch one hour of BBC news and then one hour of NPR news...by about which time I am done with the routes.

So, now that you know that I am cultured...

Coast to Coast AM is the biggest early-morning talk show in the US. It was started by Art Bell initially as a politics/opinion show, but then morphed into the current science/science-fiction/mystery/supernatural/UFO/occult/etc show that it is now. I tune in for entertainment purposes...and to find out exactly how everyone in the world is going to die today.

Whether it be from a comet strike, a massive solar flare, mad cow disease, bird flu, an alien invasion, our military doing experiments with the ionosphere (HARP), the government's attempts to impose total control over the people, the secret societies, the Illuminati, global warming, the Yellowstone volcano, or The Day After Tomorrow (co-written by Art Bell)...it appears that we are all going to die from some sort of cataclysm, and Coast to Coast is there to warn us and inform us...

The problem I have with C2C is that they are so self-absorbed. They bring us these perils, they put on people who are "experts" who back up the hysteria, and then they sorta pat themselves on the back for keeping people informed to these potential dangers. For example, in the matter of the US ports deal being done by Dubai Ports World, C2C credited itself with breaking the story, and then with stopping the deal. "We won one," C2C host George Noory said to the audience in the aftermath of government moves to kill the deal.

Of course, C2C had little to do with the progress of the deal or the story of DP World and the US ports...but the fact that C2C thinks that it is a prime mover in these sorts of things means that they can then put forward hysterical doom & gloom stories, pat themselves on the back for bring us the warnings, etc, etc...

Recently, George Noory had Linda M. Howe as a guest on the show. She had done a special investigation into global warming, and she came on the show with grim news. The environment is nearing the point of no return, and soon we will be experiencing an environment that has not been experienced since the age of the dinosaurs. The ice sheets of Greenland and the Arctic were going to melt, the sea level was going to rise at least three feet, coastal areas were going to be sunk, the snow atop Mount Kilimanjaro will be gone in nine years, and the people who rely on snowcap for water will become "environmental refugees", and we're all going to die...

Now, I don't totally discount the possibility of mankind being a cause or contributing factor to global warming, simply because mankind has had an increasing inpact on the environment since the Industrial revolution of the 1800s. Over the past 200 years, we have had an increasing ability to mold the environment to support and service our needs.

However, to say that mankind is the only factor, or the main factor in global warming is a stretch. For one thing, even the scientific guests that appear on C2C don't agree on the causes of global warming. One scientist points out that there is a chain of volcanoes under the Arctic Ocean, or in the northern Pacific. These volcanoes heat the area to about 3000 degrees, and spew all kinds of CO2 into the air...CO2 being the primary cause of global warming. Even if you take this particular set of facts out of the equation, there is still the fact that land-based volcanic eruptions spew all sorts of soot and ash into the air, which contributes to the general environment. Another C2C scientist believes that the culprit behind global warming is not CO2, but water vapor...so even the scientists who come on C2C as guests can not agree on the cause of global warming.

The hysteria at C2C also discounts other factors in the global environment. They hype the melting of the ice in Greenland. Art Bell practically ridiculed a caller who pointed out that the Vikings colonized and farmed Greenland...before the mini ice age of 1320 or so to the mid 1400s. This actually happened...they have records of this, yet it was splashed by C2C. So, this means that the conditions we are seeing on Greenland happened before, they are happening now, and they will happen again. C2C points at the breakdown of the North Atlantic conveyor current that keeps Europe's weather moderate during the winter, but they poo-poo the notion that snowfall in other parts of the far north has any effect whatsoever to off-set the melting being seen in Greenland and elsewhere.

Finally, C2C seems to think that the United States is a major contributor to the problem...us with all our cars and industry. They miss several facts, like that the US is continuously trying to green up its industry. A global map produced by NASA a year or so ago showed that North America is one of the lowest producers of atmospheric pollution in the world. The other fact that C2C misses is also indicated by the same map, which shows that southern and eastern Asia produce the most atmospheric pollution. C2C misses the fact that India, with its 600 million people, and China with its roughly 3 billion people are just now going through industrialization, which means that they are busy putting up factories, building roads, and driving cars, and like the US and Britain and the rest of Europe at this point in their development, neither China nor India have much in the way of regulation over the industrialization of their country...which means that they can throw pollution into the air with little concern for their own people, or the general environment.

Note that one of the reasons that the Kyoto Accord was not ratified by the United States was because China and India were not included...meaning that the countries responsible for the most pollution did not have to adopt any restrictions.

Coast to Coast AM is good when it comes to entertainment. But as a source for news, it falls flat.

It also fails when it comes to informing us about possible "threats" because the show then turns around and congratulates itself for bringing the news. Finally, it also fails because differing points are not given serious consideration while the point they want to push is given little criticism.

There are a couple other issues that C2C brings each morning that I want to talk about. They will be easy to spot...just look for "C2C Commentary".

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

Perverted Boys Meeting Stoopid Girls

^.^

First, a couple definitions...

STOOPID (n) - An act that is so dumb or ignorant as to go beyond even the boundaries of the definiaiton of normal stupidity.

STOOPIDITY (n) - An action currently being engaged in that would be considered STOOPID.

Alrighty.

The topic mentioned in the title has come up because of at least four stories in the news recently.

The first is the case of the Duke "rape" case, and I put "rape" in quotes because we have a victim who was seen at another party before she attended the one she was "raped" at, another woman who was with her called the rape allegations "a crock", and the DNA samples from the victim did not match up to the three people arrested. This to me is a defense lawyer's dream case.

The second story is the murder of Tiffany Souers, a student at Clemson University. Ms. Souers was killed by a sexual predator who described himself as " a monster". This man, Jerry Buck Inman, has spent time in jail in Florida for sexual assault, and he recently broke into another woman's house, and was about to rape and murder her. She apparently said that she told Inman about God, and how He would forgive Inman for his sins...or something like that. This worked, and Inman simply stole some money and left the scene. In the case of Ms. Souers, Inman strangled her to death with her bikini top, and now may face the death penalty for his vicious crimes.

Next, we have the story of a teenage woman who made the high-school honor roll, ending up in Jordan. We'll exerpt from Fox News for the details on this case:

A 16-year-old honor student from Michigan tricked her parents into getting her a passport and then flew off to the Mideast to be with a West Bank man she met on MySpace.com, authorities say.

U.S. officials in Jordan persuaded her to turn around and go home before she reached the West Bank. She was on her way home Friday.

Katherine R. Lester is a straight-A student and student council member, her father said. "She's a good girl. Never had a problem with her," Terry Lester said.

Katherine disappeared Monday after talking her family into getting her a passport by saying she was going to Canada with friends, sheriff's officials said. She apparently planned to visit a man whose MySpace account describes him as a 25-year-old from Jericho, Undersheriff James Jashinske said.

And finally, we have the story of 15-year old Jason Pickler, who met a 10-year old Michigan girl online. The two had an online friendship for the next 1 1/2 years, until Mr. Pickler, now 17, and the unidentified girl, now 12, decided that they were in love.

According to the story in the Casper Star-Tribune of June 10, 2006, Pickler confided in his parents, who apparently agreed to attempt to gain custody of the girl should Pickler himself not be able to do so. Pickler then went out to Michigan, met with the girl, who gathered her things, and came back to Wyoming with Pickler. Pickler has been charged with kidnapping and custodial interference, and faces up to 25 years in jail.

I tell you these stories because we have in each of them a case of either a perverted boy or man, and/or a girl or woman who makes some rather questionalbe..OH Ok, STOOPID decisions.

And stoopidity is not limited to these cases. Remember the case last year of the "runaway bride"? Well news update, the wedding's been called off again...this time, the husband has left...probably the best thing he could do for his sanity.

I guess my point here is that just when I think we've reached the bottom of the barrel as far as male sexual predators go...just when I think that THIS TIME they've caught the scum of the earth, another case is revealed that makes me shake my head and ask WHAT? in a sort of tone that sounds like I can't believe anyone would be that STOOPID.

And on the other side, after EONS of women fighting for their rights, fending off sexual predators, through the advent of self-defense courses, pepper spray, and just sheer knowledge, you would think that girls and women would get the point. Yet some of the women in these cases clearly were on the STOOPID pill or something.

These cases show why parents must do more to protect their children, both boys and girls from those who would do serious harm to them. Even after they are out on their own, parents should be there to relate to their children as responsible adults and be ready and watchful for trouble.

I don't want to scare anyone, but the stories I have highlighted show that there is trouble out there in the hinterland, and sometimes even adults, or "responsible" children don't have the intelligence not to get themselves into seriously dangerous situations.

And I hope that these stories put to rest the notion that the Internet is simply the children's playground. Places like MySpace and Yahoo chat are nice when used responsibly, but as the Lester story proves, these places can be extremely dangerous, as people hide themselves behind the Anonymous monicker, or use fake identities.

And if you think children are not visiting adult websites, think again. Most adult sites simply ask if you are 18 or older before letting you in, and the websites are not babysitters...they rely on your honesty to click NO if you are under-age. Like that will stop a teenager who wants to see what's behind the curtains...

These stories are examples of why parents must step up, take responsibility, and fend for their kids. In the case of Ms. Lester and the Pickler case, the parents nearly lost their daughter into a situation that would be problematic to say the least.

They are very lucky people.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

Secure Our Borders Before the Next Person Dies!

^.^

The following was picked up from the Laredo Morning Times,which printed the story on March 5, 2006...

"A fatal pre-dawn shooting in Nuevo Laredo took the life of a young woman and injured two others Saturday near International Bridge I, officials said. The shooting occurred just days after the young woman was wed.

Not even a week before 17-year-old Nataly Berlanga Barraza was shot and killed in a spray of gunfire in the Sister City, she became the legal wife of 20-year-old Marco Polo Arredondo, sources said.

Barraza, who was the passenger in a metallic-blue Cadillac Escalade with Texas license plates, received a single gunshot wound to the chest. She was killed instantly in the attack.

Two friends, identified as 19-year-old Roberto Moreno Cardenas and 18-year-old Jose Carlos Ruiz, accompanied Barraza. Though Cardenas and Ruiz were also hit by gunfire and seriously injured, both survived the attack.

The motive for the attack is still unknown.

According to Associated Press reports, Barraza, Cardenas and Ruiz are from Laredo. However, as of Saturday evening the victims' nationalities could not be confirmed.

The incident marks the 35th killing of the year in Nuevo Laredo."

(excerpted from the Internet version of the story, written by Celina Alvarado)

Alrighty folks, the immigration problem on the border has GOT TO BE STOPPED. The situation from San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas has gotten out of control. It's gotten to the point that not a day goes by where you don't hear some sort of incident involving illegal aliens or criminal mobs fromMexico crossing illegally across the border, threatening people living along the border, tresspassing on private property, or in some way making themselves a ganeral nuisance.

Some examples, other than the shooting death of Nataly Berlanga...

A tunnel was found that led from a warehouse in Mexico to a warehouse behind a diner in San Diego. The tunnel was large enough to stand in, it had electicity,and police found a huge amount of marijuana stored in the tunnel.

Along a desolate stretch of the Texas border, authorities are having to deal with convoys of drug dealers who try to cross the Rio Grande River. The police have attempted to intercept these criminals, who sometimes get stuck in the river. What generally happens is that the criminals call in support from the local military, who come in with SUVs, take the drugs off the stranded vehicle while holding the US police off with machine guns, they then drive away, after setting fire to the stranded vehicle. The US police have stated that they will not stand for this again.

People living along the border have said that they are afraid to come out of their homes after dusk for fear of being shot at, or otherwise acosted by illegal aliens, or the"coyotes", the criminals who the illegals pay to smuggle them across the border.

Governments are having to put out food and water at special way stations in the desert, so that illegals who cross in what is often-times very dangerous conditions or terrain can have something to eat and drink. This of course, keeps them alive...but their lives would not be in danger in the first place if they were not ILLEGAL ALIENS trying to cross our borders!

And as if the above were not bad enough, we have bleeding-hearts in this country who want to take the illegals in, bathe them, shelter them, and help them get access to the best health-care system in the world, along with our schools, employment opportunities, the welfare system, and everything else that goes along with living in America. It's no wonder that states such as California and Arizona are struggling under the weight of social systems that not only have to take care of the under-priviledged citizens of the state, but also the illegal aliens who show up and leech off the system.

And if you think Mexico is willing to help, THINK AGAIN! Not only are their federal agents assisting the drug smugglers along the Rio Grande, but if they turn the other way and give a blind eye to the situation, they get rid of a large number of people who would otherwise become an unemployment problem in Mexico. That plus the fact that illegal aliens in theUS often will send money home to their relatives still living in Mexico...money mind you, that they don't pay taxes on...and this money is pumped into the local economy. So to Mexico, the illegal alien problem in the United States is not a problem for them...it's community investment.

While talking to a friend of mine, whom I find to be a bit left of center politically, he brought up most of the same tired arguments for giving a shred of mercy and dignity to the illegals. When they get here, they need jobs or they will slip into a life of crime. Their children need education or they'll grow up illiterate. When someone gets hurt, the health-care system is obligated to assist. If the need is there, the social welfare system is almost obligated to help.

All of these arguments sound good, and in fact, they are tailored to pull at the heart-strings and make you feel all wishy-washy and sorry for the poor Mexicans who only came here to seek a better life for themselves, and they can't help it that they brought their mal-educated children, blah blah blah.

I would buy these arguments, and probably agree with them if it were not for the fact that THEY BROKE THE LAW THE FIRST STEP THEY TOOK ACROSS OUR BORDER!!! If a Mexican is here legally, if they were in Mexico, and they filled out the proper paperwork, if the paperwork was written in ink, as the Genesis song "Illegal Alien" says, and if they were accepted into this country, even as temporary workers, FINE! I can handle that, and they can and should have access to our society and the various systems that we use to keep it running.

But I am sorry, if the first act you do in this country is to break our laws, I have no sympathy for you. I want NO employment, NO welfare, NO education, NO desert way stations, NO assistance of any kind...why? BECAUSE ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE CRIMINALS! The sooner that the Mexicans realize this, the sooner they will look somewhere else to better their lives, whether that be improving the situation in Mexico, or applying to become either a guest-worker or a citizen of this country. The sooner our own people drop the bleeding-heart BS about the poor Mexicans who come across our borders because they want a better life, the quicker the majority of the resources that the illegals depend upon to live here will dry up, and the illegal aliens will find the "Land of Opportunity" a much harder place to live in...and perhaps they will stay home and try to make Mexico a better place to live.

My solution is simple...

First, tear up the way stations in the middle of the desert, and publish an article in every major newspaper on both sides of the border. The article should tell the Mexicans that if you are thinking about slipping across the border illegally...DON'T! If you do, there will be no assistance...no food, no water, no nothing, so you are risking your own life. And if you are picked up, no matter what your condition is, you get dumped back across the border into your own country. Do not pass GO, do not collect the golden ring.

Next, build a 15-foot wall (at least) from the Pacific Ocean to Brownsville, TX. At the spots where rivers must pass across the border, we should build watch stations to monitor the situation. Once again, if anyone is caught trying to climb the wall, or tunnel underneath it, they get dumped back into Mexico.

Next, issue a warning that anyone caught attempting to smuggle drugs into this country across the border can be shot...by anyone...maybe not to KILL, but possibly to maim. Once most of the drug smugglers in Mexico have lost an arm or leg, perhaps they'll get the message.

Next, the Minutemen and every single property owner along the border should be deputized as state police in whatever state they live or work in along the border. And again, they get the authority to detain any illegal alien they find, and if they find smuggling activity, these people should have the ability to shoot people in defense of their lives and property.

Employers harboring illegal aliens should be fined $250,000 for each individual. This will quickly dry up the small business market for illegal aliens, and most large companies won't like having to pay one million dollars just to keep four illegals. And by the way, if you're caught employing illegal aliens, the government should check back in six months to ensure that the situation has been corrected. If not, the fines get imposed AGAIN.

Hospitals who treat illegal aliens should report such activity to the Immigration & Naturalization Service, as well as the police. The illegals should then be deported. The same should happen when illegals try to access the education or welfare systems.

Put the national guard on the border. In some cases, the border forms the southern boundary to things like military bases and weapons test ranges, so doing so will actually increase the safety to the people trying to slip into the country.

Finally, all of the above items should be codified into FEDERAL LAW. It's already illegal to slip across the border, therefore the enforcement of the laws should be at the highest level.
Not all of our moves should be "mean". I say offer economic incentives to Mexico to build infrastructure and other improvements. Not only will the projects themselves be a source of employment, but the improvements will make the life of the average person so much better.

Now, before people come at me and say that my ideas are radical or draconian or will result in undue hardship for the illegal aliens, I would ask you to go back and read the incidents I cited at the beginning of this blog. My ideas actually take steps to SOLVE THE PROBLEM of illegal aliens, and it might be that the money spent on them might be recovered through the savings from employment, education, health, and social programs that are no longer strained past the breaking point by the continuous influx of illegal aliens.

Big problems call for big solutions. I am planning on emailing this article to each of the governors of the states along the border, along with certain federal officials who have taken this issue up, and are fighting for border integrity along our southern border.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

Protecting the Country, Part 1

^.^

I came across a liberal in an unexpected place last week. While I was getting ready to deliver papers, I tossed my garbage at the university police department and started up a conversation with the dispatch person. Now, I know you might be asking when does a police dispatcher have the time to chat about national politics, but this is a university police station on a week night, during summer...so no college kisd to deal with.

I expected to be able to have a good chat, agree with him, no matter how right-wing I decided to push it, and then go off and do my papers.

Instead, when I told the man hat *I* didn't feel threatened by the Patriot Act, because I have done nothing wrong, and I don't have anything to hide, he replied that what has become law under the Patriot Act is the start of a slippery slope, and the Germans in the 1930s said the same thing to the Jews...

Not expecting to find a liberal working at the police station, I was stymied for a response. Luckily, an incoming call came in, and he had to answer the phone, so off I went on my newspapeer routes...

But I also continued to think about what the dispatcher had said, and the following occured to me:

Osama bin Laden could give a rat's butt about the rights of Americans, whether we hold them sacred or trample them under our feet. Osama bin Laden could care less about the plight of the Iraqis, the fate of the royal family in his home of Saudi Arabia, or the plight of the Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza...this despite the fact that he talks about all of these alot, and undoubtedly these things make great grist for the Islamic fanatic rhetoric machine.

However, at the end of the day, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are all about establishing a radical Islamic state throughout the world, preferably without the United States in it. Now you ask "Why?" And the answer to that is because as the world's last superpower, the United States is a threat to the establishment of that radical Islamic state.

I reasoned that if Al Qaeda could have killed 3 million people on Sept. 11, 2001, they would have done so. Al Qaeda does not need a reason to want to kill Americans. The fact that someone is American is enough to seal their fate, as far as Al Qaeda is concerned.

It might be all well and good to sit here in the United States and talk about personal freedom and human rights, and moan about their loss. I have seen a lot of college students argue these points with their little college attitudes, with the sorta pious "we're college students, we're cosmopolitan, and we know what is right about the world and bad about America" style of talk. This is all well and good, but the thing about human rights and the personal freedoms we all share is that they are best when enjoyed while alive.

That's right folks, the dead don't give a damn about human rights and personal freedom. They're DEAD. And Al Qaeda wants to render Americans dead, no matter where they are. In my book, that means that personal and national security has to take a higher priority, and if that means a bit of inconvenience at the airport, if that means I need to be searched every so often, if that means that the government wants to know what I check out of a library, if that means that we have racial profiling on traffic stops, if that means that personal freedoms take a back seat for a while, by all means, DO IT!

Because in the end, the job of the government is to protect its citizens, so that they can enjoy the rights and freedoms that some of us feel strongly enough about that they hype up a conspiracy to explain why the government wants to take them away.

Myself, I have nothing to worry about. I've done nothing wrong, and I don't have anything to hide.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

Why Iran Won't Get Nukes

^.^

We have all heard about how Iran is defying the United States and the will of the rest of the world by pursuing nuclear technology. The Iranians and their insane president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been saying that they want technologies that are legally due to them under the NPT, the treaty restricting the spread of nuclear weapons technology, and they accuse the United States among others, of trying to rob them of that technology.

The United States on the other hand believes that Iran is really after nuclear weapons, and they bring some evidence to that effect.

First, the US is following the advice of that old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me." This is because back during the Clinton administration, the United States got involved with talks to limit the nuclear aspirations of North Korea. These were the talks headed by former President Jimmy Carter. The North Koreans signed a deal limiting their development of nuclear technology, and it was only during the Bush administration that the North Koreans turned around and said basically, "Not only did we not mean what we said when we signed the treaty, but we already have nuclear weapons."

So, the US is right to be skeptical of Iran's assertions that they only want peaceful nuclear technology. The Iranians too have played the game of "hide the nut" when it comes to their facilities. They unveiled the Natanz site during their announcements on the subject, but there's an associated facility at Bushehr. Who knows what other facilities the Iranians might have.

Secondly, the Iranians have obtained a manual on how to design shaped charges using uranium materials. The IAEA said that this report had no peaceful use...it's used to tell people how to build and improve nuclear warheads.

However, things are not as rosy for the Iranians as it might look. It is true that sanctions are not likely. Both Russia and China will oppose such things in the UN, probably to the point of vetoing any such resolutions that come down the road. So it looks like Iran is in a good position to negotiate for what they want.

For Iran, that's where the good news stops.

While it looks from the outside that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has monolithic support, this is not the case. The Iranian economy has not done well, despite promises made during the last presidential campaign. There are mixed signals being sent on social and cultural rules, and students at the nation's universities are protesting the proposed stationing of police or soldiers on the campuses...some students have taken to wearing T-shirts saying "Our schools are not garrisons." At the same time, while satellite receivers are outlawed, they are proliferating like weeds in the cities of Iran, since no one enforces the restriction, and the reason the conservative clerics are trying to clamp down on social interactions is because the youth of Iran are probably the most liberal thinking people in the Middle East.

On the nuclear issue, while there is support for the development of nuclear power, and while there is some support for Iran to join the nuclear club, that support is not universal, and some people also say that antagonizing the United States is not wise.

Despite the religious beliefs of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who believes that he should do what he can to bring about the return of the missing mahdi (and this can only happen through an apocalyptic horror), those portions of Iranian sociaty that are not insane religious fanatics are actually quite sophisticated and intelligent, and I think that should push come to shove, they would act to preserve their nation.

The United States and our allies should put good sums of money into backing the underground democratic movement in Iran, and we should come up with other things that we can be doing to quietly be working against the leadership of Iran.

However, the Iranian democratic movement should take the lead on this. We have admitted that military force is not our primary option, and economic sanctions are probably not going to happen. Therefore, the only way that we can resolve this issue is to have the leadership of the country, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad removed from power.

---
John B.
Blogger Guy

About Cultures: A Response to a Response

^.^

I have received a response to my recent articles on Islam, and I figured I should reply. Before I get going, I would like to thank the person who wrote the response. It takes time and effort that could have been used elsewhere, yet I engendered the use of these in response to my comments...my opinions. I am thankful, honored, and humbled.

Now, to the comments raised by Anonymous...

He starts with the following: "why do you hate Moslems that much and you consider them enemies?, why you consider Christianity is Western while Islam is not?" He continues by saying that Islam would have been adopted by the Roman Empire if Christianity had not been.

I don't "hate" muslims. I AM suspicious of Arabs in general, and muslims in particular. It was 19 muslims that carried out the attacks that left roughly 3100 or so people dead on Sept. 11...it was not a clan of Irish men, not a gaggle of Germans, and it was not a communist plot hatched in the cellars of Moscow. Like it or not, the attack on the World Trade Center was designed by an Islamic fanatic, carryied out by a group of Islamic fanatics, and all of them were following a radical Islamic theology.

Do I consider muslims as the enemy? Yep, and that includes the "moderates". Why? Well, in the case of the radicals, that's easy. The moderates however have been shirking their duty and have in that way helped the radicals who have publicly stated that their aim is to kill Americans, to replicate 9/11 on a far larger scale, etc. The moderates have been silent, and in doing so, they have silently given their blessing to the fanatics. If muslims don't wish to be considered as the enemy, they need to stand up and firmly denounce the fanatics who preach that Americans should be killed simply for being Americans.

Anonymous then makes the unfounded statement that the Roman Empire would have converted to Islam had it not converted to Christianity. This is false simply because Christianity was founded roughly 600 years before Islam was created, and the Roman Empire converted to Christianity roughly 300 years later. (I am giving rough estimates.) The point is, Islam wasn't on the scene yet to convert anyone.

Anonymous continues, talking next about how I am wrong in my opinions (which is why people generally write to me...) and how I am making generalizations. And in some cases, he is correct...because it is now the job of the muslims to convince me that they are not fanatics. However, from what I see and hear a lot of the time from the news reports, the sense that I am getting is that all muslims are exactly that...fanatics.

Then comes a bit of moral relativism, where Anonymous says that events happened in the Bible that would not have been allowed in Islam, such as an assault on a city where women and children were ordered killed. My first thought is that I doubt Islam lets women and children off that easy. For simply talking to a man who is not a relative, a woman risks death. Whether it is Sharia law or Islamic tribal custom makes no difference...the custom is defended as religious law. In the case of the Bible, sure there are a large number of incidents where woman and children were killed. To understand this, one has to understand the nature of sin, and how God hates sin. God himself destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all of the people living there with the exception of Lot and his family. God also struck down Israelites who rose up against Moses during the trek to the promised land, and God told the Israelites to attack many of the peoples living in the promised land.

But one thing you have to remember is CONTEXT, which is why I mentioned God and his hatred of sin. When Israel or its kings fell away from God and comitted sin, God was well within his rights to punish them, and that's what was happening.

Anonymous then goes on to explain the nature of religious belief and how Islam fits into that. He then gets into a bit of criticism of Christianity, thus displaying the hypocrisy I see in a lot of muslims today...it's not alright for me to criticise Islam, but Anonymous can mock Christianity, and the Trinity, and then compound that error by displaying just how little he understands Christianity: "God does not need to have a son, God does not need to kill his son who is himself on the cross to forgive us because of a sin we did not do..."

God does not need to have a son...that's quite a judgement...try that on the next expecting couple you see.

God did not "kill" his son...that implies that God directly did the deed. God gave his son to be a sacrifice on behalf of humanity for the forgiveness of sin, the consecration of the new covenant which wipes out the Old Testament law, and the redemption of those who believe. As for "sin we did not do," as human beings, we are born into sin, and throughout life, we are tempted to do sin, but through the belief in Jesus, through repentance and asking for forgiveness, God, through the sacrifice of his son, wipes that sin away, and it is completely forgotten.

Anonymous ends with the following:

"God can forgive the well-guided people with a simple word if God wish. We want to stop hatred, and follow what Jesus Christ said (peace be on him and his pure blessed mother); do love your enemies, bless who curse you."

If God wanted to do so, he could. However, that would be like me slapping you across the face, and expecting that you'll forgive me and forget that it ever happened. Instead, under the Old Testament law, the people were responsible to make adequate sacrifices to God for their sins. Under the new covenant, the sacrifice that Jesus gave for us is perfect, it is highly valueable, as any father will know...and it shows how much God loves all of us. He was willing to send his son to be nailed to a cross so that our sins may be forgiven.

Now, back to the political realities here in closing... I am suspicious of muslims, and I think this extends to a lot of Americans. Being suspicious is not a sin. Being hateful is. Do I hate muslims? No. I wish that we could all get along and understand each other, but I keep coming back to a question.

I know that a muslim can walk across a Christian community, no matter the size, and not be harmed at all. In fact, I doubt in most cases that he would get a second galnce. However, I question whether the same could be said of a Christain walking across an Islamic community, no matter the size. Given the rhetoric I see coming from muslims, a Christian would be risking his life in such a thing.

From what I have heard about the situation in Iran, I am hopeful that perhaps the insane president of that country can be overthrown. I believe that Israel knows the best way to defend itself and secure her future...with or without Palestinian cooperation or consent, and in general, the ravings of the muslims that we see to any time they don't get what they want has been exposed as exactly that...the ravings of a people whose version of negotiation is to get everything they want, or they'll attack.

It is up to muslims to change this view of themselves and their religion. I will listen with an open mind, but it will be a hard sell.

---
John B.
Blog Guy