Well, the Christian hating commie bastards are at it again:

The
issue of teachers and coaches praying — or appearing to pray — in front
of students is being hashed out in one New Jersey high school, which is
trying to ban its football coach from bowing his head and kneeling
while his players pray before games.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit heard arguments in the case earlier this month.

“All
he wants to do is bow his head in the background,” said John Whitehead,
president of the Rutherford Institute, a group acting as co-counsel for
coach Marcus Borden. “There’s a mentality out there among school
officials that if it even hints of religion, it’s got to go.”

While
there are “clear guidelines” for student-initiated prayer in school
that grant students at least “minimal” rights, teachers “are being told
they really don’t have religious freedom,” Mr. Whitehead said.

The
case stems from an October 2005 policy at East Brunswick High School
prohibiting any school representative from participating in
student-initiated prayer.

The high school’s football players
have been praying before games for more than 25 years, and the coach
wants to continue to bow his head and kneel with them, according to the
Rutherford Institute. School officials don’t dispute that student
athletes have the constitutionally protected right to pray, but they
say coaches do not, because they are public employees, the institute
said.

A U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the coach in
July, but that was challenged by the school and the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU).

It is quite sad that so many have
fallen for the lies of groups like the ACLU. It is sad that an
organization claiming to protect our liberties is attacking them.

Moonbattery at its best:

Although
totalitarian moonbats have not yet been able to take away the right of
players to pray, coaches are alleged to be public officials not
entitled to the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.
According to the ACLU of New Jersey, Borden’s silent show of respect
for God fosters a “destructive environment.” This satanic organization
has taken the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Wars have been fought over far less than what the ACLU is doing to this country.

From Stop the ACLU

If
the ACLU really gave a damn about the Separation of Church and State,
(They Don’t) and if the Separation of Church and State was actually
part of the Constitution, (It Isn’t) one might expect the ACLU to go
after Muslims and their rights.

But the ACLU won’t, because
they are Christian hating cowards. By selectively attacking one group,
and ignoring others, the ACLU has shown themselves to be nothing but
slimeballs and cowards. What else would you expect from a group that
defends terrorists and child pornographers but attacks Christianity at
any chance it can get.

Why?

“Communism is the Goal.”

Roger Nash Baldwin
Founder of the ACLU

Mother blames racism for son’s $1 million bail

 

- The mother of an 18-year-old man being held on $1 million bail in two alleged Carroll County rapes blamed racism for what she calls excessive bail.

“I just don’t understand how a judge can say a million dollars right off the bat,” Bless Queen said. “Who sets a million-dollar bail on an 18-year-old kid? I really feel that it is prejudiced.”Noting the alleged victim is a 16-year-old white girl, Queen said, “She’s white, and it’s a small town.”

 

Her son, Nicholas Queen, of New Windsor, was at a party in Taneytown July 15, smoking marijuana outside the house with Fidel Melo, 20, a Hispanic, and a 16-year-old girl, according to charging documents.The girl refused a kiss from Queen, saying she had a boyfriend and “was not going to do this with him,” according to the documents.

 

On the way back to the house, Melo held her down while he and Queen raped her, prosecutors alleged. Kelley Galvin, an assistant state’s attorney, had asked the court to deny bail, but said $1 million was fair.“This is the rape of a minor,” she told The Examiner on Tuesday. “They were acting in collaboration, allegedly. I think a million is quite appropriate.”

 

Queen’s bail was set in July in District Court and upheld in September when his lawyers tried to reduce it. The day the lawyers sought reduced bail, prosecutors charged Queen with the rape of a 15-year-old Taneytown girl. The prosecutors said Queen and Melo committed that rape with William M. Smith, 24, and that it occurred in mid-July. Smith was charged with second-degree rape, and his bail was set at $500,000.

 

Queen’s attorneys, Bradley Bauhof and Jill Swerdlin, say he was not present when the second rape allegedly took place.The Rev. Jekia Ledbetter, the pastor at the Baltimore church the Queens attend, called the case one of the worst injustices she’s seen.“I think it’s worse than Jena 6,” she said. “I don’t think he can have a fair trial in Carroll County.”

The link is Here.

I am so sick of people with more concern for the criminal then the victim. The damn skin color should be irrelevant. People that rape kids should never get out of jail, ever. If you want them out of jail on bond because of the color of their skin, that makes you a racist. And if you care more about the black rapist then the white victim, that really makes you a racist. Right and wrong should have nothing to do with black or white.

I wonder if the media will cover this like it did the Mohammed cartoons! I doubt it, unless you think Christians will hit the streets in riots burning everything in site. 

Organizers of San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair — sponsored by Miller Brewing Co. — have portrayed Christ and his disciples as half-naked homosexual sadomasochists in the event’s promotional advertisement, and the conservative group Concerned Women for America is complaining about the hypocrisy of it.

“The bread and wine representing Christ’s broken body and lifegiving blood are replaced with sadomasochistic sex toys in this twisted version of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper,” CWA said on its Web site.

“‘Gay’ activists disingenuously call Christians ‘haters’ and ‘homophobes’ for honoring the Bible, but then lash out in this hateful manner toward the very people they accuse,” said said Matt Barber, CWA’s policy director for cultural issues.

“In their version of The Last Supper, Christ, Who gave His life for our sins, is despicably replaced by sin itself as the object of worship.”

CWA is calling on California politicians — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sens. Feinstein and Boxer among them — to “publicly condemn this unprovoked attack against Christ and His followers.

“We further challenge the media to cover this affront to Christianity with the same vigor as recent stories about cartoon depictions of Mohammed and other items offensive to the Muslim community,” CWA said.

I think the only thing shocking is that groups keep thinking it is soooo artsy to mock Christ, yet culturally insensitive to mock Islam.

Oh…and I won’t be drinking Miller!

Miller contact info…

Miller Brewing Company
P.O. Box 482
Milwaukee, WI 53201

or
Miller Brewing Company

3939 W. Highland Blvd, Milwaukee, WI 53208
(414) 931-2000

EMAIL

call between hours are 8am-5pm

Oh, and San Fran can host this, but ROTC causes traffic problems???? And now they attack the Blue Angels? How long before Sodom sinks into the Pacific?
From Stop The ACLU

I won’t say, “This is an attack on Christianity, and a double standard, as this would have never happened to the Muslims,” because that is obvious. Here is the advertisement, by the way:

People like to call Christians intolerant, but I see something entirely different. My friend Brujo stated this in an article earlier:

I read a Liberty Counsel Alert dated August 24, 2007 regarding an incident that is central to my point. There is a church in New Jersey, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is a ministry of the Methodist Church that happens to own some prime beach side real estate that is used for church services, gospel concerts, Bible studies and weddings. It seems there was a lesbian couple that wanted to get ‘married.’ They attempted to rent this facility and were turned down because of the religious beliefs and practices of this church. Their doctrine (religious belief) prohibits civil unions of same sex individuals. The women complained to the state that the church was violating state anti-discrimination laws and the state initiated an investigation.

I find it interesting that the state would even consider such an investigation. This church, like many Bible believing Christian organizations, live their religion. The do no commit crimes such as murder because of a religious belief and not out of concern for man’s law. They will not violate the tenants of their religion. The U.S. Constitution as primary law of the land is supposed to protect religious practice. Can you imagine the results of a church being ordered to lend its facilities to support an act they consider a religious abomination? (This is the USA. We can believe in abomination at least until the ACLU criminalizes it.)

It has become apparent that the state of New Jersey is going to take a stab at regulating this church and its activities. The claim is that because they allow anyone to enter they have become a public institution and therefore subject to the anti discrimination laws. I submit that if this was a Hasidic Jewish facility or a Mosque there would be no question regarding the homosexual agenda. Christian churches are traditionally open to the all for worship services. Because they do not lock the doors to only allow their membership access does not give government license to regulate.

Now some of the Gay and Lesbian groups are petitioning local and state government in New Jersey to review the tax exempt status of this church. This is a very strong weapon. Many churches and other religious groups cannot afford to pay property taxes and if required to do so they would have to dispose of the property.

I do not really give two damns would people do in the bedroom as long as it is consentual and the participants are over the legal age. But I also see a gay-rights movement more and more hostile to Christianity, and more willing to chip away to freedom of speech and religion to get to it as these new hate crime laws do. All of us should be threatened by these actions. And this, far more then anything else, is my biggest disagreement with the gay rights movement.

Crossposted from Baltimore Reporter

It seems smiling Al found another story to milk today as thousands of chanting demonstrators filled the streets of little Jena Louisiana town  in support of six black teenagers initially charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white classmate.

Ahhhh, wherever there is a race card to play, you can count on smiling Al Sharpton to be there to play it. I have long critiqued N.O.W. for caring more about killing babies and gay marriage then caring about actual abuses of women in the Muslim World, I find myself feeling similarly about the Civil Rights movement. Like N.O.W., it has devolved from its original mission and become so liberalized and politically correct it might have outlived its usefulness. Is there something to be mad at in Jena? Yes. However, the utter lack of outrage over the much more prevalent black on black crime and other major issues says volumes about the current state of the civil rights movement.
 
Are there two sets of standards of justice? Absolutely. But that runs both ways.  I guarantee had this been a black guy been the victim here, this would be a hate crime.  (Hate crime laws are by themselves discriminatory, as they assume crimes against certain groups are worse and deserve more punishment then others. The crime should be weighed the same in the eyes of the law, anything else is nothing but discrimination.) And now, these kids, the “Jena 6” have their pictures in the paper like they are role models. Has anyone condemned these kids for beating a guy until he was unconscious? Nope, liberals and civil rights groups don’t care about that detail. ( Should someone not serve some jail time? Had I did it, I would be in jail.)  Now Sharpton wants to march on Washington. What about all the tens to hundreds of thousands of black kids being killed by other black kids in our city streets? Who cares, because there is no race card to play as the crime is black on black. And what issue affects the black community more and would be a better use of the resources of liberal and civil rights group? Don’t’ ask a liberal or Sharpton, because they don’t consider the tens of thousands of blacks being killed by other blacks as an issue worthy of their attention. And to be only angry when discrimination, violence, and injustice is white on black and not black on white and black on black is by itself bigoted and a form of racism.

And now the whole whole town is being labeled as racists, because of what seems like a schoolyard fight, some dumb kids, and an overzealous (and possibly bigoted) prosecutor. Like the OJ murders and the Vick case, they are defended by the bleeding hearts simply because of the color of their skin. If the victim and perpetrator’s skin color was reversed, liberals would hardly bat an eye. Most in the black community defended OJ, and still have not apologizes for supporting a murderer. Many African Americans cheered when he was found innocent, and had zero sympathy for the almost decapitated victim, Nicole Simpson. This alone has brought about some resentment in the hearts of many whites. Was the original sentence in Jena excessive? Yes. But that is not my point. Both sides seem to have been influenced by race, and this in the end does neither side any good. Until people think about right and wrong irrelevant of the issue of black and white, racism will be a problem.
 
And the groups themselves are part of that problem, Sharpton is silent on the issues of the death of the black family, (thank you liberals) the devaluation of education in the urban community, and the negative influence of gang culture. Only Bill Cosby, a comedian, has been brave enough to tackle some of the real issues facing the black community. Sure, racism exists and it is a problem, but it is not just race guys. Racism was a lot worse decades ago and blacks were not killing each other by the thousands and they most likely had a dad in their family. And they were not incarcerated at the present rate. And don’t talk about slavery, because that was a lot closer to the age of slavery and again, the black on black killings, and the incarceration was a lot lower and more families had fathers. But don’t look for Sharpton to say much on that subject.
 
Even worse, by their very nature, I believe these groups contribute to the very problem they claim they were created to prevent. When you start off by doing (discriminating, in this case against whites by affirmative action) what you claim to be opposing (discrimination) you do nothing to solve your problem in the long term. I am tired of two sets of standards for two different groups. According to liberals, discriminating against whites and Christians is not so bad, (as we have it coming, see) but discrimination against gays Muslims, and minorities (some of who are the majority now) is much, much worse. You can’t have it both ways, it is either bad to discriminate or it isn’t. This is the same logic that makes liberals more outraged when a white guy beats up a black then when a black kills a black. This is the same logic that allows N.O.W. to march for the rights to kill babies and for gay rights but stays silent on actual abuses in the Muslim world. This is the same logic that allows liberals to march to support a relatively minor event when their own young are being killed by the hundreds of thousands every year. Which event hurts the black community more?  But that is black on black, so Sharpton does not care. It only matters if race plays a part, for there are no political points to gain on black on black crimes. And my friends, is why liberals never fix anything and often are more destructive then any white bigot to the black community. They won’t confront any real problem that violates their simple, politically correct view of the world.
 
Until the groups like the NAACP find the courage to fight the root causes of the plight of urban community, the current start of the black family is unlikely to get any better. All this just further illustrates the utter lack of any core principles in liberalism as racism (and discrimination, terrorism, violence, and oppression) is only bad in the liberal eyes if whites and Christians are practicing it. In the end, racism will never go away until both sides are held to the same set of standards. And as long as one side is allowed to discriminate freely, as long as the standard of right and wrong is influenced on both sides by the color of the skin, it just sows the seeds of hate for a different generation. Dr. King had it right. People should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. This is the only thing that will end racism. And for both sides it remains a dream.

CURT ADDS:

Check out this story on Newsbusters in which the MSM start to blame Bush for poor race relations related to this beating.

Crossposted from Baltimore Reporter

Moral equivalency, another reason why liberals and their MSM allies should not even be in charge of a snowball stand.

Basic science and liberals, never the twain shall meet. Curt at Flopping Aces has covered the story regarding bad temperature data from Hansen’s Y2K error and the change in the U.S. leaderboard. However, there is a more basic error with the global warming cult that I would like to address. Remember the dire predictions for Europe following Chernobyl and the Iraqi oil fires causing a nuclear winter? All were in error. The fallout area in Chernobyl was much, much less then predicted and the suggestion by Carl Sagan that the Iraqi oil fires would generate a small scale nuclear winter was an embarrassing blunder. Why did intelligent men commit such major errors? One, they drifted outside of their error of expertise. For instance, a man who designed nuclear bombs may not be the best scientist to predict fallout. The second area is that they allowed science to become politicized. Thus, it was no longer science.

This politicization has allowed the libs, who are never as smart as they think they are, to miss some basic points about the climate. First of all, what drives the climate?

What causes the Earth’s climate to change?

Climate change is complex—there are many dynamics involved. A major factor may be the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.

Astronomer Milutin Milankovitch (1879 – 1958) studied the variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and the tilt of the Earth’s axis. He theorized that these cyclical changes and the interactions among them were responsible for long-term climate changes.

Milankovitch studied three factors:

1. Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis;
2. Variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun; and
3. Precession: changes in how the tilt of the axis is oriented in relation to the orbit.

the source is here.

The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth’s
the source is here.

Funny how these facts never make Al Gore’s talking points. But of course there may be a simpler explanation for climate change. It is not the rotation or aix or orbit around the Sun, it may be the Sun itself.

Sun’s Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun’s radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth’s climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun’s increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” Willson said.

In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.

“Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more,” Willson told SPACE.com today.

So, in another words, climatology is a subject better left for astronomers then biologists and environmentalists. Thus environmentalists may not be the best scientist to predict climate change. But it actually gets more confusing then this, as plate tectonics may also play a hand in climate change.

So the Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis, Variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit, Precession, plate tectonics, a change in the Sun’s output, (words liberals never use in any of their articles) and co2 emissions all may play a part in the earth’s climate. But according to the liberals, it is all man made CO2 emissions and it is all proven.

Stick with one factor, ignore all the others, and beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees.

That is Al Gore. That is liberal science.

I am not saying CO2 emissions play no part in climate change. What I am annoyed with is that the scientific community has allowed itself to become politicized and thus may be missing some important data on our climate. I would even support Kyoto if it was a fair agreement that did not exempt the third world and was not so destructive to our economy. For I still believe the environment and economy are not mutually exclusive concepts.

But the blame America first crowd once again shows they lack any ability to think outside of current liberal thought.

The danger here is not just that by focusing on just CO2 emissions and burning at the stake anyone who disagrees we may be missing other important signs concerning our climate, but that real danger is that the scientific community will continue to be politicized and will give us more global warming, nuclear winters, and other ideas that are based more on politics then science.

What we need is real, un-politicized science, not this.

And I am not willing to destroy our economy and put hundreds of thousands out of work because of bad politics and not science.

Crossposted from Baltimore Reporter

And I would have bet money that this poll would have been buried by the drive-by media.

Americans’ support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.

But two-thirds of those polled said the United States should reduce its forces in Iraq, or remove them altogether. Support for the invasion had been at an all-time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out. The latest poll made clear that a two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly.

However, the number of people who say the war is going “very badly” has fallen from 45 percent earlier in July to a current reading of 35 percent, and of those who say it is going well, 29 percent now describe it as “somewhat well” compared with 23 percent just last week.

Many of those who said the invasion was correct made it clear, however, that they are no longer convinced the United States should remain there.

“At the time that we went into Iraq, we had just come out of 9/11. The nation was in shock, frightened,” Sally Fisher of Garden City, Mich., said in a follow-up interview after the poll was conducted. “Looking back, I still think we should have gone in. Should we have stayed as long as we did? No.”

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Sunday with 889 adults. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus three percentage points and larger for subgroups.

The poll’s findings are in line with those of one conducted last week by The New York Times and CBS News. Although both polls show a similar rise in overall support for the invasion, there was no change in measures like Mr. Bush’s handling of the war or how well the increase in troops is working, making it difficult to discern what the public may be reacting to.

At the end of a week that included a contentious Senate debate leading to an all-night session, Americans have a low opinion of Congress. Six in 10 Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing in general. When asked specifically about their opinions of how the Democrats and Republicans in Congress are handling the war, disapproval ratings are similar — 65 percent disapprove of the Republicans’ handling of Iraq and 59 percent disapprove of the Democrats’.

“If Congress isn’t ready to really go over there with enough force to change things now we might as well get out,” said Shawn Taylor of Hardin, Mont. “Either push the envelope and make it happen or leave it alone.”

The modest gains in support for the invasion of Iraq come at a time when Bush administration and top military commanders have called attention to what they say are signs of progress, and have urged patience pending a report due this fall from the top American commander in Iraq. The administration has also issued new warnings about heightened terrorist activity.

A majority of Americans say that in the long run, the United States will be safer from terrorism if it stays out of the affairs of countries in the Middle East. But there is a sharp party divide on the issue — 73 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 28 percent of Republicans agree.

the poll results are here. (Note how the Republicans get sampled less then the Democrats or the Independents.)

This, however, did not stop the Democrats from their treasonous ways as the piece of crap Murtha continued to aid al Qaeda by announcing he would use the Defense Appropriations Bill to set 60-day timeline to begin troop withdrawal from Iraq, implement the “slow-bleed” strategy, and close Gitmo.

So even when we are winning, the Democrats want us to lose.

Crossposted from Baltimore Reporter

If any of this is right, then the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) may get us killed one day. But that is okay, as long as Bush looks bad.

I might have titled this story the “Axis of Embarrassment,” but you wouldn’t have been able to figure out what it’s about.

Writing in the British Spectator Magazine, Daily Mail columnist and blogger Melanie Phillips reports that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction - including nuclear weapons - were looted from four bunkers in southern Iraq and are now in Syria, where they will be used to assist Iran.

Having served for 12 years as an agent in the US Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations, Mr Gaubatz, a trained Arabic speaker, was hand-picked for postings in 2003, first in Saudi Arabia and then in Nasariyah in Iraq. His mission was to locate suspect WMD sites, discover threats against US forces in the area and find Saddam loyalists, and then send such intelligence to the Iraq Survey Group and other agencies.

Between March and July 2003, he says, he was taken to four sites in southern Iraq — two within Nasariyah, one 20 miles south and one near Basra — which, he was told by numerous Iraqi sources, contained biological and chemical weapons, material for a nuclear programme and UN-proscribed missiles. He was, he says, in no doubt whatever that this was true.

This was, in the first place, because of the massive size of these sites and the extreme lengths to which the Iraqis had gone to conceal them. Three of them were bunkers buried 20 to 30 feet beneath the Euphrates. They had been constructed through building dams which were removed after the huge subterranean vaults had been excavated so that these were concealed beneath the river bed. The bunker walls were made of reinforced concrete five feet thick.

‘There was no doubt, with so much effort having gone into hiding these constructions, that something very important was buried there’, says Mr Gaubatz. By speaking to a wide range of Iraqis, some of whom risked their lives by talking to him and whose accounts were provided in ignorance of each other, he built up a picture of the nuclear, chemical and biological materials they said were buried underground.

‘They explained in detail why WMDs were in these areas and asked the US to remove them,’ says Mr Gaubatz. ‘Much of this material had been buried in the concrete bunkers and in the sewage pipe system. There were also missile imprints in the area and signs of chemical activity — gas masks, decontamination kits, atropine needles. The Iraqis and my team had no doubt at all that WMDs were hidden there.’

There was yet another significant piece of circumstantial corroboration. The medical records of Mr Gaubatz and his team showed that at these sites they had been exposed to high levels of radiation.
The worst-case scenario has now come about. Saddam’s nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state — and one with close links to Iran.
the link is here.

This is more then the work of selected bloggers at work. In fact the CIA cannot rule a WMD transfer themselves….

CIA can’t rule out WMD move to Syria

The CIA’s chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing “sufficiently credible” evidence that WMDs may have been moved there. Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq — the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein — has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.

But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. “ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war,” Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA’s Web site Monday night. He cited some evidence of a transfer. “Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined,” he said. “There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.”

But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because “the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve.” Arguing against a WMD transfer to Syria, Mr. Duelfer said, was the fact that all senior Iraqi detainees involved in Saddam’s weapons programs and security “uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.” “Nevertheless,” the inspector said, “given the insular and compartmented nature of the regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation.”
the link is here.

The 2LA, a Lebanese website, reports that

Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept.

Of course a Lebanese website could be accused of not being the most unbiased source. But the point is this, considering Syria has close ties to Iran, and Iran supplies terrorist groups that attack Israel and the United States, is it not in the best interest of this country to investigate this possibility?

Or would we prefer to endanger this country rather then prove the hated Bush right?

Crossposted from Baltimore Reporter

It’s nice to know our tax dollars are not wasted by our military.

Air Force Considered Gay ‘Love Bomb’ Against Enemies

WASHINGTON — The Air Force on Tuesday confirmed a report that in 1994 a military researcher requested $7.5 million to develop a non-lethal “love bomb” that would chemically alter the state of mind of enemy troops and make them want to have sex with each other rather than fight.

Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Cathy Reardon said the idea was proposed by an Air Force researcher at a lab at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, but it was rejected by the Defense Department. Officials noted that the Air Force constantly is considering funding proposals.

No money was spent, Reardon said, and no such weapons are being considered. The goal was to create a non-lethal weapon to be used against enemy troops.

First reported by KPIX-TV in San Francisco, the discovery of the “gay bomb” proposal came from a Freedom of Information Act request made by Edward Hammond of Berkeley’s Sunshine Project, a watchdog group that tracks military spending.

As part of the military’s goal of developing non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, “One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior.”

The proposal also offered other ideas, such as a “sex attractant” chemical that would make “annoying and injurious creatures” like stinging bugs more aggressive and draw them to the enemy’s position. Another chemical would leave such a strong stench, the enemy would be detectable for weeks.

from Fox News

I’m just waiting for Al-Qaeda to go out and start buying Elton John Records now……

Crossposted from Baltimore Reporter

“Israeli troops could have marched into Cairo if they wanted to.”
Abdel Nasser

 
Following the 6 Day War and again, after the stunning reversal of the War of Atonement, Israeli troops utterly and completely defeated the Egyptian Army (and with them the army of Syria, Jordan, and troops from Iraq.) Israel had doubled the size of its country, put its cities out of artillery range, and opened up Jerusalem, which had been forbidden to them. But rather then revel in their victory, Israel later gave up most of this territory for the promise of Peace with Egypt in the Treaty with Sadat.
 
So, in the three decades after Sadat’s Peace Treaty with Israel, what has Israel gained after giving up all that land? What does peace with Egypt look like? Sadly it is regarded best as a cold peace because relations between the two peoples have not significantly improved. Trade and tourism are primarily in one direction-from Israel to Egypt. The government press and the schools have remained hostile toward Israel and anti-Israeli cartoons are published routinely. Though present Egyptian President Mubarak has been an active participant in the peace process, more often than not, he has contributed to the hardening of Arab positions. He has also refused to visit  Israel.  Even worse, Egypt also allows terrorists to smuggle weapons across their borders and attack jewish targets, in effect, making Egypt a base for terrorists.  This is what Peace is for Israel. This is what they gave up half of their land for.

Again the Arabs, this time the Palestinians, were offered land for peace. But the Arabs wanted the right of return, which means Israel would no longer be a Jewish State. NO country in the world would have accepted such conditions, and Israel naturally rejected it. Even after Israel offered to give up all of its territory for peace it still lives with neighboring countries that attack. Or threaten to attack it regularly. Israel still suffers from men, women, and kids that strap themselves with bombs and blow up Jewish civilians.  And now Israel suffers a nuclear armed neighbor that threatens to finish what Hitler started. Increasingly, Israel has become pessimistic towards peace. Why would they, when Peace does not really mean Peace. For in Israel, Peace looks little from War.
 
What is peace? When Liberals talk of peace they never stop and wonder what peace would really look like? Liberal philosophy seems to assume everyone will do good in the right situation, and if they are not doing good, then it is the situation or circumstance and not the person that is at fault. Liberals, like Chamberlain before him, naively assume if Israel pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and we left Iraq and Afghanistan, there would be peace. Well, it did not work in Munich, and it would not work now. Liberals simply do not understand the capability for evil in mankind, and always assumes people will work to do what is right when in the right situation. (Paradoxically liberalism likes big government (like some republicans) so thus assumes people can’t make decisions on their own without the government behind them so might not trust people as much as thought.)When the base of the philosophy is wrong why would the rest of its doctrine make any sense?
 
Liberals think peace is the absence of war. Wrong! Peace is not just an absence of war.  Peace is allowing other countries to exist with dialogue, trade, travel and normal diplomatic relationships between the countries without hostile intent and threats. If this definition is accepted then Israel has never had peace, and is not at peace with Egypt now. The same is the case for this country as is if we leave Iraq and even Afghanistan tomorrow and drop our support for Israel we will not have peace. Even countries we consider allies are filled with people that consider our country evil. Several countries even fight us by proxy and the stupid liberals buy it and visit their countries and leaders in their capital as they are killing our soldiers.

The various versions of the analogy of a spider stinging the beaver who is taking himself across the river and thus drowning himself is a very fitting analogy indeed and a lesson a liberal will never learn. Hitler attacked so many countries that he himself fell is by no accident, as he simply could not help himself. That is the nature of evil. Moral relativists have a hard time with evil, as it implies a universal value code. But evil nevertheless exists.  Their denial of evil is why liberals expect to live at peace with a group that raises their kids on a Nazi-like Mickey Mouse, consider genocide a holy order, who stoned to death  young girls who fell in love with the wrong person or was raped by their uncles. Liberals believe they can live at peace with a group who beats women who do not have a veil on their face, who thinks it is holy to sever the heads of the innocents and to convert by the threat of death all those who do not believe as they do, and who denies women all basic rights and denies all the rights of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. To expect to live at peace with a group of people who think like this is the top of a very long list of stupid ideas by liberals and the Party of Treason, the Democrats. In fact, I can think of nothing worse then “peace”, as it will allow these ideas to spread. Why would we want peace with such an ideology? Liberalism has yet to figure out that peace at any price ultimately means the ultimate price will be paid. What it also says is liberalism cares more about keeping the peace that actually fighting for Democracy, women’s rights, and so on….a situation and a world that is completely and utterly unsustainable, and is further example of liberalism’s hypocrisy and utter lack of any real values. And if we are no longer willing to fight against those repressing Women’s Right, Freedom of Religion, and Democracy, are we deserving to enjoy them ourselves?
 
This is not peace, only a simple liberal would view it as such

Crossposted at Baltimore Reporter