Apostate Muslims

Here is a nice short column (and lots of comments after) about apostasy and how it should be treated in Islam. Though not terribly an in-depth analysis, it does address the problem of forcing people to adhere to one faith.

Democrats Trying to Sound Tough

The Democrats are trying to take the national security issue away from the Republicans. I don't think it's going to happen given their track record. Also, though the Democrats talk about a well-funded and supplied military, it's really meaningless when they don't plan on using them--which is exactly what will happen.

Not to mention this plan will invariably involve raising taxes (which the Democrats have been wanting to do for a while now). What needs to be done now is a decrease in government spending that doesn't involve the military. I have no doubt the raise in taxes will be disproportionately higher than the raise in spending on whatever the taxes are meant to be spent on.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said Democrats don't need to unveil their security agenda, because Americans already have seen it:

"They threaten to filibuster border security. They brag about how they 'killed' the Patriot Act. They call the NSA terrorist surveillance program 'illegal.' And they want to cut and run in Iraq rather than stay and fight al Qaeda," Cornyn said.

Bottom line: Democrats are weak on defense, and weak on national security. In fact, I would say these are their weakest links. To think that the Republicans will have this issue taken from them (by Democrats) is laughable. Not that the Republicans haven't been weak in their own right (border security, e.g.), but they have been a heck of a lot stronger on securing this nation and working to prevent another 9/11 than the Democrats by far.

Borders Fried Style

Borders and Walden bookstores are deciding not to carry the latest issue of Free Inquiry Magazine because it depicts images of Mohammed. I guess if they're making enough profit from Muslims that they don't need my money, then I guess I won't go there anymore. Why are they doing this? Because they felt threatened by (guess who!) Muslims. Spineless.

Rahman is Safe(r)

Rahman has been granted asylum in Italy, and has made it safely there. He is safe in that he's no longer in a country where its people want to kill him. I think he's still in some danger given the conciliatory nature of Europe with radical (or "orthodox" as I like to call it) Islam. I pray he stays safe and continues to profess his faith to all people with boldness. Rahman is truly blessed.

Let's also not forget the others being persecuted for Christ in Afghanistan and around the world. Keep them in your prayers.

Illegal Immigrants and Their "Rights"

Michelle Malkin is following this story pretty closely. Passing a bill that would make illegal immigration... well, illegal, is being protested by (you guessed it) illegal immigrants. Since when were we giving any consideration for lawmaking based on the desires of those who care nothing for our laws? Not only that, but those who can't even vote!? I think the cops should be running nets at these protests and just start arresting people on suspicion of illegal immigration. I know it sounds Orwellian, but seriously, it's where they're going to be found.

Also, it isn't just that they didn't care about our laws to begin with, it's that they still don't. Not only THAT, but they hate this country (the country they were desperate to enter in the first place I might add). Just look at this picture taken in southern California:



Disgusting. Why would we even consider amnesty as an option for these people? They don't respect our laws, our borders, our customs, our language, or us as a people. They spit in our face then ask us for jobs. I realize not all are like these protestors, but I have little more respect for them since they still didn't care about our sovereignty to begin with. Such blatant and overt hatred for this country while at the same time wanting to gain benefits from it reprehensible and hypocritical.

Mother Teresa in Da House!

I took a test on what kind of leader I am. What was funny, is that I followed the link from my friend's blog who got JFK, because he likes gaining power to increase his sexual exploits. The irony, of course, is his treatment of women is VERY honorific.

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Abdul Rahman Disappears

Abdul Rahman was released from prison due to lack of evidence against him. Not exactly a glowing endorsement for freedom of religion, but the ends are the same, so I guess it's okay.

However, he has now apparently disappeared and was last seen with his family. It seems likely that he is dead given the "peaceful" nature of his Islamic family toward him. I pray he isn't, but I think he is.

Also, more Christians are being persecuted in Afghanistan. Be sure to pray for them, too. You would think that if people truly belived in a religion, its adherents would welcome criticism for the sake of proving us infidels wrong or finding the truth about God rather than trying to simply kill anyone who opposes their viewpoint. Further, you would think God wouldn't be so insecure about what people thought about Him that he would command His followers to kill dissenters.

Rahman Seeks Asylum

Abdul Rahman is seeking asylum outside of Afghanistan. We should all pray he get it. As Michelle Malkin says: "we should be the first in line to offer safe haven to him." He certainly wouldn't be safe in Europe, methinks. What better place for him to come to than the only country in the world that correctly implements human rights and individual freedoms?

Wal-Mart is the New Cancun

As a social experiment, a writing student at Drake decided to spend his spring break at Wal-Mart. He stayed there for three days before giving it up. Regardless, this article makes for some pretty good reading. They say there's a time and place for everything... and that's college.

The spokesman for Wal-Mart made the comment that "we're a retailer, not a hotel." Maybe Mr. Bartels just gave Wal-Mart a new market to enter!

The Lynch Mobs Form

So it seems that Abdul Rahman is likely to not be executed by the state, but he is still in danger of being murdered for his beliefs by mob rule.

Afghans rally during a demonstration in the northern city of Mazar-i-Shariff, Afghanistan March 27, 2006. In the first protest over the case of Afghan man, Abdur Rahman who converted from Islam to Christianity, several hundred people led by clerics demonstrated in Mazar-i-Shariff, demanding Rahman be tried under Islamic law.

"...led by clerics." That is the scariest part of the whole paragraph. These people are ignorant. That's the bottom line of it, and clerics (presumably) are not. Whether or not the clerics are as ignorant as the people they are leading is immaterial, though. The point is that they are afforded authority among the people and their views are considered to be the views of divine or enlightened people.

This is why I will always oppose a civilization based on religious leadership. Because when the desires of the man in power come into the equation (and they always do), the authority of God is used to do the works of the Devil. Case in point: Abdul Rahman.

Steyn Hits the Nail on the Head

Mark Steyn wrote a great column regarding the Abdul Rahman story. He draws some conclusions about Islam overall using Rahman's story as an example. His finest statement was this.

Abdul Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to, not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet.

Steyn also mentions how the Quran teaches that it is incumbent on its adherents to "command and forbid." In other words: force their religion on others. Read the whole thing, he makes a lot of good points. (via: Michelle Malkin)

I believe Steyn got this completely right. The thing about Islam is that it is set up to only grow. Further than that, it is set up to grow by any means possible. This has less to do with God (as Muslims claim) and more to do with the violent and militaristic nature of its foundational beliefs.

Red America Crashes and Burns

Michelle Malkin cites a case where the moonbats found the dirt they were actively looking for regarding "Red America:" plagiarism.

I cheered for Ben, the editor of my last book at Regnery, when he announced his new position. I criticized unhinged bloggers on the Left who leveled vicious ad hominem attacks against him. It's clear, as the good folks at Red State (which Ben co-founded) note, that his detractors were on a search-and-destroy mission from the get-go.

But now the determined moonbat hordes have exposed multiple instances of what clearly appear to me to be blatant lifting of entire, unique passages by Ben from other writers. It is one thing to paraphrase basic facts from a wire story. But to filch the original thoughts and distinctly crafted phrases of a writer without crediting him/her--and doing so repeatedly--is unacceptable in our business. Some of the cases occurred while Ben was in college; he is blaming an editor for these transgressions. But at least one other incident involved a piece he wrote for NRO after he graduated. The side-by-side comparisons of these extensive passages is damning.

So as of now, to show my condemnation for such unethical practices, I'm taking this blog off of my blogroll. People willing to plagiarize are not worth my (or your) time.

"What Casey Sheehan Died For"

(Via: Mudville Gazette) Buck Sargent makes a great post on the role of the military and certainly doesn't downplay the military's role in Iraq. Read the whole thing, it's really good.

Dick Cheney Rocks

The Smoking Gun has a copy of Dick Cheney's requirements for his hotel room. Check out bullet 6.

All televisions tuned to FOX News (please let the Advance Office know if it is satellite or cable television)

Awesome.

More Christians in Afghanistan

Now that Abdul Rahman's story is getting more attention, two more Christians have been arrested for apostacy in Afghanistan. An additional Christian was beaten unconscious. All this for simply turning away from Islam (as supported by the Koran). Yes. Religion of peace.

Also, Bush had this to say about the ordeal.

"We expect them to honor the universal principle of freedom," Bush said. "I'm troubled when I hear, deeply troubled when I hear, the fact that a person who converted away from Islam may be held to account. That's not the universal application of the values that I talked about. I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship."

I'm not sure what he means by "held to account," but it is indeed troubling. The problem here, with all due respect Mr. Bush, is that Islam is inherently against individual freedoms. These people are trying to abide by universal human rights laws, while at the same time trying to have sharia law. The two are mutually exclusive. It's like saying you want to walk east while at the same time saying you want to walk west. It just doesn't work. Unless you push Karzai to somehow pull (or wean) his people away from their desire to institute theocratic law, this sort of thing is going to continue to happen.

Speaking of Bush; in a press conference recently, he mentioned the "improvements" that have been made since the end of the Taliban's rule.

There was no such thing as religious freedom. There was no such thing as being able to express yourself in the public square. There was no such thing as press conferences like this.

Hollow words, I must say, when we can see this sort of thing is still going on. When I see converted Christians able to openly profess their faith on the streets of Kabul without fear of death or beatings, THEN I will count it as an improvement. The terrorists may be gone, but the full concept of what democracy should look like among the Afghan people still has a ways to go. In other words, this situation proves they still need our help and will continue to need our help for years to come.

Oprah Rots Brains

Yeah I know, correlation does not prove causation, but it's empirical evidence that supports what I have believed for a while now. Personally, I prefer the History channel. I imagine TV in any form isn't as good for your brain as a book in any form would be, though.

Abdul Rahman Reports

Michelle Malkin is keeping up with this story, and has posted a few articles that are popping up. This one from the International Christian Concern has the most telling section:

Rahman, who is about 41 years old, converted from Islam to Christianity over 16 years ago. He was turned in to authorities last month by his own family for rejecting Islam. Afghanistan’s new constitution declares that no law can be contrary to the religion of Islam, which radical Muslims say demands the death penalty for any Muslim who abandons their faith. However, Afghanistan’s constitution also demands that the state protect the liberty and dignity of all people, and affirms the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in Article 18:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Now, I'm no fan of the U.N., but that's a pretty straight-forward, clear, declaration on how to exercise religious freedom. The problem is that Islam is not a religion that wants religious freedom. The closest it comes is requiring a tax on all non-Muslims to practice their faith. Any converted Muslims to another faith are to be killed according to the Koran (4:89). This is why the middle east, the arab world, or the Muslim world, are so far behind the rest of the world. The greatest advancements in society for the past 2-300 years has been because of democracies and individual freedoms. Something Islam could never be the progenitor of by its very nature. Also a reason people in the middle east are still living in medieval times.

New Blog

Amazingly, the Washington Post of all papers, has added a conservative blog to its ranks: "Red America." I'm blogrolling it even though he hasn't posted anything yet. This is simply because I want to see what passes for "conservative" to the WaPo. Who knows? Maybe I'll be suprised and it will be a death nell to so much liberal bias on the part of the MSM. I won't hold my breath though. Anyway, check it out! Michelle Malkin is endorsing it, so I imagine it will be at least somewhat good.

Supporting the Death Penalty

A man who converted to Christianity 16 years ago is on trial for his life in Afghanistan for doing so. For those that think America is the oppressive regime in the world, perhaps they should start taking notes. Michelle Malkin is a good place to start if you want to read more.

It isn't because he's practicing Christianity, but because he has rejected Islam. While people who were Christians to begin with are allowed to practice their faith under the new government, Muslims, by law, are forbidden to convert. Here is yet another example of how other countries get it wrong when trying to copy our example. Also notice that his family were the ones that turned him in. Such a loving faith.

Mexico: "America is an Exploiter"

The Mexicans; you know those people who can't seem to stay out of our country legally, the people whose government makes pamphlets on how to illegally cross our border, say that America is better off than other countries because we exploit them.

Seventy percent of Americans said the U.S. is wealthier because there is plenty of opportunity and work available in the United States, but 62 percent of Mexicans said the U.S. is wealthier because it exploits others, the Zogy Poll said.

This is exactly the liberal viewpoint that if someone has more or is better off than someone else, they MUST have done something to unfairly get ahead. Speaking of exploiting others, I wonder if they think Mexico is exploiting the U.S. in the same way they think we are exploiting other countries? I'm guessing not.

My theory is that the media in Mexico paints a dark picture of America for the benefit of its government. Apparently the media in Mexico is constantly afraid of how the current administration will react to critical news about them.

Although nominally independent, the news media are subject to a variety of mainly indirect economic and political pressures from the government. The Secretariat of Communi-cations and Transport supervises the news media, granting publishing and broadcast licenses and ensuring adherence to the media laws. Successive PRI governments have influenced the news media by paying individual journalists for favorable coverage, by restricting access to newsprint and ink (the state monopolizes the production of both, although this control was somewhat reduced under President Salinas), by withholding information from critical journalists, and especially by granting or withholding government advertising, an important source of revenue for the press. Many newspapers accept government payments for the insertion of official announcements disguised as editorials. Occasionally, the government provides indirect financial inducements to particular journalists (for example, by offering them part of the payment for official advertising run by their newspapers). Some journalists and opposition political parties have accused the government of trying to conceal the extent of official subsidies to journalists by redirecting payoffs through the PRI's Office of Information.

As a result, the people who read this media take these biased reports as objective facts and then form the opinion that America is bad. Indeed, it would seem Mexican media lives in constant fear of whoever is in power. They apparently haven't quite got the "freedom of press" part of the example we laid out (and what they're trying to follow) just yet.

Also, isn't it odd that in America the media issue is when the White House grants press passes to bloggers, while the Mexican problem is that they simply revoke press licenses to anyone they don't like?

Great Site

I was looking around on the internet for some good sites that would help me prepare for my basic training coming up in June. I found this site written by soldiers for soldiers and it's proving to be quite helpful. Not only on the physical training aspect (which I'm the most worried about), but also all the other things I can expect while in basic.

For you atheltes out there, I also found the army field manual FM 21-20, which deals with all aspects of physical training in the Army. It isn't just for military types, though. It can also be used as a guide for anyone looking to do well-rounded training or healthy living.

VDH is the MAN

I wonder if it's too late to have him come speak at my graduation? Probably. Every week this man wows me with his insight into international politics and American foreign policy. This week he discusses the finer points of why Europe sucks. Mor specifically, he talks about their hypocricy. I particularly liked his description of Europe vs. America's situation.

The powerful don't care as much to dress up their omnipotence with utopian affectations; the weaker, in lieu of military strength, have only such pretensions. And note how America's forging of closer ties with Japan, Australia, and India somehow does not meet European requisites of "multilateralism" — a neologism for deference to Europe.

It's easy for people to sit in an arm chair and dictate to the world how they think things should be based on academic exercises of "fairness" and whatnot, but it's a far different thing for those same people to actually act on those beliefs in the real world. Also, note the arrogance of the Europeans that we should care what they think when their relevance in the world doesn't exist.

If a group of people are not willing to take a stand for any code of moral values
or stand up for--let alone state--core principles other than "I disagree with America," then what point is there to listen to them or their perspectives? Even terrorists have a set or moral values and principles, and their effect in the world has been felt, as perverted as their views are.

MSM Shows Their Bias... Again

For years now, the MSM has been operating under the assumption that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Now the Army releases 9 documents refuting the claim and ABC news, like a good news source, reports on them... with comments.

Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

...

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

-That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
-That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
-That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
-That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document -- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

I've said before that the "anonymous sources" thing is hardly reliable. It all depends on who is asking us to trust something is true. Given the MSM's track record, I'm not willing to believe on the face of it that "anonymous sources" cited by the media are of the same reliability as the "anonymous sources" cited by people who actually know what's going on.

My point is, though, that the MSM NEVER makes this same editorial comment when it comes to wanting us to trust their sources or the worldview of its editors. In fact, they never make that comment when something from questionable sources supports their worldview. Maybe they have seen the error of their ways and we can expect this kind of help from the editors for us to understand the context of all "anonymous sources." Right.

Ginsburg Protests Our Sovereignty

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a justice on the supreme court said that our Supreme Court should use international law when interpreting the constitution. Most are (rightly) saying this is wrong, but I'm more interested in the nature of the United States with regard to this viewpoint.

America did not get where it is today without being a leader in the world. If America were using the rest of the world as a rubric for how it should govern her people, we would not have a democracy; in fact, we would have another monarchy. The reason our founding fathers started this great experiment was that they saw oppression and injustice throughout the world and said "there has to be a better way."

What makes America great is its leadership in human rights, freedom, and free trade throughout the world. There is no place on Earth where people breathe free that the U.S. didn't have some level of involvement. To suggest that we should be taking cues from other countries (least of all South Africa), is antithetical to the intent of this country's founding fathers and betrays everything subsequent generations have bled for to preserve.

Perhaps Ginsburg should remember this before suggesting the supposed superiority of other nations. Funny she made these comments outside the country (ala Dixie Chicks).

Black. White. Stupid.

LaShawn Barber wrote a great piece on the FX show "Black.White." She actually watched the whole thing, which is more than I could do. Since it's a TV show, all we know is what the editors decided to put into the final cuts of each episode. It's just as likely these people didn't experience any racist situations for 99% of their tenure in this makeup; however, what we see is only going to be the stuff that follows with the assumption of the editors in a Michael Moore fashion. You can see this is clearly evident that the people making the show have their own preconceptions of race in how they "trained" the participants. Things like "You have to learn to talk black," or "this is the black handshake," are riddled throughout the show. Apparently speaking with correct grammar is "white."

The point of the show was evident. The white family, on the defensive the whole time, was supposed to experience “racist” America as blacks. They were obviously tense and very careful about what they said, which resulted in lines like this from Carmen: “I love black. Visually and heart-wise, there’s a warmth.”

Whatever that means.

That's a good point. I'm so sick of being defensive about race all the time. If I'm white, and somehow wrong a black person (no matter what the situation) or don't apologize for slave traders in the 18th century, it's racist! Blacks in this country have become so hyper-sensitive to racism (because there isn't any real racism to speak of anymore) that things like how people try to avoid looking at blacks is "racist."

In another so-called racist encounter, Brian (no make-up) and Bruno (in blackface) were walking down the street and passed a group of whites. Brian asked Bruno if he noticed how the people avoided looking at them. Bruno didn’t notice. The two men clearly have different outlooks on life. The overly sensitive Brian has been conditioned to see signs of prejudice everywhere, real or perceived, and the optimistic Bruno hasn’t. “I’m trying to enlighten you to the fact that you’ve got to approach life in a certain way and not expect you’re being mistreated because you’re black,” said Bruno.

I think this all goes to prove a further point that civil rights leaders have done their job so well, that they have utterly convinced an entire group of people that they are victims by birthright.

Army Update II

Well I'm back from my board review and a few papers heavier. I passed my board review and upon completing basic training will be going to Officer Candidate School and will be a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. I must say it's been a long road, and I'm glad it's over. Now begins the fun part!

I'm shipping out to Ft. Jackson, SC for my basic training on June 7th beginning 9 weeks of learning about the Army... the hard way. After that, I will go straight to Ft. Benning, GA for OCS and upon completing that will be a full-fledged second lieutenant! I will still have my officer basic course (OBC) to take after that and probably won't be completely done with the "entrance" learning until sometime in February. I'll have my branch assignment by then and will know more specifically what I am doing in the Army.

After finishing all the paperwork, my dad was the one who gave me the oath swearing me into the Army--no turning back now! I'll post pictures of it as soon as I can.

Army Update

I will be leaving for Denver tomorrow morning to finally go to my board review. I will be discussing my suitability with the Army with a panel of 3 officers who will make a recommendation to the convening authority on whether or not I should be an officer in the United States Army.

I had a chance to talk to a Captain (who also went to UW) about the process and what to expect. It was quite informative and pretty much what I expected. Basically, they are looking for people who aren't just in it for themselves... people who can be trusted with soldier's lives. They also aren't looking for "cheesy answers" like "I've always wanted to be an Army officer since I was 12." There is such a thing as a BS meter, and that is the sort of thing that sets it off.

Anyway, I just learned about this Tuesday afternoon and had to ramp up my homework schedule to get everything done in time since next week is spring break. I can't say I'm happy about the short notice, but I'm dealing with it. Sometimes situations call for improvisation. After this Thursday/Friday thing, I will be going to visit the parental units and introduce them to the girlfriend (she's pretty excited about it). As a result, I will probably not be posting until AT LEAST Monday... possibly later. I'll give a debriefing of how the interview went. It will be nice to know up or down if the Army is going to work out--it's been a pretty long wait.

Another Loss for Liberals

There has been talk in the news about universities around the country complaining that allowing military recruiters on campus as a condition for receiving federal funding is unconstitutional. The contention of law professors (liberal academics?) was that they disagreed with the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and were therefore having their first amendment rights of free speech violated. Luckily, the supreme court saw straight through this obvious military-hating crap and disagreed with these professors 8-0 (Alito didn't vote).

So illegal abortions in SD, and military recruiters doing their thing in broad daylight on campuses? What is this country coming to?! I would say it's erasing 40 years of wrong-headed ideologies. It's not much, but it's a start. Dean Polsby's comment to PowerLine sums it up nicely.

This is really a stinging rebuke, not only to FAIR but to an entire industry that has become complacent and self-indulgent. Many law professors really do believe, with the late Justice Brennan, that their own strongly-held policy preferences are all encoded somehow in the Constitution. This is a timely reminder that it just isn’t so.

Though he's talking about activist law professors, the quote can easily apply to liberal dogma as well because the lines between the two are quite blurry.

Aborting Abortions

So they banned abortions in South Dakota and, of course, the anti-life (a.k.a. "pro-choice") crowd is upset. I think this is interesting because my own view on abortion is that they should be legal only because a determined woman is going to get it done and I would rather at least one person survive--even if it is a murderer--than both die in some back alley with a coat hanger. That said, women who have this done will get no comfort from me for doing such a thing because it is still wrong.

If this law is upheld by the Supreme Court, and it WILL get there mark my words, it will present an interesting experiment to see if it actually does curb the number of abortions. My guess is women will simply go to another state to have them done; however, it's nice to see a state take a moral stand on the side of life.

This is a chance for the Supreme Court to uphold the tenth amendment and affirm South Dakota's law as constitutional; unlike Roe v. Wade, which has never had constitutional ground on which to stand.

Muslim Evangelism

A UNC-Chapel Hill graduate decided he would try killing students of his alma mater for (suprise!) Allah. He's openly admitting to wanting to kill for God and people aren't calling this terrorism. I'm not sure about you, but trying to kill people is not a good way to convince them of the superiority of your ideas.

The idea also goes for those Christian evangelists who go out saying "you are going to burn in hell, sinner," while completely neglecting the doctrine of God's grace through Christ.

Another thing I thought about is how is our country is distinguishing between a terrorist and a criminal? I mean, serial killers usually have no other goal than to feed their own delusions while a terrorist usually has some religious or political objective in mind... but they, like terrorists, go around killing lots of innocent people--or at least try to do that. So if a serial killer isn't a terrorist, but this guy is, where does our legal system draw the line? I've wondered this for a while now because if the definition is too broad, we could have people who speed be classified as terrorists, but if it's too narrow nobody will fall under the definition "terrorist," and the whole thing as a legal concept won't mean anything.

I'm Skipping the Oscars Tonight

The reason is fairly simple: I'm sick of people in Hollywood heaping praise on movies that are just slightly below the category of pond scum. Drudge linked to a Reuter's story that "Brokeback Mountain" is the favorite to win many awards this year. Apparently, I'm not the only one to notice this, either.

The gay cowboys of "Brokeback Mountain" lassoed the best feature prize at the Independent Spirit Awards, the art-house world's equivalent of the Oscars, on Saturday, a day before the picture competes for a leading eight honors at the Academy Awards.

Why people are so willing to praise movies like this one that promote immorality, I will never understand. I don't even have a problem that these guys are Gay butt-pounders, but I do have an issue with their erotic love outside of their marriage to their wives. This film basically says "do what feels good, even if it seems wrong." In other words: "even if feeling good hurts the ones you're already lying to, and who legitimately love you, do it anyway." What a great moral lesson that couldn't possibly have any repercussions later on in real life. Ratings for the Oscars has been going down since "Titanic" where they had the highest audience ever and is it any wonder?

One thing I think Hollywood would be very slow to admit is that movies that promote Christian values or themes ("Passion," "Narnia," etc.) are the highest grossing films per invested dollar than the crap they continually try to ram down the public's throat regarding moral relativism and anti-Americanism ("Brokeback Mountain," "Syriana.

It Happens to the Best of Us

As teachers are fond of pointing out--especially my mom--don't rely on spell check because computers are stupid. Case in point. He has earned our mocking and we should rightly mock him for doing what is drilled into college freshmen as being a bad thing. HOWEVER, we must also remember that such things happen to us all the time and should be just as good-natured about taking the criticism as we are giving it when it happens to us.

I'm pretty sure that while law as an academic endeavor is fun, enjoyable and compelling, its process is quite dull, boring and uninteresting. I know this because I've read contracts before. Just read any liability statements or the fine print on car commercials (if it's on long enough) and try to tell me you don't need a nap after that stuff! Anyway, some "mild ribbing" would seem to be a good way to keep good-natured about a boring, but necessary, process. Also, it's to law's discredit he had to file a reply brief telling the court to consider "sea sponge" as sua sponte.

Let's Hear it for Colorado!

...and all those politically-minded high schoolers. I am, in a way, proud that I can say I went to school in this state reading about this. On the other hand, I'm pretty pissed off that a teacher like this is able to teach students his America-hating beliefs.

Michelle Malkin and Slapstick Politics have a transcript and linkage for more.

I Have A Question

Do you suppose Victor Hanson ever gets sick of being right all the time? I actually haven't been keeping up with his papers lately, but came across this one and (like almost all of his papers) it was a home-run. He again says what I think with the words I can't seem to find.

Whatever the sordid or brutal motives and actions of the Crusaders, they were still for the most part driven by a spiritual imperative to restore the Holy Land to the Christian civilization that had defined the Middle East for six centuries before being violently transformed by the armies of Allah. For the most aggressively imperialistic culture in the history of the world to whine now about Western imperialism — and be taken seriously by Westerners — testifies to the intellectual corruption endemic in the West.

The whole thing is absolute gold. It really is worth wondering: what is worth killing and dying for? Personally, I would be willing to die if it meant irradicating Islam from the face of the Earth. Not because I want to die, but because its influence has led to so much pain and suffering for humanity since its inception that it can only be inspired by the devil. I know this sounds like I'm some ignorant "simple" Christian fundie, but I truly believe this.

I am not saying that open hostile war is the answer. I'm simply saying that to die for the cause of eliminating this religion would be a noble death. Whether that's being beheaded for witnessing, or otherwise.

I think there are many in the west who need to reevaluate their convictions and what they believe if they ever hope to understand the level of evil and determination among militant Muslims.