Monday, January 29, 2007

He Was Almost Our President - SKerry!

John Kerry Slams His Own Country At Davos

Jan 27 2007 7:52PM
http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php

Here’s John Kerry speaking while sitting just a few feet away from Mohammad Khatami, the former President of the Iranian terror state.

Kerry was asked about whether the U.S. government had failed to adequately engage Iran’s government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.

Kerry said the Bush administration has failed in addressing a number of foreign policy issues.

“When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said.

“So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”…

Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”


The Bush administration walked away from Kyoto? Methinks the Senator is revising history:

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification. . . .

The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue.

It was a unanimous Senate (with five abstainers) as well as the Clinton administration who walked away from Kyoto. The current administration walked away from Kyoto as well, but for the same reasons as the Clinton administration. Kerry himself, in fact, voted for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution to keep us out of Kyoto. Yet here he is now, a decade later, dishonestly accusing the current administration of isolating this country from the world on an issue like Kyoto that Kerry himself opposed for the very same reasons the Bush administration opposes it.

Why should we believe anything that comes out of this guy’s mouth? It’s bad enough that he’s sitting next to one of America’s enemies bad mouthing his own country, but he’s flat-out lying in what he’s saying as well.

Oh, and stopping off to give an autograph to a guy who supports executing gays for being gay is a real nice touch. But don’t expect any of the gay rights groups to hold Kerry accountable for that, though.

Monday, January 15, 2007

The Future Is Now

I'll always remember as a child whenever you would see an artists rendition of what the future would be like or would read a sci-fi writers discription of the post 2000 world, it always included flying cars and silver suits. Well, we still don't have flying cars (probably a government conspiracy, but that's for another rant) but we now have SILVER SUITS!



---------------------------------------------

Dolce & Gabbana out of this world with space glamour


By Jo Winterbottom Sun Jan 14, 1:43 PM ET

MILAN (Reuters) - Milan's fashion designers, having put up the for sale signs onwinter collections, launched their ideas on Sunday for what men should be wearing next autumn -- and Dolce & Gabbana said it would be space-age glitter.

Dario Fo may have lamented last week that catwalk shows are boring but Dolce & Gabbana's, themed on the film "2001 -- A Space Odyssey," won audience applause and "overwhelmed" Jake Shears of glam rock band the Scissor Sisters.

Models in space-suit style zip-heavy jumpsuits in whites and metallic colours strode down the catwalk, watched by over 1,000 reporters, buyers and photographers, as the lights flicked from blue to white and the film's soundtrack filled the converted cinema.

Sharp-lined suits echoed the space theme, also using metallic colours, while razor-thin ties in black, gold and gun metal over white shirts poked out under both the jumpsuits and the slicker suits. There was metallic knitwear -- in both chunky, country-style shapes and slim-fitting.

"I was a bit overwhelmed that there was so much stuff that just looked fantastic," Shears told Reuters after the show.

He picked out bronze metallic suits and white leather lean tailored jackets over jeans as especially attractive to wear.

"I love the slim silhouette. I'm crazy about it because I know that it fits me, because I'm a little guy," he said.

The straight, slim silhouette strutted down Versace's catwalks too, where platinum-blonde Donatella Versace sent her models out in black, military-style coats and suits.

The designer had already moved away from her trademark flamboyant style at the menswear spring-summer show in June 2006 and Sunday's offering continued the more muted approach.

SPLASHES OF Color

Kingfisher flashes or red scars of plastic livened up black jumpers and black-and-white blooms of bowties added a twist to elegant, somber evening wear.

Versace's "Noble Chic" show included some women's wear too, with little black dresses sporting similar flashy splashes teamed with achingly high shiny heeled shoes.

Men's fashion shows do not attract as many attendees as those for women's wear, but Milan this week still hosts over 1,200 photographers and reporters, along with major international buyers.

From January 14 to January 18 there are 51 shows for 50 brands -- there's a double helping of Giorgio Armani on Wednesday -- at venues across the city, from Dolce & Gabbana's converted cinema to the stock market.

Fo himself will introduce Romeo Gigli's show on January 18, closing the week's events. The 80-year-old playwright will grace a catwalk that will be surrounded by life-sized reproductions of Renaissance paintings of an imperial triumph.

Other big names on show during the week include Roberto Cavalli, Prada and Gucci.

Belstaff, the epitome of British biker jackets which is now owned by the Malenotti family, promises a collection inspired by Steve McQueen for Wednesday, according to Italian Vanity Fair.

"The shows are ... a great sounding board and a great public relations instrument," Dolce & Gabbana told Reuters last week.

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Evil Woman, Some Things Are Off Limits!

Woman Charged With Malicious Castration

Dec 29 9:18 PM US/Eastern

A woman was charged with malicious castration for allegedly attacking a man during a Christmas party, police said. Rebecca Arnold Dawson, 34, is accused of grabbing the genitals of a 38-year-old man during a fight that erupted early Tuesday morning at a party hosted by the man's girlfriend. All three were heavily intoxicated, Lillington Police Chief Frank Powers said.

"I believe he needed more than 50 stitches to repair the damage, but he is back home at this point," police Cpl. Brad Stevens said Friday. "All we can tell you is that the injury was done with her hands. There were no weapons used."

Witnesses gave conflicting stories to police, who discovered a bloody scene after being called to the home for a domestic disturbance, Powers said. Other details weren't provided.

North Carolina law describes malicious castration as cutting off, maiming or disfiguring a person's genitals with the intent to hurt or render the victim impotent.

Dawson, who was released from jail Wednesday on $50,000 bond, also was charged with assault causing serious bodily injury, malicious conduct by a prisoner, and damage to government property for damaging a police cruiser. She also allegedly spit on an officer, Stevens said.

The arrest was the first of its kind in Lillington, a town about 30 miles south of Raleigh, Powers said.


------------------------------------------------------


My balls shrivel up into my body cavity just thinking about this.


.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Welcome to Londonistan

Mohammed overtakes George in list of most popular names

By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:02am GMT 21/12/2006

Mohammed, and its most common alternative spelling Muhammad, are now more popular babies' names in England and Wales than George, reflecting the diverse ethnic mix of the population.

The Office for National Statistics said there were 2,833 baby boys called Mohammed in 2006.

The name is 22nd in the list of most popular boys' names, moving up a place from last year.

Spelled Muhammad, it is the 44th most popular name and enters the top 50 for the first time along with Noah, Oscar, Lucas and Rhys.

There were 2,833 babies called Mohammed born in 2006 and 1,422 called Muhammad. The total exceeds the number of Georges (3,386) or Josephs (3,755).

The list of popular babies' names for 2006 also shows that the cult of celebrity is changing the baptismal tide.

There were 38 babies called Cruz (after David Beckham's third child) this year, raising the name from 1,508th to 650th. There were 14 Peaches (after the daughter of Bob Geldof), raising that name from 4,509th to 1,561st.

Jack has been the top boys' name for 12 years but Olivia has risen three places from last year. Last year's top girl's name, Jessica, dropped to number three, There are just three new names in the top 50 girls' names list - Imogen, Sophia and Anna.

The ONS said some of the girls' names gaining the most popularity this year were Evie (21), Freya (23), Poppy (30) and Jasmine (31).

As usual, the boys' top 50 is more stable, but Harrison jumped six places to number 36. Alfie, Cameron and Henry all rose five places to numbers 16, 30 and 39 respectively.

------------------------------------------

I think I read somewhere that the #1 name in Texas last year was Jose. We are facing the same problem here, but at least our immigrants aren't plotting to blow us up!

Friday, December 15, 2006

Fool! (More From America's Most Embarrassing Persona)

Carter Nixes Debate With Outspoken Prof

Dec 15 2:42 PM US/Eastern

Former President Carter turned down a request to debate Alan Dershowitz about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying the outspoken Harvard law professor "knows nothing about the situation."

Carter, author of a new book advocating "peace not apartheid" in the region, said he will not visit Brandeis University to discuss the book because the university requested he debate Dershowitz.

"I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz," Carter said in Friday's Boston Globe. "There is no need ... to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

The school's debate request, Carter said, is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory.

Carter brokered the 1978 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. He said the goal of his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," is to provoke dialogue and action.

"There is no debate in America about anything that would be critical of Israel," he said.

The reference to "apartheid," the word for South Africa's former system of state-sanctioned racial segregation, has angered some rabbis because it appears to equate that system with the treatment of Palestinians.

"President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to encourage more debate; then why won't he debate?" said Dershowitz, a vocal First Amendment advocate who has worked for O.J. Simpson and other high-profile clients.

Brandeis was founded in 1948 as a nonsectarian university under the sponsorship of the American Jewish community. Carter said he initially was interested in going there.

"I thought it would be a good idea to go to a campus that had a lot of Jewish students and get a lot questions," he said. But then the initial proposal evolved into a plan for a debate.

Article HERE


----------------------------------------


Foolish liberals always avoid debates which may involve factually based arguements and empirical evidence. Most of their "theories" fall apart under careful scrutiny. Sure would have been fun to watch Dershowitz mop the floor with this tired old blowhard!

Friday, December 08, 2006

Wake Up And Smell The Jihad

The Jihad: We're All in This Together

By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 8, 2006

Don Feder delivered the following speech to the Americans for A Safe Israel National Conference (“America And Israel – The Present Danger”) held in New York City on December 3, 2006. – The Editors.

You have a problem. It’s a problem shared by Jews in Hebron, Serbs in Kosovo, Hindus in the Kashmir, Catholics in Lebanon, and Americans walking the streets of New York.

Consider the inter-connectedness of the following incidents, all of which took place in the past few months:

* In Indonesia, three Christian schoolgirls were beheaded.
* In Iraq, a Syrian Orthodox priest was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.
* In Somalia, a nun was shot to death as she left the hospital where she worked, tending the sick and dying.
* In Lebanon, just days ago, a cabinet minister was assassinated.
* In Britain, authorities uncovered a conspiracy in which native-born Brits plotted to blow up several trans-Atlantic flights, killing as many as 3,000.
* In Afghanistan, suicide bombers are at work again.
* In Iraq, they never stopped. Additionally, the week before last, a group of worshippers were abducted from a mosque, doused with gasoline and burned to death in what’s described as “sectarian violence.”
* In France, a high school philosophy teacher is in hiding after very credible death threats following publication of a September 19th commentary in Le Figaro.
* Some 139 people died in riots in Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – following the publication of Danish cartoons.
* Europe is experiencing the worst wave of anti-Semitic violence since Kristallnacht. The former director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum reports there an average of 12 assaults a day on Jews in Paris.
* In Kosovo, 90 percent of Serbs gave been ethnically cleansed from the province since 1999. The rest live in a state of siege.
* In Mumbai, India, a series of blasts killed almost 200.
* In Gaza, terrorists recently celebrated the latest “ceasefire” by raining more rockets on southern Israel.
* And the leader of more than a billion Catholics received death threats and demands that he convert after giving a speech in which he called for a balance of faith and reason, and quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor.

What do the foregoing have in common?

To quote columnist Mark Steyn, in his excellent book America Alone: The End of The World As We Know It, it begins with an “I” and ends with a “slam.”

I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists. I am saying that almost all terrorists are Muslims – the mother of all no-brainers – and that Islam is a faith that is, shall we say, terrorism-friendly. I challenge you to name another faith in which your entry into Heaven is assured by killing those of another faith in a holy war.

I am not saying that Muslims are inherently bad people. Most Muslims are like most people everywhere. I am saying that there are elements in Islam that incline adherents to commit the crimes detailed a moment ago.

I am saying – and let me be clear about this – that a faith embraced by as many as 1.3 billion people worldwide contains within it the seeds of the evil we see all around us – seeds which require only the right conditions to germinate. It all goes back to the Koran.

READ MORE HERE

-------------------------------------------

Great article! It should be posted on the front page of every newspaper around the globe. The liberal mentality and political correctness will be the downfall of this country and other modern, democratic, free-thinking societies around the world.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Santa Claus Is Coming To Town - NOT!

The Islamic Empire Strikes Back

December 05, 2006
by Bob Parks

Political Correctness will be our undoing.

Secret Santa
According to Sher Zieve, “Due to concerns regarding Austria’s growing Muslim population, the country’s officials are said to have banned references to St. Nick—also known as Santa Claus—in its kindergarten schools. The Muslim immigration into Austria is said to be at 400,000 and growing.”

“As Muslims continue to increase their populations in Western countries more western traditions are being removed—said to be attributed to fears of offending Muslim groups. However, Austrian officials said that the reason for the banning of St. Nick is that the bearded figure “evokes fear” in children.”

What kind of pansy-ass kids are we talking about here? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met one kid who was afraid of Santa Claus. What’s up with Austria?

While “Christmas” is being systematically removed from our national lexicon, most reminders of our national holiday are being cleansed so we don’t offend one group: Muslims. So much for peaceful assimilation.

It’s always struck me funny how some groups migrate to a country in search of better opportunity, while later attempting to make their new home resemble that which they fled. Christmas is an international celebration and is harmless.

No word during the Christmas season about jihad or fatwas or shahada. No one who doesn’t conform to the Christmas holiday is deemed an infidel marked for elimination. What’s so offensive about Christmas? Granted, political correctness frowns on anything that uses the image of an old white man, but cut Santa some slack. Santa has never burned anyone alive, bombed a crowded shopping mall, hijacked airliners, enslaved women, and Santa isn’t Jewish. What’s the problem?

Santa gives toys to children. The horror….

Let’s be consistent. In many Muslim countries, Sharia law and customs are observed, as Islam is the dominant culture. In Western nations, Christians, for the most part, are dominant thus their customs are observed. However, in more and more places, those customs are sidelined as they “offend” a Muslim minority.

One could reason that Muslims do the research and find out what the customs are before immigrating to a new culture, and if those customs may offend, look elsewhere. But thanks to political correctness, and those who skillfully use it as a weapon, everyone is being forced to change for one group. That change is not out of courtesy, but out of fear of traditional riotous uprising, or other threats of violence that statistically follows some Muslims wherever they settle. National laws are being suspended in certain areas to appease Muslims, and we in America now have a Muslim in the United States Congress. We know what’s coming.

Santa is welcome in my home, and Austria has gone over that slippery slope. Be ready to entertain more demands in the future. That is a certainty.

-------------------------------------------

Read more from the great Bob Parks HERE

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Racist Rant or Clever Marketing Ploy??

'SEINFELD' SOARS ON RACIST RANT

By DON KAPLAN

November 30, 2006 -- THE K-K-Kramer scandal murdered Michael Richards' career - but it's doing wonders for sales of the latest "Seinfeld" DVD.

Season 7 of the popular sitcom is outselling the Season 6 set (released on the same day last year) by more than 75 percent, and more than 90 percent over season 5 at some online DVD retailers, according to TMZ.com.

On Barnes and Nobel's Web site, the DVD set is the sixth-best selling and Amazon ranks it in 12th place.

"I think the only explanation that could be is that there's a Kramer curiosity factor," says Dr. Robert Thompson, director of Syracuse University's Center for the Study of Popular Television.

"I can understand that, after what happened, there's a resurgent interest in 'Seinfeld,' and that seems to be expressing itself through people watching the show more and buying more DVDs.

"Boy, is it ever weird to watch 'Seinfeld' now," Thompson added.

Richards "carries baggage, when you see this happy-go-lucky guy barge into that apartment and talk about being 'master of his domain.' That really means something different now."

A video-phone recording of Richards exploding in a hateful, racist rant while performing his stand-up comedy act earlier this month leaked onto the Internet just days before the season 7 DVD set was released.

-----------------------------------------------

Sounds like an episode of Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Fly U.S. Air! (Safest Airlines In America!)


What Can I Do to Make Your Flight More Uncomfortable

By Ann Coulter

FrontPageMagazine.com | November 24, 2006

Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.

Witnesses said the imams stood to do their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding, chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah" – coincidentally, the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died.

Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn't perform was the signing of last wills and testaments.

After boarding, the imams did not sit together, and some asked for seat belt extensions, although none were morbidly obese. Three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage.

Also, they were Muslims.

The idea that a Muslim boycott against US Airways would hurt the airline proves that Arabs are utterly tone-deaf. This is roughly the equivalent of Cindy Sheehan taking a vow of silence. How can we hope to deal with people with no sense of irony? The next thing you know, New York City cab drivers will be threatening to bathe.

Come to think of it, the whole affair may have been a madcap advertising scheme cooked up by US Airways.

It worked with me. US Airways is my official airline now. Northwest, which eventually flew the Allah-spouting Muslims to their destinations, is off my list. You want to really hurt a U.S. air carrier's business? Have Muslims announce that it's their favorite airline.

The clerics had been attending an imam conference in Minneapolis (imam conference slogan: "What Happens in Minneapolis – Actually, Nothing Happened in Minneapolis"). But instead of investigating the conference, the government is now investigating my favorite airline.

What threat could Muslims flying from Minnesota to Arizona be?

Three of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 received their flight training in Arizona. Long before the attacks, an FBI agent in Phoenix found it curious that so many Arabs were enrolled in flight school. But the FBI rebuffed his request for an investigation on the grounds that his suspicions were based on the same invidious racial profiling that has brought US Airways under investigation and into my good graces.

Lynne Stewart's client, the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, is serving life in prison in a maximum-security lock-up in Minnesota. One of the six imams removed from the US Airways plane was blind, so Lynne Stewart was the one missing clue that would have sent all the passengers screaming from the plane.

Wholly apart from the issue of terrorism, don't we have a seller's market for new immigrants? How does a blind Muslim get to the top of the visa list? Is there a shortage of blind, fanatical clerics in this country that I haven't noticed? Couldn't we get some Burmese with leprosy instead? A 4-year-old could do a better job choosing visa applicants than the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

One of the stunt-imams in US Airways' advertising scheme, Omar Shahin, complained about being removed from the plane, saying: "Six scholars in handcuffs. It's terrible."

Yes, especially when there was a whole conference of them! Six out of 150 is called "poor law enforcement." How did the other 144 "scholars" get off so easy?

Shahin's own "scholarship" consisted of continuing to deny Muslims were behind 9-11 nearly two months after the attacks. On Nov. 4, 2001, The Arizona Republic cited Shahin's "skepticism that Muslims or bin Laden carried out attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon." Shahin complained that the government was "focusing on the Arabs, the Muslims. And all the evidence shows that the Muslims are not involved in this terrorist act."

In case your memory of that time is hazy, within three days of the attack, the Justice Department had released the names of all 19 hijackers – names like Majed Moqed, Ahmed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, and Ahmed Alnami. The government had excluded all but 19 passengers as possible hijackers based on extensive interviews with friends and family of nearly every passenger on all four flights. Some of the hijackers' seat numbers had been called in by flight attendants on the planes.

By early October, bin Laden had produced a videotape claiming credit for the attacks. And by Nov. 4, 2001, the New York Times had run well over 100 articles on the connections between bin Laden and the hijackers – even more detailed and sinister than the Times' flowcharts on neoconservatives!

Also, if I remember correctly, al-Qaida had taken out full-page ads in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter thanking their agents for the attacks.

But now, on the eve of the busiest travel day in America, these "scholars" have ginned up America's PC victim machinery to intimidate airlines and passengers from noticing six imams chanting "Allah" before boarding a commercial jet.


-------------------------------------------


Discrimination = Good Sense!

Don't want to be profiled? Stopping being the primary cause of global terrorism! So called "moderate" muslims, if there is indeed such an animal, need to take their religion back. Until then, I'm flying U.S. Air!!!

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

What If You Released An Album And Nobody Cared? (Or, Incoherent Ramblings Of An Irrelevant Pop Star)

Cat Stevens releases first album since embracing Islam in 1970s

Mon Nov 13, 11:50 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - Yusuf Islam, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens before he became a Muslim in the 1970s, has released his first commercial album for nearly three decades -- but reviewers seemed unimpressed.
ADVERTISEMENT

"An Other Cup" went on sale in along with a single, "Heaven/Where True Love Goes", while the album was to be released in the United States on Tuesday.

With his telegenic, part-Greek good looks, Stevens scored international hits in the 1960 and 1970s with songs like "Wild World", "Moonshadow" and "My Lady d'Arbanville".

But in 1977 he decided to hang up his guitar -- changing his name and retiring from it all after receiving a copy of the Koran, he pledged to devote his life to the Islamic faith.

The singer-songwriter -- who hit the headlines in 2004 when a US-bound plane he was in was diverted due to post-9/11 security measures -- said in a recent BBC television interview that the new record was a return to his roots.

"It's me, so it's going to sound like that of course ... This is the real thing," he said Monday.

"When my son brought the guitar back into the house, you know, that was the turning point. It opened a flood of, of new ideas and music which I think a lot of people would connect with."

Initial reviews of the new album were not over-enthusiastic, however.

"The voice that skipped through 'Moonshadow' is wearier but intact," said newspaper The Observer, giving the record two stars out of five.

"There are melodies that, like that track, ring both sweet and mournful but, though the songs are all praises to the Creator (or His prophet), there is little sense of joy. Mostly the mood is glum piety," it added.

And it added: "Surely, as he sings on 'Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood', Yusuf's 'intentions are good'. A pearly grin would help convince, though -- Cat Stevens had lots of those."

Rolling Stone music magazine's reviewer was less ambiguous.

"Back in the 70s, Cat Stevens was a bearded guy who tagged pop-friendly folkie melodies to barely sufferable hippie-isms. Then he became a devout Muslim, changed his name ... and stopped making pop records," it said.

Three decades later, "'Heaven/Where True Love Goes' sounds like it could have been the theme song to a family-friendly Eighties sitcom; elsewhere, Islam offers cheesed-out sweetness such as "Green Fields, Golden Sands."

"Sufferable for sure, but hard to recommend," its reviewer said.


-------------------------------------------------


Since he has been caught funding terrorist groups before, I wonder if he will use the proceeds from the sale of this album for that purpose. (all $13.49 of it.) You know there will be one or two idiots out there who will actually buy it.

If he does a tour of the U.S., maybe he can sneak a dirty bomb into the country by concealing it in his guitar??

Also, never heard if he recalled the personal fatwa he declared on Salmon Rushdie a few years back. He's just as nutty as the rest of them!


-

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Kerry Still Stuck In Vietnam

Hey, Stupid

If you’re reading this in Iraq and wearing an American uniform, John Kerry is smarter than you.

By Ed Morrow

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.”

That was what Sen. John Kerry inarticulately said to a bunch of college kids, skipping classes to attend a Democrat rally at Pasadena City College in California. And then Kerry gave a small, smug smile. With American troops on the battlefield, fighting and dying, he had exhibited his superior intellect by insulting their character and intelligence. If only they had applied themselves in school, instead of lazily failing to make “an effort,” they wouldn’t have to dodge bullets in Baghdad. (As it happens, the men and women who serve in the American military are better educated than the general populace.)

After the explosion of criticism that followed his comments, Kerry indignantly refused to apologize and, without a trace of humor, declared the insulting remark was a “botched joke.” He angrily declared, “It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country, lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.” This wildly contorted attack was dazzling in its spin and sputter. Kerry, who attained national notice as the face of an antiwar group that used stories told by fake Vietnam vets to brand real vets as war criminals, was insisting that military service made him immune from criticism from non-vets. “Despicable Republicans” and “right-wing nut jobs” were the ones at fault for his remarks being taken literally. We were supposed to know, if we have studied hard and done our homework, that he was insulting the president of the United States, stupid George W. Bush, and not America’s military. That was what that little contemptuous smile had been meant to telegraph. Bush was a slacker frat-rat in school and we are now stuck in Iraq because of his bad study habits and not because we are in a war against Islamist terrorists who have killed thousands of our citizenry and want to kill as many more as they possibly can.

Throughout the 2004 presidential race, Bush’s stupidity was one of the principal themes of the Kerry campaign. Bush = Stupid, while Kerry = Genius. Indeed, liberal mental superiority has been the overarching conceit of liberalism; conservatives are troglodytes, glowering out from their dark caves at a world they only dimly understand, while liberals are just one or two mental leaps short of transcending this mortal coil and ascending into one of those glittering, non-corporeal energy beings that are sometimes featured in science fiction productions heavy on pedantry and short on space babes and explosions.

More HERE.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE (11/06/2006)

Check out the spin from the NY Slimes:

NY Times revisionist history!

Disgusting!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

More From Al Bore

Al Gore visits Berkeley, charges up Prop. 87 rally

SAYS MEASURE TO FUND GREEN ENERGY HELPS TACKLE CLIMATE CRISIS

By Rick Jurgens
MediaNews

Former Vice President Al Gore appeared in Berkeley on Monday to lend his celebrity and reputation as a crusader against global warming to a measure on California's Nov. 7 ballot that would tax oil companies to raise $4 billion for green energy projects.

``I'm here to change peoples' minds on the climate crisis and to support Prop 87,'' Gore called to a group of reporters after he emerged from the ``100 miles per gallon'' Toyota Prius that brought him to a noontime rally in a sun-drenched park behind Berkeley's City Hall.

His motorcade also included three motorcycles, two limousines and a Dodge Ram 1500 light duty truck.

Gore, flanked by signs proclaiming Yes on 87 and promoting the Web site of a Berkeley company that installs solar energy systems, spoke to hundreds of supporters who had passed between metal barriers and gathered in front of speakers pulsating rock and reggae music.

Organizers estimated the crowd at 3,000. Police at the scene had no estimate.

Like a candidate delivering a stump speech, Gore ranged over a wide political terrain in his 24-minute speech. He compared those who have denied the threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to those who ignored warnings before Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.

Gore likened the global-warming crisis to having a sick child: No responsible parent would delay treatment once a diagnosis is rendered, he said.

Proposition 87 would tax oil companies for oil they take from California, raising about $4 billion for use in developing alternative energy sources with a goal of reducing the state's dependence on gas and diesel by 25 percent within 10 years.

It's backed by environmental, health and other groups who say it will reduce foreign-oil dependence while nurturing cleaner energy and mitigating global warming. California is the only oil-producing state without such a drilling tax, they note, but the measure's foes -- funded mostly by San Ramon-based Chevron and other oil companies -- say the state already puts property, sales and other taxes on oil.

No on 87 campaign spokesman Nick DeLuca attended Gore's speech and later Monday said it underscored the ``split between the big picture and the actual initiative.'' Oil companies, business groups and other opponents of the measure agree on reducing foreign-oil dependence and stopping global warming, he said, but the measure poses problems: a tax that would decrease domestic production and increase foreign-oil imports, and a new bureaucracy exempt from competitive bidding and some conflict-of-interest rules.

Oil companies, which face the loss of profits from hundreds of California oil wells, had ponied up $73 million through last Friday to attack Proposition 87 with an advertising barrage that argues that the tax would increase fuel prices.

Chevron, the state's largest oil producer, had kicked in $30 million. Supporters of Proposition 87 said Chevron wrote an additional $5 million check on Monday. The company did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

Proposition 87's supporters have stayed in the fight, largely on the strength of an unprecedented $40 million contribution from a Hollywood producer and real estate heir Stephen Bing. Gore acknowledged Bing's presence at Monday's rally, but he did not speak.

--------------------------------------

I generally refrain from speaking about Al Bore since he's not worth my time or effort and is probably the most ridiculous living politician, but I'll make an exception today. (My apologies to Jimmy Carter, your theories are ever bit as outrageous and you're still an embarrassment to this country, but Al has you on overall buffoonery).

Where to start, where to start....


First of all, Al, if Kirsty Alley and Anna Nicole Smith can do it, so can you. You look terrible! You're looking more and more like Actor/Sexual predator Jeffrey Jones (right). Get some exercise; watch what you eat! You might consider a GI Bypass or something. Also, get out in the sun occasionally.

Next, it's interesting how most of the stories I've read about his appearance at this event highlights that he arrived in a Toyota Prius. No mention that "His motorcade also included three motorcycles, two limousines and a Dodge Ram 1500 light duty truck." Typical liberal hypocrite.

Last but not least, why do those from the left have very little understanding of simple economics? Don't they understand that a tax on the oil companies is just a tax on themselves?!! The additional costs will just filter through to the consumer. It's not rocket science.

Silly liberals.

On a side note, Al was recently in Dallas to present his "epic", An Inconvenient Truth, at a local venue. I did not see one story about his visit on any of the local news broadcasts, nor did I see it covered before or after in the Dallas Morning News. The day before the presentation I checked ticketmaster to see if I could get tickets. I wanted to get an idea of how well this thing was selling. Less that 24 hours before the event I could still get 8 seats together approximately 15 rows back in the center. I guess his rhetoric doesn't play too well here. He needs to stick to moonbat havens like California.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Islam For Losers


Islam: A religion for Losers

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1723503/posts

Posted on 10/21/2006 8:07:20 AM PDT by tcostell

You would think that a belief system where the most lauded members are those who blow themselves up would have some serious marketing problems. I mean how exactly do you get rational post-secular westerners to buy into an idea like that? But Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion none the less. And much of it's growth is owed to its rapid conversion of certain segments of western society.

At a glance it defies all logic, but it's true. It's a commonly held view that when a person stops believing in organized religion they don't then believe in nothing, but begin to believe in anything. This describes the state of many in the post-secular west. And for people in that mental and emotional state, divorced from their society without any common emotional ground to bind them to their family and community, Islam apparently has some intrinsic appeal. But this then begs the question "Who are these people?” Who would be willing to give up so much of the promise of the 21st century west for the cold restricted structure of 15th century Islam? Who would be prepared to trade the "We hope you believe but it's really up to you" optimism of western theology for the choice between unyielding submission to the political hierarchy of the faith, or the business end of the faithful's sword?

Well in a word... its losers. Islam is growing in the western world by picking the low hanging fruit of society. Those most lacking in the skills it takes to succeed in the west, are irresistibly drawn to Islam. In a single stroke, Islam provides not only the craved for structure of a rigid life and a ready political apparatus which blames others for their hardships, but provides the promise of eternal reward in heaven for the very characteristics which have brought them only failure in the west. In short, it's a religion which rewards the loser for the very things which make them a loser, and encourages them to use violence to bring the rest of society down to their level. This is why it's becomes such a popular faith in the US prison systems, and why it's growing so rapidly among the discontented portions of western society. Whatever your personal failure, Islam has an explanation that makes it clear that someone else is responsible.

In the history of man, no society has so successfully provided each individual with opportunity like the United States. In the US, the circumstances of your birth don't matter, nor does your race, nor your gender, or anything else other than your own personal initiative. In America, both men and women from every religious, racial, ethnic, and economic subgroup have continually reached the pinnacle of success in their chosen fields. And the world over it's widely regarded as fact that if you are truly extraordinary at something, then America is where you will receive the greatest reward for it. America loves a winner, and our society rewards them well. We recruit them in every slice of life, from athletes, to engineers, to writers to educators, and everything else. If there is a greatest ditch digger on the planet, then the odds would be that he's digging a ditch somewhere in the US. And it's the very idea “that success can come to anyone" which makes the US what it is.

But that isn't to say that it’s a perfect meritocracy where only those who deserve it are rewarded. It's still a society of men, and many of those men, for whatever reason, will do what they must to stand in the way of others as well. So while the opportunity is clearly there, that alone is not a guarantee of success. Some people, for whatever reason, lack the initiative, or the determination, or sometimes even the intelligence to achieve the same level of success as others in their chosen field. But the question of success is not what you start out with in life, but what you do with it. The people who achieve success are usually those who when faced with an obstacle will work harder, jump higher, run faster, and do whatever is necessary to get around it. Success isn't defined by talent as much as it is by determination. But some people don't react that way. Some people, when faced with an obstacle, will be quick to abandon their effort, and begin blaming others for their troubles. They fail to take responsibility, and instead look to find a scapegoat. And along comes Islam.

The very core concept of Islam is the unconditional surrender to the will of Allah. At its very heart, Islam encourages its faithful to not take responsibility for the circumstances of their life. And from that basis all other Islamic law follows. Have you had trouble with women? No problem... under Islam a woman is more a piece of property than a person, so you will be able to command, and they must obey, if not... it's the sword or stoning. Have you had trouble in business? No problem... under Islam, most worldly matters of commerce are left to the Dhimmi, those members of the unfaithful tolerated under Islam like slaves thanks to the high taxes paid by them for the right to survive. But if the taxes should stop flowing, or the Dhimmi become defiant, then Islam provides a solution that even a loser can understand, again, it's the sword. On and on, Islamic law makes it clear that if you are among the faithful, then anytime the world fails to meet your expectations, the perfectly acceptable and moral solution is violence.

In short, Islam is a belief system which codifies a theological structure where those people least capable of achieving success on their own gain the political means of either taking or restricting the success of others by force. It’s a triumph of violence as the means to realize the will of god, over the "reason" of the western world. And in the west, people who choose violence over reason are losers. And so it grows in the prisons of the US, and the suburban slums of Paris. It gathers strength from the bottom, speaking a language that the losers of the west can understand. "Obey" they say, "Obey, and we will give the means to take your revenge on a society that has left you behind. Obey, and we will make you mighty, obey and your violence will be the last expression of the will of god."

What those losers who convert fail to realize however, is that the price for their vengeance, and the cost of their scapegoat, is that they too become a slave. If they aren’t responsible for the bad things that happen to them, then they aren't responsible for the good that comes to them either. There may be no failure for them under Islam, but then there will be no triumph for them as well. And should they achieve some moment of greatness, then they will quickly find that they too may be guilty of some obscure violation of sharia, and that the sword of Islam cuts both ways.

For myself, I may not be the most successful man I know, or for that matter the most faithful, but my success and my failures all belong to me. And for that alone, I'll stick to the reason of the west over the violence of Islam, anyday.

---------------------------------------

tcostell makes some excellent points!

In many ways, Islam reminds me of communism and the democratic party. They attract the LCDs of society, they don't allow contrasting views within their ranks, and they all promise Utopia but only deliver death and misery.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Traitor, Murderer, Alcoholic, Fool, Etc.........

KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy's Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says

By Kevin Mooney

October 20, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.

"We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger," said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy's offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.

"There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."

It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to "confidential contacts" so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.

Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.

"Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan," Kengor said. "But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders."

In Kennedy's view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan's unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.

"Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war," Kengor said. "He hoped to counter Reagan's polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects."

As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow -- to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.

In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.

But Kennedy's attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor's estimation.

"If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can't imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "Things could have gotten ugly."

In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan's policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a "gracious concession" after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.


----------------------------------------------


Yet the morons in MA continue to elect this tired, old, windbag.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Bobblehead Mohammed

Bobblehead Mohammed?

NY Daily News ^ | 10/2/2006 | Tina Moore

A ceramic bobblehead doll of the Prophet Muhammed - created to resemble the infamous caricature published by a Danish newspaper - is being hawked online for $22.99 a pop by an ex-Marine.

The unapologetic creator, Timothy Ames, 28, said the bobblehead is similar to "dashboard Jesus" figurines that can be stuck with adhesive to flat surfaces. "I thought, 'If they flipped out over some cartoons what will they do with a dashboard Muhammed?'" Ames said from his home in Hawaii.

But Islamic experts are not amused, saying the bobbleheads could anger Muslims, whose religion strictly prohibits depictions of the prophet.

"No depiction of the prophet, even if it is positive, should be made ever - and certainly not one as ridiculous as the bobblehead Muhammed," said Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, an assistant professor at New York University. "I don't think it's about freedom of speech. This is the freedom to insult, which he shouldn't be doing."

Ames said several hundred people have purchased the dolls online, and he has paid a Chinese manufacturer to create 1,000 more. "I just think it's funny," he said.

Violent protests erupted last winter across the Muslim world after a Danish newspaper published cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammed as a suicide bomber. Many European papers reprinted the cartoons.

"People who get p----d off about this, they're going to get p----d off regardless," Ames, a baptized Christian, said.

The sophomoric Web site where Ames, using the pen name "Filthy," sells the bobbleheads also features a collection of scattered rants. In one, he writes: "I'm really not into slamming people just for their religion. Most of the stupid people I've met are stupid despite their religion, not because of it."

Frank Peters, a professor in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at NYU, warned that a bobblehead Muhammed was "a really bad idea."

"Jews and Christians have gotten used to this kind of thing, but Muslims haven't," he said. "This may not be his intention, but these things have consequences."


-----------------------------------------


ORDER YOURS TODAY HERE: DASHBOARDMOHAMMED.COM


.

Monday, October 02, 2006

DIMocrats; Tough On Terror, Strong On National Defense??

WSJ: Democrats on al Qaeda
Wall Street Journal ^ | October 2, 2006 | Editorial

Democrats keep insisting that, whatever their opposition to the war in Iraq, they'd be as tough as anyone in fighting al Qaeda. We'd love to believe this for the country's sake, but then what are Americans to make of last week's Congressional vote on detainee interrogation and military tribunals?

The bill was a compromise between the White House and three GOP Senators who Democrats had been hailing as voices of independent courage only days earlier. But rather than endorse this deal that put limits on interrogation methods (see nearby), Democrats in both houses voted overwhelmingly no. In the House, only 34 Democrats supported the bill, most of those from the South or rural areas, while the entire leadership and 160 Democrats voted no.

Over in the Senate, 32 Democrats opposed the bill, including the leadership and everyone who's been mentioned as a potential Presidential candidate in 2008: Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold. The dozen who voted yes are either up for re-election or from swing states. If an election weren't coming, we doubt there'd have even been that many. The Democratic "ayes" included Senate candidates Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, both partisan liberals on all issues except, suddenly, this one.

This amazing vote only reinforces the Republican argument that, given the chance, Democrats would return to the pre-9/11, law-enforcement model of fighting terrorism. In voting "no," they were opposing aggressive interrogation of even the worst al Qaeda captives. If Democrats fall short of regaining Congress this year, votes like this will be the reason.

More HERE.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Bill Clinton: Legend In His Own Mind

Former President Bill Clinton Defends Handling of Usama bin Laden in Combative FNC


Monday, September 25, 2006

NEW YORK — Former President Bill Clinton accused Chris Wallace of carrying out "a conservative hit job" on him after the "FOX News Sunday" host asked him about his administration's handling of the growing Al Qaeda threat in an interview.

The interview, taped Friday during Clinton's three-day Global Initiative conference in New York, got heated after Wallace asked why Clinton didn't "do more to put Bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business" when he was in office.

A visibly agitated Clinton chided Wallace for ambushing him with questions about his anti-terrorism policy when Clinton wanted to talk about the Global Initiative project, which looks to create movement on issues including poverty, disease and climate change.

"You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because [News Corp. Chairman] Rupert Murdoch's supporting my work on climate change," Clinton said. "You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care."

When Wallace offered to return the conversation to Clinton's philanthropic efforts, the former president wanted to continue talking about terrorism and recent criticisms that his administration was weak on terror.

• Transcript: Former President Clinton on 'FOX News Sunday'

"There's a reason it's on people's minds: Because there's been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression," Clinton said.

Clinton pointed the finger at Republican factions in Congress and Pentagon for stymieing his anti-terrorism efforts.

"All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office," Clinton said. "All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough, said I did too much — same people."

Right-wing factions, Clinton said, are trying to rewrite history to cover up their failing to focus on Al Qaeda when President Bush took office in 2001.

"So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted," Clinton said. "So you did FOX's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me."

Clinton was referring to Richard Clarke, who provided national security advice to four presidents as a member of the Senior Executive Service from 1973 to 2003. Clarke is a vocal Bush administration critic whose 2004 book, "Against All Enemies," blasted the White House's focus on Iraq instead of Afghanistan in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Clinton vigorously defended his efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, saying he authorized the CIA to assassinate him and even contracted with other parties to kill him.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said. "I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."

Clinton's combativeness fueled firestorms on liberal political blogs like The DailyKos and ThinkProgress. A clip promoting the segment from Friday night's "Special Report" was viewed nearly 900,000 times on video-sharing Web site YouTube, making it the most viewed video of the weekend.

Wallace told the Associated Press in a telephone interview he was surprised by the former presidents strong reaction to his questions.

"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said.


* See the Bill Clinton interview video HERE and HERE.



-----------------------------------------


Looks like Chris Wallace touched a nerve. You know the man is lying when he starts wagging the finger. As in: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Chris Wallace: "Was there a concerted effort in your administration to confront the Al Qaeda threat?"

Willie: "Well, uhm, it depends on what your definition of "was" is."

One more unhinged liberal.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Pop Quiz: Tell Me Which Is More Evil (or More Lunacy From The "Religion Of Peace And Tolerance")

Alleged Terror Leader: 'Naked Women Worse Than Bali Bombings!'

Breaking News.ie ^ | 9/20/06


Alleged terror leader Abu Bakar Bashir said TV shows featuring scantily clad women were more harmful than the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings that killed 202 people, the state news agency reported.

The remarks were likely to anger Australia, which lost 88 citizens in the attacks on two crowded nightclubs.

Bashir, recently released from jail after serving 26-months for conspiracy in the bombings, said images of naked or semi-naked woman on television were sinful and chipped away at the moral fibre of Muslim believers.

“So, if I am asked which is more dangerous, naked women or the Bali bombs, then my reply is of course those women in skimpy clothes,” Antara quoted him as saying at a public rally calling for the imposition of Islamic law in Indonesia.

Bashir, who denies any terrorist activities, did not elaborate.

The United States and other Western governments have publicly accused the Muslim cleric of being a key leader in Jemaah Islamiyah, the regional terror group blamed for the Bali bombings and other deadly attacks in Indonesia.

Bashir, 69, has travelled across the predominantly Muslim nation since his release from jail preaching in favour of Islamic law and against the secular government.


-------------------------------------------------

Ok, pop quiz time children:

Which of the following pictures constitutes overt "evil" in today's world?





OR





And DO NOT bring your moral relativism arguments anywhere near me. MURDER IS MURDER. In the slightly altered words of Jules from Pulp Fiction, "Look maybe your method of admiring an attractive woman differs from mine, but looking at a beautiful woman, and blowing up hundreds of INNOCENT people, ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same f***in' sport."

.