Stupidity Knows No Bounds

Even if you're a terrorist.

In the newest Big Bad Plot to Kill All the Americans, 27 year old Jose Pimentel was arrested for planning to bomb several targets in New York City--most notably, mailboxes during his practice runs. He's been under police surveillance for three years, and left a trail that all but screamed "come and get me 'cause I'm a bad person!"

When these idiots post on their open blogs just what they're going to do, one has to wonder, once again, just why we should be afraid. And then when the suspect operates an entire website centered around the subject...yes, they're living in the underground, coming to get us. Be very afraid.

And then there's some insight into just how far our wonderful law enforcement officers are willing to go to prove that there's still something to be afraid of.

Along the way, Mr. Pimentel began making incriminating statements to an informant who was working with the police, investigators said. Those conversations were recorded.

I suppose this shouldn't really surprise me. It doesn't actually--I mean, our government has already assassinated one American citizen, and didn't seem at all concerned about it--but it is rather worrisome. No, more than that: it's definite entrapment. We have an informant who was egging on Mr. Pimentel for the sake of the police, so they could build a more convincing case against him.

Of course, it just shows me that, once again, our government has a vested interest in scaring us back into submission every few months...just as soon as it appears that we might actually be starting to realize that there's not that much to be afraid of.

Muslim Hysteria. Rant.

This is mostly a rant in response to some of the people in my hometown. They're of the "Tea Party" crowd - you know, the We Hate Obama and Hence Muslims Club? Yeah, them. The goodly dose of Muslim Hate they've got in them is mostly what this post is about.

Apparently, there's an Islamic university in Brunei, and someone in my town has a relationship with them. As he owns some land here, he decided to donate land to this organization for the purpose of starting a Muslim community center. Just a quick note: we have about 100 Muslim families in our town, and that number is growing. (We also have a pretty healthy Hindu community. It's pretty fun, but that's neither here nor there.) Currently, the Muslim worship center around here is properly termed a cultural center, and it's about the size of my house. Which is pretty tiny. It's probably some kind of fire hazard or something.

Edit: I have since heard from someone who actually went and talked to our local imam and Muslim clerics that the planned community center is not, in fact, affiliated with the Brunei university. Big surprise there. It's funded by a private individual whose name is Unissa, apparently. Fun times.

Anyway. No sooner did certain people in my town hear about this absolutely awful Big Bad Plot than they started talking about it anywhere they got the chance: on Facebook, on message boards, on news stories, at council meetings. Now, I'm all for getting your concerns out there. That's perfectly logical.

But dear people...why?

Of course, compounding all this is a government investment program geared towards immigrants. Our City Council is (quite misguidedly, in my opinion) planning a grand redevelopment of our downtown area. It's pretty ridiculous and wasteful, for multiple reasons, but I won't get into that here. The thing that is getting the We Hate Muslims Club into such a tizzy is the EB-5 program.

Quick overview of EB-5: it allows foreign investors to gain green cards much more quickly than they would otherwise. Basically, they have to invest no less than $500,000 in a struggling or new business in the US, create 10 stable jobs for 2 years, and they will then get a green card. Note that all regular forms and tests for citizenship have to be completed and performed, no exceptions. In effect, the only thing EB-5 allows foreign investors to do is get put at the top of the list for the 100,000 or so green cards we issue each year. (The cap for green card admittance into the US - that is, total, all the dependents who come with the actual holder, etc., is 480,000.)

There are a few different tacks people in my hometown are taking in opposing this:

1. It's "not fair"
2. We'll let evil Muslims in
3. Or possibly commies, which is even worse, naturally
4. We don't need foreign investment. Because, obviously, national investors are investing in our hometown. Obviously.

To the first, let me just say: life isn't fair. It's not been fair for many years. If you think people don't already buy their way into this country, you are very naive, and probably trust your government way too much. The fact is that people with more money will always get in first, or get preferential treatment, or be the only ones who get in. It's how it works. Yeah, it's not "fair"...but as I said, life's not fair. Get used to the idea.

As to commies and Muslims (or possibly commie Muslims, which is much worse than the two separately)...really?

First, let me make it clear that not every Muslim is radical. In fact, not even most Muslims are radical. The percentages for radicalized Islam are very low. They're rising, but that's more due to our actions in their countries and the foothold bin Laden's ideology took than anything. Just because someone calls itself Islamic - be it a university or a grocery store or a kiddie pool - doesn't mean it's radical. Seeing as there are over 1 billion Muslims on the planet, and only about 400,000 of them actually want to kill us - and probably less than 100,000 actually have anything near the capability to do so - I'm pretty sure we're relatively safe.

Furthermore, let's face facts. If you're bent on causing destruction and mayhem in as cheap a manner as possible (considering you've probably come from a poverty-ridden family in Afghanistan somewhere), are you really going to have the resources or inclination to invest $500,000 USD in a company, stick around for two years while you create 10 jobs, get your green card...

All just to blow something up?

Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic in that? It simply makes no sense for someone to go to all that trouble, especially considering it's not all that difficult to get into this country some other way. Just go to Mexico first, and you can practically dance across the border. After all, we do have such a big illegal immigration problem, it can't be that hard. Right? Furthermore, considering how much Muslims like making babies, they'll out-breed us long before they manage to blow us all up.

As to the communists: we've been there, done that. Get out of the sixties already.

Investors aren't coming to our hometown. There's probably a reason for that. I think it has something to do with the fact that nobody even knows where it is, and even though we're one of the larger cities in Texas, people prefer DFW or Houston to our town. Sorry, but them's the facts. Not to mention, our people make huge talking points out of things like EB-5. And you wonder why people think we're a little bit mad.

So in summary: America's still free, even for Muslims. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And for the love of my sanity, please stop harping on things that don't really matter.

Edit 11/21/11: For a related, more Christian-oriented post, see this post on my personal blog.

Fox News is Watching

If you're a recent Muslim convert, fly often, and have said bad things about American foreign policy, watch out.

Fox News is watching.

Although, I don't understand what Fox News has against this woman. She's on their side. She openly says that the current government is communist. C'mon Fox News. Surely you have more guts than to try to get rid of someone who so clearly agrees with you!

Oh, that's right. She's Muslim. So obviously, she must be evil. Duh.

I quite liked this lady's response to one of Fox News' emails (which I, quite frankly, would have spammed and left quite alone, because I don't like random people emailing me)-
"“The so-called 'jihadists' you have mentioned are actually personal friends of my husband from childhood. In the video he was expressing his love and gratitude to his friends, who have died fighting for freedom. Just like any other American or European citizen who displays pictures of soldiers who have died on their videos. There is no difference in gratitude and love. It is just that your government has deemed these noble men as 'terrorists' because they are not on the same side. Least us not forget the Mujahideen who fought the Russians for the U.S. They were deemed 'heroes' and lead by Osama Bin Laden at that time, and now because the government says so... they are "terrorists.””

Beautiful!

Quite possibly their biggest beef with this woman? She wouldn't accept a friend request from the reporter. On Facebook. Well, duh. Facebook even warns you with something like- "Unless you know this person, you should not friend them" or something like that.

The moral of this story is: be careful what you 'like' on Facebook. Because, after all...your postings and 'likes' can be proof of your terrorist tendencies. And Fox News is most definitely watching.

Islam: Taking over Campbell Soup

Yes sir, that's right. Campbell Soup apparently decided it needed to cave to the pressures of those evil Muslims (who want to kill infidels) and make sure its canned soups were halal-friendly. Dietary halal is a set of rules about what Muslims can and cannot eat, obviously non-infidel friendly, as it restricts the eating of the beloved bacon and spiral-cut ham and also the gorging typically exercised in all-you-can-eat restaurants that are, of course, near and dear to the American heart.

This is, as you can see, yet more proof that all the Muslims want to kill all of us infidels. What will it be next? Will all-you-can-eat restaurants begin closing down? Will pork become scarcer? Will Jews be forced to eat halal foods instead of kosher? What will it be then?

How much will be too much? Will our government continue to let these private companies do what they can to make money, and accede to the demands of the evil Muslim conspiracy that is infiltrating our society bit by tiny bit? Will they let the Muslims use soup as a wedge to drive yet more space between themselves and the rest of American society?

Stop the Soup. Boycott Campbell Soup.

Sharia

Thanks goes to Megan of "The Mom and Wife Life" for her hard work and research on this article, originally posted on her blog. This subject is one that should be spoken about more often, but without the hysteria often provoked by conservative talking heads. So without further ado:

Sharia. It seems to be the new "buzz word" that people, particularly conservatives, keep getting all up in arms about. I am not going to say other people do or do not do their own "homework" because honestly I don't know, but as a Magic 8 Ball would say, "signs point to no." Why do I think that? Because it seems while this word is thrown around so much, largely as a scare tactic and a way to oppose anything having to do with the Muslim religion and culture in America, nobody I've come across personally can actually correctly define Sharia law. And so, to better grasp what it is in the first place, and why people are so opposed to it, I went in search of answers. And after hours upon hours of research, I still barely understand it. But here's my feeble attempt anyway, for whatever its worth.

The argument I hear by conservatives is that Sharia law is leaking into both American culture and her courts, and that the powers that be are allowing it, and that pretty soon Sharia "law" is going to basically take over America as we know it.

First of all, from my understanding, there is moral/personal Sharia - the moral, ethical, religious, and highly personal governance of one's own life by Sharia law. And there is legal Sharia - Sharia as it applies to legal matters. Yes, they are intertwined somewhat, but that doesn't mean they share the same function. The way I compare it to make it relevant to myself is the differentiation between Christianity being the framework by which I govern my own personal life, and the Constitution being the framework by which I abide by my country/culture's laws.

Secondly, Sharia itself is largely hard to define - both personal and court Sharia - because so much of it isn't "nailed down." Some comes straight from the Koran or other esteemed Muslim writings. But a lot of it also comes from.... Honestly, nobody knows where. It is based in large part on tradition and things accepted as "Muslim," however much of it appears nowhere in print. At least Christian Americans can say their convictions come from written sources - morally/personally from the Bible, and legally from the Constitution.

Read -here- for excellent information about this, including passages taken from the Koran and other Muslim writings. (Just be forewarned, some pop ups may come up when you click on the page...annoying and detracting, but I promise, the article is well worth the read.)

Now maybe its just bacause I am a Christian American, but I find the whole idea of a moral and legal code that isn't in written form unsettling. A code of any kind that isn't defined is one that is open to biases, corruption, usage for personal power and/or notariety, personal gain, manipulation, inaccurate translation and application...and the list is endless. Therein lies the fundamental flaw, in my eyes, within Sharia, and why I don't believe it will EVER be tolerated by or used for legal purposes within our courts. Even in matters pertaining to one's personal ethics. And here's why.

NO citizen in America, regardless of their religion, gets a free pass on murder (honor killings) or spousal or child abuse. Pre-meditated murder = life imprisonment or death sentence - end of story. People make the argument that honor killings have been permitted in America. This is absolutely untrue to the best of my knowledge. There is one case I know of where a man has been convicted and is on the run, but once caught, that man WILL be brought to justice for his heinous crime. Further, as for "eye for an eye retribution," that is also shot down hard by the Eighth Amendment's guideline for fair trials and justice to be carried out. "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." A court would never allow someone to enact retribution on another that is "cruel and unusual," such as, for example, crashing their car into someone because they killed their relative in a drunk driving accident.

In other countries, yes, some heinous acts of Sharia have been permitted or "swept under the rug" based on what I can only define as "religious exemptions." However, in America, that would be unconstitutional. It would be showing religious favortism, which is contrary to the Constitution's First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This protects our rights to our religion, but it also protects one religion from being esteemed over another. To make an exception/exemption on a moral or legal matter which violates Constitutional law, would be in and of itself unconstitutional. So to permit or downplay honor killings, spousal abuse, child abuse, eye for an eye retribution, or anything else that is prosecuted by the law of the Constitution based on one's religion would be unconstitutional.

Still not convinced? Think of it this way... This is America. In America, regardless of whether or not you're a citizen of this country, if you're on our soil and commit a crime, you answer to our laws and legal process - NOT that of the country from which you immigrated or are visiting. And most, if not all, countries around the world have that same structure. Most other countries' legal processes/customs are a lot more harsh and their systems are a lot more corrupt and biased, but ultimately, you are to answer to the legal process of the country in which you commit the crime. It may not seem right, and it may not seem fair, but that's how it works. To ask that your own legal process be used in another country's courts is ludicrous to begin with! You would be laughed at for even asking!

But for the sake of argument, let's look at what would happen if we even tried to allow Sharia in our courts.

To cross-reference, here's the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And here's the Sharia. These references are taken from -Wikipedia- but have been collaborated by a number of other sources. I am going to break it down with my own comments/dissections.

-- Sharia courts do not generally employ lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves.

So a Muslim wants to use Sharia. Great, then they waive their right to legal representation. In my opinion, that is a really stupid legal move, but okay, fine, that's their right. It probably won't work very well in their favor - it will make for a VERY weak case, since an "Average Joe" doesn't know the court system the way an attorney does - but whatever, that's their choice. If they want to waive the right and have little to no strong case and probably therefore lose their legal battle, then fine. No skin of my nose.

-- Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system.

So much for a "public trial, by an impartial jury." The Sixth Amendment pretty much shoots that down to begin with, which is enough right there. But for the sake of argument, even if it was decided that a jury not be present, that is putting your fate in the hands of one person - one person who may have missed things, has biases, etc. In my opinion, not wise.

-- There is no pre-trial discovery process...

This would not lead to a fair trial AT ALL! Things would be VERY skewed! Without a pre-trial discovery process, crucial evidence isn't obtained, so never entered into court. This could cause a guilty person to go free, or an innocent person to be charged. It is crucial to the process in order to maintain an "unbiased" trial! I just cannot foresee our courts, under constitutional law, EVER conducting a legal proceeding without it.

-- ...no cross-examination of witnesses...

Again, this is integral to the Sixth Amendment's guidelines "to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..." And without cross-examination, you are only hearing one side of the story. This could either exhonerate a guilty party, or convict an innocent one.

-- ...and no penalty of perjury.

No penalty for lying?!? Well, if lying is permitted without penalty, then you know there will be a LOT more liars in court than there already are! Wow, can we say corruption of justice?? If this were ever to happen, then yes, that would be a scary thing, because it would undermine the entire legal fundamentals of American justice!

-- Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist's manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.

Non-binding opinions? Issued by religious scholars? Made binding at the discretion of a judge? Did these stick out like sore thumbs to anyone beside me?!? This would mean an ever-changing, ever-open-for-discussion, nothing-set-in-stone legal system. The Constitution IS set in stone! It cannot be changed on the whim of one judge or religious leader, and is hard to misinterpret, especially since our legal guidelines are pretty airtight. I take comfort in knowing what (hypothetically) would be facing me BEFORE I stand trial, and not be at the mercy of the judge, based on what the religious "scholars" are telling him/her! And fortunately, with the Constitution, I can go into any court knowing what to expect, and knowing its not subject to change based on the "gospel" of any religious leader or the discretion of any judge. Shot down by the Sixth Amendment once again!

-- Sharia courts' rules of evidence also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony and excluding written and documentary evidence (including forensic and circumstantial evidence), on the basis that it could be tampered with or forged, or possibly due to low levels of literacy in premodern Islamic society. A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of a witness are the only evidence admissible in a Sharia court, written evidence is only admissible with the attestations of multiple, witnesses deemed reliable by the judge, i.e. notaries. Testimony must be from at least two witnesses, and preferably free Muslim male witnesses, who are not related parties and who are of sound mind and reliable character; testimony to establish the crime of adultery, or zina must be from four direct witnesses. Forensic evidence (i.e. fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA etc.) and other circumstantial evidence is likewise rejected in hudud cases in favor of eyewitnesses, a practice which can cause severe difficulties for women plaintiffs in rape cases.

Sorry for such a big chunk on this one, but it all makes pretty much the same points over and over, but better than I can, so there ya go. Basically, with Sharia law, any evidence other than verbal testimony is rejected. No forensics, no circumstantial, no written, nada. However, the majority of the most heinous crimes, such as murder, rape, etc., HAVE NO WITNESSES!! So we're supposed to reject forensics, physical evidence, cirumstantial evidence, and written evidence in favor of the testimony of a suspected murderer or rapist?!? Are you kidding me?!? Basically, all the evidence says the perp is guilty, but he gets off scott free because, well, he says he's innocent?!! Oh, and I'm sure his cronies testifying on his behalf are all credible witnesses who are telling the truth and were there to witness him raping some poor woman. Yeah...of course they were. And obviously, their testimony is better and stronger than the victim's because, well, they're men, and men are always so much more honest and credible. Of course they are. (That was sarcasm, if you couldn't tell.) Sarcasm aside, this would NEVER fly in an American court of law! NEVER! We find the evidence, process it, and USE it, and let the EVIDENCE have a voice. To silence the evidence is to silence the most credible witness.

-- Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men, and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim). Non-Muslim minorities, however, could and did use Sharia courts, even amongst themselves.

Yeah, that'll make for an impartial trial. Mm hmm. And besides, I'm sure all the women's rights activists will just roll over and let that happen! (Sarcasm again.)

-- Sharia courts, with their tradition of pro se (self) representation, simple rules of evidence, and absence of appeals courts, prosecutors, cross examination, complex documentary evidence and discovery proceedings, juries and voir dire (oath of honesty and honor) proceedings, circumstantial evidence, forensics, case law, standardized codes, exclusionary rules, and most of the other infrastructure of civil and common law court systems, have as a result, comparatively informal and streamlined proceedings.

This is Wiki's summary, so I'll offer mine. (Oh goody. As if you haven't read enough of my mumble jumble already, right?!) Basically, by my interpretation, their system is one entirely of "he said, she said." Nothing is concrete, and its highly biased and wishy-washy. It is open to interpretation, changes, corruption, selfish usages, and therefore, I'm sure, results in many (if not mostly) false convictions and exhonerations.

By contrast, the US Constitution is concrete. It doesn't change, it doesn't bend, and if implemented properly, cannot be penetrated by corruption or used for ones' own personal motives. Each person walking into a court knows what to expect. They know its going to allow them a speedy, fair, public trial by an unbiased jury. They know there will be witnesses who will be cross-examined, and forensic, physical, circumstantial, and written evidence will be allowed to speak for itself and for the victim.

Ultimately, Sharia itself - moral and legal - is different from person to person. Each person defines it differently, and since there is no concrete governing document (for either facet, but especially legal) by which to base, well, anything really, then I cannot believe it will ever come to pass here in America. How can something undefined overrule and overthrow the defined?

Bottom line, as long as the Sixth Amendment stands, then Sharia never will. And based on that, I don't live in fear of Sharia. Do I like it? No. Would I ever use it to live by in my own life? Never. Would I (given the choice) want to use it in a court of law? No way. But because of my Constitution, and the court system in my America, I don't live in fear of it. Sure, its an interesting time and world in which we live. But this is America. Its Constitution is POWERFUL, and I have faith in it and in my country, that it will never be torn down in favor of a system that is so fundamentally flawed, ineffective, and biased. That's not what America is about - not when the Constitution was written, not now, and (hopefully) not ever. I think we'd have to get both really stupid and really lazy before we'd ever practice Sharia in our courts, or permit the aspects of it which violate constitutional and human rights in our culture. And I like to believe we're smarter than that. ;)

Current Events

So, a pastor in Florida is going to sponsor a Qur'an burning at his church on September 11.


I can't stand people who want to burn books. I don't care what book it is. You have to be some kind of crazy person to intentionally burn a book. For real.


Further, where exactly is this man's church going to get the Qur'ans they are going to burn? Buy them? Um...wait. We're going to spend money...just so that we can summarily burn it. Right. Why not just sponsor a burning of Fed money? Because that would make just about as much sense.

Anyway, in further news. The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is in trouble. Turns out that, under 501(c)3 status, a company/foundation/organization cannot make any explicitly political statements. For instance, they can't bash certain policies of certain people we all know. To Tim Phillips, I'd just like to say- "voter education" doesn't include bashing just the opposite party's platform. That's telling the voters what we wish they'd think. How about we just let Fox News handle that, hmm?

Also, the Presidential family went on vacation (again). Not that I really care. Wish I had time to go golfing. Oh wait, I do, but I'm not the President. Right. I still don't care. What, you're saying it's wrong of him to spend his salary on what he wants? Really? How does that work?

Seeing as we, the American people, do have to pay our President, and said President does have alternate sources of income (his wife still has her own income, I believe), he can spend his money however he wants. If I had as much money as he seems to, I'd be taking trips to Martha's Vineyard, too. Of course, it might be hypocritical for him to counsel us to tighten our belts, then go on a vacation. But then again, Obama doesn't have the monopoly on bad advice. Remember Bush, telling us to "go shopping" in response to 9/11...and we all know where that brought us.

Wall Street is defecting to the Republicans, moving away from their normal ally, the Democrats. Odd, that.

So Democrats are using it as a campaign talking-point, that Republicans are, fundamentally, friends of big business, and not to be trusted as, obviously, big business must be paying off Republicans to try to repeal the stimulus/etc. if Republicans want to do so. Does that have logical validity? Sure. Is it likely? Probably. But Democrats have also been bought off in times past, and still are, so there you go.

So anyway. Americans are still concerned with things that aren't really important, a la Cordoba House, Republicans (and Democrats) are being bought off by Wall Street, and lots of other people, and our political system is still just as messed up as ever.

In other words, just another day in the life.

Cordoba House

Something I had never considered before- seeing as the Cordoba House (variously known as the "Ground Zero Mosque" or Park51) is being built on Park Place, this could very well interfere with a cultural icon dear to the hearts of many Americans.

Anyone who has ever played the game Monopoly knows that Park Place is one of the most expensive properties, and hence arguably one of the most important. If the Cordoba House is built on Park Place, it might very well be seen as an attempt to take over the beloved game of Monopoly.

Those evil Muslims.

(Disclaimer: if you did not get the sarcasm inherent in this post, you really should go get some sleep, and then come back and reread it.)

The Parent Company Trap

Jon Stewart critiques the folks over on Fox News over their obsessive (or not so much) tracing of "where Rauf's money is coming from."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Now let me say- I don't think the majority of people over at Fox News are necessarily stupid. Misguided, perhaps, though no more misguided than the folks over at say, CNN or ABC or CBS or the NYTimes or the Washington Post.

The Cordoba House- Again

So this issue has once again been brought to my attention. Here is a short, probably not-so-sweet, but to the point summary of my position.

I do think it is a bit insensitive of Cordoba to build this so close, especially when they've seen the reaction. However, there are some facts that cannot be disputed. They bought the property, hence they have the right to do whatever they want with it- property rights. They have a religion, and are free to practice it- freedom of religion. They have a right to worship together- freedom of association.

However, I do think one thing needs to be remembered- Cordoba and Imam Rauf did not kill those 3,000 on 9/11. The guys who killed those 3,000 are dead. It's useless to whine about them now. It's over. Can't cry over spilled milk. Yes, what happened was terrible. I condole with the families who lost loved ones- both Muslim and Christian and athiest, and whatever other belief systems may have been represented, because I'm sure the families of those 19 men miss them just as much.

But we also can't forget what has risen out of this. It's killed hundreds of thousands of civilians all over the world. It's divided Americans even more starkly along lines of left and right. It's made Americans so gun-shy they freak over the slightest evidence of a possible terror attack- while the rest of the world laughs at our naive belief that we are the only country that has ever been attacked by a terrorist. We lambast a whole race of people for the actions of 19 men. 19 men attacked us. There are roughly 1.5 billion Muslims on the globe, and the number is rising. You do the math. 19 is such a tiny percentage, I'm pretty sure you'd have to put it in decimals. Even if you put in the couple hundred estimated insurgents involved in al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like groups (and that membership is growing too...I wonder why?), you've still got a small, small percentage. That's like saying that, out of the couple billion Christians in the globe, all of them should be treated with as much disdain as we all treat Westboro Baptist Church. That doesn't make sense, and nor does ostracizing and behaving with such venom towards an entire sect of people.

To summarize- yes, I feel for the families of the 9/11 victims. I do think Cordoba should look into moving this community center/mosque somewhere else. But in the meantime- Constitutionally, they can do whatever they want with the property. And I think, that if this does begin to happen, and happens, we should let it be. Move past it. We're all adults. Osama bin Laden would love nothing more than for us all to jump on Muslims and demand they shut down their mosques. Do you know how much of a PR field-day that would be for him? His recruiting levels would go up immediately! The evil Americans, denying what they profess to believe in, and repressing the poor, beleaguered Muslims. Yes, we may look at that and think that he's misrepresenting the situation...but we know about the media, and we know that's exactly what bin Laden and his ilk will say.

Let's not give him the satisfaction.

"Ground Zero Mosque"

So the entirety of the American political spectrum is up in arms- has been up in arms, to think of it- over this issue. A group of Muslims, led by one Imam Rauf, is planning to build a mosque three blocks away from Ground Zero.

Oh noes.

Of course, it's entirely unacceptable that America, like, be the beacon of religious freedom she has been for the past two hundred years. I always thought religious freedom was over-rated, anyway.

The opposition to this mosque/community center arises mainly (surprise, surprise) from the Right. In the American exceptionalist mindset the average Republican pundit possesses, it is inconceivable that America should actually allow alternate views and religions to rise up in her land! After all, those Muslims spread their religion! And...they blew up our towers!

Hint about that last one, by the way- the people who blew up our towers...are dead. Just thought I'd let you know.

But, of course, those aren't the only reasons we don't like the idea of having a mosque in America. This mosque is practically right on Ground Zero! Even though it's...three New York City blocks away. But it would hurt the sovereign, just, righteous cause we have! That Muslims are evil! That they killed our people! It would send a message to our enemies that- Hey! Bring me your tired, your worn, your radicals!

This author has an answer to that:

"But I’d have thought that opinion leaders of all ideological stripes could reach consensus by applying a basic rule of thumb: Just ask, “What would Osama bin Laden want?” and then do the opposite.

Bin Laden would love to be able to say that in America you can build a church or synagogue anywhere you want, but not a mosque. That fits perfectly with his recruiting pitch — that America has declared war on Islam. And bin Laden would thrill to the claim that a mosque near ground zero dishonors the victims of 9/11, because the unspoken premise is that the attacks really were, as he claims, a valid expression of Islam."

My take-

It's a mosque and community center. As one of the commenters on the above linked article asked- how would Palin, King, etc. react if it were a church being proposed? Would they care if Muslims objected?

That's a laugh. It would be whimper-and-whine time. "Oh boo-hoo. Help us. Religious persecution!"

But since it's another religious group we're discriminating against...oh well, that's fine.

Furthermore, I don't think this will harm our image in the Muslim world. I think it'll show people that America is mature enough to not compromise on what she claims to believe in- that is, freedom for all, not just the people we like.

Jon Stewart had an excellent segment on this issue:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Wish You Weren't Here
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Obama...Muslim?

So I was thinking about this the other day. And you know, if Obama is a Muslim, he is an incredibly backslidden one.

You see, to be a true Muslim one has to follow the "Five Pillars of Islam-" Iman (faith), Salah (prayer), Zakah (tithing), Sawm (fasting), and Hajj (pilgrimage).

So I haven't seen Obama doing ritualized fasting like Ramadan, because I'm sure we'd have seen something about how he doesn't eat until the sun goes down. One pillar down. Nor, to my knowledge, has he made a Hajj to Mecca. That's two. We don't see Obama praying five times a day (something else we most assuredly would have heard about, and that would have been passed around the Republican blogosphere and radio). There's three pillars. Nor have I seen Obama pronounce Iman, as he should if he is a Muslim.

So hence, even if Obama ever was or is now a Muslim, he is a severely backslidden one.

Palestinian Christians Speak

Very interesting, this. A group of Palestinian Christians have gotten together and written a very interesting document detailing their belief that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is unjust. It is a powerful document, and they make a good case.

Here is the main website, and here is the PDF file.

As with anything, it should be taken with a grain of salt- there have been outrages committed by Palestinians as well (as they acknowledge briefly), so there is fault on both sides.

Take the position of both sides, and somewhere in the middle, that's where truth lies.

Afghanistan Part I

I went through and read the transcript of President Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan speech.

And my thoughts on the matter are still unchanged. But I'm going to go through the speech and detail why, just to be objective and all that.

"Many people in the United States and many in partner country that have sacrifices so much have a simple question. What is our purpose in Afghanistan?"

Really? You're just now noticing that is a question? Hmm. What was your first clue? The upswell of public opinion on the polls?

The fact of the matter is that we have no purpose, despite his professed reasons- which sound eerily like something out of the Bush administration. Say hello, once again, to the Bushama Administration.

"Al Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Oh. I see now. And it makes so much sense to attack an entire country just to get at a few underground people who are hidden where you'll never find them. Ah, but he already knows that:

"They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, and communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan."

Ah. So we're going to fight not one, not two, but three senseless wars on the basis of the fact that these men are...hidden? Uh-huh. I see how this makes sense. We're going to throw our entire army at an underground organization that we will probably never track down.

I say we will never track them down because we haven't yet. We've managed to get what, five of the men who actually knew a single thing beyond "Oh yeah, we were gonna' blow up a building." Yeah, our track record is impressively amazing.

Let's see- Osama bin Laden was first put on the FBI's Most Wanted List in 1998 or thereabouts. Al Qaeda was formed in 1988. That means we have had almost twenty years to catch he or his organization leaders. Twenty years. Twenty years in which we fought four years and wasted lots of time- oh, and we launched some cruise missiles at where we thought bin Laden might be.

Also, one bit of trivia that never ceases to amaze me- we helped the Afghanis get weapons. In fact, we gave them weapons. During the 80s', when the Soviets were locked in a war with the Afghanis for control of their country, we gave the Mujahideen weapons and money. Bin Laden benefited from this in a rather round-about way, by joining a man named Abdullah Azzam in Afghanistan- who was a Mujahideen.

Bin Laden and Azzam created the splinter group Maktab al-Khidamat- which, in the long run, only trained 100 mujahidin and only funneled $2 mil to the Afghan Mujahideen. Al Qaeda rose out of Maktab al-Khidamat. During the Afghan-Soviet war, the US and bin Laden were basically working together, in the common pursuit of getting rid of the Soviet threat.

The Taliban also rose out of the Mujahideen- they replaced the constant fighting of the Mujahideen, with some sort of stability and order. This gave them great popularity amongst ordinary Afghans. And the Taliban also took advantage of the weapons we channeled to Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war. We created the monster we all hate now.

How ironic.

"But this is not simply an American problem, far from it."

I didn't know Afghanistan was an American problem. Or maybe it is- since we created it, we should fix it....despite the fact the Afghanis didn't want us to fix it. They're tired of us being there, tired of us destroying their way of life, and they just want us to leave.

Neither is Pakistan our problem. Bin Laden may or may not be our problem, but a full-scale invasion of a sovereign country is not the answer.

"For the Afghan people, the return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people, especially, women and girls."

And that works for them. Just like having Saddam worked for the Iraqis. What, are we the International Meanness Police now too?

We have enough problems here at home. Like our economy. This constant warfare is killing us. It is killing our economy, it is killing our military, and it is slowly and surely killing our country. We cannot maintain this steady rate of warfare and conflict without serious consequences.

"A return in force of Al Qaida terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence."

Perhaps President Obama should study his history. Before the Taliban took control, there was constant in-fighting between the Mujahideen. After the Soviets left, the Mujahideen aimlessly turned on each other. The Taliban conquered them. Too bad for the Mujahideen.

And the Taliban brought stability to the region. They established a steady government that worked for them. True, they were a bit kooky and some weird rules (according to us) but it worked for them.

"We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future."

Oh really. So we're just there to....ruin their infrastructure...and kill their people...and destroy their government....and stay there forever...and....dictate...what they can do.

Not the same thing at all.

"We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends, and our allies and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists."

President Obama has a mistaken idea of what terrorism- and terrorists- are. Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists are the people that use the tactic. In this case, they are Muslim extremists. We cannot 'confront' the terrorists, for the simple reason that a) we have absolutely no idea where they are, b) they won't let us know where they are, and c) did I mention we don't know where they are?

Once again- the decision about their regime is the Afghani peoples'. Yes, the Taliban had quite a hold. But the Afghani people have proven time and time again that they can conquer despite a stronger enemy. If they truly wanted out from under the Taliban, I have no doubt they would do something about it.

They do not need our help for their freedom- especially not so we can impose our idea of what freedom is.

"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future."

Ah yes. And how do you plan to do this again, Mr. President?

I guess he shares the mistaken ideas of his predecessor- if we tear up enough roads, kill enough civilians, and dismantle enough regimes, bin Laden will hand himself to us on a silver platter.

Sorry, but I don't think it works that way. Bin Laden has proven that our meddling merely makes his resolve stronger. The more innocent civilians we kill, the more territory of theirs we take over, the more Muslims come around to his way of thinking and join him. We cannot fight a radical ideology with guns and troops.

And maybe, just maybe, the man has a point. Even Hitler had some sort of logic under his depraved, mentally unstable ravings. Bin Laden's point is simple- Americans are inhabiting their countries. We need to leave.

I do not agree with his way of trying to get us to see that. But I definitely agree with his point. We are meddling way too much in the politics and dynamics of that region. We need to stop while we're ahead. And by stop, I mean cease and desist completely. Not leave a few half-hearted squads of soldiers to guard their state secrets, not leave advisors there to continue telling their new regime what to do.

"And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same. We will defeat you."

Keep saying that. If you say it often enough, it might come true!

That we will defeat the terrorists has been the mantra for the past eight years. Guess what. The terrorists are still at large, and there is no indication that our inept intelligence services and our futiley struggling army will be able to catch them any time soon.

"To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter, and comprehensive strategy."

I have one for you- leave the people alone! After all, the strongest way we can make these people see that we mean them no harm is by showing that we trust them to make their own decisions.

Ah but yes...they're just like the average American- too dumb to know what's best for them.

"To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support."

That might be difficult to do. Especially in light of the fact that Britain isn't all that keen on the way they got into Iraq....I doubt they'll be feeling too eager to jump head-first into yet more conflicts.

"And to defeat an enemy that heeds no border or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan..."

If they heed no borders, then we cannot fight them in the conventional sense of the word. They don't have borders. They don't recognize borders. They spread like a disease. There are terrorists everywhere- there are even terrorists here in the US!

The fact of the matter is that we cannot pinpoint where the terrorists are. They could be anywhere in the Middle East, in North Africa, East Africa...practically anywhere in the world. It is impossible to fight them with conventional means.

"Al Qaida and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They've killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state."

And what are we going to do?

We're going to go in like we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens, destroy their infrastructure, take over their government...and when we get down to it, the terrorists will be long gone.

Look out for Part II.

The Price of Speed

Today I got into a discussion about the Fort Hood shooting at church. The lady I was speaking with was under the impression that we were 'moving too slowly'.

Well...Fox News didn't seem to waste any time. They've already linked Hassan to every terrorist organization on the globe. Before long, they'll probably be linking him to a few we've never even heard of. All because he was a Muslim, and owned a Koran. (Help!)

We shouldn't hurry. When people get frantic and panicky in things like this, bad things happen. Just look at the aftermath of 9/11- 9/11 itself was a horrible, terrible occurrence. But the aftermath was just as bad. People panicked. The government fed off that, and pushed the PATRIOT act through in the name of keeping us safe.

We gained extra baggage in the form of the Department of Homeland Security, and two wars in the name of stopping terrorism that are now nothing more than black holes for money and lives.

That is what excessive speed and hurry to do something about these types of things cause. The Fort Hood shooting is still too fresh for us to try to do anything. Bring Hassan to justice. The right way. But don't fall into the panic trap. That is how bad things happen.

Current Events

Sorry I haven't posted lately- NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month) '09 started, and I've been busy boosting my word count. ;)

I thought I'd just post and say- or type- a few words about some of the current events, as well as...well, a few rants I've been forced to hold in over the past few weeks.

Fort Hood Shooting

It's been all over the news. Such a crisis warrants all of us pulling together. But there's one thing that bothers me: the huge controversy over why the guy did it.

Hassan is, obviously, a Muslim. So what? Is that reason, like I heard some say, to completely ban Muslims from being in the armed forces. Uh...no. That's completely unconstitutional. Neither is this proof that his actions were jihadist.

From what I understand, Hassan was upset because he did not want to be deployed. He disagreed with the wars. So he was upset. He was angry. People have done much stupider things because they were angry. I do not think, with the current information I have, that Hassan's actions were motivated by religion. They were motivated by his own feelings of frustration and anger.

Healthcare

The 'healthcare' bill passed the House. They snuck it through at midnight. (Shows what cowards they are, if you ask me.)

Anyway- I have stated before that this bill is not about healthcare. It is about insurance, and giving a boost to them. The insurance companies will receive a boost because of this. That is why they are the No. 1 promoters of these bills.

Probably the one single reason I do not agree with this bill is because it will not fix a thing. It will only apply another temporary fix to the problem. Anything we do, at this point, would only add a temporary fix. We need to completely rethink our system- release ourselves from the narrow constraints of the insurance system, coupled with the medicare system, and fend for ourselves. Stop relying on third parties to do our work for us.

It will never cease to amaze how conservatives gripe about how the government is going to 'dictate care'- but they fail to realize that the insurance companies do just that. Insurance providers tie doctors and patients' hands, and keep them, in some cases, from getting care they should get.

And yet that is a better system? Give me a break!

The Constitutionalist in me does not want a universal system. But we need a fix, not a bandaid. I do not know if a universal system would fix things or not. But hey, it might be worth a try.