Skip to Content

September 2010

Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right. But does it matter?

Aaand, here we go.  In the name of the Religion of Peace, fatwas calling for the killing of Quran burners by Iranian Ayatollahs.

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Two Iranian grand ayatollahs issued fatwas calling for the killing of those who insult the Koran, including anyone who burns the Islamic holy book, the state-run Fars news agency reported.

No one was specified in the decrees, which were issued by Nasser Makarem-Shirazi and Hossein Nouri-Hamedani in response to questions asked by student groups from universities in Tehran, Fars said. Such an action against any individual could only be carried out with the authorization of an Islamic religious judge, they said.

“Undoubtedly, the blood of a person who burns the Koran should be shed,” Makarem-Shirazi was cited by Fars as saying. Everybody should “strongly condemn” such an act.

Here's the sequence of events:  A Florida church pastor, Terry Jones, announces his in protest on September 11.  .  Denouncements, death threats, marches, flag burning, you name it.  I don't remember hearing the outrage when .

The pastor then cancels the event () saying he spoke with local Imam Mohammad Musri and came to an agreement where he will cancel the event and the Ground Zero mosque will be moved from the currently proposed location.  Only after Mr. Jones stated that the burning was canceled did the Imam .  The mosque is still a go.

Then that not only will it still be built, it has to be built in that spot or bad things will happen.

The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.  It will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.

But if it is the case that it , wouldn't caving in to the demand that it must move forward or reap the consequences be similar to negotiating with terrorists?  It smells of blackmail.

That brings me back to my original thought when all this hit the fan.  Is the Quran burning legal?  Yes.  Is the mosque legal? Yes.  Does that make either the right thing to do?  No.  But it doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter because the West is hated.  Our way of life is hated.  Christianity is hated.  Protest or not, GZ mosque or not, we will be attacked again.  Eventually.

Highly customized GA Precision 7wsm long range shooting

Cool video of a custom GA Precision 7wsm grouping at distances up to 1400 yards.  Man, that is a sweet shooter.  When he zooms in on the target look closely and you will see the bullet trail arcing across the screen.


Even Hillary Clinton is troubled over the deficit, and yet it rises

With more Dems showing concern over the Administration's propensity to spend without concern, now Secretary of State Clinton is in regards to the national security implications.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. military joint command are now both on record that rising levels of U.S. national debt pose a national security threat.

The message to the commander-in-chief now from both the secretary of state and the U.S. joint military command appears to have been delivered loud and clear – continuing U.S. federal budget deficits measured in the trillions of dollars makes Americans less safe to threats posed by foreign enemies.

Clinton said the U.S. budget deficit under the Obama administration poses a national security threat and projects a "message of weakness" internationally.

Responding to a question from CFR President Richard Haas, Clinton said rising U.S. debt levels pose a national security threat in two ways: "It undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable."

Clinton continued, "I mean, it is very troubling to me that we are losing the ability not only to chart our own destiny but to, you know, have the leverage that comes from this enormously effective economic engine that has powered American values and interests over so many years."

But apparently too much is not enough.  Obama wants to to stimulate where stimulus has failed before.

Liberals - Why do you side with Islam over Christianity

This topic is one I just had recently in another venue.  Whether you agree with the pastor who is threatening to burn the Quaran or not, it is protected under the 1st Amendment.  On one side is the PC "It shouldn't be done because it might insult someone" viewpoint.  On the other is the "just because it is legal, doesn't make it right" angle.  But underlying the whole debate is this:


Chuck Norris on Obama: Muslim Missionary? Part 4

via :

Nine years ago this week, we began to chant: "We will never forget 9/11."

Nine years later, I think too many of us have forgotten, especially those in the White House.

Islamic extremists murdered more than 3,000 innocent American lives on Sept. 11. Who would have believed that within a decade of that tragic event that we'd also have a new president who believes, according to his own that it was "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"? Not to mention his mission to fight for the mosque near Ground Zero!

In I began to demonstrate how President Obama is using to "deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama's speech in Cairo last June."

In I detailed Obama's real spiritual beliefs based upon a rare in-depth 2004 interview by a religious reporter of a major newspaper publication, including his beliefs about prayer, sin, heaven, the Bible and the person of Jesus.

In I explained how Obama categorically has been prejudicial in his treatment against Christians and Christianity in comparison to Muslims and Islam.

In Part 4 here, I will not only expand on that case but show how the Obama administration has changed course in just this last year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, exclusively benefitting Islam and its proliferation while again abandoning the principles in the U.S. Constitution.

Boise State Broncos ranked #3 in virtually every poll

Over at , the 1st week rankings are out.  BSU, initially at in the AP and in USA Today, notches have been moved in the upward direction in the latter.  After the 33-30 victory over Virginia Tech ( Big Grin ), the coaches poll now has the Broncos on even ground with the other polls at a solid .  That's ... in the nation... for a non-BCS team...


Continuous Chest Compression CPR method

Not in a category I'd normal post about, but this could be life saving information.  This is a new version of CPR that doesn't include checking for a pulse or mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.


Quality Arms true ambidextrous AR-15

Innovation from Northern Idaho.  , in Riggins, has developed an AR that can eject left or right side.  Pretty cool.


BSU - VT: It's GAME DAY y'all

Wow!  It took hours to come down from that game.  Exciting (read nausea inducing) to the very end.  It is hard to get used to the fact that this is how BSU operates.  Strong start, coast, hard push to the finish.  Thankfully it nearly always ends in a win! Applause


Already starting to get nervous.  I wish these were my tickets...

Some interesting news I just read.  The ink on the contract to move to the MWC is still drying, the biggest game of the season is likely tonight's, and we are already talking about a future ?  I'm all for having lofty goals but one thing at a time, eh?


Reforming our Universities: The campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights

This was very interesting to me.  I was never subjected to anything in my academic career that I feel was overtly activist in nature.  But I do know it happens.  I regret my non-interest in history when I had the opportunity to study it back in the day.  I am having to make up for lost time now.  Here is a bit of history on the University, and how it has changed.  via :

The campaign we launched can only be understood in the context of previous developments in higher education. The modern research university was created in the second half of the 19th Century during the era of America’s great industrial expansion, its curriculum shaped by two innovations: the adoption of scientific method as the professional standard for knowledge, and the extension of educational opportunity to a democratic public. Before these developments, America’s institutions of higher learning were “primarily religious and moral” schools of instruction. In the words of James Duderstadt, president of the University of Michigan, “colleges trained the ministers of each generation, passing on ‘high culture’ to a very small elite.” The avowed mission of these early collegiate institutions was to instill the doctrines of a particular religious denomination. It was not to foster the analytic skepticism associated with modern science but to pass on the literary and philosophical culture that supported a specific faith.

By contrast, “the core mission of the research university,” as recently summarized by one of its leaders, “is … expanding and deepening what we know.” In pursuit of this goal, “the research university relies on various attributes, the most important of which are the processes of rigorous inquiry and reasoned skepticism, which in turn are based on articulated norms that are not fixed and given, but are themselves subject to re-examination and revision. In the best of our universities faculty characteristically subject their own claims and the norms that govern their research to this process of critical reflection.” This has been the credo of American higher education throughout the modern era and is still the norm in the physical and biological sciences and most professional schools throughout the contemporary university.

by Dr. Radut