The term “workplace violence” is still used to describe the Fort Hood terrorist attack.
If the current administration refuses to acknowledge obvious acts of terrorism, how can they be trusted with foreign affairs?
Reminder: Early voting starts today in Texas.
I will never forget the horror, dismay and anger I felt while watching the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. I don’t know any American who was unaffected by the horrendous attacks by those Islamic radicals.
But you must be aware the subtle attack continues. There is a tradition of the Islamist to build shrines at the places of those so-called victories and they are attempting to build such a shrine at the crash site of Flight 93:
Alec Rawls has asked me to join him in re-raising awareness to this aberration and I join him humbly and reverently in honor of those who gave their lives for our freedom and safety.
We must not allow shrines to evil to be constructed, especially under the guise of memorials to our hero citizens’ brave sacrifice.
Re-posted with permission:
9/11: New Park Service images prove the Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93 is unchanged
The original Crescent of Embrace design for the Flight 93 memorial (left) was laid out in the configuration of an Islamic crescent and star flag (right). The crash site sits between the tips of the giant crescent, in the position of the star on an Islamic flag.
When this apparent symbol of Islamic triumph caused a national uproar seven years ago the Memorial Project (a public-private entity overseen by the Park Service) promised to change the design, but as demonstrated by the images below, they never did make any significant changes:
Above: original Crescent of Embrace design. Below: a frame from the Park Service’s new virtual fly-by of the Circle of Embrace “re-design” as it is being built. (Comparison image thanks to MaxK.)
The most significant change is the few extra trees that are being planted outside the mouth of the original crescent (starting at the crescent tip on the right, where the flight path symbolically “breaks the circle,” and continuing down behind the Sacred Ground Plaza that marks the crash site). These few trees supposedly turn the crescent into a circle, but as you can see, they do no such thing, but only apply the most minor window dressing to what is still a bare naked Islamic-shaped crescent.
The circle-breaking, crescent-creating theme of the design also remains completely intact
The Park Service web site explicitly describes the Circle of Embrace as a broken circle, proving that the terrorist-memorializing theme of the design is also unchanged. Way back in 2005 architect Paul Murdoch described his original Crescent of Embrace as a broken circle. The 9/11 attacks broke our circle of peace and the unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent. The terrorist memorializing intent is obvious, or in the words of Tom Burnett Senior (father of flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Junior), “blatantly obvious.”
The actions depicted in the memorial design are those of the terrorists. They break the circle of peace and the result is their flag planted atop the graves of our murdered heroes. Calling the design a broken circle instead of a crescent does not change this symbolism one whit. The unbroken part of the circle is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.
Instead of pointing 2° north of Mecca, the half-mile wide crescent now points 3° south of Mecca
A crescent that points the direction to Mecca is a very familiar construct in the Islamic world. Because Muslims face Mecca for prayer, every mosque is built around a Mecca direction indicator called a mihrab, and the classic mihrab is crescent shaped. Here are the two most famous mihrabs in the world:
Left: the Mihrab of the Prophet, at the Prophet’s mosque in Medina. Right: the mihrab of the Great Mosque in Cordoba Spain. Face into these crescents to face Mecca, just as with the Flight 93 memorial.
As the Crescent of Embrace was originally designed, a person standing between the tips of the giant Crescent and facing into the center of the Crescent would be facing a little less than 2° north of Mecca (proof here). This almost-exact Mecca orientation was confirmed to the Park Service in 2006 by Daniel Griffith, a professor of “geospatial information” at the University of Texas who was brought in as a consultant by the Park Service.
Griffith’s report examined the analysis of Politicalities blogger jonathan Haas, who had calculated that the crescent pointed.62° off of Mecca. Allowing some margin of error for the exact coordinates used for the crash site and for Mecca, Griffith confirmed Haas’ calculation of the direction to Mecca (“the arctangent value is correct”), and he accepted Haas’ calculation that the bisector of the giant crescent pointed a mere .62° off of this Mecca-line. The actual divergence is slightly larger—a bit less than 2°—but this is what the Park Service was told by Griffith: that the crescent pointed less than 1° from Mecca.
Even the Park Service realized this was bad but their response was pathetic, as Murdoch was only forced to make a slight change in the orientation of his giant mihrab. The conversation is easy to imagine: “How about if I change the orientation by five degrees?” Murdoch presumably asked. “Would that be enough?” So now instead of pointing 2° north of Mecca, it now points 3° south of Mecca, both of which are highly accurate by Islamic standards.
For most of Islam’s 1400 year history far-flung Muslims had no accurate way to determine the direction to Mecca. (Many of the most famous mihrabs point 10, 20, 30 or more degrees off Mecca.) Thus it developed as a matter of religious doctrine that what matters is intent to face Mecca, which architect Paul Murdoch proves by elaborately repeating his Mecca orientations throughout the design.
They misled the public into thinking that the crescent was being removed
Images of the Circle of Embrace “redesign” that the Park Service released in late November 2005 were calculated to fool the public into thinking that real changes were being made. Here is a comparison between the original Crescent of Embrace (top) and the phony redesign (bottom). At first glance the Circle of Embrace actually does look more like a circle than a crescent, but if you examine closely you’ll see that this is almost entirely due to re-coloring of the image. The only actual change is the addition of the extra arc of trees that extends from the circle-breaking crescent tip down the hill towards the crash site:
Because this extra arc of trees explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle it in no way alters the circle-breaking, crescent-creating theme of the design. Neither does it affect the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent (the unbroken part of the circle) that is left standing in the wake of 9/11. It only looks like a real change, but the Memorial Project apparently decided that even this purely cosmetic alteration conceded too much to critics.
Look again at that screen-grab from the Park Service’s new animated fly-by of the design as it is actually being built. The bold extra arc of trees that was the only actual change in the Circle of Embrace redesign has been taken out and replaced with a wispy wave trees:
These few trees, planted to the rear of a person facing into the giant crescent, do not diminish in any way the crescent’s functionality as a mihrab/Mecca-direction indicator. You can plant as many trees behind a mosque as you want. It is still a mosque, or in this case, a terrorist-memorial mosque.
Feel like complaining? Give Flight 93 Memorial Superintendent Keith Newlin a piece of your mind (and please pass along any response that you receive). There is also a petition you can sign, if you haven’t done so already.
Twitter is a marvelous tool. On it, you can find all manner of verbosity ranging from breaking news to articles of in-depth analysis; from real-time flame wars of the rude, crude, lewd and lasciviousness variety to the Holy Word of God quoted stream of consciousness style personally tailored for the ADHD generation. In other words, it’s an ingenious trap for an information hungry robot like myself to get lost in for hours on end. And so I do.
Once in a while, I run across an article in my internet travels that stands above the rest, like it’s etched in granite on the side of a mountain, awaiting discovery by some traveling information junkie willing to follow a rusty signpost on a side-road detour.
Today, I followed one of those signposts and rounded a corner to find an honest work of personal testimony and, for me, needed motivation. Of course, I didn’t take the road completely on blind faith. I knew one of my favorite writers would be waiting for me, but it was a welcome destination to say the least.
The essay is:
Thanks to Bill Whittle for composing that piece. To say I wish I could command that kind of clarity of expression would be to understate the obvious..
Thanks also to Twitter friend
@SmoosieQ for putting up the signpost.
Now, quit wasting time reading my blather. Head over to Eject! Eject! Eject! for some edification.
Side note: You can find other great works from my internet travels on the Prime page.
Readers of this blog know that I believe Obama is a stealth Muslim. I still believe it to be true, even though some recent events such as the deaths of Osama bin Laden, Alawar al Alaki and many other top level terrorists would seem to contradict such an opinion. Later, I will propose a scenario where both truths could be possible.
There are also a growing number of people coming to at least suspect Obama to be a Manchurian President. Given his handling of Middle East policy of ignoring or actively supporting militant Islamic groups while simultaneously denigrating our Israeli allies, I must agree that the Manchurian President theory is not just possible, it is highly probable and as such, must be considered. My aim here is to take these possibilities to the ugliest possible conclusion, because if even remotely true, it would have catastrophic consequences for freedom loving peoples the world over. It would also be the Mother of All Conspiracies.
It is known that Islam allows and in some cases encourages its followers to lie to unbelievers in order to achieve the goal of world dominance and submission to the faith. This is called “Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true,” or another form which is “Kitman – Lying by omission.” ~ This brings up a question in my mind secondary to the theory I am proposing: What kind of god allows and encourages his followers to engage in deceit? A false god, that’s who, one who is completely contrary to the one true God of the Jews and of the Christians, who encourages truth and calls lying a sin, but I digress.
The stated goal of Islam is to convert all non-believers to the faith or enslave them to their theocratic rule through Sharia law and ultimately establish a Caliphate with a Caliph, or single high priest, who will rule over the entire world under the authority of Allah and establish world domination of their religion.
It should be known that jihad and preparation towards jihad are not only for the purpose of fending off assaults and attacks of Allah’s enemies from Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world.
Obama wants to be the Caliph
Regarding the Middle East and the Arab Uprisings, the Obama administration has done nothing to discourage, and everything to encourage unrest and in many cases helped promote anti-American interests to power in Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon. At the same time, Yemin and many other Middle Eastern countries have seen bloody protests funded by and instigated by the Muslim Brotherhood while Obama ignores the uprising in Iran against the Ahmadinejad regime, a sworn enemy of the United States. Why would Obama promote unrest by his indecisive behavior or in some cases, support Muslim Brotherhood activity with US military forces in Libya while ignoring obvious pro-democratic uprisings in Iran? I think the answer is obvious. He wants to promote the Islamic religion and ultimately the worldwide Caliphate theocracy. Think that is an outrageous accusation? Tell it to the Pakistani government minister who called for Obama to claim the title of Caliph.
Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda’s second in command Atiyah Abd Al-Rahman and a host of top terrorists have been killed during Obama’s presidency, which prompted ABC’s Jake Tapper to remark:
Remember when Rudy Giuliani warned that electing Barack Obama would mean that the U.S. played defense, not offense, against the terrorists?
If this is defense, what does offense look like?
Just last week American born terrorist Alawar al Alaki is taken out by American forces under the command of Barack Hussein Obama. Taken at face value, one could assume that Obama ordered these killings; however, the opposite could be true. As in the case of bin Laden, our military was on target long before Obama was even aware of the fact and actually had no choice but to sign off on the killing lest he be painted as aiding and abetting the enemy. Speculatively, the same scenario could have transpired for Al Rahman, al Alaki and the others. Our forces could have been on target and it would just plain look bad if the president told them to stand down.
If Obama is in fact engaging in Taqiyya or Kitman, then he would betray his Muslim identity by expressing regret or remorse at the deaths of his allies. If we take it one step farther, (here comes the overactive imagination), Obama could, in fact, be engaging in a double-cross against his Muslim brothers; He could claim plausible deniability in these killings while deftly using his position as president to take out any candidates or would-be contenders to himself becoming the Caliph. He is in the perfect place from which to carry this out, probably the only place from which it can be done: The White House.
Going a bit farther still, the idea of using his position to eliminate his rivals may not have occurred to Obama until bin Laden was taken out or even later, but the possibility is still a viable one. Perhaps narcissist Obama is now recognizing other advantages to being leader of the country he despises.
If this theory is correct, I think Obama will eventually remove Ahmadinejad, who I believe sees himself as the rightful Caliph, but the timing is not right, especially since Ahmadinejad presents a threat to the US that he can use in the future to bolster Obama’s image as a decisive leader perhaps a war with Iran or another assassination in the days, weeks or months leading up to the 2012 election?
Obviously, I’m not sure about any of this. Who could be except Obama himself? I’m just trying to make sense of what Obama is doing and increasingly, in my mind, the evidence points to Obama’s malicious destruction of America as a necessary step in a larger plan – and that should trouble us all.
For Liberty ~ ‘bot
UPDATE: Linked by Doug Ross - Thanks!
Thanks to Zilla of the Resistance for her assistance in researching this piece.
References linked in this post: – Updated
No, I’m not talking about Obama or Pelosi.
Some email humor:
The first is purported to be from Jeff Foxworthy but I think he could have done most of them better.
I’ve revised it slightly as an instructional tool for the TSA.
If you refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objectionÂ to liquor…
You may be an Islamic Terrorist.
If you own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but youÂ can’t afford shoes..
You may be a Islamic Terrorist.
If you have more wives than teeth…
You may be a Islamic Terrorist.
If you wipe your butt with your bare hand,Â but consider bacon unclean…
You may be a Islamic Terrorist.
If you think vests come in two styles:Â bullet-proof and suicide…
You may be a Islamic Terrorist.
If you can’t think of anyone you haven’t declared Jihad against…
You may be a Islamic Terrorist.
If you consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosivesÂ in your clothing…
You may be a Islamic Terrorist.
If you were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other thanÂ setting off roadside bombs…
You may be a Islamic Terrorist.
If you have nothing against women and think every manÂ should own at least four…
You may be a Islamic Terrorist.
If your cousin is president of the United States …
You may be a Islamic Terrorist.
Last year I replaced all the windows in my house with that expensive double-panel energy efficient kind, and today, I got a call from the contractor who installed them. He was complaining that the work had been completed a whole year ago and I still hadn’t paid for them.
Hellloooo …just because I’m blonde doesn’t mean that I am automatically stupid.
So, I told him just what his fast talking sales guy had told me last year, that in ONE YEAR these windows would pay for themselves!
Helllooooo? It’s been a year! I told him. There was only silence at the other end of the line, so I finally just hung up.
He never called back. I bet he felt like an idiot.
Conservative hero Alan Keyes is asking whether there is a pattern of submission surrounding the nation’s 9/11 sites. Apparently he has seen our video expose of Islamic and terrorist memorializing features in the crescent memorial to Flight 93 (now called a broken circle). Like any straight-thinker, he doesn’t like what he sees. The Flight 93 crash site is no place for a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, no matter what it is called.
On this point, Keyes cites Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo’s 2005 objection to the newly unveiled Crescent of Embrace design:
Back in 2005, then-Rep. Tom Tancredo was reported to have sent a letter to the National Park Service “asking the Interior Department to reconsider the crescent-shaped design of the memorial to those aboard a plane hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001, because some may think it honors the terrorists.” Tancredo quite sensibly argues that “regardless of whether ‘the invocation of a Muslim Symbol’ was intentional, ‘it seems that such a symbol is unsuitable for paying appropriate tribute to the heroes of Flight 93 or the ensuing American struggle against radical Islam.’”
Keyes notes our claim that the design is still replete with terrorist memorializing features and he seems to find it credible. Why shouldn’t he? The damning features are all right there in architect Paul Murdoch’s design drawings. Thank you Doctor Keyes!
“Itâ€™s not just embarrassing. It is a dangerous willful blindness, spurning the woken vigilance of Flight 93.”
That’s the last line of the full-page advertisement that Tom Burnett Senior and Alec Rawls will be running in the Somerset Daily American this Friday and Saturday (when the two first ladies will be in town for the 9/11 anniversary):
We are hoping that visitors will hold onto our ad, maybe even tape it to their car windows, and most especially, show it to any press people they come across. Hey, if the Park Service can use 9/11 to plant the world’s largest mosque on the Flight 93 crash site, we can use 9/11 to object.
To join our blogburst against the crescent mosque, just send your blog’s url.
Today’s Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.
Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense. After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, “the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people.” But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that “Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense.”
And yesterday, former US Envoy to the UN, John Bolton said Israel has just a few days to act before Iran begins inserting fuel rods into it’s newly built nuke-you-lar reactor.
Israel has only mere days to launch an attack on Iranâ€™s Bushehr nuclear reactor if Russia makes good on its plan to deliver fuel there this weekend, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton warned Tuesday.
He said that once Russia has loaded the fuel into the reactor — slated for Saturday â€“ Israel would no longer be willing to strike for fear of triggering widespread radiation in an attack.
Iran in effect is hiding behind human shields while it continues to arm itself with nuclear capabilities:
Iran, for its part, dismissed talk of a possible Israel strike.
On Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast was quoted as saying that “these threats of attacks had become repetitive and lost their meaning.” He also reportedly told correspondents in Tehran, “According to international law, installations which have real fuel cannot be attacked because of the humanitarian consequences.â€
The rhetoric comes as the US increased sanctions on Iran as part of its ongoing efforts to ratchet up pressure on Tehran.
On Tuesday the US Treasury announced dozens of additional names of Iranian banks and individuals that fall under sanctions law.
So, while the Iranians continue to ratchet up their ability to attack our Israeli allies, our President and State department continue to run a racket of sanctions and weak diplomacy designed to look the other way while Israel is forced to defend itself alone.
Should we strike Iranian nuclear facilities before they load fuel into their reactor or complete their ability to enrich weapons grade plutonium?
I believe we should and if we don’t strike first, we should at the very least provide backing forces to Israel when they do so. A nuclear Iran would be more emboldened to act out against our Israeli allies, just as any of the lesser factions surrounding them because of Iran’s implied nuclear umbrella of protection. We cannot allow this scenario to develop.
Will President Obama see the issue this way?
I’d doubt he has a pair. In fact, his previous actions suggest that he’ll use an Israeli strike as a reason to sanction or condemn Israel.
That would be a tragedy of unthinkable proportions.
On line fight for British ex paraâ€™s release escalates as he is sent back to Afghan prison cell after failed court hearing
THOUSANDS of members of an on line support group are intensifying their fight to have a Teesside serviceman released from an Afghan jail after he was refused his freedom by the Afghan authorities at a court hearing. Anthony Malone 37, an ex paratrooper from Billingham is being held in Pul-i-Charkhi prison in Afghanistan for allegedly owing thousands of dollars.
These barbarians want nothing more than ransom money. Let’s let this soldier and his family know that we are aware of and support Anthony Malone’s cause.
To his credit, Malone is steadily demanding that no money be paid for his release.
â€œAnthony is a man of principle and insists on his innocence. He wants to leave Pul-i-Charkhi as a freeman with his name cleared.â€
Our president may not be much in the way of treating our British allies with the dignity and respect they deserve, but we can at least show that the American people won’t abandon them.
It’s being reported that 17 Afghan soldiers here for training are loose in the US, and have been for about 2 years or less and we are just now hearing of it. The reports are somewhat vague as to the duration of individual cases although I might infer that they have been filtering out into the population in small numbers.
Some are questioning why the reports are only being released now. Fox News quotes an unnamed senior law enforcement official:
“Although we are vigilant and need to work toward not allowing this to happen,” the official said, this alert should “not necessarily” be described as “a national security threat, more of a ‘hey these guys violated our laws and we need to find them.’”
OK sport, maybe you could look for about 12 million or so illegal immigrants while you’re at it. Both cases are quite similar with the exception that we transported these possible terrorists here at taxpayer expense. I hear we have some neat new detention facilities in which to house these guys, should they ever be caught. They could learn basket weaving with the rest ofÂ ‘em.
I can tell you the first place I would look for these guys, it’s a place that they would fit right in, never to be noticed.
The Obama Administration.
Glenn Beck sent out an email on it earlier today and Fox also has some info, including the names and Memeorandum has more info along with Scared Monkeys, The Jawa Report, Weasel Zippers, Confederate Yankee, Atlas Shrugs, Liberty Pundits Blog, Patterico’s Pontifications and And So it Goes in Shreveport
Another question, why don’t they post the photos? Are they afraid someone might recognize one of them? Am I supposed to go up to random Afghan looking dude and ask “Hey, aren’t you… *picks out random name from list* Mohammad Nasim Fateh Zada, born 12/4/1966?” I can’t even pronounce it. Besides, that would be racial profiling, wouldn’t it?
As Obi’s Sister says, “What could go wrong?”
Anyone Still Wondering Where This PC Bullshit Is Going Better Take A LookÂ At Britain.
Via twitter friend JihadHunter some disturbing images and a story to wake up the drowsy, that is if you want to be awakened at all. If not, sorry ’bout your bad luck.
From the UK Daily Mail:
Screaming hate and brandishing vile placards, Muslim extremists and far-Right groups clashed yesterday in ugly scenes that marred a parade by soldiers.
Around 40 members of a group called Muslims Against the Crusades (MAC) arrived with inflammatory banners featuring slogans such as ‘Butchers return’ and ‘What are you dying for? Â£18k’.
Now the good news. Some of our English brethren are tired of the BS as well:
They were soon confronted by 100 people, some wearing English Defence League T-shirts, who shouted ‘scum’ and ‘Muslim bombers off our streets’.
Thank God for anyone willing to stand up to this vile attempt at defaming defenders of freedom. Who do these idiots think protect their right to protest in the first place?