Sunday, July 31, 2005

Liberal Judenhass Watch - Pt. 4

Power Line discusses the Democratic Party's problem with anti-semitism, McKinney's Tinfoil Gavel with a link the the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's article on her latest anti-semitic antics, McKinney reopens 9/11.

It seems that the Democrats cannot rid themselves of this stuff.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Rove is an Evil Superman

He is at the center of all that is bad for the Democrats and other idiot liberals. At the "mainstream" liberal Democrat blog Daily Kos, Case for Adding TANG Forgeries to Fitzgerald's Brief. Not only is Karl Rove's brilliant idea of forcing Dan Rather to broadcast a story based on falsified documents discussed, but a timeline is provided. This provides a convenient list of all of Mr. Roves conspiracies and crimes.

Ya see, it all started in 1972 when...

Wayne Madsen at Counterpunch even said on November 1st, 2002, "He's America's Joseph Goebbels." this is real raving good stuff that even includes this incomprehensible paragraph;
And Rove's penchant for fascistic demagoguery and outright lying continues to this very day. After Paul Wellstone's sons asked that Vice President Dick Cheney not attend the Minneapolis memorial service for their father, mother, and sister, the White House explained that the real reason wasn't the surviving Wellstone family's abhorrence for Cheney but the fact the family didn't want Cheney's Secret Service protection to interfere with public access to the service. Of course, the Rove and Ari Fleischer disinformation machine forgot to take into account that two attendees, Bill and Hillary Clinton, had their own Secret Service details. But such is the case with a White House that takes its lessons from Goebbels and the editorial staff of the old Soviet News Agency Tass. [I suppose that it is better to say that the family abhors Mr. Cheney than to be dignified about it. - ed.]
The more recent catalogue at the Daily Kos is, of course, more complete.

And I thought that that particular theory had died under the weight of its own stupidity. Silly me, I had forgotten that it had become a part of the Liberal Religion and therefore an undeniable article of the Democratic Party Liberal Faith™.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Liberals to Bring Religious Freedom to Canada?

Since many Christian Churches, especially the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches count homosexual behavior as sinful and will not ordain practicing homosexuals, and since they (we) will not ordain women, obviously an adjustment must be made to drag these Churches into alignment with the practices of the times. This is the opinion of Bob Ferguson writing for the CBC.

According to him, if they (we) will not ordain practicing homosexuals, or should be so bold as to say that our beliefs are true (with the implication that those who believe differently are in error), as we do, then there should be laws that would prevent us from practicing that religion, and under that pressure, perhaps we would begin to believe as required! Requiring these beliefs will, of course, make religion more free!

If you think that I am overstating this even a little bit, listen to the CBC's Radio Commentary for 18/7/05. A transcript is provided, copied in full below.
Listen to today's Commentary


Men and women within the Roman Catholic faith are still hoping that the church can change to more accurately reflect the World in which we live. This week-end, for example, an international conference will be held in Ottawa to support women's equality in religions. WOW, or Women's Ordination Worldwide, is fighting for the ordination of women in all Christian Churches. It says it wants to open a global debate on the issue.

And some were hoping for reform during the period when the old pope was dying and the new pope was being anticipated.

Bob Ferguson is a retired professor from the Royal Military College. He believes that Catholics are unlikely ever to see changes in policy on birth control or on the question of married or female priests. In fact, he says change won't come until the churches are forced to comply with the same human rights legislation that affects the rest of society.

Bob Ferguson:

Given the inertia of the Catholic Church, perhaps we could encourage reform by changing the environment in which all religions operate.

Couldn't we insist that human rights, employment and consumer legislation apply to them as it does other organizations? Then it would be illegal to require a particular marital status as a condition of employment or to exclude women from the priesthood.

Of course the Vatican wouldn't like the changes, but they would come to accept them in time as a fact of life in Canada. Indeed I suspect many clergy would welcome the external pressure.

We could also help the general cause of religious freedom by introducing a code of moral practice for religions. They will never achieve unity so why not try for compatibility? Can't religious leaders agree to adjust doctrine so all religions can operate within the code?

I am an engineer so the model I am thinking about is rather like the provincial acts regulating the practice of engineering. For example, engineers must have an engineering degree from a recognized university or pass qualification exams. They must have a number of years of practical experience and pass an ethics exam. The different branches: mechanical, electrical, civil and the like have a code of practice that applies to everyone. Why can't religious groups do the same?

I envisage a congress meeting to hammer out a code that would form the basis of legislation to regulate the practice of religion. Like the professional engineers' P.Eng designation, there would then be RRPs (or registered religious practitioners). To carry the analogy to its conclusion, no one could be a religious practitioner without this qualification.

I won't try to propose what might be in the new code except for a few obvious things: A key item would have to be a ban on claims of exclusivity. It should be unethical for any RRP to claim that theirs was the one true religion and believers in anything else or nothing were doomed to fire and brimstone. One might also expect prohibition of ritual circumcisions, bans on preaching hate or violence, the regulation of faith healers, protocols for missionary work, etc.

Now what is the point of proposing this? I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat. Religion is important in our lives, but it can become a danger to society when people claim that the unalterable will of God is the basis for their opinions and actions. [guilty as charged - how can one believe in God and not believe and live as God and his agents teach us? - ed.] Yes religion can be a comfort and a guide, but we cannot take rules from our holy books and apply them to the modern world without democratic debate and due regard for the law.

For Commentary, I'm Bob Ferguson in Marysville, Ontario. [all emphasis above is mine - ed.]
Make no mistake, liberal political beliefs are geared towards taking away YOUR freedoms, with the right to believe as you will being the first. They think that, being better educated than you, and wealthier than you, and being generally better people than you are gives them the moral obligation to look out for your well-being by thinking for you and telling you how to live and in what to believe - all for your own good, of course.

This is just one guy's commentary now, but this is the direction that liberalism has been traveling. With the passage of gay marriage legislation and ongoing efforts to silence the expression of Christian ideas in public (and what good is free speech if it is not public?) it is not inconceivable that legislation such as this could be proposed, and one day passed.

Liberals in the United States see Canada as the model and would love nothing better than to take us down the same tyrannical path that the liberal Canadians are traveling.

This is simply evil - and Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians will lose their property and go to jail before submitting to such laws, as we have done under the Romans, the Turks, and the Soviets.

We must remain vigilant.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Liberal Judenhass Watch - Pt. 3

The Jew hating mayor of London is interviewed by the BBC. Here is a report by The Telegraph. The Jerusalem Post has an excellent analysis with reader comments. From The Post;
The substance of Livingstone's remarks will be sadly familiar to anyone remotely acquainted with the fantasies of Western defeatism: The West has exploited the Arabs to "control the flow of oil;" the Americans "recruited and trained" Osama bin Laden; as a matter of policy Israel practises "indiscriminate slaughter" against the Palestinians; the West defames Muslims by unfairly highlighting the views of Islamists who are "totally unrepresentative" of the mainstream.

Speaking of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, Livingstone went on: "Under foreign occupation and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work for three generations, I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves."

This last passage is extraordinary and worth taking apart in detail to illustrate the kind of mind-set we are dealing with.

THE FIRST clause, of course, is a flat-out lie. As Livingstone must surely know, all citizens of Israel proper, including more than a million Arabs, have the right to vote in Knesset elections. As he must also know, Palestinians living in the territories also have a vote and recently and very publicly used it. They did, after all, elect Mahmoud Abbas as PA chairman.

The second clause is a slippery but highly characteristic deception. The only reason the Palestinians do not run their own affairs is because they have consistently refused to accept statehood alongside Israel.

The third clause contains another lie: Israel does not prevent the Palestinians from working and only stops them from coming to work inside Israel when it is concerned about terrorist attacks.

But, interestingly, note how that clause concludes with the words "for three generations." Here, the mask has slipped.

Three generations (60 years by most definitions of the word "generation") refers back to the inception of Israel itself. Perhaps unwittingly, Livingstone reveals his annihilationist prejudices.

It is not the "occupation" that concerns him, it is the very existence of the Jewish state.
The final part of the passage contains both obscenity and idiocy. It is obscene because, on the basis of the above noted lies and deceptions, it offers Palestinian suicide bombers the excuse of "just cause." Who could really blame them? he effectively says.

It is idiotic because one could easily quote dozens of peoples who have lived under genuine tyrannies but have not responded by strapping themselves up with explosives to blow to pieces as many men, women and children as they can. Did Jews respond to the Holocaust by slaughtering innocent Germans? Did east Europeans respond to Stalinism by blowing up Russian buses?
The upshot? It is all the fault of the Jews and the West (Americans), of course.

Meanwhile, from the piece in The Telegraph;
In a separate move, Anjem Choudary, the UK leader of the militant Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, interviewed for BBC Radio 4's Today programme said Muslim leaders should not meet Mr Blair.

"The British Government wants to show that they are on the side of justice and of truth, whereas in reality the real terrorists are the British regime, and even the British police, who have tried to divide the Muslim community into moderates and extremists, whereas this classification doesn't exist in Islam," he said.

"Either you are a practising Muslim or a non-practising one, and I cannot envisage that any practising Muslim would sit with the Government, especially with the blood that they have on their hands and the atrocious foreign policy they have and the aggression they are committing against the Muslim community in Britain."

He added: "We need to see what caused this particular effect, otherwise we are going to continue in a cycle of blood and I believe another 7/7 is a very real possibility."

Another radical Muslim, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, said British voters were to blame for the London attacks for not making enough effort to stop the Government committing its own atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But, of course it is all the fault of the Jews and the West. So, just close you eyes and go back to sleep.

We Need a Strong and Secure Russia

Alexander Vershbow, the departing U.S. Ambassador to Russia makes that casem, and rightly so, is a column that he wrote for Moskovskie Novosti at Reviving the Cold War?
My four-year assignment in Russia is coming to an end. Since coming here to work as an ambassador, not to mention my Russian university years during the Cold War, our relations have gone through a long journey. Currently the tone is set by the personal contact of the presidents of our two countries. Russia and the United States have forged excellent cooperation in fighting terrorism. Even spheres where tensions were visible until recently — the ABM treaty, global security — have become an arena of partnership.

But I cannot ignore what raises concern. I will not stop on the trifles, such as the intrigues of the Russian bureaucracy in relation to American business. I am far more concerned by the growing distrust of the intentions of the United States. Often, even high-placed Russian officials are heard saying: the United States is interested in weakening Russia. This refrain is repeated with particular insistence regarding recent events in the post-Soviet space, where everyone sees the hand of America.
Mr. Vershbow discusses some of these issues of mistrust and goes on to say;
Let’s put aside the slander. America needs a strong and stable Russia — a weak Russia would be a nightmare for us. The United States still intends to encourage Russia in carrying out its responsibilities before the community of democratic countries, especially taking into account that Russia will preside over the Group of Eight next year. Yes, we have our differences, such as over Iraq; however, we are united today by a whole lot more. It’s clear that Russian public opinion lags behind the real progress made in our relations. It’s time to catch up.
The U.S. and Russia are natural allies in the WoT. They have a huge problem with militant Islam and Islamic terrorism. It looks as though they are about to make the necessary adjustment to their Army to meet this challenge, and that is a very good thing.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Day by Day Promoted

Ok, I admit that leaving Day by Day at the bottom of my blog was a mistake. It is now promoted to the header.

And I hope that you enjoy the spoof on bad poerty by W. S. Gilbert from the opera "Patience" that he wrote with Sir Arthur Sullivan. That will change from time to time.


Hillary Seems Confused

Our future Democratic Presidential nominee doesn't seem to be of one mind with respect to the issue of aliens illegally crossing out southern border. In a story from she seems to be in favor of closing the border and having *gasp* only legal immigration.

Hillary Clinton Blasts President Bush on Border Security
Clinton says that while "this administration has failed to provide the resources to protect our borders, or a better system to keep track of entrants to this country ... I welcome the addition of more border security."

She pins blame for the failure directly on the Oval Office, saying, "President Bush refused to provide the necessary funding in his Fiscal Year 2006 proposed budget sufficient to hire all of the border patrol agents that had been authorized."

"Fortunately," Clinton adds, "during the Senate’s debate on the budget in March of 2005, we passed an amendment to provide increased funding for border patrol agents."
Sounds good, I find myself agreeing with Her Evillity. Then there is this, Clinton speaks before Hispanic civil rights conference
Speaking to the nations' largest Hispanic civil rights organization, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., received a standing ovation Monday when she vowed her support for legislation that would allow illegal immigrant high school students to attend college.
So which is it?

Monday, July 18, 2005

A Result of the Supreme Court's Kelo Decision

One result of the recent decision of our National Oligarchy in Kelo v. City of New London is discussed at CNSNews, Eminent Domain: Churches 'Targeted by the Bulldozers';
( - There is disagreement over whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent eminent domain decision endangers the property rights of churches, synagogues and other religious institutions. Some argue that the First Amendment and existing laws may offer adequate protection, while others worry that the decision will open the door to a political assault on the property of people of faith.

The Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London ruling, could mean that "religious institutions that are, by nature, non-commercial and, by law, tax exempt, would be the first to be targeted by the bulldozers because of their alleged lack of economic contribution to the community," according to Jared Leland, media and legal counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
So, is this a paranoid fantasy, or is it a real possibility.

First, Sandra Day O'Connor says;
"[T]he Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use," O'Connor wrote. "It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public -- such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure."

O'Connor voiced another concern, one that resonated with groups advocating on behalf of religious rights. She warned that in expanding the definition of "public use," the majority had come close to embracing "the absurd argument that ... any church that might be replaced with a retail store ... is inherently harmful to society, and thus within the government's power to condemn."
How is this possible?
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, agreed with O'Connor's assessment.

"She's absolutely correct, especially since churches are, of course, tax exempt," Sekulow warned. "I think we've got a risk here that's significant."

Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, told Cybercast News Service that the threat doesn't stop with the potential for taking away property a religious entity already owns.

"A church might want to purchase a property in a high-growth area and, because city planners and developers know that churches don't bring anything to the table in terms of tax revenues, I think that there's a tremendous potential for all kinds of barriers being set up to prevent a church from acquiring property," Palmer explained.

He also fears the ruling might be used to punish churches that are active in promoting political issues involving morality.

"For instance, here in Alabama," Palmer warned, "it was the churches that rallied, contributed money to the campaign but, really rallied behind defeating a lottery.

"And the churches have been the mainstay of opposition to expansion of gambling in Alabama," he continued, "so much so that one state legislator proposed that -- if churches continue to block these gambling measures that he says would bring substantial revenue to the state -- then, perhaps, they should look at taxing church property."
This is a very real threat to religious freedom in an environment where the Left™ is working very hard to silence all Christian expression (strange that they have no problem with Islam).
"An added or extra level of protection for religious institutions has been stripped away by the court," Leland said. "Nevertheless, there are some very sturdy shoulders to lean on in the First Amendment and federal law."

Palmer is not so optimistic.

"That's one court decision away from meaning nothing," he argued, adding that the same court that just expanded the definition of "public use" in the Fifth Amendment could limit the scope of the "free exercise" of religion in the First Amendment.

"Kelo is the logical progression of activist judges," Palmer continued. "Activism, by either side, undermines the rule of law and, when one side or the other starts making up new rights or denying existing rights, all the rights are undermined."

Sekulow noted that the federal law most often used to fight encroachment on a church's property rights -- the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) -- has not been contested in the Supreme Court ... yet.

"I think it's an open-ended question right now, and we don't know how the courts are going to deal with that," Sekulow said. "[Someone is] going to test the constitutionality of RULIPA.
The States need to act. Texas has already started. The move is already on for municipalities to condemn Church property and hand it over to private developement interests.
Lawmakers in Texas appeared to be acting on Sekulow's advice even before he gave it. State senators Wednesday passed Senate Bill 62, which would block city, county and state agencies there from taking advantage of the high court's decision.

The Becket Fund cited 10 cases in its "friend of the court" brief, in which a municipality is or was trying to seize a church's private property and give or sell it to another private entity for commercial development. Without laws such as the one proposed in Texas, Leland warned that the Kelo decision could make such attempts more common.

"One could actually argue that St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City is in jeopardy of being seized [on behalf of], possibly, Donald Trump, who promises to increase the economic interests and generate greater tax revenue in the city," Leland said.

"Granted, that is a stretch of an example only because of the social and political implications that would have," he concluded. "But it's certainly possible under this new standard."
Make no mistake, this is still a Leftist™ Supreme Court and they will take your right to express your Christian faith away from you.

To understand, all you have to do is look around you.

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Alexander Lebed and Suitcase Nukes

Carey Sublette, at his excellent nuclear weapons website, has an evaluation of the claims of former Soviet National Security Advisor Alexander Lebed regarding lost Russian man-portable nuclear weapons.

Alexander Lebed and Suitcase Nukes

Be sure to read the bit on the The Burton-Lunev Hearing where a mock-up of a "suitcase nuke" based on a plutonium-fueled gun-type atomic weapon having a yield of 1,000 to 10,000 tons of TNT was shown to the Military Research and Development Subcommittee hearing, chaired by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Penn.). The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, at 15k tons, was only slightly larger than that.

So, close the southern border!

Close the Southern Border

Charles Johnson (the Blogfather) at LGF has posted the reason why, Possible Terrorist Plot at Texas Border. More from Charles' links news article;
Adm. James Loy, former Homeland Security deputy secretary, declined to comment on the specific plot outlined in the FBI memo, but earlier this year he suggested that such a threat is real.

"Entrenched human-smuggling networks and corruption in areas beyond our borders can be exploited by terrorist organizations," Loy said in written testimony at a congressional hearing in February. "Several al-Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons."

But law enforcement officials discounted the suggestion that terrorists would use the rugged Big Bend area to transport explosives - especially in a tractor-trailer that would glaringly stand out.

"I think there would be easier ways to get explosives inside the United States," said Benjamine Carry Huffman, assistant chief patrol agent for U.S. Customs & Border Protection in Marfa, Texas.

But the intelligence bulletin noted that the alleged terror plot, as relayed by the informant, was still a work in progress, leaving open the possibility that less conspicuous vehicles might be employed. And the FBI memo said that "one possible smuggling route Traca wanted to use was through Big Bend National Park."

The border patrol's Marfa sector is its largest, covering 510 miles of border with Mexico, including part of Big Bend National Park, and bordering the Mexican states of Chihuahua and Coahuila. With some 200 agents, it has the smallest force of any sector along the Mexican border, according to Bill Brooks, the sector spokesman.

Much of the area is desert and mountainous terrain, dotted by at least a dozen informal crossings known as Class B ports of entry. These consist of makeshift bridges capable of carrying foot and some lighter vehicle traffic. Authorities tried to seal them off after Sept. 11, 2001, but several have been re-established. Officials acknowledged that agents cannot regularly police the informal crossings.

"Who ever imagined that terrorists would use passenger planes to crash into tall buildings?" Hoffman said. "After September 11, we have to operate on a different mindset, one in which we take absolutely nothing for granted. Is it possible terrorists can come across this border with explosives or a dirty bomb? Absolutely."
And not just a dirty bomb, how about actual functioning nuclear weapons?

Monday, July 11, 2005

Life of Saint Thekla

Having posted on the ordination of women, I thought it good to post the Life of St. Thekla. She is one of Christianity's greatest Saints and has the title "Equal to the Apostles". All Christians, even my Protestant brothers and sisters, would do well to read her Life.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Great Britain's Big Problem - Our's Too

For some time political correctness has imposed a requirment that we be tolerant of other people's beliefs, no matter what they are as long as they are not Christian. This is London has a piece about some people who are NOT unusual citizens of the United Kingdom. Some beliefs, and the presence in society of some people should not be tolerated.

Terror on the dole published on the 20th of April, 2004 predicts recent events.
Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.

"As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."

"Pass the brown sauce, brother," says Abu Malaahim, the IT specialist, devouring his chicken and chips.

"I agree with you, brother," says Abu Yusuf, the earnest-looking financial adviser sitting opposite. "I would like to see the Mujahideen coming into London and killing thousands, whether with nuclear weapons or germ warfare. And if they need a safehouse, they can stay in mine - and if they need some fertiliser [for a bomb], I'll tell them where to get it."

His friend, Abu Musa, the security guard, smiles radiantly. "It will be a day of joy for me," he adds, speaking with a slight lisp.
These are "educated", healthy people able to contribute to the society in which they live, but...
Prior to seeing the group at the fastfood restaurant, Sayful meets me at his semi-detached rented home in Bury Park, Luton's Muslim neighbourhood. He no longer works, even though he is able-bodied, he admits, preferring instead to claim housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance. He smiles sheepishly and says the irony is not lost on him that the British state is supporting him financially, even as he plots to "overthrow it".

"I made a decision that I wanted to follow what Islam really said," Sayful begins, sitting on his sofa in his thowb (a traditional robe) and bare feet. "I went to listen to all the local imams, but I found their portrayal of Islam was too secularised. When I heard Sheikh Omar [the leader] of al-Muhajiroun speak, it was pure Islam, with no compromise. I found that appealing.
So, are these a bunch of big-mouthed losers who can be ignored? Sadly, no. They are big-mouthed losers who seriously desire to kill their host - and there are a lot of them.
He denies any link between al-Muhajiroun and the Muslims arrested in the recent police raids. But, as I later discover at the fastfood restaurant, not everyone attaching themselves, however loosely, to al-Muhajiroun draws the same line. Two members of the group - Abu Yusuf, the financial adviser, and Abu Musa, the security guard - scorn al-Muhajiroun as "too moderate".

"I am freelance," says Abu Yusuf, fixing me with his piercing brown eyes. What does that mean? I ask.

"The difference between us and those two," interjects Abu Malaahim, pointing to Musa and Yusuf, "is that us lot do a verbal thing, [but] those brothers actually want to do a physical thing."
And of course, while these parasites are seeking to destroy their host, one must ask - Who is to blame? Certainly not the future murderers themselves, nooooooo.
Referring to the latest truce offered by Bin Laden, and Britain's scathing rejection of it, Abu Malaahim adds: "He tried to make a peace deal. When terrorism happens, you will only have yourselves to blame."

How far are you prepared to go? I ask.

"You want to know how far I will go," says Abu Musa, his high-pitched lisp rising an octave. "When Allah said in the Koran 'kill and be killed', that's what I want. I want a martyr operation, where I kill my enemy."

Are you saying, I probe, that you are looking to kill people yourself ? "Yes," Abu Musa says, "to kill and to be killed." He emphasises each word.
Many Muslims say that the accusation that they say one thing to us, the dirty infidels, while they say other things inside their own communities is a false, racist accusation. Well, how about that?
Sulaiman insists that Sayful Islam and his crew are not welcome at the mosque. He cannot prevent them praying there, but he will never give them a platform. "I've told Sayful to bugger off and ejected him many times," he says brusquely. "Even Sayful's father, who I know well, thinks his son has been brainwashed."

But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."

They also mock the idea that they are attracted to al-Muhajiroun because they have suffered alienation from white society. "Do we look like scum?" they ask. "Do we look illiterate?"
Remember, this piece was written over a year ago.

It is hard to be any more clear than this as to why Islam is a cancer in every civilization that it appears in, including ours.

For more on al-Muhajiroun see, Al-Muhajiroun - The portal for Britian’s suicide terrorists

Friday, July 08, 2005

Our Enemies are Stupid

Mona Charen explains why.
Almost certainly Al-Qaeda or one of its allies murdered and maimed random, defenseless civilians in London today. According to the BBC, "al-Qala'a," an Islamist website that has been used as a conduit by Al Qaeda in the past, contained a claim of responsibility that read, in part: "Rejoice, for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahedeen have carried out a blessed raid in London."

People who can use a word like "blessed" to describe men, women, and children being blown to pieces or having their eyes gouged out by flying glass or losing limbs are not just barbarous, they are twisted. Theirs is a perversion of mind and spirit that almost defies imagination. But thankfully, they are also not very smart.

By committing such atrocities, the Islamists manage to stiffen whatever small residue of resolve remains in flaccid Western civilization. Before the vicious attacks on London civilians, the G8 conference in Scotland focused primarily on global warming, poverty in Africa, and economic matters. But now the leaders of the industrial giants will inevitably turn their attention to the war on terror.

The Islamists could make huge strides in their campaign to undermine Western societies if they used any tactic other than terror. And, in fact, in Great Britain, they have made incredible progress by playing upon Britain's overindulgence of any minority complaint. Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes keeps a running chronicle of British abjectness on his website (
Go read the examples and her conclusion.

Appeasement is surrender and defeat. There is only one way to deal with an enemy, and that is to destroy him.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Ordination of Women

I was visiting Discarded Lies and came upon this post by zorkmidden. I answered her in the comments section, and promised a post on the subject here.

The Catholic and the Holy Orthodox Churches share the same views on the ordination of women to the priesthood. This is a controversy that has been a serious problem to the Catholics but a much lesser one for the Orthodox. This is, to some extent, a reflection of the quality of teaching inside the two Churches. Many Catholics are seeing issues of Church practice and Holy Tradition through secular and political eyes assuming that such things should change with the times. Orthodox Christians are not bashful about teaching that time does not matter. To the extent that the times have changed such that our practices no longer reflect them, it is the times that are wrong, not the Church.

That said, the reasons that the Holy Orthodox Church does not believe in the ordination of women to the priesthood are complex and only partially covered in Holy Scripture. They are covered in the Holy Tradition (as opposed to tradition) of the Church - the same Holy Tradition that produced the Holy Scriptures themselves.

I wrote to my friend zorkie (I would love to meet you and ev one day);
I'm sorry that due to my being in a big hurry just now I cannot give you a complete answer. The answer about menstruation is flatly wrong, priests that teach that need to go back to seminary.

The Church is the Bride, Jesus is the Bridegroom. The priest acts both as a representative of the Bishop in offering worship and the "sacrifice of praise" during the Divine Liturgy, and at the same time represents Christ to the Church in his ability to perform the Holy Mysteries (sacraments). Female priests would upset this relationship.

The priesthood is not the only, nor is it the most important ministry in the Church. For an important discussion of this matter see this from the Orthodox Church in America;

Ordination of Women

I hope that this helps.

The priesthood is not a job or career, there is no right for anyone, man or woman to any type of ordination. The priest is not separate from the people in any way. He is one of the people of God as all Orthodox Christians are. The laos tou Theou (laity) includes the priest and are not simple consumers of religion. All in the Church have a ministry, and each is different according to ones ability and the will of God.

The Ordination of Women (linked above) is an excellent artice in answer to this question. Rather than repeat its arguements, I would like to highlight a particular problem in the discussion. Most people from other Christian traditions, and all non-Christians look at issues from a different viewpoint. That viewpoint tends toward a rational, juridical view (many Catholics have this viewpoint also - hence their problems with this issues among others). The Orthodox viewpoint is not rational (and that is not a bad thing), but spiritual. Orthodox Christians see the entire person as being involved in a relationship with the Church and with God. The entire person is involved in worship and is sanctified and is saved. We worship with all five senses. The entire person includes a person's entire identity - and that includes gender. Each person has a slightly different charism, and men and women have different charisms. This is something not understood by people outside of the Orthodox Church.

As a result, most of the noise about ordination of women in the Orthodox Church comes from outside of the Church. As Fr. John Matusiak quite rightly wrote in the article linked above;
It is interesting to note that the controversy over the ordination of women is a rather recent one with roots outside the Orthodox Church. It is also interesting to note that, while the controversy rages in other confessions and has been a source of division, enmity, and schism elsewhere, it has garnered far less interest among Orthodox Christians. While the matter surely warrants thorough study, discussion, and dialogue, especially within cultures such as our own, and while there are certain related questions which indeed beg serious discussion -- such as the role of deaconesses in the early Church -- care needs to be taken not to create an artificial issue. The teaching of the Church clearly encourages all persons, women as well as men, young as well as old, to undertake essential critical ministries in the life of the Church -- the grandmothers of the Soviet era had a far greater impact on the life of the Church than the clergy of their day; had those grandmothers been ordained clergy, they would not have been able to have the same powerful effect on generations which otherwise might have been lost. [because they would have been killed as the priests, bishops, monks, and nuns were. - ed.] Perhaps the very success of the hordes of faithful grandmothers in their priestly ministry as grass-roots evangelizers is due not only to their faith, but to their understanding of ministry as a gift and a blessing and a calling and a vocation rather than a question of justice and equality, as is heard so often in heterodox circles. [all emphasis mine - ed.]
As an example of this, a site that calls itself Religious (which is intolerant of Orthodox Christian belief, so I will not give them a link) points out;
The general secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC) considers that the ordination of women in Orthodox churches is not a closed matter. At their 8th assembly in Harare, Zimbabwe, women's ordination and the use of inclusive language have surfaced as key issues. Most of the member denominations of the WCC are Protestant churches; most of them ordain women as ministers and priests.
The WCC has no say, and no right to say, what we Orthodox Christians should do in out ecclesiastical lives. They have no understanding of Holy Tradition and have conducted worship services with Wiccans and other animists in the U.S. and Australia. I do not even know why we are members of that (non-Christian) organization. They are trying to harm our Church. I could rant on this for a while, but I'll save that for another post.

So, with each person having their own charism, and with each person's entire Person involved with the Church - which is the Body of Christ, each person has their own role in the Church. Each of those roles is critical to the proper functioning of the Church. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, it is very important to Orthodox Christians that it function properly and that we all best use our gifts for the good of the Church. St. Paul explains this clearly in several of his writings. This one is particularly good; Chapter 12 of St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians;
1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2You know that when you were heathen, you were led astray to dumb idols, however you may have been moved. 3Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.

4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. 7To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

14For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single organ, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, 25that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

27Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

And I will show you a still more excellent way.

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Mark Steyn on the Supremes

The great Mark Steyn writes on the recent Supreme Court decision re: eminent domain. Public 'interest' shouldn't mean money;
Do you know Nancy Pelosi? Her job is leading the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. They should have asked for references. Here's her reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision on "eminent domain":

"It is a decision of the Supreme Court," said the minority leader. "So this is almost as if God has spoken."

That's not the way Abraham Lincoln saw it:

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."
Which is, in fact, the situation that prevails today.
A couple of days beforehand, the majesty of the law turned its attention to "eminent domain" -- the fancy term for what happens when the government seizes the property of the private citizen. It pays you, of course, but that's not much comfort if you've built your dream home on your favorite spot of land. Most laymen understand the "public interest" dimension as, oh, they're putting in the new Interstate and they don't want to make a huge detour because one cranky old coot refuses to sell his ramshackle dairy farm. But the Supreme Court's decision took a far more expansive view: that local governments could compel you to sell your property if a developer had a proposal that would generate greater tax revenue. In other words, the "public interest" boils down to whether or not the government gets more money to spend.

I can't say that's my definition. Indeed, the constitutional conflation of "public interest" with increased tax monies is deeply distressing to those of us who happen to think that letting governments access too much dough too easily leads them to create even more useless government programs that enfeeble the citizenry in deeply destructive ways.

Nonetheless, across the fruited domain, governments reacted to the court decision by sending the bulldozers round to idle expectantly on John Doe's front lawn: In New Jersey, Newark officials moved forward with plans to raze 14 downtown acres and build an upscale condo development; in Missouri, the City of Arnold intends to demolish 30 homes, 14 businesses and the local VFW to make way for a Lowe's Home Improvement store and a strip mall developed by THF Realty.
If you think that you are not in danger, you are wrong.

Liberals Have Watergate Fantasy

Read what the inmates at Democratic Underground are saying about a break-in at the headquarters of the Ohio Democratic Party.

The consistent pattern amongst Democrats is to try to "discover" some great scandal what can be used to begin impeachment proceedings against the President. Most recently, Karl Rove is accused of revealing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, although there is no evidence to support the accusation.

Now they want a new Watergate.


Saturday, July 02, 2005

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard - History

As my faithful readers know, I work for the Electric Boat Corp. at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard converting Trident SSBN's to SSGN's. The Shipyard oozes history, and is a National Historic District. It is an amazing place with many interesting structures and beautiful, large brick buildings housing various shops and industrial capabilities.

I will, from time to time, write about what I see there. For instance, after picking up my morning latté and scone, I sometimes walk to my office through a large metal working building that encloses acres of floor space in which large steel things are manufactured and/or maintained (ship rudders, shafts, etc.). For a simple 'cellist such as myself, this is a fascinating place.

Here is a thoroughly enjoyable read, A History of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

I walk across the caissons of Dry Docks 1, 2, and 4 several times every day. Less often I cross Dry Docks 3 and 5. They are all impressive, although it is sad to see the USS Mississippi (CGN 40) being cut up for scrap in DD #3.

It is a joy to work there.