Follow by Email

Sunday, December 31, 2006

Happy New Year

Wishing you all a happy and healthy New Years. May 2007 be even better than 2006, and may you and yours receive the best in all things.

IWA for Sunday December 31, 2006
"If I Did It,"

Hey folks,

IT’S SUNDAY!! That means that it’s time , for the ,,,,,WAIT A SECOND!! Not only is it Sunday, It’s Sunday the 31st of December, 2006. That means THIS is the last Sunday of 2006. Someone asked me if I was planning on doing a Idiot of the YEAR award. Great Idea.

So here you are. After looking back at all the Idiots of 2006, all the funny, and not so funny, stupidity of these people, I discovered that I left one out. That’s right folks. I missed one. But this one most definitely deserves full recognition for not only being an Idiot, but he has the dubious honor of being the IYA winner.

Oh, I talked about him briefly. I even gave the IWA to a friend of his. I wonder if she is working yet. Maybe getting ready to publish Robert Blake’s new book, "If I Was To Have Shot My Wife, I Would Have Thought of A Better Excuse."

Yes folks, I’m talking about OJ Simpson.

Now here is a guy who killed two people, ran from the Police, and was in the trial that stained Americana. He had money, fame, and race on his side, as well as the best Lawyers money can buy. Then when you add his luck of getting a Prosecutor who really botched the case, you get what we got. He walked.

The whole trial was a shame. The MMD {Mass Media Drones} seemed to be more concerned with Marcia Clark’s hair style and dress, than the evidence in the case. Marcia Clark the former prosecutor. Received $4 million for her book, "Without a Doubt," although sales did not meet expectations. No longer practices and is a regular guest host on the "Rivera Live" show on CNBC. Plans for her own television show fell through.

Yup, one who MANY feel got away with murder walks, and those involved got rich and famous. If you REALLY want to, clink on the link on the bottom, and you can relive the whole mess.

So he get’s away with it. He pledges to "Not rest until the real killer is brought to justice." OK. So? Where is the "real killer?" Oh yeah, he is busy writing a book. It’s called "If I Did It." That’s right, OJ was putting out a book in which he describes what he would have done if he had committed the murders. {Sigh} The public outcry was swift. The families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were outraged. Murdoch stepped in and, despite the millions already sunk in the project, nixed the book the day before it shipped. He also cancelled a taped interview Regan did with Simpson that was to air on the Fox network.

Thankfully Rupert Murdoch came to his senses and said,

"I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project. We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

But for OJ to actually think that ANYONE would buy this book, makes him stupider than we all thought he was to begin with. But to put it in the terms of an aging Jedi, "Which is greater, the fool, or the fool that follows him?" Ask Judith Regan. She probably has the answer.

Congratulations OJ, you are the Idiot Of the YEAR..

OJ Revisited
CNN -"Where are They Now"
JMT Sunday December 31, 2006

"Love and Marriage"

Hey folks,

OK, I have a problem. Normally, I do not care. Normally it doesn’t matter. But when you are talking about a Wedding Ring, to some it’s a big deal. What am I talking about? Love and marriage, symbolism, ownership, and everything else that goes with it.

An old friend of mine always said, "Marriage is a great institution, as long as you like living in institutions." Well, so far I’m loving this institution. I have a wonderful Wife, friend, lover, one that takes very good care of me. We have a son. We are happy. We know we are married. It’s documented. Everyone I know, knows I’m married.

This does not seem to be enough for some. I’m asked often, "Why do you know where a wedding ring?" I try to explain to them, the simple answer is I can’t. I cannot where ANY jewelry. If I try to wear a watch, I kill it. I literally burn a hole through the back of it, and it, burns me. Necklace? Nope. Gold, silver, ETC, turn on me. They turn my skin green, along with times, blistering occurs. So rings? Just cannot wear them. Has something to do with the acid level in my body.

But this got me curious. Just wondered, where did the Wedding Ring start anyway? Well, I found this interesting.

"As chance has it, the oldest recorded exchange of wedding rings comes from ancient Egypt, about 4800 years ago.

In early Egypt, the ring was linked with the supernatural, a never-ending band linked with eternal love. For the Romans later, the ring's acceptance by a young lady was a binding, legal agreement and the girl was no longer free. Today we accept the ring as part of a religious ceremony when we marry in church.
Modern wedding traditions.

As time passes traditions change and, today, it is not only the brides who wear rings as a symbol of their lasting affection, but the majority of men also choose to wear this badge of fidelity and commitment.

The ring's band does not have to be gold. In early Roman times they used iron, for its symbolic strength. But that has been replaced in the third century with silver and gold because of its beauty while iron rusts. There are attractive alternatives for yellow gold, such as Silver or Electrum. You can also think about the hardness of the metal and the color of your wedding band.

Wear wedding ring left or right hand.

Most people wear the wedding band on the left hand. However, some European women wear the ring on their right hand. Some Scandinavian women wear three rings, one each for



Jewish brides have the ring placed on their index finger, since that is the finger with which they point to the Torah as they read."

Wedding Thimbles.

Puritans refused to wear wedding rings because they considered jewelry frivolous, yet in Colonial times, couples exchanged "wedding thimbles" - a useful and practical gift, and therefore acceptable - but after the wedding they often cut off the bottoms thereby creating rings. Whatever the culture, whatever the century, people have recognized the importance of sealing their unions with rings.

But why the third finger of the left hand?

There are many theories as to why this particular finger came to symbolize marriage. Both the ancient Romans and Egyptians believed that a vein - called the vena amoris in Latin - ran directly from that finger to the heart.

In medieval England, a bridegroom would slide the ring part way up his bride's thumb, index and middle finger, saying "In the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost" as he passed each one. He then put the ring on the next available finger - the third finger of the left hand. This practice was finally formalized in the 1500's when Henry VIII's son authored The Book of Common Prayer, which gives English modern Protestant wedding vows and decrees on which finger our wedding rings should go.

Do men wear wedding rings?

The practice of men wearing wedding rings is relatively new. Up until the middle of the twentieth century, it was mostly only women who wore wedding rings, perhaps a reminder of the days when women were regarded as property, or perhaps a harmless custom akin to women wearing engagement rings that their husbands do not. When World War Two broke out and many young men faced lengthy separations from their wives, men began wearing wedding bands as a symbol of their marriages and a reminder of their wives.

It was pure romance, a gesture of love and affection that has happily survived into modern times. The vast majority of men wear wedding bands these days.

Then I found this,

"It was not until about 860 that the Christians used the ring in marriage ceremonies, and then it was not the plain circlet that we now use, but a highly decorated device, engraved with symbolical figures of doves, lyres and even of two linked hands. Such a "Heathenish" gadget was not given a hearty reception by the Church, and for a long time its use was discouraged, though never completely abandoned."

Now we know that marriage itself has been around for a LONG time. As a matter of fact, God said to Adam,

24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Genesis 2-24

People use to stand before God and say, "I take you as my Wife, and the woman to the man, my Husband," and they were married. Sometimes the Church was involved in making it "official", but for the most part, people meant what they said, and did what they said. Then from what I can see, it appears that Government got involved in 1754 with the "Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1754"

"The legal and social implications of Hardwicke's Marriage Act, passed in 1753, were of the utmost importance in England. From 1754 onwards a marriage, in order to be recognized as legal, had to be carried out in a very specific, circumscribed manner, ending a period during which "irregular" or clandestine marriages proliferated. Although Lord Hardwicke had been agitating for such legislation for years, it was one case in particular, a Scottish action, which had been appealed to the House of Lords, that precipitated the Act.

The case was heard by the House of Lords in January 1753, after which the Lords went on to order "That the Judges do prepare and bring in a Bill, for the better preventing of Clandestine Marriages." Three recent publications mention this case. According to Outhwaite, "a marriage of thirty years standing, celebrated legally, was challenged on the grounds of a prior secret contract." Stone writes that "after the man's death, his thirty-year marriage had been declared null, leaving his widow penniless and their child bastardised, thanks to the successful claim by another woman of a clandestine pre-contract." Both these writers use the Journal of the House of Lords as source material. Bannet, the third, citing Cobbett's Parliamentary History, writes that "the case which was said to have led to the Marriage Bill of 1753 ... involved a 'clandestine marriage set up after a man's death which was never heard of in his lifetime.' The fact that the woman who thought herself his widow had actually lived with him publicly as his wife for many years was set aside by the true or trumped up evidence of his pre-contract to another woman.""

So basically it was meant as proof and protection of the spouses? As you can see, marriage pretty much from the beginning, rings from about 4800 years ago, and government only since about 1754.

In the 20th century, however, government has intruded upon the marriage contract, among many others. Each state has tended to promulgate a standard, one-size-fits-all formula. Then, in the past generation, legislatures and courts have started unilaterally changing the terms of the marriage contract. Between 1969 and 1985 all the states provided for no-fault divorce. The new arrangements applied not just to couples embarking on matrimony but also to couples who had married under an earlier set of rules. Many people felt a sense of liberation; the changes allowed them to get out of unpleasant marriages without the often contrived allegations of fault previously required for divorce.

Divorce has been on the rise ever since. The sad fact of the matter is this, most people NOW go into marriage thinking that this is their "first." If it doesn’t work out, no big deal, we will just get lawyers and go before a judge and get a divorce.

So for all those that are concerned as to why I or many others, do not wear wedding rings, I ask you this. Which do you feel to be more important, the symbolism, or the actual act of marriage itself?

Sources, "History of the Wedding Ring"
Origins of the Wedding Ring

Law and History Review
More On Saddam.

Hey folks,

Yes, so we can now see Saddam about to be hung. The AP Video shows the preparation for this to take place. Now I posed the question last night of how can we really be sure. I have been getting some response to that and so far most of you are saying we need DNA. I agree. But until that happens, if it ever does, I say we accept that this WAS Saddam hung.

Did you notice the reporting on this? Unless you were in a "spider hole," you couldn’t miss it today. The NY Post said,

"The Butcher of Baghdad is no more.

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein - clutching a Koran as he was led to the gallows - was hanged today in the city he ruled with an iron fist for decades at 6 a.m. Baghdad time, officials said.

His death was greeted with elation by those present at the execution, which included dancing over Hussein's body, witnesses said."

The headline? "Saddam Is The King Of Swing" Got to love it. So There was dancing in the streets, and at the hanging itself. But as this was taking place, the world leaders were split on the execution.

"In Washington, President Bush said Saddam was executed "after receiving a fair trial — the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime."

"Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror," Bush said in a statement."

Then you have others that were not as happy. Some fear that this will increase the violence in Iraq. After telling an interesting story of Saddam turning into a little whinny, whimpering, little coward,

"This nation of 27 million people spent much of the day crowding around television sets to watch mesmerizing replays of a videotape that showed the 69-year-old Mr. Hussein being led to the gallows at dawn by five masked executioners, and having a noose fashioned from a thick rope of yellow hemp lowered around his neck. In the final moments shown on the videotape, he seemed almost unnaturally calm and cooperative.

The message seemed to be that he had lived his final moments with unflinching dignity and courage, reinforcing the legend of himself as the Arab world’s strongman that he cultivated while in power. But the videotape, released by the government, offered only a partial sense of how Mr. Hussein went to his death, according to accounts given later by some of the 25 people who attended the execution, including senior officials of the new Shiite-led government.

In their telling, the ousted ruler, a Sunni, spent much of his last half-hour, after arriving at the execution block at the Khadimiyah prison in northern Baghdad, in querulous and at times irascible exchanges with the Shiite guards and executioners assigned to hang him and with some of the Shiite witnesses."

then the NY "Crimes" said,

"Within hours of the execution, at least 75 people were killed in nine bombing attacks of the kind that Sunni insurgents commonly carry out against Shiites. In the mainly Shiite districts of Hurriyah and Sayidah in Baghdad, separate sequences in which car bombs detonated in close succession caused at least 39 deaths. Two other car bombings hit Baghdad before nightfall, one outside a children’s hospital in the Iskan neighborhood, and another that killed two people outside a mosque in the mainly Sunni district of Adhamiya, the Interior Ministry said.

Another vehicle bomb detonated in a popular fish market in the Shiite holy town of Kufa, 100 miles south of Baghdad, killing 34 people and wounding 38 others, the ministry said. In the Kufa attack, an angry mob set on the suspected bomber and beat him to death, the police said. Five more victims died in a suicide bombing in the northern city of Tal Afar, another center of violence between Sunnis and Shiites."

Clearly they want us to read into this that the execution caused this "increase in violence." But this is NOT due to the execution. But a continuing conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites. The AP put it this way,

"There was no sign of a feared Sunni uprising in retaliation for the execution, and the bloodshed from civil warfare was not far off the daily average — 92 from bombings and death squads."

So basically, so far, it seems that more people are happy that Saddam is gone than there are upset about it.

Now normally at the death of someone in the news, I would say "God Speed." But in Saddam’s case, I say, "Good Riddens." Like it or not, believe it or not, the world is a better place without you.



NYP- "Saddam Is The King Of Swing"
AP Video

USA Today- "World leaders welcome, condemn Saddam's execution"
NYT- "Hussein Video Grips Iraq; Attacks Go On"
AP- "Saddam exchanged taunts with witnesses"

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Breaking News- Saddam
Hussein is dead.

Hey folks,

The breaking news is that Saddam has been executed. His body has been shown to Jawad Abdul-Aziz, who lost his father, three brothers and 22 cousins in the reprisal killings that followed a botched 1982 assassination attempt against Saddam in the Shiite town of Dujail.

Jawad Abdul-Aziz said, "Now, he is in the garbage of history."

More on this later....

Friday, December 29, 2006

How Will We Know Saddam IS Dead?

Hey folks,

I cannot take credit for raising this question. It was a caller of a local radio show here in south Florida. The caller said, how can we know for sure that it really IS Saddam who was hung. He had imposters running all over the place when we were trying to get him.

I thought to myself. He has a VERY valid point. I remembered that even some major news outlets did stories on the imposters. I searched and found this one from CBS back on March 20, 2003. Here it is in it’s entirely

"(CBS) Twice since the shooting started the world has been shown videotape from Baghdad of a man who looks, acts, and talks like Saddam Hussein. But, as CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports there's an ongoing debate within the Bush administration over whether this is actually the man himself or just a darn good imposter.

Several hours after the first cruise missiles struck Baghdad late Wednesday, Iraqi television showed this tape of Hussein allegedly answering the challenge. He even made reference to the date to prove this wasn't an old videotape.

But is it really Saddam? Veteran Hussein watchers were thrown by the thick glasses the heaviness in the face, and the uncharacteristically narrow shoulders.

"My initial reaction was, 'Gee. That does not look like him,'" said Jerrald Post, who created the CIA's psychological profile unit and has studied Hussein intensely.

"Either that was a really quite drawn and stressed out, puffy-faced from not getting enough sleep Saddam, or it represented a double," he said.

Iraqi defectors have long insisted that Hussein uses doubles to throw off his enemies and maintain an air of secrecy. The look-alikes reportedly had plastic surgery and were trained in the dictator's mannerisms, including the way he walks, and even down to his facial tics.

Over the years the CIA has kept careful watch as well, from his first Gulf War days of usually wearing a uniform to the more presidential Hussein usually seen in business suits and matching ties.

A German forensic pathologist studied hundreds of Hussein photos and videotapes, concentrating on his mustache and eyebrow measurements.

Then he used computer software to locate specific points such as the tip of his nose and the cheekbone creating a face print which was compared to the Hussein photographs.

His conclusion: that there are three Hussein impersonators, all with small, distinct differences.

Interestingly, the German pathologist reportedly has carefully examined these latest tapes from Baghdad and concluded that this is the real Hussein. The truth, obviously, is hiding somewhere in Baghdad."

So, as I said to Sam, with the possibility of an imposter taking his place, even eye witness accounts could be called into question. Some of these imposters even had surgery to look more like him. The truth is we really have no way of knowing if Saddam is REALLY the one hung, barring DNA evidence. That only depends on the Iraqis cooperation.

Why would they do this? Believe it or not, there really is a real possibility that there are some that will risk ANYTHING to save his life. Some of these diehards truly believe in Saddam. They worship him. I would not doubt in the LEAST, the possibility of a switch. I do rest assure that even if he was to live, he will not return like Jesus, from the dead, to reign in Iraq. If this was to happen, I have NO doubt that we will do what we SHOULD have done in the beginning. Go there and LEVEL the place. Period. Then rebuild and set up a government. If we had done that in the beginning, we would be home by now.

Either way, it seems that we have, according to the Iraqis, turned over Saddam, and that the hanging will be taking place tomorrow, or today, time difference, in Iraq time. Should be interesting to see what happens. You KNOW that there will be some kind of video, either by the MMD or U Tube or something soon.

CBS News-"Saddam Or Imposter?"
Cloned Food. Do You Want To Know?

Hey folks,

Happy Friday. Another week gone. Many of you are looking forward to another three or in my case, four, day Weekend. The big news yesterday was President Ford, Sean Hannity {Or whomever was hosting his show} had an hour long conversation with a terrorist adviser and planner, or whatever. I got a call and told to tune in. I could tell in the first 5 seconds that this was a fake. After the hour they told you that he was some professor, and it was a skit. Other than that, the normal "Global Warming" stupidity, the war is bad, Bush is an idiot, and the Democrats know best. But then there is THIS story.

Cloned animals for dairy and meat? The FDA approved this with no real scientific proof that this is safe? Then you have some that do NOT want you to even know you are eating it? What is this all about? According to the

By Libby Quaid, AP Food And Farm Writer December 27, 2006

"WASHINGTON --Federal scientists have concluded there is no difference between food from cloned animals and food from conventional livestock, setting the stage for the government to declare Thursday that cloned animals are safe for the human food supply.

The Food and Drug Administration planned to brief industry groups in advance of an announcement. The agency indicated it would approve cloned livestock in a scientific journal article published online earlier this month.

The agency "concludes that meat and milk from clones and their progeny is as safe to eat as corresponding products derived from animals produced using contemporary agricultural practices," FDA scientists Larisa Rudenko and John C. Matheson wrote in the Jan. 1 issue of Theriogenology."

So you are telling me that there is no difference? What about the sped up growth? What effect will this process have on those consuming the meat? Drinking the milk? Already you can see the difference in our kids maturing faster than ever, some blame the milk and hormones along with other preservatives in food NOW. What happens when they start eating cloned meat?

Not everyone is happy about this,

"Consumers are going to be having a product that has potential safety issues and has a whole load of ethical issues tied to it, without any labeling," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety.

Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said the FDA is ignoring research that shows cloning results in more deaths and deformed animals than other reproductive technologies.

The consumer federation will ask food companies and supermarkets to refuse to sell food from clones, she said.

"Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers don't want them in their foods," Foreman said.

As both the AP and ABC News points out,

"Meat and milk from cloned animals may not appear in supermarkets for years despite being deemed by the government as safe to eat. But don't be surprised if "clone-free" labels appear sooner. Ben & Jerry's, for one, wants consumers to know that its ice cream comes from regular cows and not clones. The Ben & Jerry's label already says its farmers don't use bovine growth hormone.

"We want to make sure people are confident with what's in our pints," company spokesman Rob Michalak said. "We haven't yet landed on exactly how we want to express that publicly."

For food that does come from clones, the Food and Drug Administration is unlikely to require labels, officials said."

So they do NOT want you to know what you are eating? WHY? I eat Chicken just about every day, but I do enjoy a good steak once in a while. Sometimes burgers. Hey, WAIT A SECOND!! What about this? According to the New York "Crimes" {Times} yesterday in their editorial section, they said,

"When you think about the growth of human population over the last century or so, it is all too easy to imagine it merely as an increase in the number of humans. But as we multiply, so do all the things associated with us, including our livestock. At present, there are about 1.5 billion cattle and domestic buffalo and about 1.7 billion sheep and goats. With pigs and poultry, they form a critical part of our enormous biological footprint upon this planet.

Just how enormous was not really apparent until the publication of a new report, called "Livestock’s Long Shadow," by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Consider these numbers. Global livestock grazing and feed production use "30 percent of the land surface of the planet." Livestock — which consume more food than they yield — also compete directly with humans for water. And the drive to expand grazing land destroys more biologically sensitive terrain, rain forests especially, than anything else.

But what is even more striking, and alarming, is that livestock are responsible for about 18 percent of the global warming effect, more than transportation’s contribution. The culprits are methane — the natural result of bovine digestion — and the nitrogen emitted by manure. Deforestation of grazing land adds to the effect.

There are no easy trade-offs when it comes to global warming — such as cutting back on cattle to make room for cars. The human passion for meat is certainly not about to end anytime soon. As "Livestock’s Long Shadow" makes clear, our health and the health of the planet depend on pushing livestock production in more sustainable directions."

More sustainable directions? Do you think that cloning MORE is what they had in mind. Think about this. How can this concept of cloning livestock be a good thing to the environmental wackos? Seriously, what’s the point? Where is the NEED? Is not the natural process working just fine? According to the NYT, it seems to be working TOO good.

I’m sorry folks, but there is not enough science in the world to make me feel safe eating cloned meat. Especially since apparently we already have too many natural livestock. They are "killing the planet."

If they do decide that they want to go this route, I don’t know, maybe they can make cows that don’t fart, you had better bet I WANT to know. I’m with Ben and Jerry on this one. I want the choice. If you have no problem with eating cloned meat, dairy, whatever, hey, more power to you. But if you, like me, have a major problem with it, then they NEED to let us know in advance. Label it. Then people can chose which they want to eat.

AP- "FDA's OK may spark 'clone-free' labels" "FDA set to OK food from cloned animals"
ABC News - "FDA OKs Food From Cloned Animals"
NYT-"Meat and the Planet"

Thursday, December 28, 2006

The Soon Departed Saddam

Hey folks,

Well, it’s officially a countdown now. Soon Saddam will no longer be with us. For some, not a second too soon. Some see it as a closing of a chapter. Some see it as a healing. Some vengeance. Any way you look at it, it will be soon. According to the AFP,

"Iraq was preparing for the rapid execution of former dictator Saddam Hussein, with the US-backed government eager to bring his chapter in the country's bloody history to an end.

As another deadly car bomb hit Baghdad Wednesday and the shooting of a Shiite politician triggered anti-American protests, the fate of the ousted tyrant threatened to deepen still further the rift between Sunnis and Shiites.

Justice Minister Hashem al-Shibli said Saddam's death sentence for crimes against humanity -- upheld by an Iraqi appeal court on Tuesday -- would be rubber stamped by the presidency and the prison service would hang him."

I’m glad to see that he received a trial by the Iraqi people. He was found GUILTY by the Iraqi people. THEY sentenced him to death. I DO feel the world is better off without him. But this is not the whole story. This is a perfect example of what we are dealing with in the war on terror. This is a perfect example of who "Little Hitler" is. What they, the enemy, think. How they truly see what they believe to be reality.

Saddam is an evil guy. I’m not saying this as an abstract, but as an absolute. He was evil personified. In the flesh. Here is a excerpt from the Weekly Standard, by Erin Montgomery 12/16/2003 12:00:00 AM,

"MAKIYA DESCRIBED THE FOUNDATION as being based on three tools: "the paper trail of atrocity," which consists of 2.4 million pages of official Iraqi documents captured by the Kurds after the 1991 Gulf War and 725,000 pages of Iraqi documents captured in Kuwait upon its liberation by coalition forces in 1991; films of interviews with survivors and witnesses of Saddam's brutality; and artifacts--works of art, poetry, books, songs, films, and architecture--produced both by members of Saddam's regime and those who protested against it.

The foundation seeks to digitize, index, and classify all recovered documents, many of which describe tortures, executions, mass graves, even rumors about Iraqi citizens collected by Saddam's repressive officers over a span of seven years. "We have documents on the sublime to the mundane to the ridiculous," director of documentation Hassan Mneimneh said, though the foundation has less than 1 percent of the 300 million documents it is seeking for a comprehensive archive. The foundation also plans to archive oral histories and filmed interviews with survivors.

One filmed interview, shown during the presentation, tells the story of Shaoul Sasson, an Iraqi Jew imprisoned by Saddam in 1968. Now 98 years old, Sasson spoke of his year spent in Saddam's Qasr Al-Nihaya, or "Terminal Palace." There, he was blindfolded, brutally beaten, and burned by Saddam's henchmen. The film, just one example of Saddam's cruelty toward Jews, is reminiscent of those shown at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. In fact, the foundation's director of oral history, Mustafa Al-Kadhimiy, is in the United States at the invitation of the Holocaust Museum, where he is learning how the museum acquires and conserves its materials and makes them accessible to the public. Makiya, however, is quick to distinguish his future museum from the former: "Unlike the Holocaust Museum, we are not 50 years removed [from our atrocity]--we are right at the edge.""

From dripping acid on naked prisoners, dripping melted rubber hoses on their bodies and ripping it and their skin off, dismemberments, to electric shock, Saddam enjoyed torturing his own people, as well as others. Now that he has been sentenced to death, is he remorseful? NO. He truly believes he has done nothing wrong. As a matter of fact, he said,

"I sacrifice myself. If God wills it, He will place me among the true men and martyrs," wrote Saddam in the letter, which his lawyer said was penned last month for release if his death sentence was upheld.


"Here I offer myself in sacrifice," Saddam said in a letter obtained from his defense lawyers in Jordan on Wednesday. "If my soul goes down this path (of martyrdom) it will face God in serenity."

Now I’m a little confused. Both AFP and Reuters are talking about this letter. According to Reuters, Saddam said,

"O brave, pious Iraqis in the heroic resistance. O sons of the one nation, direct your enmity toward the invaders. Do not let them divide you ... Long live jihad (holy war) and the mujahideen against the invaders."

But then I see this article from the AP,

"Saddam Hussein urged Iraqis to embrace "brotherly coexistence" and not to hate U.S.-led foreign troops in a goodbye letter posted on a Web site Wednesday, a day after Iraq's highest court upheld his death sentence and ordered him hanged within 30 days."

Accord to them, Saddam said,

"I call on you not to hate because hate does not leave space for a person to be fair and it makes you blind and closes all doors of thinking," said the letter, which was written in Arabic and translated by the AP.

"I also call on you not to hate the people of the other countries that attacked us,"

So, if this is the same letter, you can see that he does not equate torturing and killing what he perceives as his enemy with hatred. Even if it is two different letters, this shows that this guy is just plain nuts. He sees nothing wrong with it. He even believes that he will be rewarded by his god. You cannot negotiate with someone like this.

So you can perhaps get a better understanding of "Little Hitler" as well. Who also thinks he is on a mission from his god. Who also believes that he will be rewarded. Who also is evil.

Yes folks, we are soon rid of Saddam Hussein. He will pay for the crimes he committed. Soon, very soon that chapter will be closed. Now we need to get the Iraqi people ready to take over. Now we need to concentrate on Iran. They {Iran} MUST NOT be allowed to get nuclear weapons. They WILL use them.

Farewell to you Saddam. I truly believe that when you actually meet God. You will not be all that happy.

AFP- "Iraq prepares for rapid Saddam execution"
The Weekly Standard- "Remembering Saddam's Iraq"

Reuters- "Facing gallows, Saddam offers "sacrifice" for Iraq"
AP- "Saddam says don't hate U.S.-led forces"

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Gerald Rudolph Ford
God Speed Mr. President.

May his family and all those all over the world that mourn his passing receive the comfort they need in this time of mourning. If you agree with his actions or not, you have to respect what he accomplished in the situation he was given. The country has truly lost one of her sons.

At the age of 93, Gerald Ford had a long and fulfilling life. I say again, God speed Mr. President. May you rest in peace.
First Muslim Elected, Encouraging Muslims To Do What?

Hey folks,

You know, I saw this news article from the Detroit Free Press yesterday, and I passed by it without much thought. Just the normal scanning through. I saw that the "first Muslim elected" to congress had some sort of rally in Dearborn. OK. Good for him.

I’ll admit my first thought when I read this article was "So? What’s the big deal about this. How many Congressman are Jews? Christians? Mormons? Whatever. Does it really matter?" So he wants to get sworn in using the Quran. Did you realize that you actually do not even HAVE to use ANYTHING? Just rise your hand and promise to uphold the Constitution.

But I found a couple of articles that I thought I may comment on today. However, for some reason this article stuck in my head. I had to find it again this morning and re-read it. Why is this bothering me? I couldn't figure it out at first. So, I re-read it yet again. OK. NOW I have a question. According to the article, Detroit Free Press - "1st Muslim congressman thrills crowd in Dearborn"

December 26, 2006

"Speaking in Dearborn late Sunday night, the first Muslim elected to Congress told a cheering crowd of Muslims they should remain steadfast in their faith and push for justice.

"You can't back down. You can't chicken out. You can't be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.

Many in the crowd replied "Allahu akbar" -- God is great."

WAIT A SECOND! OK this is what got me thinking. He said, "You can't back down. You can't chicken out. You can't be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim"

"Push for justice" For and from who?

"You can't back down." From who?

"You can't chicken out." From what?

"You can't be afraid." Of what?

"You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim" What is a REAL Muslim?

Then the article continues,

"But Ellison, speaking at the annual convention of the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America, said that Muslims can help teach America about justice and equal protection."

Muslims can help teach America about justice?

"Muslims, you're up to bat right now," he said. "How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better?"

Translation time. He said, God put you in America to make the world a better place. OK. How? What did he mean by that?

Now this is interesting also.

"Ellison, who converted to Islam during college, made his remarks at the Hyatt Regency, the site of the five-day convention."

So he was converted by? What was it that made him adopt Islam? What is a REAL Muslim?

I’m sorry folks, but I have a hard time buying the fact that his comments were solely about swearing in on the Quran. Before I read HIS words, I couldn’t have cared less about what faith he follows. But NOW?

OK let me break it down for you. We are in a WAR against Islamic Fascists that want us dead. They continue to attack and kill us. So when this guy stands up and says, "On Jan. 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I'll place my hand on the Quran," people start to ask questions.

Let’s leave aside that this country was founded on Jewdaeo-Christian beliefs and the Bible. So when he originally made the statement that he would use the Quran, it offended some just on that bases. But My problem is with his own words. Not which book he wants to use.

When this was a big thing, I though it was much to do about nothing. I also thought that it was normal. If we were at war with Hitler, and a German wanted to get elected to Congress? How far do you think he would get? We are at war with Radicle Muslims. We have a Muslim that GOT elected to Congress. It is NORMAL for some to be a little apprehensive about that. But using HIS words, one has to wonder, just exactly what he truly meant.

Then you have the fact he converted to Islam in College. He was not born into it. He was introduced to it by? What was the message he was told? Was it the Radicle form we are fighting against? Has he come out and denounced the Islamic Fascists that are killing anyone non-Muslim? There are a lot of questions that need to be asked.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Death Toll Surpasses 9-11. So What?

Hey folks,

Looks like the big news of the day, this, the day after Christmas seems to be the death toll in Iraq. Seems it has now surpassed 9-11. I mean it folks, it’s all over the place. My question is, So what?

Let’s look at the news, shall we?

By Ibon Villelabeitia 55 minutes ago

The deaths of six more American soldiers in Iraq pushed the U.S. death toll to at least 2,978 -- five more than the number killed in the September 11 attacks -- as bombs killed more than 20 people in Baghdad on Tuesday.

At least 89 U.S. soldiers have died so far this month, making it the deadliest this year after October's toll of 106, and adding pressure on President George W. Bush to find a strategy to extricate 135,000 U.S. troops from the messy war.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since the invasion in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, which Bush said was an integral part of the "war on terror" following the Sept 11, 2001, attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

U.S. officials say 2,973 people were killed in those attacks, excluding the 19 hijackers."

AFP {French version of the AP}

The number of American fatalities in Iraq have surpassed the death toll for the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, shining the spotlight on US policy in the war-wracked country.

Another 20 Iraqis were killed in attacks hammering Baghdad on Tuesday, 15 of them in a triple car bombing, amid unprecedented levels of violence in a conflict that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands.

The macabre US milestone was marked, according to an AFP count, by the deaths of three soldiers in a bomb attack northwest of Baghdad on Tuesday, 24 hours after another four troops were killed on Christmas Day.

Following the latest deaths, the AFP count was 18 higher than the Defence Department's tally, last updated at 1500 GMT Friday. At least seven civilians are included in the toll, according to the military's numbers."

Now the AFP, says,

"The landmark American death toll, emerging over the Christmas holiday season, represents another political blow for Bush, who earlier this month was forced to admit for the first time that the US was not winning in Iraq.

"The problem is the larger issue of US policy in Iraq, and recent polls that show that President Bush has very, very little political capital left on Iraq," said Eric Davis, professor of political science at Middlebury College, Vermont."

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has also instructed the top US commander in Iraq, General George Casey, to work out specifics of a plan to help restore security in Baghdad with Iraqis in the lead and US forces in a supporting role."

Now Eric Davis is not only a professor of political science, but also a columnist. From what I see, he is also anti-Bush, and anti-war. So him pointing out that the death toll surpasses 9-11 gives Bush bad poll numbers means NOTHING. Besides, you also have to understand that President Bush doesn’t care about polls, popularity, or anything else besides winning the war.

I understand that this is a hard concept for some of the LWL and the Mass Media to grasp. This is what they ARE all about. They LIVE for popularity. They MUST have good poll numbers. So when they see bad ones for the Republicans, or Bush, they think this is a bad thing. They glory in pointing it out. But all President Bush cares about is protecting this country and winning the war. He doesn’t care if there are some who do not want him too.

Then we go to the AP,

"By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago

At least 36 Iraqis died Tuesday in bombings, officials said, including a coordinated strike that killed 25 in western Baghdad. Separately, the deaths of six U.S. soldiers pushed the American toll beyond the number of victims in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."


"The U.S. military on Tuesday announced the deaths of six more American soldiers, pushing the U.S. military death toll since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003 to at least 2,978 — five more than the number killed in the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

The milestone came with military announcement that three soldiers had been killed Monday. Three more service members were killed Tuesday in roadside bombings near Baghdad, the military said.

President Bush has said that the Iraq war is part of the United States' post-Sept. 11 approach to threats abroad. Going on offense against enemies before they could harm Americans meant removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, pursuing members of al-Qaida and seeking regime change in Iraq, Bush has said."

Yes. We fight them there, now, or here later. It really IS just that simple.

"We fully expect more attacks on our bases and on Basra stations, but that's nothing out of the ordinary," Maj. Charlie Burbridge, a military spokesman, said Tuesday. "But this is part of a long-term rehabilitation of the Iraqi police service, to make it more effective and more accountable, and ultimately provide better security for the people of Basra."

Uhm, yup. We are in a WAR. The whole point is to kill more of them than they kill of you. As I keep saying. War IS kill people and break stuff.

AFP had this article about the families of 9-11 and how they felt about this milestone.

"by James Hossack1 hour, 15 minutes ago

The families of the September 11 victims gave a mixed reaction to the US military toll in Iraq passing the number of people who died in the attacks on New York and Washington five years ago.

For some, the grim milestone proved that the "war on terror" was a war that needed to be fought and won. Others said the chilling human toll only reopened old wounds, and raised questions about why troops were in Iraq at all.

Families of the 2,973 people killed in the attacks were divided about going to war in the first place and seemed similarly split over the significance of the number of US troops killed in Iraq since the war began in 2003.

STOP!!! WAIT a second. I just read this again. Notice this. They start out saying the families are split. This gives the impression that they will give both sides. But if you read the WHOLE story, you see that they talk to Adele Welty, who’s son was killed on 9-11. Five paragraphs. She said,

"The more carnage that we experience from the standpoint of our military as well as the civilian casualties in Iraq, the more absurd the whole concept of this war appears to me," she said.

"I can't understand anybody supporting it now."

"The more casualties I hear about, the more horrible the entire enterprise appears to me and every time I see pictures on the news of young men and women in the military being killed, my first thought is of their families.

"I lost my son and I know what each mother experiences," she said.

Then for EIGHT paragraphs they talk about and to Eva Rupp, whose stepsister was killed when Flight 93, hijacked by Al-Qaeda members, crashed into a field in Pennsylvania on September 11.

"My stepsister was only 20 years old when she died on one of the hijacked planes and the grief that my parents and I went though was unbearable.

"I can only imagine that the grief experienced by the families of each of our servicemen and women is just as painful and will haunt them for the rest of their lives, just as our loss haunts us," she said.

She said each time she heard of a US death in Iraq, her thoughts turned to her stepsister.

"Most of the young men and women who die overseas are around my stepsister's age, and I can't help but seeing her face in their faces and feeling a great sadness when I think of the pain their loss has caused their loved ones."

She added that focusing only on the US casualties failed to show the true extent of the human losses in Iraq.

"The number of people lost in Iraq greatly exceeds those lost on 9/11 if we count all of the Iraqi civilians who have been killed.

"Having a different religion or nationality certainly does not make a loss less tragic or grief any less significant," she added.

Clearly anti-war rhetoric.

Then they talk to one guy, Tim Sumner, who IS one of the bad guys as far as Liberal go. He’s a former Drill Sergeant. Of COURSE he is for the war. Right? Just seven paragraphs?

"But Tim Sumner, 53, a former US Army drill sergeant whose firefighter brother-in-law was killed in the World Trade Center said that while the cost of fighting the "war on terror" might be high, it was a price worth paying.

"Any one life lost in war is tragic, however it is also noble," he said, adding that the casualties sustained in Iraq were far smaller than those suffered historically.

"What they need to do is finish what they set out to do, otherwise we fall back and lose ground in the war on terror, fail to consolidate democracies and take them off the terrorist strongholds," he added.

Failing in the "war on terror", he said, would mean "those lives would have been given in vain and that would be tragic."

STOP!! I have been saying that exact thing. I cannot find the exact quote, but I have been saying that if we cut and run, all those lives given in the war up to that point will be rendered pointless and meaningless. I also said,

"But again, no matter who is saying it, I still say, if we are no longer in this to win it. Then we need to bring our troops home NOW. Forget about a "phased withdrawal." If we are going to cut and run, and leave them on their own, then let’s just get out." Let’s not "waste" another American life there. Let’s regroup, and wait till they come here. Right?

You would think that out of the 2,973 families, they could have included a little more info. A few more people could have commented. Don’t you think?

It’s simple folks, WHO CARES? So what? Any idea how many Americans were lost in WW2? WW1, Civil War? We have been fighting this war for a long time. We have ONLY lost 2,978? I’d say that’s actually pretty good. But that would not be Politically Correct for me to say. Would it?

Reuters ="U.S. military deaths in Iraq pass 9/11 toll"
AFP = "US fatalities in Iraq top 9/11 toll"

AP = "U.S. toll in Iraq surpasses that of 9/11"
AFP = "September 11 families split over US toll in Iraq"
Iran "Death to America" "Little Hitler," "You Cannot Damage the Iran an Iota,"

Hey folks,

Happy Tuesday to you. Hope you had happy Holidays and now back to reality. For three days at least.

Yes, we are talking about "Little Hitler"again. Why do I keep talking about him, when it seems noone really cares? Because it seems noone really cares. Why am I not talking about North Korea who already has nukes? Because they said, if you mess with us, we will use them. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the other hand, says he WANTS Israel wiped off the map. He wants America dead. He wants a one world Muslim government. He wants world domination. He thinks he is on a mission from his god.

Just this Sunday the AP reported this,

"Iran vowed Sunday to push forward efforts to enrich uranium and to change its relations with the international nuclear watchdog after the U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions designed to stop the country's disputed atomic program.

Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Security Council would regret voting in favor of the sanctions, saying he was sorry the West lost its chance to make amends with Iran.

"I am sorry for you who lost the opportunity for friendship with the nation of Iran. You yourself know that you cannot damage the nation of Iran an iota," the state-run news agency, IRNA, quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

Ahmadinejad also said the United Nations must accept Iran's nuclear program and warned that sanctions would not harm his country.

"You have to accept that Iran has the technology of producing nuclear fuel. And it will celebrate it in coming anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution in February," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying."

Now since U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions, things are about to change. But not the way you think. I told you that "Talks" and sanctions will not work. Now,

"Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Iran would change its relationship with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"We are not obliged and it is not expected that cooperation with the IAEA continues at the same former level," Hosseini told reporters. He did not elaborate."

What about those "opponents" of "Little Hitler" that got elected in?

"Iran's parliament on Sunday voted to urge the country's administration to revise its cooperation with the IAEA but did not set a timeline or provide further details. Many legislators chanted "Death to America" after the vote.

"The government should seriously and strongly continue the important issue of peaceful nuclear technology with prudence and foresight. It should never accept such illogical pressures," more than 200 legislators said in a statement read on state-run radio."

So much for the end of Ahmadinejad. So what is going to happen if they do not comply? {Laughing} I’ll just let you read this for yourself.

"If Iran refuses to comply, the council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions, but the resolution emphasized the importance of diplomacy in seeking guarantees "that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

"Further NONMILITARY sanctions." More TALKS. His response?

"Iran insists its nuclear program is intended to produce energy, but the Americans and Europeans suspect its ultimate goal is the production of weapons.

Ahmadinejad also downplayed the resolution, saying it would be the Security Council that regretted it, not Iran.

"This will not damage the nation of Iran, but its issuers will soon regret this superficial and nil act," he said, speaking to a group of war veterans from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war at the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran."

Is THIS, "This will not damage the nation of Iran, but its issuers will soon regret this superficial and nil act." NOT a threat? Then, he called this a "superficial and nil act." Meaning pointless, and worthless. Meaning he will not stop because of it. As a matter of fact,

"Earlier Sunday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said the resolution made his country more "decisive in realizing our nuclear aims."

"From Sunday morning, we will begin activities at Natanz — site of 3,000-centrifuge machines — and we will drive it with full speed. It will be our immediate response to the resolution," Iran's Kayhan newspaper quoted Larijani as saying.

Iran first showed its ability to enrich uranium in February, when it produced a small batch of low-enriched uranium using a first set of 164 centrifuges at its pilot complex in Natanz.

Iran has said it intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006, and then expand the program to 54,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material to produce nuclear fuel."

Yes folks, the sanctions are now in place. Threat of more loom. His rise continues. People need to wake up, and realize the reality of this situation. Before it is too late.

AP-"Iran vows to continue uranium enrichment"

Monday, December 25, 2006

Merry Christmas

From Joshua, Laura, and of course, me.
Wishing you and yours a very happy and safe Holiday Season! As you can see, I’ll be quite busy. {Smile} See you all tomorrow.

Sunday, December 24, 2006

"JMT" December 24, 2006

"The True Reason for the Season."

Hey folks,

You cannot talk about Christmas, without talking about God. Nor can you truly understand the meaning of the season, without talking about Jesus. So if the Bible, Jesus, God, or anything that could be deemed "religious" offends you. STOP READING THIS NOW. If not, read on.

It’s Christmas Eve. "All through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse." Well, that’s not exactly true. All the Moms and Dads are stirring, while they play Santa. Getting things ready for the big day. Getting the things ready for the kiddies when they get up. To further the magic that IS Christmas morning.

But is this all that it is about? Is Christmas just a time for family and friends to give gifts? To go into debt trying to out do the year before? Or is there another reason? A more import one. One that MADE Christmas? The REAL reason for the season.

From the beginning of time man’s heart has been evil. From the Garden to Noah’s day, man did and invented many evil things. This made God so discussed that He sought to destroy what he had made. But Noah found favor in the eyes of God. Because of this one man, God spared mankind through him, his wife, their sons and their wives.

After the flood. Noah thanked God for sparing him and his family, and in essence, mankind it self, through burnt offerings.

Gen 8:21

21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

God was so pleased with Noah, that he told him of this, and made a covenant, a promise, to him.

Gen 9:13-16

13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

So every time you look up in the sky, and see a rainbow, you are actually seeing the manifestation and physical evidence of this covenant between God and Noah. So since God cannot lie, will never go back on HIS word, he is BOUND to allow us to exist no matter if we deserve it or not.

But man, being man, continued to be evil, and do wicked things. So God created laws. The were not followed. God sent prophets. They were ignored. God talked to man directly. Few listened. So what was God to do? He cannot destroy us utterly again because of His promise. So,

John 3:16,17

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Hence the beginning of the very first Christmas.

Story of Jesus

Matthew 1:18-25

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Now to fully understand the importance of His Birth, you MUST fully understand His life, and most importantly, His death, yet rather, His resurrection.

During His life He preached love and humbleness. He healed the sick, gave hearing to the death, and let the blind see. He preached life eternal, and the peace of a one on one relationship with God the Father of all. He was rejected as were all the prophets before Him. As God’s word. He was arrested, beaten, and hung on the Cross. He fulfilled all to bear YOUR sins, sickness, and diseases. He shed His blood for yours. He died so that you may live. Then,

Jesus Risen Matthew 28

1In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

3His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

4And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

5And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

6He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

10Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

11Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

12And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,

13Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

14And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.

15So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted.

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Now you can get hung up on the stupidity of this,"Is this the right time of year?", "Could the birth took place some other time." suff if you want to. But this really does not matter. We have set this time aside to remember the greatest gift of all. Sent by God, through His flesh, Jesus, to allow ANYONE who simply receives His gift to be forgiven of Sin, pardoned of death, and to have life everlasting.

So just keep in mind, that while you a battling it out in the stores for the last {Insert the big thing this year here}, while you are depressed because you cannot get much to give, stress out about all the "Holiday" stuff, the REAL reason for the season is just waiting to hear,

"Oh Heavenly Father Lord God. I’m a sinner. I cannot change that. But I know you can. I have heard of Jesus coming to earth and dying for MY sins. I pray that you forgive me Lord. I ask you to come into my life, and set me free. I repent my sins and give myself to you this day. In the name of Jesus, Amen."

If you say this prayer in your own words and by your own belief, you WILL receive the greatest gift of all. Yes folks, it IS just that simple. You have to do nothing. Simply accept. THIS is the reason for the season. The birth of the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings. The opportunity for all, that includes you and me, to receive that of which we can NEVER earn. The grace, mercy, and unconditional love of God.

So decorate your tree. Get your gifts. {Try to stay in your budget. Trust me, I speak from experience.} Spend time with your loved ones, and remember, no matter what you hear, how you hear it, what anyone says, if it were NOT for Jesus, there would be no such thing as Christmas

Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a good night.
IWA for Sunday December 24, 2006

Hey folks,

Keeping with the Christmas Eve theme, I found this absolute idiocy of an article by Tony Hendra of the Huffy Post. The Huffington Post- "Tony Hendra: Time Out From Atheists and Evangelicals: Putting the Real Christ back Into Christmas."

First, after reading this whole tripe of an article, it is obvious that he has no clue as to the truth. Second, he wants you to believe that Christians are "racist hate-mongering" people out to get you. Problem is, he is the one spewing hatred for them.

Here is just some examples of this absolute garbage,

"Christmas has really been getting it in the teeth this year. On one side, atheists bashing away at the poor old feast, blaming it for every evil committed in this or any other century; on the other, fundo Evangelicals and Baptists using it as yet another proxy in the racist hate-mongering that is the lifeblood of so-called conservatives."

{Laughing} OK,

"For the abolitionists, Christ is and has been the cause of incalculable bloodshed over the last two thousand years, as well as the oppression of women, the brutalization of the poor, the genocidal enslavement of people of color - any color - and environmental devastation. (The list is a lot longer than that, but it'll do for now) For the atheists it's Blame Christ First.

To do them justice they've got a point. Because that Christ is also the Christ of the fundos. The fundo Christ is only The Man of Mercy, Gentle-Jesus-Meek-and-Mild for the fundos themselves. The rest of us he hates. Anyone from gays to Muslims to feminists to commies to astrophysicists and biologists to you, me, Arianna, Susan Sarandon, George Clooney and especially Jimmy Carter. The fundo Christ will arriving here any day now, to butcher all of us by the billion. A Christ of vigilante justice, vengeance and prejudice: a Christ dedicated to the shedding of blood, oceans of it, the more barbarically the better. In short a non-Christ, a pseudo-Christ, an anti-Christ."

See what I mean folks? You could be blind and STILL see the hatred dribbling from good old Tony. But then it just gets ridiculous.

"But we're talking about something far more compelling than that shadowy thing, historical accuracy. We're talking about a great story and its true meaning and the vast influence they have on people. There's one question about that story which should be asked this Christmas (or Yuletide or Hanukah or Kwanzaa or however you celebrate the winter solstice), a time when so many people - well-intentioned and ill-intentioned - are still talking so blithely of war, killing, self-defense and revenge."

So he thinks HE knows the real Christ. {LOL}

"What according to the story, did the real Christ have to say about war, killing, self-defense and revenge?

As far as I can tell from a close reading of the Gospels (including a couple of the Synoptic Gospels), nothing good. If there was one thing Jesus was adamantly against, it was violence of any kind. Sure he got hot under the robe once in a while; he overturned a few tables in the Temple, he withered a fig-tree, he made some poor old pig-farmer's pigs dive off a cliff. But he never raised a finger to anyone.

In fact he was radical on the matter; in defiance of - or as he put it in fulfillment of - the Jewish tradition in which he was raised of an-eye-for-an-eye, of justifiable revenge, he forbade revenge, even self-defense. We are to turn the other cheek when struck. We are to love our neighbors even our enemies, as ourselves. And he meant it: when the time came and his enemies seized him to lead him away to certain death, he refused to defend himself or even to let his followers defend him.

Here's the uncomfortable truth, one Christians have spent seas of ink and forests of paper, trying to get around: there is no way that someone who calls herself or himself a Christian, who believes in Christ's words and emulates his life and actions, can fight in a war, support a war, carry a weapon, pack heat, shoot back, or take revenge."

He has absolutely NO clue. Jesus NEVER taught that you should just lay down and take it. He NEVER taught war bad or good. He was always more concerned with YOUR one on one relationship with Him and God. He said to love your enemies. Feed your enemies, and do good toward them, for VENGEANCE is mine saith the Lord. By doing this toward your enemy, you are heaping hot coals on their head. You are increasing their punishment.

At least he got the point about Jesus getting mad right. Sounds familiar. Then think about his apparent heros, "Arianna, Susan Sarandon, George Clooney and especially Jimmy Carter." {LOL} But you HAVE to love this absolute stupidity,

"In my book I imagine Christ returning in our time, a poor self-educated Latino man from the Bronx. His messages are as radical as they were the first time around. Towards the end as his Christian enemies close in, he talks to an audience of tired and battered infantrymen recently returned from war, outside the gates of Fort McGuire in New Jersey:

"Love your enemies. I do.

"I have loved every soldier on every side of every war ever fought. I have loved every child of God murdered by another child of God. Because - make no mistake - whenever one of my children kills another intentionally, it's murder. Whether it's from 30,000 feet or 3, it's murder. It's no less murder than creeping into their bedroom while they're asleep and beating them to death with a tire-iron.

"Murder is not a mission or a calling or a career. If you go to West Point or the Air Force Academy to get a degree in it, it's still murder. All the fancy words your superiors come up with: retaliation, extreme prejudice, overwhelming force, collateral damage, smart-this and pin-point-that cannot alter that all these words mean murder.

"Wearing a uniform does not to stop it being murder, doing it for your country does not stop it being murder. Clicking on an icon a thousand miles away does not stop it being murder. Sending a command to a robot does not stop it being murder. If your sergeant tells you to do it it's murder, if you are told by your officer to tell an enlisted man to do it, all three of you commit murder. It's murder if a court absolves you of all wrongdoing. It's murder if a man of God blesses the weapon you murder with. It's murder if you vote for someone who tells others to murder in your name. It's murder if the one you murder has murdered.

"And if you say God told you to murder - I say to you it is not God you are listening to.

"Thou shalt not kill. There are no exceptions." "

That would be "Thou shall not commit MURDER." The taking of an innocent life. We kill things every day. We can kill someone in an accident. What God was referring to is Murder. {Sigh}

Just more anti-war trumpery.

Normally I would not give a halfwit, ignorant , self important twit like this, a second thought. This is why I believe in and will fight for the "Freedom of Speech." So we know who these people are. I know I’m giving him more publicity then he deserves. I understand that. But I felt that this was important to point out to you that just this Friday, going into one of the biggest Christian Holy Days there is, that this poorly informed, hate-mongering writer, gave us yet another example of Christian bashing tripe.

You know my old friend once told me, "It is better to sit silent and be thought of as a fool, then to stand and speak and remove all doubt." Congratulations Tony. For standing and speaking, you ARE the Idiot of the Week. Oh, by the way, Merry Christmas.

Friday, December 22, 2006

Judicial Watch, Top Ten Corrupt Politicians

Hey folks,

Fresh from the wire last night. This should really make you think. Here it is in it’s entirety. As it appeared on the Wire. Pictures added by me.

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2006 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Jack Abramoff, Former Lobbyist: Abramoff is at the center of a massive public corruption investigation by the Department of Justice that, in the end, could involve as many as a dozen members of Congress. Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud and a host of other charges on January 3, 2006, and was sent to prison in November to serve a five-year, 10-month sentence for defrauding banks of $23 million in Florida in 2000.

2. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): In January 2006, Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation was fined $35,000 by the Federal Election Commission for failing to accurately report more than $700,000 in contributions to Clinton's Senate 2000 campaign. New information also surfaced in 2006 raising more questions about Hillary and her brother Anthony Rodham's connection to the Clinton Pardongate scandal, where presidential pardons were allegedly traded in exchange for cash and other favors.

3. Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA): In November 2005, Cunningham pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. He was sentenced to 8 years, four months in prison and ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution in March 2006.

4. Former Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): Tom DeLay, who was forced to step down from his position as House Majority Leader and then resign from Congress, decided in 2006 not to run for re-election. Congressman DeLay has been embroiled in a series of scandals from bribery to influence peddling, and was indicted twice by grand juries in Texas.

5. Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL): Foley left the House in disgrace after news broke that he had been sending predatory homosexual emails to a House page. A recent House Ethics Committee report indicated that Republican leaders knew about Foley's dangerous behavior, but failed to take action. Democrats, meanwhile, shopped the story to the press to influence the elections. Outrageously, the Committee recommended no punishment for those involved.

6. Rep. Denny Hastert (R-IL): In addition to mishandling the Foley scandal, outgoing House Speaker Dennis Hastert allowed House ethics process to ground to a halt on his watch. Gary Condit, Cynthia McKinney, William Jefferson, John Conyers, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Jim McDermott, Patrick Kennedy are examples of alleged wrongdoers who faced little-to-no ethics enforcement in the House.

7. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL): Hastings is one of only six federal judges to be removed from office through impeachment and has accumulated staggering liabilities ranging from $2,130,006 to $7,350,000. Hastings was "next in line" for Chairmanship of the House Select Committee on Intelligence until a wave of protest forced Nancy Pelosi to select another candidate. Nonetheless, Hastings is expected to continue to serve on the Intelligence Committee.

8. Rep. William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson (D-LA): Jefferson is alleged to have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to help broker high-tech business deals in Nigeria. According to press reports, he was also caught on tape discussing the deals, while an FBI search of his home uncovered $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer.

9. Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH): Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney resigned in early November 2006, three weeks after pleading guilty for accepting bribes from an Indian casino in exchange for legislative favors. Ney was the first congressman to be convicted of a crime in the web of scandals involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and is expected to serve a jail sentence.

10. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): Senator Reid came under fire in 2006 for failing to properly report to Congress a $700,000 land deal. Reid also accepted more than $30,000 of Abramoff-tainted money allegedly in return for his "cooperation" in matters related Nevada Indian gaming.

Dishonorable Mentions include:

1. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): According to complaints released by the House Ethics Committee recently, aides to Representative John Conyers (D-MI) alleged their former boss repeatedly violated House ethics rules, forcing them to serve as his personal servants, valets, and as campaign staff while on the government payroll.

2. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI): In May 2006, Kennedy crashed his car into a Capitol Hill barricade at nearly 3 a.m. in the morning. Kennedy blamed the incident on a reaction to prescription pills, but officers at the scene said he smelled of alcohol. Nonetheless, they escorted him home rather than arresting him.

3. Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA): McKinney assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer in April after refusing to go through a metal detector. While McKinney was never forced to answer in a court of law for her behavior, she lost her bid for re-election in 2006.

4. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA): Iraq war critic John Murtha was incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first choice for House Majority Leader despite the ethical skeletons in his closet. Murtha is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 "Abscam" scandal, which included the arrest and convictions of a senator and six congressmen. Murtha, whose current ethics continue to be questioned, lost his bid for Majority Leader to Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer.

5. Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL): News reports surfaced in 2006 that Illinois Senator Barak Obama entered into an unusual land deal with a now- indicted political fundraiser, Tony Rezko. The complicated real estate transaction occurred when it was widely known that Rezko was under federal investigation in a political corruption scandal.

6. David Safavian, Former Bush Administration Official: Safavian, the former White House Chief of Procurement and former Chief of Staff for the General Services Administration, was indicted on September 19, 2006 on five counts of lying about his dealings with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and obstructing a Senate investigation of his dealings. Safavian resigned from his White House position three days prior to his arrest. "This list shows public corruption is endemic to our nation's capital and that the anti-corruption work of Judicial Watch is needed more than ever," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The list could be much longer, as there are far too many politicians who abuse the public trust and place themselves above the law."

Visit for more information."

As far as the new "Superman," "Rockstar," "Messiah," whatever, Sen. Barak Obama, what is it with LWL and illegal land deals? Seems to be a trend. I told you, well, hinted about this Monday.

I do not know about you, but if you look at this list, you have a lot more LWL than you do RWN {Right Wing Nuts} Included in this list are the two that most LWL want on one ticket. Hillary "Amnesia" Clinton, and Barak Hussein Obama.

The more we learn about these people, the more the American people will start to realize just how BIG of a mistake they made by voting without being informed of whom they were voting for.