POST SCRIPTS

While parents are the primary people responsible for their child's weight and health, it's not entirely their fault. Part of the problem is the age we live in, we have too many sedentary diversions like TV and video games, computers, computer games and the Internet. There's also been a decrease of available parks and play areas and decreases in resources for physical education activities at many public schools. We have let the costs associated with the general education of a child grow exponentially compared to the physical fitness program money until there is a huge parity gap.

Healthcare Central on the web had this to say about overweight Americans:

The epidemic of obesity sweeping America
is the prime culprit behind recent sharp
increases in Medicare spending

This is why I urge every parent to take this warning seriously because the long range consequences are deadly serious for their child. Morbid obesity does enormous psychologal and physical damage. In fact, if you were doing this much damage through corporal abuse (beating your child), you can bet Child Protective Services would be all over you. So take the hint, do the right thing... give your child a decent chance for a long and productive life and help them stay in shape and keep the weight down through good eating habits. For more information I suggest you read about Child Obesity at this site.

We have a problem here folks and there is no quick fix like a fat pill where you can melt off the pounds. However,
there is a fat vaccine in the works and that does look promising, click here for more information. For now the only sure cure for obesity in children or adults is diet and exercise. All the other gimmicks that promise to target belly fat or help you accelerate weight loss is just a bunch of hogwash. Let me say that again and louder...ONLY DIET AND EXERCISE WILL CAUSE YOU TO LOSE WEIGHT.

NOTE: If there is enough interest in this topic, I have contacted one of the top experts in Californiia on physcial fitness and she is willing to provide you with some free professional advice right here, if we have at least 50 people who respond in comments to this article. We won't post anything and you need not give me your correct email address, just tell me you want to know more.

Her time is extremely valuable and she has offered it, but only if there is a true need.

She is a motivational speaker and runs her own Pilates Cardio Camp in San Jose. Please send me a brief note in comments and we'll see if have enough response to get this professional speaker to give us some tips.

PARTING SHOT...

Posted by Post Scripts at 05:46 PM | Comments (6)

Posted by Post Scripts at 04:48 PM | Comments (0)

Ex-Prez Carter: Bush has brought U.S. "international disgrace"

Ex-Prez Carter: Bush has brought U.S. "international disgrace", read the story here. "The former president told a crowd of about 300 on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno today that the nation is more sharply divided than it has ever been as a result of Bush's policies.

The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, he says he's deeply embarrassed that the American government now stands convicted around the world as one of the greatest abusers of civil rights. He continued the theme in a

dinner speech to 700 at a Democratic fundraiser tonight, saying every past president has been a supporter of human rights, until this one." Note from Jack, when those Iranian students seized our embassy, Carter did nothing right and American's were held hostage until a new president took over. Carter didn't bring America presitge nor credibility. In fact, America never looked more weak, than under him. He did a lot to ruin the economy during his administration too. Carter was one of the worst presidents ever. I bet his response to 9/11 would have been to issue a terse protest and warn them they better not do that again or they would get an even more terse protest.

It another story today, George Soros reveals he quits...September 29, 2006 -- Billionaire liberal financier George Soros, who spent millions of his fortune trying to oust President Bush in 2004, yesterday said he hopes to stay out of politics from now on. "In the future, I'd very much like to get disengaged from politics," Soros said at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting on the Upper East Side. "I'm interested in policy and not in politics." Note from Jack: I hope he quits policy too.

Posted by Post Scripts at 12:17 PM | Comments (3)

IN RECOGNITION OF DAVID BURKE'S KINDNESS

by Jack Lee

It's good to know there are some people out here like David Burke, a caring man who helps run a shelter for homeless people. I regret to say, it's also worth reminding would-be hitchhikers that preditors like Shawn Ransom Stuart, also exist and now for the full story, how these polar opposites crossed paths:

In today's Enterprise Record, "Homeless and hooked on drugs since her mid-teens, the 24-year-old woman realized too late that she had accepted a ride from the wrong stranger." So begins the story. The young victim was beaten and raped and if she had not escaped her captor by leaping from his truck, she might now be dead and just written off as another missing homeless person.

The story notes, "David Burke, who heads up the Greater Oroville Homeless Coalition, accompanied her to court and comforted her afterwards. When he learned about the violent rape, Burke said he scraped together enough money to buy the homeless woman some food and medicine, and also funded her residential drug treatment through The Skyway House, where he works." If it wasn't for this person's compassionate intervention, the future for the victim of this violent rape might have turned out much worse. It's good to know that one random act of kindness can bring about so much good...there is hope for this world with people like David Burke in it.

Terry Vau Dell, a senior journalist for the ER based in Oroville, did an excellent job on this story and if you missed it, here is the link.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:58 AM | Comments (5)

September 28, 2006

PATRIOT

by Tina Grazier

After reading Jack's call for patriots I did a search on the words patriot and patriotism and found a variety of thought. While there is little doubt in my mind that, in simple terms, much of what I found represents love of country I also found a great deal of cynicism, disdain, and a strong belief that patriotism is particularly anynonymous with protest. While I strongly believe in free speech, I find it incredulous that a brand of dissent, one that goes beyond mere disagreement or debate, has become the touchstone of patriotism for so many citizens. I'm not surprised, however, that it finds its home almost exclusively on the left. The left seems to live in a world

governed by a deep need to take whatever measures it deems necessary (I gotta right!!) rather than merely participating in the republican system bequeathed to us by the founding fathers.

We are privileged to live in a country where elections, representation, assembly, the rule of law and the courts, newspapers, radio, television and the internet are readily available tools for expression and appeal. The mail system and a typewriter or pen will even suffice. America is not a tyrannical system where revolution, protest and dissent are the only means available. So what is going on with these resentful angry Americans? It could be the result of what people have been taught. Consider this from Emma Goldman an anarchist feminist from the first
half of the last century:

"Patriotism... is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit."

"What we need is a propaganda of education for the soldier: anti-patriotic literatur e that will enlighten him as to the real horrors of his trade, and that will awaken his consciousness to his true relation to the man to whose labor he owes his very existence."

"When we have undermined the patriotic lie, we shall have cleared the path for that great structure wherein all nationalities shall be united into a universal brotherhood,--a truly FREE SOCIETY."

The writings of Emma Goldman are indicative of modern feminist and modern liberal thinking. They do not represent American values or the principles that are the bedrock of our country. They do represent the sentiment found in the fabric of modern liberal speech. I will use one example to illustrate my point, quoting Ms. Goldman, "Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others."

Her assumptions bear no resemblance to the Americans I know, "better, nobler, grander, more intelligent" than others. Hardly! The people I know celebrate the freedom we share to be whatever we desire and are happy to encourage and assist others in the direction of freedom. Her appeal to propagandize the soldier with anti-patriotic literature demonstrates her own feelings of superiority, of being better, nobler or more intelligent. She then goes on to assume she knows the heart of each soldier and the intent of every conflict:

"It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others."

We celebrate peoples from all around the world and respect and enjoy the differences as well as the similarities. We do not appreciate injustice or cruelty and eschew both. We embrace liberty, hard work, self reliance and charity. We do so because we have found that they work. We subscribe to the notion that human beings are strong and capable in spirit and that all human beings share certain rights that no one human can take away. Our government is a symbol of these things, it is, therefore a beacon, a light shining for those caught in darkness. Some may reside here in our own country. Borders are simply demarcations that allow and support order. They allow and support chosen differences. A human being need not give up his own identity to relate to another, neither does a country. And so I say:

Emma, dear, American patriotism is not a lie. It is an upholding of ideals that support human beings in the "pursuit of happiness" and the expression of self. It includes humble or playful expressions such as pledging allegiance, flag waving, parades, fireworks and singing. It also includes much more serious endeavors such as taking up arms to
defend our precious way of life, our Constitution, our humanity, our love for the spirit of decency in mankind. I will not apologize for that sentiment and ideal.

George William Curtis: "A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle."

"I couldn't help but say to [Mr. Gorbachev], just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from another planet. [We'd] find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together." ~Ronald Reagan, 1985

God bless America and God bless those who do not faint to be called patriot.

Posted by Post Scripts at 04:01 PM | Comments (1)

September 27, 2006

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:13 PM | Comments (0)

Tidbits

Are you a disagreeable person? Researchers say your cognitive abililities may be markedly better as you age than those with a more agreeable, friendly nature. So says a University of Massachusetts study released this date.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:52 AM | Comments (1)

Quote of the Week - Pampered and effeminate Americans

“In this final phase of the ongoing struggle, the world of the infidel was divided between two superpowers-the United States and the Soviet Union. Now we have defeated and destroyed the more difficult and the more dangerous of the two (the soviets). Dealing with the pampered and effeminate Americans will be easy.� Osama bin Laden

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:48 AM | Comments (0)

September 26, 2006

Intel Leakers, NYT , Dems - Wrong!

by Tina Grazier

The "Top Secret" stamp used to be serious business. It was respected by nearly every American and honored by every person with clearance. The current crop of leakers are obviously partisan rather than patriotic. Their only purpose: to change the way YOU vote. It is shameful and it needs to end.

The report has been declassified and can be found on the web. I found a few choice quotes posted by Spook86 "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations."

"A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse."

"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight."

"Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq."

"There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims."

"Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit."

"...former member of the U.S. intelligence community. During a 20-year career in military intelligence, he served as an analyst, operations planner, flight commander, briefer, nuclear targeteer and aircrew member among other positions."

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:21 PM | Comments (2)

President Karzai-Poetic Response

by Tina Grazier

This man is not part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, you know, the one that launched a "war for oil." He is in the thick of it. He has been marked for assassination. His words are poetic and if they do not reach in to your very soul then perhaps you have no soul. Find the video if you missed it, his presence makes it hit home more effectively. The full transcript can be found Here:

We'll start with Jennifer Loven:

Q Thank you, sir. Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

And to President Karzai, if I might, what do you think of President Musharraf's comments that you need to get to know your own country better when you're talking about where terror threats and the Taliban threat is coming from?

PRESIDENT KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11th. The President mentioned some examples of it. These extremist forces were
killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards, with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.

They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated -- extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like.

On the remarks of my brother, President Musharraf, Afghanistan is a country that is emerging out of so many years of war and destruction, and occupation by terrorism and misery that they've brought to us. We lost almost two generations to the lack of education. And those who were educated before that are now older. We know our problems. We have difficulties. But Afghanistan also knows where the problem is -- in extremism, in madrassas preaching hatred, preachers in the name of madrassas preaching hatred. That's what we should do together to stop.

The United States, as our ally, is helping both countries. And I think it is very important that we have more dedication and more intense work with sincerity, all of us, to get rid of the problems that we have around the world.

An Afghan press? You?

Q I'm from Voice of America. Mr. President, what is your strategy -- your new strategy to fight against terrorism, and also to deal with narcotics in Afghanistan? Thank you.

PRESIDENT KARZAI: All right. This was to me or to President Bush? Okay. Ma'am, there is no new strategy on the fight against terrorism. We are continuing the strategy that we have. We are implementing the strategy. We are moving further in that strategy. We are getting more of them. We are trying to clean the country of these elements, and the region of these elements by doing more reconstruction, by doing more search for the terrorist elements hiding around there. So the fight against terrorism will continue the way we started it.

Q Mr. President, sorry, do you think it's working now the way it's going?

PRESIDENT KARZAI: It is absolutely working. We come across difficulties as we are moving forward, and that's bound to happen. And we get over those difficulties, we resolve them, and we go to the next stage of this fight against terrorism for all the allies.

At one stage four years ago, we had a war against them to dislodge from Afghanistan, to remove them from being the government of Afghanistan. And then there were major operations against them to arrest or to chase them out. And then we began to rebuild the country, to have roads, to have schools, to have health clinics, to have education, to have all other things that people need all over the world. And now we are at a stage of bringing more stability and trying to get rid of them forever. The desire is to do that sooner. But a desire is not always what you
get. So it will take time, and we must have the patience to have the time spent on getting rid of them for good.

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:04 PM | Comments (0)

A Question of Right

by Tina Grazier

I was perusing articles and postings on the web, looking at different takes on Clinton's red faced, finger pointing interview with Chris Wallace, and I noticed something that made me wonder...how do we decide what is right? Bear with me here:

Via Blogcritics.org:

Clinton himself admitted that he was offered bin Laden in a speech when he says they did not take him because they did not think they had anything to hold him on. They released him. "At the time, 1996, he had committed no

crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America".

Unfortunately, the words here do match the words in the 9/11 Report. In that report it is said that the Clinton officials believed that killing an individual that was an imminent threat to the US would be viewed as self defense, not an assassination: Senior legal advisers in the Clinton administration agreed that, under the law of armed conflict, killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States was an act of self-defense, not an assassination. As former National Security Adviser Berger explained, if we wanted to kill Bin Ladin with cruise missiles, why would we not want to kill him with covert action? Clarke's recollection is the same.

What legal advice did then President Clinton receive from top advisors on what was right...and legal?

"Senior legal advisors in the Clinton administration agreed...killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States was an act of self-defense..."

So, if killing someone is OK as an act of self defense then why is non-lethal, stress tactics on someone to obtain information in self-defense not OK? Think about it.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:12 AM | Comments (2)

September 25, 2006

Today In History

MUHAMMAD'S HEGIRA:
September 24, 622

"On this day in 622, the prophet Muhammad completes his Hegira, or "flight," from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution. In Medina, Muhammad set about building the followers of his religion--Islam--into an organized community and Arabian power. The Hegira would later mark the beginning (year 1) of the Muslim calendar. Muhammad, one of the most influential religious and political leaders in history, was born in Mecca around 570.

His father died before he was born, and Muhammad was put under the care of his grandfather, head of the prestigious Hashim clan. His mother died when he was six, and his grandfather when he was eight, leaving him under the care of his uncle Abu Talib, the new head of the clan. When he was 25, Muhammad married a wealthy widow 15 years his senior. He lived the next 15 years as a merchant, and his wife gave birth to six children:
two sons, who died in childhood, and four daughters.From time to time, Muhammad spent nights in a cave in Mount Hira north of Mecca, ruminating on the social ills of the city. Around 610, he had a vision in the cave in which he heard the voice of a majestic being, later identified as the angel Gabriel, say to him, "You are the Messenger of God." Thus began a lifetime of religious revelations, which he and others collected as the Qur'an, or Koran. Muhammad regarded himself as the last prophet of the Judaic-Christian tradition, and he adopted aspects of these older religions' theologies while introducing new doctrines.

Muhammad's monotheistic religion came to be called Islam, meaning "surrender [to God]," and its followers were Muslims, meaning "those who have surrendered." His inspired teachings would bring unity to the Arabian peninsula, an event that had sweeping consequences for the rest of the world.By 615, Muhammad had gained about 100 converts in Mecca. He spoke out against rich merchants, who he criticized as immoral in their greed, and he denounced the worshipping of idols and multiple gods, saying, "There is no god but God."

City leaders became hostile to him, and in 619 his uncle Abu Talib died and was succeeded as head of the Hashim clan by another one of Muhammad's uncles, Abu Lahib. Abu Lahib refused to protect Muhammad, and persecution of the prophet and his Muslims increased.In the summer of 621, an entourage of 12 men came to Mecca from Medina, an oasis community 200 miles to the north. They were ostensibly making a pilgrimage to Mecca's pagan shrines, but they had actually come to meet with Muhammad and profess themselves as Muslims. In 622, a larger group of converts from Medina came to Mecca and took an oath to Muhammad to defend him as their own kin. Muhammad immediately encouraged his Meccan followers to make their way to Medina in small groups. When city authorities learned that the Muslims had begun an exodus, they plotted to have the prophet killed. Under this threat, Muhammad slipped away unnoticed with a chief disciple and made his way to Medina, using unfrequented paths. He completed the celebrated Hegira (Hijrah in uncorrupted Arabic) on September 24, 622. The history of Islam had begun.At Medina, Muhammad built a theocratic state and led raids on trading caravans from Mecca. Attempts by Meccan armies to defeat the Muslim forces failed, and several leading Meccans immigrated to Medina and became Muslims. Muhammad later become more conciliatory to Mecca, and
in 629 he was allowed to lead a pilgrimage there in exchange for a peace treaty. Shortly after, he was attacked by allies of the Meccans, and Muhammad denounced the treaty. In January 630, he returned to his birthplace with 10,000 men, and the Meccans swore allegiance to its Muslim conquerors. He was now the strongest man in Arabia. During the next few years, most of the peninsula's disparate Arab tribes came to him to ask for alliance and to convert to his religion. By his death, on June 8, 632, Muhammad was the effective ruler of most of Arabia, and
his rapidly growing empire was poised for expansion into Syria and Iraq.

Within 20 years, the Byzantine and Persian empires had fallen to the prophet's successors, and during the next two centuries vast Arab conquests continued. The Islamic empire grew into one of the largest the world has ever seen, stretching from India, across the Middle East and Africa, and up through Western Europe's Iberian peninsula. The spread of Islam continued after the fragmentation of the Arab empire, and many societies in Africa and Asia voluntarily adopted Muhammad's religion. Today, Islam is the world's second-largest religion." Discovery History

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:20 AM | Comments (0)

OSAMA-DEAD OR DEADLY STILL?

by Tina Grazier

It would be good news if it were true but it comes to us via a French daily paper L'est Republicain so I'm suspicious:

"According to a commonly reliable source, the Saudi police believe that Osama Bin Laden has died," said a Sept. 21 confidential note transmitted by the Directorate-General of External Services...the Saudi police "would try to obtain more details, in particular the location of the burial site, and then announce the news officially." The DGSE specified in the note that no "jihadist Internet site has for the moment been made aware of the death of Osama bin Laden." According to the note, "the head of al-Qaida may have fallen victim to a strong case of typhoid fever while in Pakistan, on August 23, 2006," and may have died within a matter of days.

France and the United States said on Saturday they could not confirm the report in French regional daily L'Est Republicain which quoted France's DGSE foreign intelligence service as saying the Saudi secret services were convinced the al Qaeda leader had died of typhoid in Pakistan in late August.

By Sunday the validity of the story had further diminished:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia said on Sunday it had no evidence that Osama bin Laden had died, shedding further doubt on a secret document leaked in France that said Saudi secret services believed he had died last month.

The Saudi Embassy in Washington issued the following statement: "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has no evidence to support recent media reports that Osama bin Laden is dead. Information that has been reported
otherwise is purely speculative and cannot be independently verified."

Whether Osama is dead or alive we can be certain that the terror threat continues. A recent interview with Hamid Mir (no friend of the Bush Administration) posted at WorldThreats.com by Ryan Mauro contains information and insight that no American can afford to ignore.

"...best known as the last journalist to interview Osama Bin Laden, and the only one to do so after the attacks of September 11, 2001. He is currently the Bureau Chief of Islamabad for Geo TV and is writing a biography on Osama Bin Laden. He has interviewed countless members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban...most recently he said that Osama Bin Laden was going to issue a new tape, but the mainstream media did not report it. A few days later, a tape was released. He was the only one to predict the event."

After 9/11, it is the present Iranian regime which is secretly helping Al-Qaeda because the U.S. is supporting Israel openly.

"I am very careful when speaking about Al-Qaeda's nuclear capabilities. I've met many people in Al-Qaeda who have claimed that uranium and nuclear bombs were smuggled to America, and I'll quote them in my book. However, when I speak for myself, I don't rely on claims by Al-Qaeda. I rely upon my own investigations."

"As far as I know, they smuggled three suitcase nukes from Russia to Europe. They smuggled many kilos of enriched uranium inside America for their dirty bomb projects. They said in 1999 that they must have material for more than six dirty bombs in America."

"They have planned an attack bigger than 9/11, even before 9/11 happened. Osama Bin Laden trained 42 fighters to destroy the American economy and military might. 19 were used on 9/11, 23 are still "sleeping" inside America waiting for a wake-up call from Bin Laden."

"They are waiting for the proper time. They want the U.S. to be involved in a mass killing of Muslims, so that they will have some justification. That is what I was told by a top Al-Qaeda leader in the Kunar Mountains of Afghanistan."

"Saddam Hussein was not popular in the Muslim world. Osama hated him. Iran hated him. He was once considered an American agent. The majority of Muslims were initially happy that Saddam was dislodged, but then anger spread against the U.S. after the Abu Ghraib jail scandal. Now Muslims think that America invaded Iraq for oil, not for WMDs. Where are the WMDs? America must answer this question NOW."

Ah, and now we discover why he and others are against the Bush Administration. The negative slant and spin reported on the "Abu Graib jail scandal" by our media coupled with the "war for oil" screed spewed by leftist activist has been responsible for the shift in support for some in the Muslim world. Defeat of terrorist thugs that are threatening people all around the world was deemed irrelevant to the left as they blindly focused on the number one priority, discrediting Bush to further their own chances for being returned to power. Whether vengeful or
driven by ego these disloyal bents represent a shameful truth we cannot ignore or deny, the fact that it has diminished and undermined our efforts to stop terrorism.

Today we cannot be certain of the capacity of Osama bin Ladan to lead, we cannot be certain we are safe, but we can be certain that we have failed to present a unified front in the war. Disloyal acts of disinformation, propaganda and skewed reporting by our media has not helped us, but instead has helped them. Patriotism, as Jack said, matters especially when the stakes are deadly.

Posted by Post Scripts at 12:09 AM | Comments (3)

September 23, 2006

What America Needs Are Patriots

by Jack Lee

People tend to love a good rumor, thats just a fact, it's just part of being human, so I can't condemn anyone for occassionally falling for gossip. When we entered adulthood, most of us soon found that very few rumors are true. As a result, many of us began to challenge incredible stories and rumors instead of spreading them. If it's a political rumor in these times, you're doing your patriotic duty to challenge anything that doesn't sound right and is unverified. MoveOn.org, A.N.S.W.E.R., etc., are monsterous rumor mills that crank out the most outrageous and inflamatory rhetoric I've ever seen, yet so many young American people just accept it as fact and that's not very patriotic, nor smart, even some older types fall the rhetoric too, but I think those are the people P.T. Barnum spoke about and we will always have a certain percentage of them with us.

Speaking of rumor mills, only recently it seemed like liberal America was ready to believe President Bush and his aide, Carl Rove, had deliberately leaked the Valerie Plame information. Oh, this was going to be a huge scandal, they said. Liberals across the land were convinced this allegation/rumor was completely true and they were jubilant, because it fit in so well with their own agenda to crush Bush; never mind what it was doing to our nation here and abroad. So self assured they were, they proclaimed Bush and Rove's pending demise. When the truth finally came out they looked foolish, but unfortunately there was still personal and political damage done. NO crime was committed and the responsible party was not even among the liberals targets. One man's life had been ruined and a number of other lives had been tarnish (it's hard to unring the bell). And it was all over nothing. Those that started it, just moved along as if it never really happened, no accountability and no responsibility.

Time and again, people are victimized by gossip, false rumors and false accusations, but sadly it never seems to slow down this loathsome proactice from spreading, especially when it involves a major political advantage. That's why it's said, "When it comes to politics, perception is as good as reality." Elections can be changed by rumors and we should all know that by now, especially if [said rumor] is released in the 11th hour, just enough time for the rumor to circulate and too little time for a response. Expect this tactic to be used in a number of races in about five weeks.

Do you remember when Bernie Richter's democratic challenger put out this rumor in the final days of their assembly race? Half truth rumor: "Did you know that Richter owns an establishment where police have investigated illegal sexual offenses involving minors?" Minors, sexual offenses and a political candidate! Oh my gosh, its the stuff rumors thrive on! Fact: Bernie called the cops once on a drunken bum urinating near his kids Playland building. That's it. When weighed against the truth it makes that half-truth look more like an outright lie...a deliberate attempt to spread a blatantly false rumor in a desperate attempt to win a few more votes.

Those with an axe to grind or an opportunity to exploit really don't care about the truth and they play on the character weakness of others to do their dirty work. They rely on others that have not learned from the repeated exposures to false rumors to spread even more rumors. They count on those types that would rather not examine anything too closely because the truth often ruins a titillating story or "it's just too much trouble". I believe those who are the new [masters of deceit] and constantly spread false rumors are winning. I've never seen Americans more polarized and at each others throats than now, and this can only be good for our enemies, enemies that would love to see us all go under. This is another one of those reality checks people...time to see the big picture and realize your part in it.

More than ever before in our history, America needs honest patriots at all levels of our society. A real patriot speaks the truth, challenges rumors and denounces liars. Doesn't matter if you are a voter or a Congressman, this is what you do to be a patriot. A patriot does this because it is the right thing to do for their country and it's a matter of personal character. All I'm asking you to do this election, as voters and as politicians, is be a patriot. Place our national interest ahead of any notions of personal gain or a special interest agenda. National interests, based on honor and integrity, ought to come first, before any other consideration. If we can do that, we will be worthy of being the leader for the world to follow.

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:11 AM | Comments (0)

September 22, 2006

Smiling Bob Wilts - Enzyte Fraud Exposed

It's been reported "Smiling Bob" was home late last night, embraced in a moment of passion with his wife, when the 11 O'clock news came on, "Government investigator's raid Enzyte factory!" Turns out it was all a huge fraud! Enzyte doesn't work... and there is no such product as a male enhancement drug that will grow anything except your imagination.

Links to this story are here and here and this one in particular that tells about the indictment.
Here is one more just for good measure You know what? It's almost hard to type this story without some sort of pun coming up in every line.

If any good came from of it, it was purely that placebo effect. The owners of Enzyte are being charged with the theft of millions in unauthorized credit card charges by customers, who were lured into giving up the credit card information in exchange for a free trial offer. Smiling Bob, was stunned. His smile turned down and he went limp hearing the terrible news. He knew his career was over and now he felt pretty small knowing he had been duped into playing the straight man for these phony commercials. Just days earlier, his career was looking up, but now all that has been reversed. He is becoming the butt of water cooler jokes.

That was the news late last night and since then Bob has shrunken from sight. His publicist said, "Bob has withdrawn from further publicity and remains in seclusion.

Yes folks, it appears Enzyte was a total fraud and the business owners were simply stretching the truth to making millions from gullible people. That is the long and short of this story. Sadly, there is no upside to this news here because so many millions of customers have simply been let down.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:31 AM | Comments (9)

September 21, 2006

Bush's #1 Critic Calls Hugo Chavez A Thug

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of President George W. Bush's fiercest political opponents at home took his side on Thursday, calling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "thug" for his remark that Bush is like the devil.

"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.

"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."

Now for Jack's comments ...I heard the applause given to the thug's hate speech at the UN and I am aware of the near silence following Bush's speech the day before. Let's be honest, the UN is not America's friend, its like walking into a den of lions. I find it hard to rationalize why we still belong to an organization that sells us out so regulary and is so full of corruption. Why should we pay over 22% of the UN's budget, far more than anyone else when we benefit the least?

The UN has become like a stacked deck, made up of communists and socialists all lined up against America. The applause for this lousy, two bit commie dictator ought to tell you all you need to know about the UN and the low people that call themselves ambassadors. Even though we may grip about the dirty politics played here, you contrast our cleaness to most of these nations and they look pretty filthy, yet they sit in judgement of us? Ha! They don't have the moral right till their house is cleaner than ours.

And whats up with American's in Harlem, why would we they play host to a communist gangster? It was sickening to see Danny Glover falling all over himself to please Chavez. Glover is a great actor, but when it comes to being a loyal American he has a lot to learn. He should be ashamed, but I don't think he's astute enough to be ashamed. Least we had this for balance: "Bono is creating shock and awe on the left by having the audacity to characterize Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez as what he is. The lead singer of the rock band U2 used his bucks to invest in a video game that casts the current nation of Venezuela as a banana republic led by a "power hungry tyrant." lol

Now lets all chant: CHAVEZ GO HOME....while we throw rocks and bottles at his motorcade.

Posted by Post Scripts at 05:55 PM | Comments (18)

Fear And Race Played Again by Democrats

by Jack Lee

Democrats jumped at the chance to play the race card and use fear mongering to squash a Voter ID bill Tuesday. They howled it would target "poor blacks in the South" and it would effectively steal away their votes, they said the GOP was trying to turn back the clock to the bad old days of rampant segregation. Now hold on just a minute, if you are to believe that line of thinking then you would also have to believe there must be something wrong the blacks in the South as opposed to everybody else in this country. You would have to believe that "poor blacks in the South" must be too stupid or too lazy to apply for and then use a free voter ID card. Why else would they be singled out? Or is there some hidden agenda here, like courting the illegal alien's illegal vote...hmmmmm? (Course, maybe it's both)

The GOP made no such assumption about any group of people, but then they don't think like that! Far from it. In fact they were rightly assuming everybody, including Southern blacks, would be benefited by having less voter fraud. This bill would protect the vote by removing many of those illegal voters who use obituaries or headstones to get a voters ID, or who are here illegally or who vote multiple times using others names and addresses. Currently there is no way to stop this fraud because we can't even ask anybody for ID! How dumb is that? The Dems can play the race card all they want, but common sense tells you there was absolutely no racial equation even considered by the GOP when they wrote this bill. That would be a form of stereotyping and bigotry and this is the party of Lincoln, not Robert KKK Byrd! It would take a leap of logic to think some group of people in America needed protecting because of their skin color, but the democrats chose to do it and single out "black people in the South" as a reason to oppose this bill. That reveals their plantation mindset to take care of "their black folk". This is such a condescending policy that it should be repugnant to everyone truly seeking a color blind society .

The GOP knows there was incontrovertible evidence that this bill was desperately needed to stop the growing voter fraud and protect the credibility of our future elections. And every American should know protecting our elections is fundamental to protecting our democracy. This bill seems especially relevant now, given the huge numbers of illegal aliens still pouring into this country. The Voter ID simply provides a picture and proof of U.S. citizenship and this was among the primary recommendations made last year by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter. "Effective voter registration and voter identification are bedrocks of a modern election system," they wrote in their final report which Carter submitted to Congress. The GOP did the right thing and chose to act on the recommendation and the Democrats blocked it. This resistance was not done purely over some twisted notion of being benevolent plantation owners, the democrats know that illegal aliens are their best targets for recruitment and that continuing the voter fraud would benefit their party. So, once again the democrats have been caught putting self-interest ahead of the public interest, even if they must lay in bed with corruption to do it. Winning is what matters most to them and it appears they will do whatever it takes to win.

The bill passed the house voted along party lines, but its doubtful to clear the Senate, the numbers just aren't there.
It's a disgusting game sometimes isn't it? No wonder so many voters are just dropping out.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:20 AM | Comments (15)

Evidence from the Boston Globe

Globe:

Al Qasemi College, which was founded in 1989 as the first institute of Islamic higher education in Israel, is trying to export revolutionary openness and liberalism to the wider Islamic world, leaders of the faculty told educators, Jewish leaders, and local Muslims during a four-day visit to the Boston area that ended yesterday.

Speaking at campuses, mosques, and the homes of Muslims, the Al Qasemi faculty said that it is time for Muslims to quit blaming others and examine their own responsibility for the troubles of Islamic civilization; time for Arab Israelis to call themselves Israelis, not Palestinians; and, above all, time for women to have full equality with men in the Muslim world.

All these assertions are considered radical, even incendiary, in much of the Arab Muslim world. But Mohammad Essawi , the president of the college, said such changes in thinking are needed to transform an education system in the Islamic world "that is still in the 12th century and does not have an open mind."

"There is a huge opportunity to teach openness and pluralism in these societies," Essawi said yesterday.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:01 AM | Comments (3)

David Looks in The Mirror

by Tina Grazier

"Hubris applies to people who believe that they know best; that they know better than the experts. They believe that their view of the world trumps the experts and everybody else.... They put their presumptions, what they believed to be true, ahead of the evidence. Every component of the disaster that has occured in the war... was written about by folks in and out of the White House prior to the invasion." -- David Corn

Need I say anything?

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:59 AM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2006

Terrorist Working for the Associated Press

This just in from one of our readers...

"The Associated Press proudly calls itself the "essential global news network" and a "bastion of the people's right to know around the world." But when it comes to the "people's right to know" whether Associated Press employees are cooperating with terrorists overseas, the "essential global news network's" motto is: Bug off.

On April 12, I learned from military sources that an Associated Press photographer in Iraq, Fallujah native Bilal Hussein, had been captured in Ramadi in an apartment with insurgents and a cache of weapons. This was news. I asked the AP for confirmation. Corporate spokesman Jack Stokes informed me that company officials were "looking into reports that Mr. Hussein was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq but have no further details at this time." After reporting the alleged detention on my blog, I followed up several more times with AP over the past five months for status updates on Hussein. No reply.

On Sept. 17, the Associated Press finally acknowledged that Hussein was being detained. The AP's overdue revelation was likely part of an attempt to drum up sympathy for Hussein, who has made critical public statements against our troops in Fallujah, and undermine Bush administration interrogation efforts involving military detainees. The AP article not only confirmed Hussein's capture, it also revealed (buried deep in the story) that it knew of Hussein's capture from at least May 7 -- when it received an e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner revealing bombshell details:

"The military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. 'He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces,' according to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq."

In fact, the Pentagon said on Monday, after three separate independent reviews, the military had deemed Hussein a security threat with "strong ties to known insurgents . . . involved in activities that were well outside the scope of what you would expect a journalist to be doing in that country." Hussein "tested positive for traces of explosives."

Let me repeat that: An Associated (with terrorists) Press journalist gets caught with an alleged al Qaeda leader and tests positive for bomb-making materials. That. Is. News. How does a news organization explain away its decision to sit on it for five months? Like this: "The AP has worked quietly until now, believing that would be the best approach."

The best approach to journalism? No. The best approach to suppressing a damning connection to terrorists.

The mainstream media enjoys mocking bloggers as journalistic wannabes who don't do any "real" reporting and have no concern for the "public interest." But as in the case of the Reuters photo-faking debacle this summer, it is bloggers in their little home offices -- not the professionals on the ground thousands of miles away -- who smoked out a war story with profound national security implications. Well before I reported on Hussein's capture, military bloggers and media watchdog bloggers had raised persistent questions over the past two years about Hussein's relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were staged in collusion with our enemies. (For a thorough overview, see here.)

Hussein's up-close-and-personal insurgent propaganda photos include a Pulitzer Prize-winning image of four terrorists in Fallujah firing a mortar and small arms at our troops in November 2004, several chilling photos with terrorists before, during and after the Iraqi desert execution of kidnapped Italian civilian hostage Salvatore Santoro, and repeat images of Sunni locals in Theater of Jihad poses.

In an investigation of war photo staging and fakery earlier this spring, National Journal's Neil Munro exposed another dubious Hussein photo taken in October 2005 of a purported funeral image outside Ramadi. An accompanying article claimed the U.S. had bombed the crowd including 18 children. But according to the military, video footage of the air strike against terrorist roadside bombers in that incident showed only what appeared to be grown men where the bomb struck. Munro reported: "AP officials declined to make Hussein available for an interview."

The Hussein case may be the tip of the iceberg. In December 2005, AP television footage was used to spread bogus reports (see here) of a fake "uprising" in Ramadi. Earlier this spring, independent milblogger Bill Roggio identified another suspicious AP/Hussein-photographed scene in Ramadi (see here). And blogger Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker recently highlighted an Iraqi intelligence document that bragged about "one of our sources (the degree of trust in him is good) who works in the American Associated Press Agency" (see here).

I e-mailed the AP yesterday to find out whether any other AP employees are currently in military detention. The people have a "right to know," don't they?"

by Michelle Malkin
Sep 20, 2006

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:28 PM | Comments (7)

VIOLENCE CONTINUES OVER POPE'S SPEECH

"The quotation made by Benedict XVI in the “lecture� at the University of Regensburg, “lent itself to possible misunderstanding�. “For the careful reader, however, it emerges clearly that I did not want to make my own in any

way the negative words pronounced by the medieval emperor.� That speech tackled the theme of “faith and reason�, maintaining that “not religion and violence but religion and reason go together� and aimed to “invite the Christian faith to dialogue with the modern world and all religions�, as should have emerged “clearly�, considering the overall trip to Germany. A crowd of 40,000 people present at today’s general audience greeted with long and warm applause the pope’s words about his trip to Germany, and especially about the speech he gave in Regensburg. " Spero News.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)

A Tribute to One Caring, Loving Woman

Spero News: Sr Leonella Sgorbati, who was christened Rosa Sgorbati, was born in Gazzola, Piacenza Italy on 9 December, 1940. In May, 1963, she joined the Consolata Missionary Sisters in San Fr Cuneo and took her perpetual vows on November 19,1972.

After the nursing school in England from 1966-1968, she was appointed to Kenya, where she reached on September 6, 1970. From 1970 to 1983 she served alternately in Consolata Hospital Mathari, Nyeri and Nazareth Hospital, on the northern outskirts of Nairobi. In mid 1983, she started her advanced studies in nursing and in 1985 she became the principal tutor for the school of nursing attached to Nkubu Hospital Meru.

On November 26, 1993 she was elected Regional superior of the Consolata Missionary Sisters in Kenya, a duty she performed for six years. After a sabbatical, in 2001 she spent several months in Mogadishu, Somalia, looking at the possibility of setting up a nursing school in the hospital run by the SOS Village organisation in Somalia. The project became a reality in 2002, and since April 18, 2002, Sister Leonella has been in charge of the nursing school, whose first students graduated only in 2006.

In all this time she has fought a long running battle with various government bureaucracies to assure an internationally recognised diploma for her students. She succeeded in obtaining for them an internationally recognised diploma by the WHO last August. She then came back to Kenya, accompanied by three of her students, two girls and a young man, to have them registered at Medical Training College (MTC) so as to form the bulk of the future tutors at the school in Mogadishu. Having succeeded, after an uphill struggle, to secure them the necessary visa, funding and registration at the school, she started scouting in Uganda for hospitals ready to train other students of hers to work in operating theatres. In the meantime, she had to face the difficulties of having her own re-entry visa to Mogadishu, due to the new rules of the Islamic Courts that now control the region.

She went back to Mogadishu only on September 13, less than one week ago.

On Sunday September 17, 2006 at around 12.00 am (-4 GMT), she was ambushed while crossing the road that separates the SOS hospital from the SOS village where the five Consolata Sisters live. Her two assailants waited her, hidden behind the taxis and kiosks that are found on that stretch of road at the entrance of the hospital. She was shot first in the thigh; when her bodyguard fired back, they shot and killed him, hitting the sister with two extra bullets, one of which entered her back and severed the femoral artery, causing a massive haemorrhage. Taking promptly to the theatre, she died shortly after. Her dying words were uttered in Italian: pardono, pardono (I forgive, I forgive).

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:58 AM | Comments (1)

The Last Words of Sister Leonella

by Tina Grazier

"I forgive, I forgive," she whispered in her native Italian just before she died, the Rev. Maloba Wesonga told The Associated Press at the nun's memorial mass in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, on Monday.

Willy Huber, regional director of the Austrian-funded hospital where 65-year-old Sister Leonella had worked for four years, said the killing was not random. "She had no chance," said Huber, who heads the S.O.S. Kinderdorf organization in East Africa. "It was like an execution."

The sister's final words have given us a glimpse into starkly contrasting beliefs in a world fraught with discord, conflict and strife. Sam Harris, a self described liberal and critic of religion made the following statement in the Los Angeles Times:

"A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world -- for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise."

"This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good..."

It isn't just death in defense of faith Mr. Harris. It's death unless you submit. It's death in order to create fear so that you will convert. Death! Not love, or mercy, or even, heaven forbid, forgiveness. May God forgive them, as Sister Leonella has, and may their hearts turn away from evil.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:52 AM | Comments (0)

A Few Good Nuns

by Tina Grazier

I have a lot of friends who attended Catholic school. Through the years they've shared horror stories of torture at the hands of the nuns. One told me that boot camp in the Air Force was a snap compared to High School with "Sister Mary Forever". My friends always laugh about their experiences, but always with a grim smile, hinting that it really was no picnic at the time. All of these people survived and went on to live normal lives. Not one went "Looney-Tunes". I was thinking about all of this as I read the list of "torture techniques" that the CIA must now beg for authorization to use, they are:

1. Induced hypothermia; 2. Forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; 3. Sleep deprivation; 4. A technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized; 5. The "attention slap" or open hand slapping

that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; 6. The "belly slap"; and 7. Sound and light manipulation.

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler comments on one of the techniques:

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1402

...a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is
forcefully seized;

"Forcefully. FORCEFULLY!!! H**, I can't verify this, of course, but
there may even be BUTTONS FLYING here!

No more, please. I'd rather be beheaded, set on fire, dismembered and hung from a bridge or have my genitals mutilated than ever have to undergo that sort of horrendous, degrading treatment."

And from GITMO (Kim Du Toi), "the other side" of upside down thinking:

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/9752/

"The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.

The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.

Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)

Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy. That's not the worst of it. Try this one:

[A] multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.

And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.

Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in theres. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.

That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.

There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.

One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.

But it gets still worse:

No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on."

And finally we have the politician that loves to play center, John McCain on ABC television:

"there is a war we are losing in some ways and that's our standing in the world because of our treatment in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo".

John, lopsided media reporting is responsible for our "standing in the world", as you well know since you play to it all the time. The events at Abu Graib represent an unfortunate instance of failure on the part of one officer and a few people who should have known better, and as for Guantanamo, see above and then kindly report to a nun somewhere, she might be able to teach you a thing or two about lying.

Lets put this in perspective. People endure all kinds of horrible things every day and nobody gives it a thought except for the dear ones who must go through it. Consider severe burn patients or folks suffering from certain forms of cancer. They endure weeks and months of moment to moment pain and suffering even as people help them and try to make them comfortable. The INTERROGATION techniques we are talking about cannot be any worse than these things. So let's tell the truth. We aren't discussing these things because criminal "torture" of prisoners mustn't be tolerated. If that were a real problem we would be condemning the terrorists actions every day. This is pure politics on the world's stage. Lending credence to the whining complaining objectors only sets
the whole world up for a long dark period of cowering in the corner and begging for mercy at the hands of those who really want to kill, torture and insight terror wherever and whenever they can. When we act like victims they win. We could sure use a few good nuns right now.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:36 AM | Comments (9)

September 19, 2006

Gaffney's Ten Point Plan

by Tina Grazier

Just in case you thought the war effort was only concentrated in Iraq or that only armed combat was being used to fight this war, I highly recommend you go to this link." To find a synopsis of Frank Gaffney's book "War Footing-10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World". You will find practical information and guidance and perhaps gain an expanded view of how we must approach this war if we are to win.

Frank Gaffney is an expert on Middle East politics and served in Ronald Reagan's Defense Department. He presented this 10 point plan on September 7th before the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Non-Proliferation emphasizing a special effort to use media communications to win the war:

"We have been dramatically under-funding an important area of natural American expertise and capability: multimedia communications aimed at foreign audiences," Gaffney said. He added that the goal would be to "de-legitimize Islamist extremism in the eyes of Muslims, and especially its potential supporters. The plan:

1. Know the enemy
2. Really support the troops
3. Provide for US energy security
4. Stop investing in terror
5. Equip the homefront
6. Counter the mega threat: EMP Attack
7. Secure our borders, Secure our country
8. Wage political Warfare
9. Regional Initiatives
10. Wield effective diplomacy

Number four intrigued me:

"On average, America's leading public pension systems - representing firefighters, police officers, military personnel and veterans and other government employees - invest between 15% and 23% of their portfolio in
companies that do business with state-sponsors of terror.

Most public pension systems and university endowments are unable to quantify their resulting exposure to what the Securities and Exchange Commission calls "Global Security Risk."

Few of these funds have taken any steps to inform their beneficiaries about such exposure, let alone taken steps to reduce it by divesting the stocks of companies that partner with America's enemies or through other
means.

The Center for Security Policy's study showed that the American pension funds examined had approximately $188 billion invested in companies that partner with terrorist-sponsoring regimes. Of that amount, roughly $73 billion was actually invested in the countries in question. Since money is fungible, it is reasonable to conclude that at
least some of these staggering amounts are being used to underwrite terror, ballistic missile, weapons of mass destruction or other threatening activities."

Number six caught my eye since I had NO IDEA what an EMP was:

"A massive current of EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) could be unleashed with catastrophic effect on the United States if a nuclear weapon is detonated high above the earth's atmosphere. The energy of this pulse would interact with the Earth's magnetic field, affecting - and possibly destroying - every piece of unshielded electronic gear and power grids in line-of-sight of the detonation, all at the speed of light.

What is more, the higher the altitude of the weapon's detonation, the larger the affected area would be. At a height of 300 miles, the entire continental United States would be exposed to EMP attack, along with parts of Canada and Mexico.

As a result, America could be transformed from a 21st Century superpower into a pre-industrial society almost instantaneously."

This sounds unbelievable. But a blue-ribbon commission created by Congress confirmed this danger in a report submitted in August 2004."

I'll remember this the next time anyone from Congress starts yammering about pulling out of Iraq. No more excuses and denials. They should be well aware by now of the enemy as described in number 1:

"Little lasting progress in the war on terror can be expected if we fail to grasp two important realities:

1. Islamofascism is a totalitarian ideology, not a religion. It is about power, not faith.

2. In virtually all cases, Islamism and its terrorist manifestations have been - and continue to be - state-sponsored. Strategies for defeating Islamofascism must address its wellsprings, not just its symptoms."

It's hard to look at this type of information without feeling a sense of helplessness and doom, but look at it we must. It may be that what we must face is worse than anything the world has ever known. If so it's important that each of us do all we can to maximize our chances. We need the help, the energy, and support of all peace and freedom loving people in the world. Working together we will become a formidable enemy to those who prefer to embrace death and destruction in a quest for domination and control.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:55 AM | Comments (4)

COUNTING DOWN TO ZERO ADDS UP TO NOTHING

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:39 AM | Comments (0)

September 18, 2006

Pope's Comment - Update

Kashmiri activists belonging to the Muslim League (ML) shout slogans during a protest against Pope Benedict in Srinagar September 15, 06. REUTERS/Fayaz Kabli

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:11 PM | Comments (1)

About Iraq - YOU NEED TO READ THIS

Submitted by Nick F. (Iraq War Veteran) for your approval.....

Writen by James Phillips

December 2, 2005 | |

MYTH: The U.S. is making no progress in defeating the insurgency in Iraq.

QUOTE: “I'm absolutely convinced that we're making no progress at all, and I've been complaining for two years that there's an overly optimistic—an illusionary process going on here.� –Rep. John Murtha on “Meet the Press,� November 20, 2005

REALITY: The U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government have made substantial progress in eliminating insurgent strongholds in Fallujah, Mosul, Najaf, Samara, and Tal Afar, and in many smaller towns in the western Anbar province along the Syrian border. Most of Iraq is secure from major guerrilla attacks, particularly the predominantly Shiite south and the predominantly Kurdish north, which actively support the Iraqi government. Most insurgent attacks are mounted in the heavily Sunni Arab central and western portions of Iraq, although small numbers of insurgents continue to launch terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings at soft targets, throughout the country. Outside of Iraq’s Sunni heartland, which benefited the most from Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime, the insurgents lack popular support. Their terrorist strategy has failed to intimidate Iraqi Shiites, Kurds, Turcomans, and Assyrians, who altogether comprise more than 80 percent of Iraq’s population.

The Iraqi army and police forces are growing larger, better-trained, and more effective. The Iraqi Army and security forces grew from just 1 operational battalion in July 2004 to more than 120 today. Over 200,000 trained and equipped Iraqis are now playing an increasingly active role in rooting out insurgents. While only one battalion is rated at the U.S. Army category "Level One," about 40 are at “Level Two.� Level 2 battalions are capable of fighting "with some support"—usually just logistics and air/artillery support—from American forces. These units patrol their own areas of operations, relieving U.S. troops to perform other duties. The cities of Najaf and Mosul are now patrolled exclusively by Iraqi security forces, as are large portions of Baghdad.

There are now six police academies in Iraq and one in Jordan training 3,500 Iraqi police every ten weeks. Today the vast majority of Iraqi police and army recruits are trained by Iraqis, not Americans, the result of systematic efforts to “train the trainers.� Since the January 30th elections, no Iraqi police stations have been abandoned under attack, as once happened frequently, because police have fiercely resisted attacks even when outnumbered and outgunned, confident that help would come from 13 provincial SWAT teams and coalition forces.

Unlike during several military offensives in 2004, Iraqi security forces now are strong enough to garrison and control cleared areas, making the Bush Administration’s recent adoption of a “clear, hold, and build� security strategy possible. Iraqi forces were able to take a leading role in the successful September 2005 offensive at Tal Afar, which involved 11 Iraqi and 5 Coalition battalions.

The increasing effectiveness of the Iraqi security forces has inspired optimism among the Iraqi people. This is reflected in the growing number of intelligence tips from Iraqi civilians. In March 2005, Iraqi and coalition forces received 483 intelligence tips from Iraqi citizens. This figure rose to 3,300 in August, and to more than 4,700 in September. According to a survey from early November, 71 percent of respondents believed that the Iraqi security forces are winning the war against the insurgents, while only 9 percent believed they are losing. The data was gathered from Iraqi callers who were passing intelligence tips to the Iraqi National Tips Line, which was created to provide Iraqis with a safe and anonymous means of passing on information about insurgent activity to their own government.

MYTH: The U.S. is making little or no political progress in Iraq.

QUOTE: "It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend's constitutional referendum as yet another ’victory’ for democracy in Iraq, we still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war." –Frank Rich, “It’s Bush-Cheney, not Rove-Libby,� New York Times, October 16, 2005

REALITY: Iraq has made remarkably rapid progress in establishing the foundations of a democratic political system after more than three decades of dictatorship. Pessimistic critics of U.S. policy have been repeatedly wrong in predicting that Iraqis would not be ready for the June 2004 transfer of sovereignty, the January 2005 transitional government elections, the writing and approval of a constitution by October 2005, and the December 15 elections that will create a government that will lead Iraq for the next four years.

The insurgents’ inability to block the January elections, combined with a simmering resentment of their indiscriminate violence, has led many Sunni Arabs to reconsider their boycott of the political process. Even the Association of Muslim Scholars, an anti-American group, has called for Sunni Arabs to join the Iraqi security services. The insurgents’ political base is weakening as it becomes clear that they are opposed not just to the American presence, but also to the elected government.

Despite terrorist attacks and threats of intimidation, 8.5 million Iraqis voted in the January elections; almost 10 million voted in the October referendum on the new constitution; and turnout for the December 15 elections is expected to be even greater. Many Sunni Arabs realize that they erred in boycotting the January elections and are likely to vote in far larger numbers on December 15. More than 300 parties and coalitions have registered for the coming elections. Iraq’s political process is messy and slow, like in other newly democratic political systems, but a new class of political leadership is emerging that, over time, can build a national consensus and drain away support for the insurgency, which is dominated by Islamic radicals and diehard loyalists to Saddam’s hated regime.

Ironically, while Americans appear to be growing more pessimistic about Iraq’s future, Iraqis are growing more optimistic. According to a poll conducted by Iraqis affiliated with Iraqi Universities, two-thirds of Iraqis believe they are better off now than under Saddam’s dictatorship, and 82 percent are confident that they will be better off a year from now than they are today. An October survey conducted by the International Republican Institute found that 47 percent of Iraqis believed that their country is headed in the right direction, while 37 percent believed that it was going in the wrong direction. And 56 percent believed the situation would get better in six months, while only 16 percent believed the situation would get worse.

MYTH: The Bush Administration exaggerated the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to justify the war.

QUOTE: “In his march to war, President Bush exaggerated the threat to the American people.� –Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), quoted in U.S. Fed News, November 10, 2005

REALITY: The Bush Administration acted on the basis of intelligence conclusions that were widely shared by previous administrations and foreign governments. President Bush was not the first American president to emphasize the long-term threat posed by Iraq. President Bill Clinton justified Operation Desert Fox, a three-day U.S. air offensive against Iraq, by invoking the threat posed by Iraqi WMD on December 16, 1998:

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Clinton’s National Security Council advisor Sandy Berger warned of Saddam’s threat in 1998, "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.� Former Vice PresidentAl Gore said in 2002, "We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." CIA Director George Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton Administration, declared that the presence of Iraqi WMD was a “slam dunk.� (For more on the political campaign to paint intelligence mistakes as conscious lies, see Norman Podhoretz’s excellent article, “Who Is Lying About Iraq?,� in the December issue of Commentary.)

The intelligence services of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and Israel, among many others, held the same opinion. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin explained his concerns to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003: "Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant. Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and Yperite. In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability." The German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, said on NBC’s “Today� of February 26, 2003, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have—that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.�

The Bush Administration may have been wrong about Iraqi WMD, but so were many other governments, few of which have been accused of lying. Moreover, three independent commissions have found that there is no evidence that the Bush Administration exaggerated the intelligence about Iraqi WMD.

In July 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report with the following conclusions:

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. …

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.[1]

In March 2005, the bipartisan Robb-Silverman commission reached the same conclusion:

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.[2]

The July 2004 Butler Report, issued by a special panel set up by the British Parliament, found that the famous “16 words� in President Bush’s January 28, 2003, State of the Union address were based on fact, contrary to the claims of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who has alleged that Bush’s assertion was a lie. Bush said, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.� The Butler report called Bush’s 16 words “well founded.� The report also made clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes after the President spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence that he cited or the CIA’s conclusion that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium.

MYTH: The war in Iraq has set back the war on terrorism.

QUOTE: “It’s the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.� –Senator John Kerry (D-MA), September 6, 2004

REALITY: Some critics contend that Iraq is a detour in the war on terrorism and a distraction from the hunt for Osama bin Laden, but this criticism is greatly overstated. The war in Iraq is a different type of struggle than the war against Al Qaeda. It has required different kinds of resources. Strategically, the U.S. is certainly capable of engaging in multiple operations on a global level.

True, some intelligence assets were diverted from the search for bin Laden to Iraq. But bin Laden had already gone underground, hunkering down on the Afghan-Pakistan border eighteen months before the Iraq war. And there is no evidence that bin Laden would have been caught had there been no war in Iraq.

One often overlooked benefit of the war is that Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism. This is important because the United States cannot win the war on terrorism unless it eliminates or at least greatly reduces state support for terrorism. Al Qaeda, often held up as the premier example of “stateless terrorism,� actually was helped tremendously by the support of states. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the radical Islamic regime in Sudan provided crucial shelter that allowed Al Qaeda to develop into the global threat that it is today.

Now Osama bin Laden has lost a potential ally, if not an actual ally, in Saddam’s regime, which had a long and bloody history of supporting terrorists and many reported contacts with Al Qaeda. Moreover, free Iraqis increasingly are joining the fight against terrorism. Osama bin Laden’s associates in Iraq clearly are worried about the expansion of the Iraqi security forces. A 2004 message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, later was named Al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, lamented Iraq’s progress: “Our enemy is growing stronger day after day and its intelligence information increases. By God, this is suffocation.�

The war to liberate Iraq, coming after the successful war to liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban, has disabused terrorists of the notion that the United States is a paper tiger. This perception was created by American withdrawals, following terrorist attacks, from peacekeeping operations in Lebanon and Somalia that did not involve vital American national interests.

Another gain from the war is the effect that it has had on other rogue regimes. Libya was induced to disarm because of the Iraq war. In fact, Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi that he moved forward after seeing what happened to Saddam’s regime. Iran, also pushed by international pressure, decided to open its nuclear program to more inspections. Syria, caught red-handed in the assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister, now is isolated and on the defensive.

While it is true that some Islamic extremists are going to Iraq to join the fighting, many of them would have ventured elsewhere to slaughter civilians had the Iraq war never occurred. As well, the indiscriminate murder of innocent Iraqis by Zarqawi’s terrorists has undermined Al Qaeda’s appeal throughout the Muslim world. Zarqawi’s November 9, 2005, bombing of three hotels in Jordan outraged Jordanians and other Muslims, even those who previously had been sympathetic to Al Qaeda. While the war in Iraq has helped Al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts, on balance it has helped the war on terrorism by depriving Osama bin Laden and other terrorists from receiving any future support from Saddam’s regime.

Now that Iraq has become, by Al Qaeda’s own reckoning, a crucial front in the global war against terrorism, the United States and its allies cannot allow Zarqawi’s thugs to establish a permanent base in Iraq. From there, Al Qaeda would be in a better position to penetrate the heart of the Arab world, threaten moderate Arab regimes, and disrupt Persian Gulf oil exports, than it enjoyed under the protection of Afghanistan’s Taliban regime from 1996 to 2001. Finally, any “exit strategy� from Iraq that is perceived by Muslims to be a victory for Al Qaeda would boost the group’s ability to recruit new members far beyond the current rate.

MYTH: The war in Iraq is another Vietnam.

QUOTE: “Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.� –Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), April 5, 2004

REALITY: Iraq is Iraq. Most Iraqis share American goals of building a pluralistic, democratic, and prosperous Iraq. Even many Sunni Arabs who boycotted the January elections due to terrorist intimidation now are participating in politics. The Iraqi insurgents do not have the military strength, popular support, political unity, ideological cohesiveness, strong foreign allies, charismatic leadership, or alternative political program that the Vietnamese communists possessed. The insurgents are divided by ideology, religious affiliation, and factional rivalries into separate groups, including remnants of Saddam’s Baathist regime, Sunni Islamic radicals, Shiite Islamic radicals, tribal forces, and foreign Islamic radicals, such as Abu Musab Zarqawi’s Al Qaeda faction.

Tensions appear to be growing between some of the insurgent groups—particularly animosity towards Zarqawi’s group, which has killed hundreds of civilians in indiscriminate suicide bombings and provoked a backlash that other groups fear will undermine the insurgency. While many insurgent factions have been hurt by the improved flow of intelligence to government forces since the January elections, Zarqawi’s group has suffered disproportionately heavy losses. More than twenty of his lieutenants have been captured or killed since the beginning of the year, and Zarqawi himself reportedly was almost captured twice. His predominantly non-Iraqi forces are so concerned about being betrayed by Iraqi informants that they reportedly confiscate cell phones in the areas that they control.

Unlike the insurgency in Vietnam, which had a relatively broad base of support, the Iraqi insurgents are actively supported by only a minority of the Sunni Arab population, which makes up 20 percent of the Iraqi population at most. The Iraqi insurgents cannot defeat the Iraqi people, but can only play a spoiler role.

Vietnam veterans who have served in Iraq see little comparison between the two wars. A USA Today reporter who interviewed many Vietnam War veterans now serving in Iraq wrote, "They see a clearer mission than in Vietnam, a more supportive public back home and an Iraqi population that seems to be growing friendlier toward Americans."[3]

MYTH: The U.S. has little allied support in the war in Iraq.

QUOTE: "With the exception of British troops in Basra, we are essentially going it alone across the rest of Iraq." –Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), quoted in U.S. Fed News, October 25, 2005

REALITY: Those who argue that the U.S. fights “alone� in Iraq ignore the contributions of the Iraqis themselves, who have committed 212,000 soldiers and police to fighting the insurgency and have suffered the largest number of casualties. In addition, the U.S. has the strong cooperation of the 26 other nations that have deployed troops in Iraq. In addition to 155,000 Americans, there are 8,000 Britons, 3,200 South Koreans, 3,000 Italians, 1,400 Poles, 900 Ukrainians, 450 Australians, 400 Bulgarians, and smaller contingents from Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, and Slovakia.

MYTH: Iraqi women were better off under Saddam's regime than under the new constitution.

QUOTE: “It looks like today—and this could change—as of today, it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq.� –Howard Dean, CBS “Face The Nation,� August 14, 2005

REALITY: Iraq’s new constitution mandates that women hold one-quarter of the seats in Iraq’s parliament and protects them against gender discrimination, unlike Saddam’s capricious legal system. Iraqi women now enjoy more political power than they did under Saddam’s dictatorship, which was run exclusively by men.

Saddam’s 1980 invasion of Iraq and 1990 invasion of Kuwait resulted in the deaths of so many men that women were brought into Iraq’s labor force to replace them. But this economic advancement came at a terrible price in repression. Entire Iraqi families were jailed as collective punishment for alleged crimes against the state. Saddam’s goons tortured, killed, and raped women to punish their husbands and male relatives for political opposition. Those who argue that Iraqi women were better off under Saddam ignore the terrible crimes against women that were carried out by his regime.

MYTH: Iraq's economy is getting worse.

QUOTE: “Basic services such as electricity have never been worse and the economy of Arab Iraq is in ruins.� –Andrew Gilligan, The Evening Standard (London), February 14 2005

REALITY: Reconstruction and economic progress have come relatively quickly, compared to the reconstruction efforts in postwar Germany and Japan, and this is despite continued insurgent attacks on Iraq’s infrastructure and economic targets. Unemployment remains high, estimated by the government at 28 percent. But U.S. policy did not create that unemployment.

Iraq's economy is beginning to thrive. Real GDP is expected to grow 3.7 percent in 2005 and 16 percent in 2006. Iraqi per-capita income has doubled since 2003, according to the World Bank. Private investment, bolstered with capital remitted from family members abroad, has fueled rapid growth in the private sector. More than 30,000 new businesses have registered with the authorities since the war, and thousands of unregistered businesses are believed to have been established.

Iraq’s infrastructure, neglected by Saddam’s regime for many years and damaged in three wars triggered by Saddam, has been strained to its capacity. But the situation is gradually improving. Since the end of major combat operations, over 2,000 megawatts of power have been added to the Iraqi power grid, enough for 5.4 million homes. While some Baghdad residents had more electrical power under Saddam’s regime—because it diverted power from other parts of Iraq—many Iraqis now have much greater access to electricity than before the war.

James Phillips is Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Studies in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, July 7, 2004, p. 284-285.

[3] Steven Komarow, “Vietnam vets in Iraq see 'entirely different war,’� USA Today, June 21, 2005.

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:21 PM | Comments (22)

THE POPE MUST DIE

This just in:

"A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.

Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".

His remarks came during a protest outside Westminster Cathedral on a day that worldwide anger among Muslim hardliners towards Pope Benedict XVI appeared to deepen.

The pontiff yesterday apologised for causing offence during a lecture last week. Quoting a medieval emperor, his words were taken to mean that he called the prophet Mohammed "evil and inhuman".

(Side note from Jack: Is killing someone over a remark evil and inhuman?)

He insisted he was "deeply sorry" but his humbling words did not go far enough to silence all his critics or quell the violence and anger he has triggered.

A nun was shot dead in Somalia by Islamic gunmen and churches came under attack in Palestine.

Choudary's appeal for the death of Pope Benedict was the second time he has been linked with apparent incitement to murder within a year.

The 39-year-old lawyer organised demonstrations against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in February in Denmark. Protesters carried placards declaring "Behead Those Who Insult Islam".

Yesterday he said: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.

(Note from Jack: How about there will be very serious consequences if you go around threatening to behead people?)

"I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam."

As well as placards attacking the Pope such as "Pope go to Hell", his followers outside the country's principal Roman Catholic church also waved slogans aimed at offending the sentiments of Christians such as "Jesus is the slave of Allah".

A Scotland Yard spokesman said of his comments: "We have had no complaints about this. There were around 100 people at the demonstration. It passed off peacefully and there were no arrests."

Larger Islamic groups in Britain said they accepted the Pope's apology. Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain said: "The Vatican has moved quickly to deal with the hurt and we accept that.

"It was something that should never have happened - words of that nature were always likely to cause dismay - and we believe some of the Pope's advisers may have been at fault over his speech."

Yesterday's sermon by the Pope was the first time a pontiff has publicly said sorry.

He said he regretted Muslim reaction to his speech and stressed that the quotation did not reflect his personal opinion. Anger and violence - including attacks on seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza - have characterised one of the biggest international crises involving the Vatican in decades.

The Pope appeared determined to move quickly to try to defuse the anger but the fury of many radicals was unabated last night and there were fears for his safety.
Iraqi jihadists issued a video of a scimitar slicing a cross in two, intercut with images of Benedict and the burning Twin Towers.

The website run in the name of the Mujahedeen Army, used by extremist groups who have claimed responsibility for attacks in Iraq, was addressed to "You dog of Rome" and threatened to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home".

In a reference to suicide bombing, it said: "We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life." The threat of violence against Catholics and Christians was emphasised by the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia. Sister Leonella, 66, was shot as she walked from the children's hospital where she worked to her house in Mogadishu, a city recently taken over by an Islamic government.

A Vatican spokesman said he feared her death was "the fruit of violence and irrationality arising from the current situation". Father Frederico Lombardi said he hoped it was an isolated event. "We are worried about this wave of hatred and hope it doesn't have any grave consequences for the Church around the world," he said.

The murder suggested that extremists are determined to use the Pope's embarrassment as an excuse for violence.

In Turkey, state minister Mehmet Aydin said the Pope seemed to be saying he was sorry for the outrage but not necessarily for his remarks.

"You either have to say this, 'I'm sorry' in a proper way or not say it at all," he told reporters in Istanbul.

There were fierce denunciations of the pontiff from Iran. The English-language Tehran Times called his lecture in Bavaria last week "code words for a new crusade".

The powerful cleric Ahmad Khatami told theological students in the holy city of Qom: The "Pope should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric and try to understand Islam."

But the Turkish government signalled it was content and that the Pope's visit to the country in November can go ahead.

In his sermon yesterday at the Papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome, Benedict spoke amid strengthened security.

He said: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.

"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address."

No other Pope is thought to have made such an apology.

Below is a full text of the Pope's speech that some say he must die for saying:

Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas - something that you too, Magnificent Rector, just mentioned - the experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason - this reality became a lived experience. The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 8`(@H". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, F×< 8`(T, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distill