B*N*S*N 1 – 4


Is this your military high tech dollars at work? Check out this week’s B*N*S*N stories at Assoluta Tranquillita here.

Rodan is Wrong

Irrationality reared its ugly head at Blogocracy.

Initially, Rodan opined that Islam should be banned because “It is not only Muslim immigrants that are a threat.”. Subsequently, he retracts hes call for banning Islam on the basis of a reader comment from Lance. Lance argued that banning Islam would lead to banning Christianity.

ban islam and christianity and judiasm follow.

1st amendment applies or it doesn’t.

it doesn’t allow them to commit terrorism, but they can still face east and pray to a black rock if they wish.

remember that there are many who come here to escape oppression.

I will take on Rodan first. Involvement by native converts and Muslims born here is irrelevant to the question of whether Islam should be banned. Islam should be banned or tolerated based on its mission, doctrines and practices, not the identity of its adherents.

Lance’s argument that banning Islam implies banning religions is illogical because there is good cause for banning Islam. Unlike Judiasm & Christianity, Islam has a mercenary mission and militant methods. It issues a mandatory license to kill, enslave, rape, pillage & plunder. Jihad is “ordained for Muslims”. That means Jihad is mandatory, not optional. Jihad is their “original religion“, abandoning it in favor of productive pursuits subjects them to a curse from Allah.The Bible neither issues an open license to kill nor threatens adherents with Hellfire for failing to engage in offensive conquest.

Islam’s mercenary mission, evident in 8:1, 8:41, 8:67 & 48:20, its mandate to global conquest in 8:39, 9:29 & 9:123, its mandate to cast terror in 8:12 and its mandate to genocide in 8:67 & 47:4 make Islam absolutely intolerable. Those Qur’an verses have no functional equivalent in the Bible.

The free exercise clause prevents Congress from passing laws abridging the free exercise of religion. Jihad, terrorism & genocide are intrinsic sacraments of Islam; they can not be prohibited by law unless the first amendment is reinterpreted or amended. Islam is inseverable; Jihad can not be separated from Iman, Salat & Zakat.

It is true that many Muslims fled to America and Europe to escape from prosecution by the “hypocrites” whose tyrannical regimes they sought to overthrow and supplant with their own corrupt theocracy. That does nothing to change the fact that Islam is a war cult which wears a thin veil of religion as a camouflage and troop motivator.

Memorial Project still helping the hijacker fix his

http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2009/07/memorial-project-still-helping-hijacker.html
Memorial Project still helping the hijacker fix his disguise Blogburst logo, petitionAfter denying for 4 years that the Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93 will contain 44 inscribed memorial panels (equaling the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists) the Memorial Project has announced a new design that appears to collapse three of the panels into one: Artist’s depiction of the slightly altered design for the Sacred Ground Plaza. [If you are a newcomer, the Plaza sits in the position of the star on architect Paul Murdoch’s giant Islamic crescent and star flag. They call the giant crescent a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle–what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11–is completely unchanged. It is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.] The focus of the Plaza is the two part Memorial Wall that follows the path of Flight 93 down to the crash site. As before, the lower section of wall contains 40 memorial panels, inscribed with the names of the 40 heroes. Instead of being small translucent panels set into the wall, they will now be 8 foot tall slabs. Nice. The symbolically significant change is in the separate upper section of Memorial Wall that will be inscribed with the 9/11 date. In the original design, this separate upper section of wall contained three additional inscribed memorial panels: Elevation view from original Sacred Ground Plaza design PDF. The wall on the left is designated: “WALL WITH INSCRIBED NAMES ON FOLDED BAND OF TRANSLUCENT MARBLE.” The opening between the two sections of wall is marked “TRAIL,” and the wall on the right is designated: “WALL WITH INSCRIBED DATE.” The three translucent panels inscribed with the 9/11 date were a problem because further up the flight path, at the upper crescent tip (where Flight 93 symbolically breaks the circle, turning it into the giant Islamic shaped crescent), sits one more inscribed translucent memorial panel: At the end of the Entry Portal Walkway sits a huge glass panel that dedicates the entire site. In the original design, this brought the total number of inscribed translucent memorial panels on the flight path to 44, with the number of “extra” blocks matching the number of Islamic hijackers on Flight 93. The enabling legislation for the Flight 93 Memorial specifically bars the Park Service from memorializing the enemy, but architect Paul Murdoch has other ideas. He doesn’t just include them in some kind of can’t-we-all-just-get-along multiculturalist fantasy. He depicts them as triumphant warriors, placing the capstone of his terrorist memorializing block count at the exact point where, in Murdoch’s description, the terrorists’ circle-breaking, crescent-creating feat is achieved. They explode through our peaceful circle, then die along with their victims. The capstone block commemorating this glorious martyrdom will be inscribed: “A field of honor forever.” The Memorial Project is okay with all of this, but thanks to our blogbursts, too many people OUTSIDE of the Project also know about the terrorist memorializing block count, so they decided to fix up architect Paul Murdoch’s disguise, telling a caller two years ago that they were going to turn the three panels with the 9/11 date into one large panel. That would change the memorial block count from 44 to 42. Here is Mountain Goat’s report on that 2007 phone call:

The gentleman did add, that the translucent blocks are actually white marble, and that the one with Sept. 11 inscribed on it will be one block, although it will be roughly the length three of the other blocks would have been.

This seems to be the change that is depicted in the new design image, though we will have to see the construction drawings to be sure. (An FOIA request for the recently completed construction drawings was submitted to the Park Service earlier this month.) Primping Murdoch’s disguise does not stop his terrorist-memorializing plot, but only helps him to get away with itThe Park Service assumes that the 44 blocks were a coincidence and that by eliminating the coincidence it has eliminated the problem, but the 44 blocks were not a coincidence and changing the number of blocks to 42 does nothing alter the terrorist memorializing intent. Also, because the Park Service has been trying NOT to see Murdoch is up to, they left other terrorist memorializing features of the inscribed panels completely intact. Notice, for instance, that the separate upper section of memorial wall, inscribed with the 9/11 date, is centered on the centerline of the giant crescent: The trail that divides the Memorial Wall into two parts is marked in purple. The section of wall with the 9/11 date is marked in aqua. You can see just by looking that the upper section of wall is centered on the center line of the crescent. That is the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. Thus the 9/11 date goes to the star on the Islamic flag. The date goes to the terrorists. Changing the number of panels used to inscribe the 9/11 date does nothing to alter this terrorist memorializing feature. Not that Murdoch really cares whether the Park Service executes his design with proper Islamic precision. To Murdoch, it is the plan that mattersMurdoch made clear from the beginning that it is the plan that matters, not whether the memorial is actually built exactly to his specifications. We can tell that he fully expected at least one of his terrorist memorializing features to be caught and stopped because he left provision for his “mistake” to be easily corrected. This was the so called “40 Memorial Groves.” There were supposed to be one for each of the 40 infidel heroes, but Murdoch’s site-plan only shows 38 groves: Why 38? Try to figure it out for yourself, then look here. As usual, Murdoch provides multiply redundant proof of intent, once you figure out what he is up to. Notice that Murdoch left room for two more Memorial Groves, one at each end. But just as the 38 Groves “mistake” is easy to fix, it will also be easy to un-fix it later. Indeed, failure to follow Murdoch’s exact design is not a bug. It is a feature. Islamic fundamentalists have been citing control of the al-Aqsa mosque as a grounds for waging war against Israel since the founding of the modern Jewish state. If we fail to be true to the glorious design of Murdoch’s terrorist memorial mosque, that will just be one more reason for Murdoch’s co-religionists to conquer The Great Satan, so that this death-penalty insult can first be avenged (“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land” 8.67), then corrected. Murdoch has not admitted to being Muslim (never mind a fundamentalist Muslim), but he HAS demonstrably designed an al Qaeda sympathizing memorial to Flight 93, all according to the established principles of proper mosque design (chapter 5), so there is no doubt of his ambition. Anyone who tries to sneak an al Qaeda memorial onto the Flight 93 crash site IS al Qaeda. In 2005, the Park Service helped Murdoch hide his giant crescent by calling it a broken circle instead (as Murdoch had described it all along). Now the Park Service is helping to disguise yet another of Murdoch’s terrorist memorializing design features, but without even acknowledging this time that the changes are in response to anything troublesome about the original design. So tell us Park Service: if there never were 44 memorial panels on the flight path, as you have been telling the press for almost four years, why did you change the number of panels? And do you really think it is wise to help a hijacker improve his disguise? To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

SONIA SOTOMAYOR: The final verdict is a resounding "NO"

As I recently watched the confirmation hearings Sonia Sotomayor I couldn’t help but wonder how many were fooled by her performance. On the surface, it really was a masterful piece of theatre, but I guess when you are almost within grasp of one of the top jobs in America – a job that guarantees you a lifetime of influence – the stakes are high enough to be extremely mindful of how you are perceived.

Having said all that, and notwithstanding that meddler in chief BO seems determined to set Sotomayor up for life, it seems that not all Americans are buying into the faux dedication to the LAW of the land on display, versus her ‘wise Latina woman’ interpretations in her career to date. .

Read on:

JCN News Hub

SONIA SOTOMAYOR: THE FINAL VERDICT IS A RESOUNDING “NO

July 27, 2009

TO: JCN MEMBERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: WENDY E. LONG, COUNSEL
GARY A. MARX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 27, 2009
RE: SONIA SOTOMAYOR: THE FINAL VERDICT IS A RESOUNDING “NO”

Based on our pre-hearing examination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record, we asked Senators to oppose her nomination. After completing our review of Judge Sotomayor’s hearing testimony and written responses to Senators’ written questions, we are today reiterating our recommendation that Senators vote “no” on her nomination.

Judge Sotomayor’s written and oral responses to Senators’ questions were evasive, contradictory, and frequently characterized by semantic acrobatics or feigned ignorance, exacerbating our concerns instead of alleviating them.

Judge Sotomayor’s testimony reinforced our conclusion that her three decades of political activism, speeches, law review articles, legal advocacy, and judicial decisions demonstrate that, if she is confirmed, Justice Sotomayor will be a supreme liberal judicial activist, outdoing and outflanking the Justice she is replacing, David Souter, in this regard. Her belief that judges should rely on their own views, instead of the law as written, in deciding cases would take our nation a critical step further away from the Rule of Law and toward the Rule of Nine Lawyers.

The pre-hearing polls conducted by CNN and Rasmussen Reports revealed that more Americans oppose Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court than any other successful nominee in the last two decades. According to the post-hearing polls conducted by USA Today/Gallup and ABC/Washington Post, opposition to Sotomayor INCREASED (by 3 percentage points and 5 percentage points respectively).

Simply put, the more Americans learn about Judge Sotomayor’s record, the more they oppose her nomination. A growing number of Americans are concluding that she is a very liberal judicial activist in the mold that President Obama promised when he told Planned Parenthood he would appoint judges who decide the “hard” cases based on personal politics and feelings. It should be noted that important parts of her record have never been disclosed (such as what input she had into the legal strategies advancing racial quotas and late-term-abortions-for-minors-at-taxpayer-expense-without-parental-notification that the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund advanced during her years of leadership).[emphasis mine]

Gee, “It should be noted that important parts of her record have never been disclosed”. Where have we heard that before?

There is more, much more, clearly explained and justified, and you MUST go read that here at the Judicial Confirmation Network.


As usual, I did check out who this JCN is, as it always a good thing to check who is saying what:

About Judicial Confirmation Network

The Judicial Confirmation Network is an organization of citizens joined together to support the confirmation of highly qualified individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition, JCN works to ensure that the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote.

We believe that the qualifications desirable in a nominee include:

  • integrity
  • common sense
  • education and experience in the law; and
  • devotion to the Constitution

We believe that the proper role of a judge or justice is to interpret the law and the Constitution – not make up the law and deprive the people of the right to govern ourselves.

We believe that a judge or a justice should not use the power of the court to impose his or her personal or political agenda on the people. (here)

Consider the whole thing emphasised! As your President is determined to set his mark on America, I sincerely urge all of you to pay close attention. As each day goes by, yet another distraction surfaces, while BO continues on reshaping the USA.

The Supreme Court does important work as guardians of the law of the land. WHO gets to sit on that court, and interpret the laws and the Constitution is far too important for Americans to just ignore.

He may not think so, but POTUS and all the elected officials are YOUR employees. They work for YOU. Keep calling, and make sure your views are heard.

I Never Thought It Would Come To This!

by Findalis


I was raised to believe that all people living in the United States would be safe and secure in their homes, schools, temples or churches and businesses. But in the last few years it seems that is no longer the case. Especially for Jewish Americans.

We have witnessed an upsurge in the number of violent acts either committed against Jews, such as the attack in Seattle which the killer was given a mistrial. Or the attack on the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. Then there was the group of American Muslims who planned a series of attacks on Jewish targets.

The authorities did a good job with those, but the Jewish community knows they and our elected leaders allow behavior such as this:

to occur without a word condemning it.

Once, in Europe
, Jews finally had enough and took up the sword. American Jews have had enough it seems. They now know that the government will not protect them. They now know that they have to protect themselves. And they are doing just that.

Starting in late July, a group of Israeli combat veterans will be holding a training camp in New York to teach advanced self-defense techniques to Jews in U.S. communities. An increasing number of American Jews have expressed interest in the program following a wave of anti-Semitic incidents worldwide over the past year, organizers report.

The group calls itself Kitat Konenut New York – a reference to the “rapid response teams” active throughout Judea and Samaria. Rapid response teams in Israel, comprised of local civilians who are IDF veterans, have often been the first on the scene of terrorist attacks and other emergencies, and have prevented casualties.

It was founded in 2006 in response to a shooting attack at a Jewish center in Seattle, Washington. One woman was murdered in the attack, and several others were wounded.

Kitat Konenut in action (Israel news photo: Kitat Konenut)

The group is apolitical, and does not take part in demonstrations. “Our agenda is to protect Jews,” says group member Yonatan Stern.

However, the group does have a firmly held political belief. “We believe in the constitutional right to bear arms,” Stern says. Kitat Konenut encourages all American Jews to learn how to use weapons, and to purchase their own firearms for self-defense.

Read the full story here.

I guess this is the sort of unification and change that we were promised under President Obama. It is more like the return to the regime under that great Muslim hero: Adolph Hitler. Seen here with his good pal the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.


I suppose that the President just forgot about this bit of Muslim history when he made his historic address in Cairo.

Inter Religious Idiocy

JTA (Article by Eric Fingerhut July 23, 2009)

The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding sponsored a conference of Rabbis & Imams to promote ethnic understanding. At the end of the four days of meetings, including visits to New York City and Washington D.C. , a joint statement was issued. Selected excerpts are reproduced below. [Emphasis added.]

  • We should explore together the commonalities in our faiths and traditions. We affirm here that we respect the sanctity of each other’s houses of worship and will stand together in case of an assault on either a mosque or a synagogue. We also stand in solidarity with each other in affirming that both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are wrong and unacceptable, and we will fight against them together. Bigotry against any Jew or any Muslim is an attack on all Muslims and all Jews. In addition we are united in support of human rights for all peoples.


  • We denounce all forms of violence in the name of any religion or ideology and will do everything we can to prevent the spread of extremism in the name of any faith—including our own.


  • We feel sorrow and pain over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the great suffering it has brought to both peoples involved in that conflict. We pray for a non-violent resolution of that conflict that will allow both Palestinians and Israelis to live with dignity in peace and security. We have resolved to work together to strengthen Muslim-Jewish ties in our own countries and around the world. We will not allow future eruptions of violence in the Middle East to derail our efforts to strengthen Jewish-Muslim ties in Europe and North America because we understand that good Muslim-Jewish relations are necessary for the health of our own communities and our societies.

The condemnation of “Islamophobia” stands out as a token of idiocy or insincerity. Fear and loathing of Islam is not irrational, since 270*106 innocent people have been slaughtered by Islam in the last 1400 years. Bigotry against Jews is founded in the Qur’an, including 1:7, 2:76, 3:64-65, 4:47, 9:30 & 98:6.

Denunciation of “all forms of violence in the name of any religion” stands out as a clear case of al-taqeyya. Jihad against Jews is mandated by Surah At-Taubah 29. Renouncing Jihad is an act of Apostasy punishable by death under Shari’ah. Refer to Reliance of the Traveller, O8.7-7.

Considering the Qur’anic mandate to make war upon Jews and the hadith which prescribes the final genocide as a prerequisite for Judgment Day, the prayer for non-violent resolution of the attempted reconquest of Israel rings hollow.

B*N*S*N is back!

Stories you won’t see in the msm.

For this week’s B*N*S*N – plus bonus picture – go to Assoluta Tranquillita here.