Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘blogburst’ Category

Below you will find this week’s blogburst regarding the argument about the Memorial to be built in Pennsylvania. What is the main issue? The people who designed the Memorial insist on not only including the nuts that caused the crash, but to make it as a symbol of the largest mosque heading towards Mecca (taking a flight map, not straight from point A to point B. Those are two different points). Please read this and if you agree, won’t you consider joining us in trying to stop this? Thank you.

No, the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is NOT a product of the landform.

Defenders of the Flight 93 memorial repeatedly insist that the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent HAS to be a coincidence. It is completely determined, they insist, by the landform, the path of Flight 93, and the impact point, leaving no room for intent to enter.

Of course it is crazy to think that, so long as it is just an unfortunate coincidence, there is nothing wrong with planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent (the central feature of a mosque) on the graves of our murdered heroes. About as crazy, actually, as thinking that the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent could really be a coincidence. First architect Paul Murdoch just innocently comes up with a half mile wide Islamic-shaped crescent to honor the victims of Islamic terrorism, then he innocently places the Sacred Ground Plaza between the tips of the giant crescent, in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag, then he innocently just happens to point this entire crescent-and-star-flag configuration at Mecca (and on and on and on).

When the nation saw the second airliner hit the Trade Towers, everyone immediately knew that the first impact was no accident. The more airplanes that Paul Murdoch flies into the Flight 93 memorial, the more the Memorial Project thinks it HAS to be an accident. It’s just TOO OUTLANDISH to think that an Islamic enemy could attack us out of the blue and unaware in such a henious way. What precedent is there for thinking that such a thing could even be possible? (Knock, knock, knock.) So the more evidence they are confronted with, the more impossible it seems and the more they insist that Murdoch HAS to be innocent.

Okay. So they are willfully blind. Even so, they still need excuses to hang onto their willful blindness, and part of Murdoch’s evil genius is to supply these excuses. That is where this trope about the crescent design being dictated by the landscape comes from. It comes from Murdoch, and is actually one of his most brilliant deceptions.

Murdoch’s PRELIMINARY DESIGN actually can be seen as dictated by the landform, the flight-path, and the point of impact

Before any designs were submitted, the Memorial Project gave all the design contestants a site organization map that labeled the “the ridgeline”, “the bowl”, “the crash site”, and “the flight path”. Architect Paul Murdoch claims that all he did was combine these elements by having the flight path symbolically “break” the circular bowl shape, creating the giant Crescent of Embrace design. If you start a crescent at the point where the flight path crosses the ridgeline, and follow the rim of “the bowl” around the ridgeline to create a crescent that “embraces” the Sacred Ground where Flight 93 crashed, then you get the Crescent of Embrace design. Since this procedure uniquely determines the orientation of the crescent, there is no room for the orientation to be determined by anyone’s intent. If it faces Mecca, it HAS to be a coincidence.

This argument actually works, but only when applied to Paul Murdoch’s ORIGINAL Crescent of Embrace design, which did NOT point to Mecca. Take a look:

Site features and preliminary crescent design, small

Click for larger image.

The site organization map (left), shows “the bowl” bordered by “the ridge” along with the flight path and the crash site. Murdoch’s preliminary Crescent of Embrace design (right), uses the point where the flight path crosses the ridge/bowl as the end point for a crescent that has the Sacred Ground centered between its crescent tips. Resulting orientation: 11.1°clockwise from north, which is 44.1° north of Mecca.

The explanatory notes in the preliminary design are perfectly accurate when they describe the crescent as focused on the Sacred Ground:

A curving arc of maple trees along a walkway unites the ridge and forms an edge to the bowl, with a focus on the Sacred Ground.

It is also correct to say that this crescent and its orientation are uniquely determined (to within 5° or so) by the landform, the flight path and the crash site. If the crescent arc were extended much further then it would no longer point to the Sacred Ground. (The amount of curve between the end points of the crescent does not matter. Murdoch established the curve of his original crescent by smoothing the curved shape of the ridge line.)

If this crescent is uniquely determined by the combination of landform, flight path and crash site, then the final Crescent of Embrace design, rotated 42.3° further to the east, obviously CANNOT be determined by these factors. By extending the crescent in his final design to match the full Islamic crescent shape (covering about 2/3rds of a circle of arc), Murdoch created a crescent that no longer points to the Sacred Ground:

The bisector of the crescent in Murdoch’s final Crescent of Embrace design points approximately 1.8° north of Mecca (marked “qibla”). Notice that the bisector of this Mecca-oriented crescent does not even touch the Sacred Ground, but crosses through the upper portion of the Sacred Ground Plaza that sits up the flight path from the Sacred Ground.

While the crescent no longer points to the Sacred Ground, Murdoch still PRETENDS that it does. Asked last summer about the orientation of the crescent, Project Superintendent Joanne Hanley and architect Paul Murdoch both claimed that it points to the Sacred Ground:

Further, [Hanley] added, it is still unclear exactly where on the landscape the memorial will even be situated. It could move as much as 200 yards, she said, discounting the idea that it faces Mecca.

“The only thing that orients the memorial is the crash site,” she said.

Mr. Murdoch reinforced that idea.

“It’s oriented toward the Sacred Ground,” he said. “It just couldn’t be clearer.”

Hanley may be honestly duped, but Murdoch knows full well that the crescent does not point to the Sacred Ground. Such an orientation would ruin his mosque design, not just because a Sacred Ground oriented crescent would no longer point to Mecca, but also because it would place the graves of the infidels in the location of the star on an Islamic flag, leaving them inside the symbolic Islamic heavens. Blasphemy!

Murdoch has a very different symbolism in mind for the star on his giant crescent and star flag. In the top third of the Sacred Ground Plaza, centered on the bisector of the giant crescent in the exact position of the star on an Islamic flag, sits a separate upper section of [the] Memorial Wall inscribed with the 9/11 date. The date goes to the star on the Islamic flag. The date goes to the terrorists.

The duping of David Beamer

At this August’s public meeting of the Memorial Project, David Beamer (father of Flight 93 hero Todd Beamer) came out to counter Tom Burnett Sr.’s protests against the crescent design.

Mr. Beamer declared that he had performed several months of due diligence investigating the warnings about the crescent design, by which he presumably meant that he had checked at least a few of our factual claims like the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent (now called a broken circle), but instead of reporting the results of his fact-checking, Mr. Beamer changed the subject. He did not say a single word about the accuracy of any of our claims, [he] only reported how he had met with architect Paul Murdoch and was satisfied that Murdoch’s design properly honors his son and the other murdered heroes of Flight 93.

If he actually did any fact checking, then he is fully aware that the giant crescent DOES point within 2° of Mecca , in which case there is only one plausible explanation for Beamer declaring the design innocent. Murdoch must have convinced him that the crescent orientation is determined by the landform, the flight path and the crash site, so that its orientation on Mecca HAS to be coincidence.

If Mr. Beamer had bothered to talk to the person who has been warning of an enemy plot, then Alec Rawls would have explained to him that no, these physical facts about the crash site do NOT yield a Mecca-oriented crescent. They yield a crescent that points 44° north of Mecca. It is a very strange concept of due diligence to trust the assurances of the who is an enemy operative while refusing to talk to the person who is issuing warnings

Very strange, too, to think that just because one is convinced that the Mecca orientation of the crescent is a coincidence that somehow makes it okay to deny the Mecca orientation when speaking to the press and the public as several Project spokesmen have now done. The fact that Mr. Beamer and Hanley and other Project Partners have been duped be Murdoch”s explanations would be of little consequence if they just let the public know what they know so the American people can decide for themselves whether the fact that it might be a coincidence makes it okay to plant the world’s largest Mecca-direction indicator on the Flight 93 crash site.

Obviously the answer would be “NO!”, and this nightmare would be over. It is the lying that is the problem. Hanley et. al. can be a bunch of dupes if they want, but they have no right to deceive the public about what they know.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s URL.

May you walk with the LORD always, and when you cannot take another step, may He carry you the rest of the way until you can walk along side Him again.

Source: Error Theory.

Cross-posted @ Rosemary’s Thoughts. Trackback URI. Digg! Digg!

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Most of us have at least heard of the ACLU by now, but how many of us actually know of their beginnings and their purpose? If you would go to the Stop the ACLU website, you would be shocked…maybe.

Today’s blogburst is something I find appalling but something I would expect of a Stalinist. See if you agree.

*************************

Just for reference, the ACLU was founded by a Communist on Communist ideals, so it isn’t a surprise they are freaking out a private art school to remove a banner displaying an image of Josef Stalin.

The New York Civil Liberties Union has demanded that city officials explain why they ordered a private art school to remove a banner displaying an image of Josef Stalin.

In a letter Thursday to the Department of Buildings, NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman expressed concern that the banner was taken down from The Cooper Union after some residents of the local Ukrainian community complained that it “seemed to promote” the Soviet dictator on the 75th anniversary of a famine he imposed. The famine, called the Holodomor, killed millions of Ukrainians.

The banner was part of an art exhibit, “Stalin by Picasso, or Portrait of Woman with Mustache.” Lene Berg, the artist who created the banner, said it was intended to provoke discussion about the relationship between art and politics.

The 52-foot-by-36-foot banner features a reproduction of a 1953 Pablo Picasso portrait of Stalin. At the time, the image was viewed as a critique of the Soviet leader.

But the Ukrainian community found it offensive, said Tamara Olexy, president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.

“It’s like hanging a portrait of Hitler in a synagogue or in a Jewish community,” she said.

After receiving several complaints, the Department of Buildings investigated the banner’s legality and determined it violated construction and zoning regulations, the agency said Friday.

“We determined the sign was too high, too large, lacked a permit and blocked the building’s windows,” buildings spokeswoman Kate Lindquist wrote in an e-mail. “The department does not regulate sign content.”

*************************

I am on the side of the Ukrainians. This would have the same effect on me if it were a portait of the Turkish butcher who murdered my relatives in Armenia. The only discussion you would provoke, you jerk, is one of violence. And you know it.

Source: Stop the ACLU.

Cross-posted @ Rosemary’s Thoughts.

Trackback URI for Rosemary’s Thoughts STACLU Blogburst.

linkfest-haven-the-bloggers-oasis3

I have an Open Trackback Linkfest party today for all my friends – the ones I know and the ones I will come to know. If you have a post you would like to share, why not trackpost it here? All you have to do is add my Permalink somewhere in your article (usually at the bottom), then trackback to it. You don’t have trackbacks available? Why not use Wizbang Stand Alone Trackback? Everyone have a nice day.

Read Full Post »

FrontPage managing editor Jamie Glazov interviews Alec Rawls in this week’s FrontPage Interview. Mr. Rawls takes this opportunity to lay out the basic facts for a new set of readers:

1. The giant crescent (originally called the Crescent of Embrace) points to Mecca.

2. This giant Mecca oriented crescent is STILL THERE in the Circle of Embrace redesign (explicitly described as a broken circle, just as the Crescent of Embrace was).

Punch line:

It’s like gate security catching a terrorist with a bomb and telling him to go back outside and see if he can hide it better the second time. All [architect Paul Murdoch] did was add some completely irrelevant disguises.

Please give FrontPage a visit, and if you haven’t bookmarked them already, the site is well worth your time.

Frontpage founder David Horowitz has been exposing the far left’s takeover of the Democrat mainstream since the 1980’s, and since 2001 has extended his Discover the Networks approach to our Islamofascist enemies. If you are drawn to the sound of the guns, FrontPage is on the frontlines of both the culture-war and terror-war battles for accurate information.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Cross-posted @ Rosemary’s Thoughts.

PS. The blogroll for all the people on this list can be located over at my other site, Rosemary’s Thoughts. This server does not allow me to use script. 😉

Read Full Post »

Cancel as well the urgent action alert that was going to be the subject of today’s blogburst post. The Memorial Project has just abandoned the “gala” tribute and fundraiser they were planning for almost a year. The event was to be held in Washington DC on September 11th, and yes, they actually called it a “gala,” until Flight 93 family members said NO WAY.

Last month’s announcement of the event promised:

An impressive Honorary Host Committee has been assembled consisting of over 200 members of Congress and the leadership of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Special state delegations from Pennsylvania and California are also being organized for the event.

Assembled where? In the imaginations of Memorial Project personnel? If there really were 200 Congressmen on board, including the leadership of both parties, what could possibly prompt cancellation?

Has word gotten out that the memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque?

Fuggedaboudit. We are a long ways from Congress being alert to the facts. It is possible, however, that there is a growing awareness in Congress that the Flight 93 families are divided over the crescent design (now called a broken circle). Thank Tom Burnett Sr., whose efforts to stop the desecration of his son’s grave drew national television coverage in May, and extensive Pittsburgh coverage this month:

Tom Burnett, Somerset PA , 8-2-08

Tom Sr. on Pittsburgh ‘s KPXI channel 6, August 4th. (Click for video.)

Us critics know well the difficulty of going up against Flight 93 family members. Who would have imagined that conservative stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would remain silent about the planting of a giant Mecca-oriented crescent on the Flight 93 crash site? But all it takes is some family members on the other side and nobody wants to get involved.

Maybe Tom’s pleas for help are injecting the same paralysis into would-be supporters of the crescent design. If both sides are paralyzed, that is a step in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough. Architect Paul Murdoch is still on track to stab his terrorist memorial mosque into the heartland of America . (That is the significance of a crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca : it is the central feature around which every mosque is built.)

How big does the memorial controversy have to get before a few of these paralyzed big-wigs on either side decide to simply check the facts? All congressmen have interns they can assign to fact-check the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent (five minutes), the Islamic crescent soaring in the sky above the symbolic lives of the 40 heroes (five seconds), the 44 glass blocks on the flight path (just open up the design drawings and count).

Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity all have interns too. If these folks are skeptical, they ought to at least want to expose our claims about these features as a fraud, so that the controversy can be put to rest. If they find that our claims are accurate, all we ask is that they join the call for a proper investigation.

Come on movers and shakers. Paralysis is not enough. Stand paralyzed as Paul Murdoch pilots a re-hijacked Flight 93 to its mark, and the heroism of Flight 93 will be well and truly betrayed.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

For a list of members belonging to this blogroll, please see Rosemary’s Thoughts.

Read Full Post »

Our weekly vlog — podcast on illegal immigration and border security. In this weeks edition…

We had the chance to sit down for a lengthy one on one with America’s Toughest Sheriff this week, here ya go!

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:
Click on image

If you’d like to sponsor a show contact us here. .

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here

Hat tip: Freedom Folks.

Cross-posted @ Rosemary’s Thoughts.

May you walk with the LORD always, and when you cannot take another step, may He carry you the rest of the way until you can walk along side Him again.

Read Full Post »

This blogburst is courtesy of Stop the ACLU: Are Military Tribunals Fair?

After years of litigation a verdict was finally reached for Salim Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden’s driver and detainee accused of war crimes. While cleared of conspiracy he was convicted on multiple counts of material support for terrorism. Legal groups like the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights quickly criticized the ruling. Certain media elements were not far behind. Much of the criticism was understandable, and much was distorted through the lens of bias. Most of the criticism ended up being deflated after a surprisingly lenient sentence of five and a half years, including five years and a month already served. This sentence fell short of the thirty years to life the prosecutors wanted. Even one of Salim’s defense attorneys admitted the verdict was fair and just. However, a fair outcome doesn’t necessarily reflect a fair process. So, are the military tribunals for the Guantanamo detainees fair? To answer this question we must critically look at both sides of the argument, the details of the process itself, and understand how we arrived at this point.

When war has been declared the United States has made use of military tribunals to try captured enemies outside the scope of conventional civil and criminal matters, historically providing a trial for combatants acting in violation to the Rules of War. The Geneva Conventions established what most countries have adopted as the international standard regarding such rules.

The perception pushed by some is that combatants held at Guantanamo deserve protection under the provisions provided by the Geneva Convention. Others argued that the essence of the Convention is the distinction between lawful combatants and civilians and that terrorists violate this by being non-uniformed, negating this distinction and endangering innocent civilians. This argument applies that Prisoner of War status and the rights that come with that should not extend to those that violate its rules. The Supreme Court settled this argument in 2006 in favor of extending many of these rights to captured combatants held at Guantanamo. This decision was Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld which extended certain rights to the detainees and placed limits on the authority of the executive branch. This decision was the catalyst for Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006 authorizing the establishment of military commissions within the parameters set by the Supreme Court.

The 5-4 ruling in Boumediene vs. Bush threw another wrench into the efforts to prosecute prisoners at Guantanamo by determining that habeas corpus rights extend to these prisoners and that the Military Commissions Act unconstitutionally suspended those rights. Defense lawyers used this ruling in an attempt to delay the military trial of Salim Hamdan, but were unsuccessful in their argument that the procedures violated certain constitutional rights. District Judge James Robertson ruled against delaying the trial on the grounds that these arguments could be raised on appeal after the completion of the trial. How this ruling’s precedent will affect future proceedings against Guantanamo detainees is yet to be seen.

Determining whether the military commission process is fair requires looking at several factors. Hamdan’s trial served as a test case for the government prosecutors and the detainee defense lawyers. Behind Hamdan there are around 80 other Guantanamo detainees, including five alleged September 11th plotters, the Pentagon intends to try before the commissions. It is important to observe Hamdan’s case to determine the probability of fairness in future military commissions because of the precedents it has set.

Most of the key criticisms in Hamdan’s case were addressed. The concern that evidence obtained through coercive interrogation would be used was alleviated when the judge excluded statements obtained from Hamdan prior to his arrival at Guantanamo. Concerns remained over allowed statements obtained after his arrival due to defense allegations they were obtained through abusive procedures. However, no convincing evidence was presented to prove these allegations. Defense attorneys were also given adequate opportunity and access to challenge secret evidence. Many other points exist in favor of the fairness in this trial including the fact that Hamdan’s conviction is automatically appealed to a military appellate court. That court can reduce, but cannot increase, his sentence. Hamdan can then appeal to U.S. civilian courts as well. However, many legal concerns remain such as the question of whether his prosecution violated the Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws. Concerns addressed in Hamdan’s case do not guarantee future trials will be addressed similarly, but recognized respect of precedent makes it probable.

In my opinion, Salim Hamdan received a fair trial and a lenient but just sentencing. The system in place for future military trials is still not perfect, but provides more protections and rights for captured enemy combatants than ever provided in history. Certain elements definitely need to be addressed while others are yet to be determined. The legal journey to refine the process has only begun.

Cross-posted @ Rosemary’s Thoughts.

May you walk with the LORD always, and when you cannot take another step, may He carry you the rest of the way until you can walk along side Him again.

Read Full Post »

This week’s topics: Hate crimes in LA, who’s committing them? The ladies of ‘You Don’t Speak For Me’…well…speak! 100% Preventable! Click on the image below (or use alternate links that follow) to watch)…

Our weekly vlog — podcast on illegal immigration and border security. In this weeks edition…

You Do The Math: Do employers know they’re hiring illegals? We investigate. MJ responds to a charge of…sexism? 100% Preventable! Americans continue to pay the bloody price for open borders. When will the madness end?
OR click here.

OR copy and paste to your browser: http://freedomfolks.com/blog/?p=3737.

Download for your Ipod here.

If you’d like to sponsor a show contact us here.

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join, find out how right here.

Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, open borders, invasion, podcast, vlog, mexico, rape, criminal alien, enforcement, uncounted beans.

Cross-posted @ Rosemary’s Thoughts.

May you walk with the LORD always, and when you cannot take another step, may He carry you the rest of the way until you can walk along side Him again.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »