So, if we lose this war on terror, what will happen? What will America look like if we lose? Seriously, I'm wondering.

Many people are supporting Rudy Guiliani for president because he was mayor of New York during the 9/11 attacks he is the one who can best lead and win in this war on terror. It has even been proposed that he is getting support JUST because he can win this war. It was suggested that evangelical Christian leaders are supporting him solely because they believe winning this war is more important than any other issue: including abortion, taxes, and same-sex marriage.

But what would happen if we "lost?"

Now even I have posted what the Muslim terrorists desire. They want to take over the world. They want everyone to bow down to their religion. They want their religion to be the law of the land, enforced with violence. And certainly, using our own government, they are making inroads in that direction. But what would happen if we didn't fight them now and instead embraced freedom?

Would they be able to force all America women to wear burkas? Not damn likely. I know a LOT of women who would just refuse. They'd take the head-chopping off. How many would they have to kill before all women submitted? I'm thinking pretty much ALL of them.

Would they be able to make it a capital crime to utter "Mohammed?" I suppose they could -- but if you think you've seen civil disobedience, you haven't seen anything yet. I, again, know lots of people who would just arm themselves and walk down main street crying out, "Mo stinks!" -- and just daring the police to arrest them. Again, how many would you have to kill before people would fall in line?

Maybe Islam would be enshrined as the nation's official religion. Well, even if that happened, so what? We already have a national religion (atheism) and most people just ignore it for the crap it is.

So what am I missing? With so many people and bloggers running around saying "I will not submit," what would "losing" this war actually look like? Maybe there's some other wars we should "lose" -- like the one on poverty and the one on drugs.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:40 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

In September 2005, Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo said that he would not be happy so long as the Flight 93 Memorial still included the giant crescent. He has kept his promise. The crescent is still there, and Tom Tancredo is NOT HAPPY.

Alec Rawls has just received from Representative Tancredo a letter of complaint that Mr. Tancredo sent to Park Service Director Mary Bomar this afternoon. It notes the continued presence of the crescent:

Unfortunately, it appears that little if any substantive changes to the most troubling aspect of the design – the crescent shape – have been made.

And while I regret having to contact the Park Service again about this issue, I sincerely hope that you will direct the committee to scrap the crescent design entirely in favor of a new design that will not make the memorial a flashpoint for this kind of controversy and criticism.

G Gordon Liddy is on it

Alec Rawls will be on G Gordon Liddy's radio show tomorrow morning (Tuesday) from 11-12, talking about the many Islamic and terrorist memorializing features in the planned memorial. The show should be a blockbuster.

Tom Burnett Sr. is going to call in. Tancredo or his press secretary TQ Houlton may call in. And YOU can call in:

1 800 GGLiddy

A crescent and star flag on the crash site

For those who are not familiar with the memorial debacle, the original Crescent of Embrace design would have planted a bare naked Islamic crescent and star flag on the crash site:

Architect Paul Murdoch's job is to work with symbols. He did not plant an Islamic flag on the crash site by accident. But even if this were somehow coincidence, it would still be wrong to build the memorial in a shape that the hijackers claimed as their own.

Representative Tancredo was the only Congressman to state the obvious, that "the crescent's prominent use as a symbol in Islam--and the fact that the hijackers were radical Islamists," raises the possibility that "the design, if constructed, will in fact make the memorial a tribute to the hijackers." (Tancredo Press release, 9/12/2005. See Crescent of Betrayal, download 1, page xiii.)

Two days later, Tancredo's press secretary laid out Tom's conditions:

... that the congressman would be happy with the changes only if the crescent shape is removed.

Nothing was changed

All the Memorial Project did was add some surrounding trees. Every particle of the original Crescent of Embrace design remains completely intact in the Bowl of Embrace redesign. The crescent shape was NOT removed. It was only very slightly disguised:

The graphics were recolored, and a few trees were added outside of the mouth of the crescent (lower left). Every particle of the original crescent and star structure remains. (Click here for site plan view.)

Representative Tancredo was right to demand removal of the crescent. It turns out that a person facing directly into the half mile wide crescent will be facing Mecca. That makes it a mihrab, the central feature around which every mosque is built. You can plant as many trees around a mosque as you want and it will still be a mosque. This is the world's largest mosque, by a factor of a hundred.

If you want to thank Tom Tancredo for keeping his Flight 93 promise and standing up again for the honor of our murdered heroes, his phone numbers and online email form are here.

Full text of Representative Tancredo's letter to Park Service Director Mary Bomar

November 5, 2007

The Honorable Mary A. Bomar

Director

National Park Service

U.S. Department of Interior

1849 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20240

Dear Director Bomar,

I am regrettably writing you in reference to the proposed memorial to commemorate the victims of Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. As you may know, I contacted Director Mainella in late 2005 about my concerns with the design.

The appropriateness of the original design, dubbed the "Crescent of Embrace," was questioned because of the crescent's prominent use as a symbol in Islam – and the fact that the hijackers were radical Islamists. As I pointed out in my September 2005 letter, the use of the crescent has raised questions in some circles about whether the design would make the memorial a tribute to the hijackers rather than the victims whose mission the flights passengers helped to thwart.

When I received Director Mainella's response to my letter on October 6, 2005, I was pleased to read her assurance that the advisory committee and the architect were amenable to "refinements in the design which will include negating any perceptions to the iconography." I was also pleased to learn that the name of the memorial was to be changed.

Unfortunately, it appears that little if any substantive changes to the most troubling aspect of the design – the crescent shape – have been made. This deeply concerns me. As I told Director Mainella in 2005: Regardless of whether or not the invocation of a Muslim symbol by the memorial designer was intentional, I continue to believe that the use of this symbol is unsuitable for paying appropriate tribute to the heroes of Flight 93 or the ensuing American struggle against radical Islam that their historic last act has come to symbolize.

I remain committed to ensuring that this memorial is a powerful symbol for the whole nation and a testament to the courage and will of the passengers of the flight – as I am sure you are. And while I regret having to contact the Park Service again about this issue, I sincerely hope that you will direct the committee to scrap the crescent design entirely in favor of a new design that will not make the memorial a flashpoint for this kind of controversy and criticism.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo, M.C.

The phony redesign

To see clearly how the redesign leaves the original Mecca-oriented cescent fully intact, note that the orientation of the crescent is determined by connecting the most obtruding points of the crescent structure, then forming the perpendicular bisector to this line (red arrow):

The green circle shows the direction to Mecca (the "qibla" direction) from Somerset PA. It was generated using the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com. Just place this qibla graphic over the original Crescent of Embrace site plan and the Mecca-direction line almost exactly bisects the crescent.

Looking closely at the above graphic (click for larger image), you can see that the most obtruding tip at the bottom of the original crescent structure is the last red maple at the bottom. On top, the most obtruding tip of the crescent structure is the the end of the thousand foot long, fifty foot tall, Entry Portal Wall. Here is an artist's rendering of the end of the Entry Portal Wall as seen in the Bowl of Embrace redesign. It shows how overtly this upper crescent tip remains intact in the redesign:

The redesign only added the extra row of trees on the left, behind the visitors in this graphic. Notice that these trees are not even visible to a person who is facing into the crescent. They do not even affect a visitor's experience of the crescent, never mind affect the presence or integrity of the crescent itself.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1296 words, total size 10 kb.

Lying about the 44 blocks

When Tom Burnett Sr. came out against the Flight 93 Memorial, the press asked architect Paul Murdoch if there were really going to be 44 inscribed translucent blocks emplaced along the flight path (equaling the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists). Murdoch acknowledged 43 of the blocks, but denied knowing about a 44th:

[T]here are 40 inscribed marble panels listing the names of the passengers and crew at the gateway to the Sacred Ground, where their remains still rest.

There is then an opening in the wall, Mr. Murdoch said, and three additional panels, which would include the date, Sept. 11, 2001.

"Where the other one is being fabricated, I don't know," he said.

Man and child stand in front of the 44th block, which forms the railing at the end of the Entry Portal Walkway. The glass block will be inscribed: "A field of honor forever." This Walkway provides visitors with their first view of the inside of the giant crescent. (From the Entry Portal page of the original design PDFs. Click pic for wider view.)

The flight path

The Entry Portal Walkway is built along the flight path. It signifies, in Paul Murdoch's own description, the terrorists breaking the circle and turning it into a giant crescent. The flight path then continues down to the crash site, which sits in the middle of the mouth of the giant crescent (in roughly the position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag).

Just before the impact point is the Memorial Wall, also built along the flight path. This two part wall is where the other 43 blocks will be placed (the ones described by Paul Murdoch above):

The forty translucent blocks that run horizontally through the left hand section of wall (closest to the impact crater) will be inscribed with the names of the forty murdered heroes. The three on the right will be inscribed with the 9/11 date. (From the Sacred Ground Plaza page of the original design PDF's. Click pic for larger image. The alternating white and gray depicts the zig zag layout of the translucent blocks.)

Challenged by the father of one of our murdered heroes, Murdoch told a desperate lie, feigning ignorance of one of the most prominent features of his own design: the huge glass block that dedicates the entire site. This should have been the end of his hijack attempt, but Murdoch's deception was abetted by both the Memorial Project and the press.

The abettors

"That has been disproved so many times," said Bill Hayworth, the Memorial Project's PR flack, when asked about the 44 blocks. Would it have been too much for reporters to ask for this proof?

In fact Murdoch is the first one to ever even deny that there are 44 glass blocks on the flight path. The only earlier Memorial Project statement about the 44 blocks was from Project Manager Jeff Reinbold, who told Alec Rawls in an April 2006 conference call that the giant glass block can't be counted with the small glass blocks because it is bigger: "If we are going to count the big glass block with the small glass blocks," he said, "then we have to count the windows in the visitor center too." (Crescent of Betrayal, download 3, p. 146.)

"The windows in the visitor center are not on the flight path," Rawls replied. He never said they were all the same size, and he never said there are no other panes of glass in the Memorial. Reinbold's silly dodges do not contradict Rawls' 44 glass blocks claim in any way.

The press was also in on the deception. Kecia Bal, the reporter who quoted Hayworth's dismissal of the 44 blocks claim had already verified the block count for herself. Mr. Rawls had earlier sent her close ups of all 44. She responded with a request for copies of the original design PDFs, so she could check the veracity of these close-ups for herself.

When Bal quoted Hayworth, she knew he was wrong, and allowed him to mislead the public by suppressing her own fact checking of the 44 blocks. People can think that the 44 blocks are innocuous if they want, but lying about the block count certainly is not innocuous. Similarly for many the other lies that are being told in defense of the crescent design.

Memorial Project members insist that it is just coincidence that a person facing directly into the giant crescent will be facing almost exactly at Mecca, but that isn't what they are telling the public. They are telling the newspapers that the Mecca-orientation claim is false, while acknowledging amongst themselves that the Mecca orientation is real.

Again and again Murdoch, the Memorial Project and the press are lying in concert to cover up the facts of the design. Some people will be unsure what to make of the many suspicious features of the crescent design but no one should doubt the need to expose and condemn those who lie about the facts.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 872 words, total size 6 kb.

We give up. Sorry, but the jihadists have won. It doesn't matter if you, personally, have not surrendered, the United States already has. If you, personally, have not surrendered, welcome to my world -- the world of Don Quixote.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

When Tom Burnett Sr. was helping to pick a memorial to Flight 93, he objected vehemently to the planting of a huge Islamic shaped crescent on the crash site. The Project asked if he would be okay with the Crescent of Embrace design if they didn't call it a crescent. He said no way:

What the hell? You change words. A pig is a pig!

"How about if we don't CALL it a crescent?" (Click pic for larger image)

See that Memorial Plaza that is situated roughly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag? It marks the crash site. It doesn't have to be CALLED an Islamic star for this placement as the star on an Islamic flag to be inappropriate.

Mountain Goat and the 44 blocks

From PJ Country comes news of the Memorial Project's latest effort to help architect Paul Murdoch adjust the disguise on his terrorist memorializing design, just enough for him to slip through gate security.

"Mountain Goat" called the Memorial Project a few weeks ago to ask about the 44 inscribed translucent blocks that are to be emplaced along the flight path. (There were 40 heroes and 4 terrorists on the flight.)

The person he spoke to said that the three translucent marble blocks that were to be inscribed with the 9/11 date are going to be replaced with a single block, "roughly the length three of the other blocks would have been."

That would reduce the block count from 44 to 42, but would it actually fix anything?

Whether the 9/11 date is inscribed on three blocks or one, these blocks are to be built into a separate section of Memorial Wall that is centered on the bisector of the giant crescent. That is the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. Thus the date goes to the Islamic flag--the date goes to the terrorists--no matter how many blocks are used.

See that trail that enters the Memorial Plaza (the star on the flag) from the left? It divides the Memorial Wall into separate upper and lower sections. The upper section has the 9/11 date inscribed. You can see that this upper section of wall is centered on the bisector of the giant crescent (the exact position of an Islamic star). Click for larger image.

End it, don't mend it

No amount of tweaking the design can alter its terrorist memorializing intent. "Fix" every one of the half dozen large scale terrorist memorializing features in the design by making them all a little bit "off," and it only establishes the long term Islamo-fascist goal of one day restoring the Crescent mosque to its intended configuration, the same way the jihadists now use re-possession of the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem (the Dome of the Rock) as a motivation driving the Jews out of Israel.

Most ridiculous of all is the Bowl of Embrace redesign, which leaves every particle of the original Crescent of Embrace design completely intact, only adding some surrounding trees. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z36/AlecRawls/CrescentandBowlstacked65.jpg "Here, put on this burka, then you can sneak your bomb on board the airplane."

The proper answer, when someone is caught trying to sneak an Islamo-fascist plot through gate security, is not to tell him to go back outside and try again. It is to cart him away.

If you want to join us outraged protesting bloggers

1. in objecting to planting an Islamic symbol instead of an American one on the crash site,
2. in objecting to its pointing to Mecca and the terrorists' intended target,
3. in objecting to dishonoring the memory of the people who fought the terrorists on Flight 93
4. in pointing out how Paul Murdoch cleverly and symbolically cast the passenger and crew out of the Islamic heavens in the design while the terrorists are inside the Islamic heavens
5. in pointing out how the date and the site are dedicated to the terrorists
6. in pointing out the numerous redundant mosque design features
7. in pointing out the terrorist memorializing features
8. and post along with us on Wednesdays,

Stop the Memorial Blogburst

Posted by: Ogre at 01:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 779 words, total size 6 kb.

The exact Mecca orientation of the Flight 93 Memorial

A person facing directly into the giant central crescent of what was originally called the Crescent of Embrace will be facing 1.8° north of Mecca. Defenders of the crescent have used the inexactness of its Mecca orientation to dismiss concern.

•Patrick White, Vice President of Families of Flight 93, argues that the giant crescent cannot be seen as a tribute to Islam because the inexactness of its Mecca orientation would be "disrespectful to Islam."

•Both major Pittsburgh newspapers are denying that there is any such thing as the direction to Mecca.

•The internal investigation conducted by the Park Service denies that there is any such thing as almost:

...mihrab orientation either points to Mecca or it does not ... [it] cannot be off by "some" degrees. [From page 2 of report summary. Page 1 here.]

Physical crescent tip vs. thematic crescent tip

What points not quite exactly at Mecca is the physical Crescent of Embrace structure (every particle of which remains completely intact in the Bowl of Embrace redesign). Connect the most obtruding tips of the physical crescent, form the perpendicular bisector to this line (the bisector of the crescent), and it points 1.8° north of Mecca:

Click for larger images. The green circle with "qibla" direction marked is from the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com. "Qibla" is Arabic for "prayer direction," which Muslims calculate as the "great circle" or "shortest distance" direction to Mecca.

But Paul Murdoch has also given a thematic explanation for the crescent structure, indicating how the thematic or "true" upper crescent tip should be understood. In Murdoch's description, the flight path breaks the circle, turning it into a giant crescent. Thus the thematic upper crescent tip is what is left of the crescent structure after the parts that are "broken off" by the flight path are removed. Take away the parts of the Entry Portal Walls that extend out beyond the flight path, connect the most obtruding tips of the remaining structure, and a perpendicular to this line points within a couple hundredths of a degree of Mecca (i.e. it points exactly at Mecca, as far as can be determined given the pixel resolution of the graphics).

The flight path is represented in the Crescent/Bowl design by the Entry Portal Walkway, which comes down from the NNW. The Walkway passes through the Entry Portal Walls and projects out into the crescent:

Take away the parts of the crescent structure that are "broken off" by the flight path, and the remaining crescent structure is oriented exactly on Mecca.

[The above graphic was created by laying the Crescent of Embrace and the Bowl of Embrace site plans on top of each other. This was done to accurately capture the one real change that Murdoch made in the Bowl of Embrace redesign: the lengthening of the Entry Portal Walkway. (See "Memorial riddle #2: Why did Paul Murdoch lengthen the Entry Portal Walkway?) So that the new Walkway length can be seen, the low resolutionBowl of Embrace site plan is enhanced by overlaying it with the high resolution Crescent of Embrace site plan.]

The 44th inscribed translucent block on the flight path

At the end of the Entry Portal Walkway (marking the thematic or "true" upper crescent tip, according to Murdoch's own description), sits a large glass block, inscribed with LAFD Captain Stephen J. Ruda's dedication: "A common field one day. A field of honor forever."

This will be the 44th inscribed translucent block emplaced along the flight path, matching the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists. 40 will be inscribed with the names of the 40 heroes (despite Tom Burnett's demand that Tom Jr.'s name not be used). Three three more will be built into a separate section of Memorial Wall that is centered on the bisector of the giant crescent (the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag). These three blocks will be inscribed with the 9/11 date. Thus the date goes to the Islamic star. The date goes to the terrorists.

By having the 44th glass block mark the thematic "true" upper crescent tip, and by having that thematic crescent tip create a hidden exact Mecca orientation for the giant crescent, Murdoch is able to tie his Islamic and his terrorist memorializing design features together into a perfect bin Ladenist embrace.

TACKLE THE BARE NAKED HIJACKER!

After all, it does not get much more naked than this:

Or this:

Or this:

The Walkway riddle: When Paul Murdoch extended the Entry Portal Walkway, he was doing more than just perfecting the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. This slight adjustment in the placement of the 44th block also perfected two other terrorist memorializing elements of Murdoch's mosque. Anyone who can figure out either of these elements before looking at the answer wins a glorious prize.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 771 words, total size 8 kb.

Stop the Memorial Blogburst: Why only 38 Memorial Groves?

One prominently advertised feature of the Flight 93 Memorial is the “40 Memorial Groves,” one for each of the murdered heroes:

Why then does the actual design only contain 38?

The Memorial Groves are built into the crescent of what was originally called the Crescent of Embrace. The crescent forms part of the symbolic heavens in architect Paul Murdoch's crescent and star shaped design. Infidels cannot be memorialized in the Islamic heavens, so the 38 Memorial groves have to be a memorial to someone else. Who?

It is a simple geometric fact that a line across the most obtruding tips of the crescent of Memorial Groves points approximately to the White House:

A line across the Memorial Groves has the same slope (129° clockwise from north) as a line between the crash site and area of Washington DC that contains the Pentagon, the White House and the Capitol.

Notice also that the 38 groves can be seen as a set of 19 nested crescents. Take two groves away from the arc of 38 and a line across the tips of the remaining 36 will also point to the White House. Ditto for 34 groves, 32, etcetera, down to 2. One nested crescent for each of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists, each pointing to Washington, the specific target of the Flight 93 and Flight 77 terrorists and the symbolic target of all nineteen 9/11 terrorists.

Architect Paul Murdoch proves that he intends the 38 groves to be seen as a set of 19 nested crescents by surrounding the Tower of Voices with its own set of 19 nested crescents:

The Tower array contains nineteen nested crescents of various lengths, some as short as two trees, the same as with the Memorial Groves. Using arcs as short as two trees long is MurdochÂ’s trick for hiding the number of nested crescents in the Tower array. It isnÂ’t until one finds the 19 nested crescents in the Memorial Groves, where the shortest crescent is made up of only 2 groves, that one knows to count the pairs of trees as crescents.

The Tower array also contains four single trees, giving special recognition to the four Flight 93 hijackers.

If anyone wants to think that this is coincidence, that is fine. (If not for all the other Islamic and terrorist memorializing features in the design, it might even be reasonable.) But even if it is coincidence, the American people still need to know that the planned Flight 93 memorial does in fact contain two sets of 19 nested crescents, and decide for themselves whether it is okay that the memorial contain elements like this that can be interpreted as honoring the 9/11 terrorists.

Fuller explanation of the Murdoch's 19-nested-crescents theme here.

What can you do? Some suggestions here. more...

Posted by: Ogre at 08:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 5 kb.

Trackbacked to Cao's blog and Error Theory.

Pennsylvania Newspapers Pretend There is No Direction to Mecca

In September 2005, a half dozen different bloggers verified that a person facing into what was originally called the Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93 would be facing almost exactly at Mecca. Some surrounding trees have been added to the design, but the giant central crescent remains completely intact in the Bowl of Embrace redesign:

With Tom Burnett Sr. condemning the crescent design and refusing to allow Tom Jr.'s name to be used, there is now a big public controversy in western Pennsylvania over whether the giant crescent really is oriented on Mecca. In response, the Memorial Project has decided to deny that there is any such thing as the direction to Mecca, and Pittsburgh's two major newspapers are both backing up this transparent falsehood.

Professor Daniel Griffith, who is serving as a consultant to the Memorial Project, told the Post Gazette that: "anything can point toward Mecca, because the earth is round." Â…

He made similar statements to the Pittsburg Tribune Review and the Johnstown Tribune Democrat. None of these papers asked for a second opinion from any of the one billion Muslims who face Mecca five times a day for prayer, and it isn't that the media has been duped by Griffith.

Editors and reporters at both the Post Gazette and the Tribune Review are fully aware that a host of bloggers have independently verified the Mecca orientation of the crescent design. It was actually the Tribune Review that first commissioned Professor Griffith to analyze the blogosphere's Mecca-orientation claims. Alec Rawls, who has written a book about the many Islamic and terrorist memorializing features in the crescent design, has a copy of Griffith's report for the Tribune Review posted online. The first thing Griffith does is calculate the direction to Mecca:

I computed an azimuth value from the Flight 93 crater site to Mecca of roughly 55.20°.

The Post Gazette is even more outrageous. Rawls was told by Post Gazette reporter Paula Ward that she and her editors saw all the blog posts on the Mecca orientation of the Crescent of Embrace back in September 2005 and decided not to publish this explosive information. (Crescent of Betrayal, download 3, p. 108.) At the same time, the Post Gazette was running editorials that called critics of the crescent paranoid bigots:

But like those who look at innocent kids trick-or-treating at Halloween and see only the devil's work, a few small and suspicious minds couldn't look past the crescent to see a remarkably sensitive design.

What is the significance of a crescent that a person faces into to face Mecca? Such a structure is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. That is why the surrounding trees added in the Bowl of Embrace redesign do nothing to alter the Islamic significance of the design. You can plant as many trees around a mosque as you want and it will still be a mosque.

One local paper actually did fact-check the orientation of the giant crescent and validated the Mecca orientation claim in print, but the larger papers are all refusing to pass this fact checking on, or to do their own, even though it is simple one-two operation. All that Tribune Democrat reporter Kirk Swauger had to do was use the Mecca direction calculator at Islam.com to print out a graphic of the direction to Mecca from Somerset PA, then place this print out over the Crescent of Embrace site-plan PDF on his computer screen:

The green circle, marked with the qibla direction (the direction to Mecca), is from Islam.com. Graphic shows that a person standing at the midpoint between the most obtruding tips of the crescent structure and facing into the center of the crescent (red arrow), will be facing almost exactly at Mecca. (Hat tip Sarah Wells.)

As Swauger put it in his news article:

[Rawls'] claims seem to be backed up by coordinates for the direction of qibla from Somerset that can be found on Islam.com. When superimposed over the crescent in the memorial design, the midpoint points over the Arctic Circle, through Europe toward Mecca.

The challenge to bloggers could not be more overt. Can the blogosphere retrieve its earlier fact checking from the memory hole and bust these news frauds? Easy and permanent access to existing fact checking is the blogosphere's natural advantage, but we still have to take advantage of it.

This information was also mentioned at Newsbusters here on September 27, 2007.

-----------

If you want to join us outraged protesting bloggers

1. in objecting to planting an Islamic symbol instead of an American one on the crash site,
2. in objecting to its pointing to Mecca and the terrorists' intended target,
3. in objecting to dishonoring the memory of the people who fought the terrorists on Flight 93
4. in pointing out how Paul Murdoch cleverly and symbolically cast the passenger and crew out of the Islamic heavens in the design while the terrorists are inside the Islamic heavens
5. in pointing out how the date and the site are dedicated to the terrorists
6. in pointing out the numerous redundant mosque design features
7. in pointing out the terrorist memorializing features
8. and post along with us on Wednesdays,

Let's roll.

Stop the Memorial Blogburst

--------------------------------

Riddle me this

What was Paul Murdoch, the design's architect, thinking? What was his ulterior motive? When controversy over the original name "Crescent of Embrace" and the bald Islamic symbol planted on the crash site brought a public outcry, the entire memorial was hastily re-titled "40 Memorial Groves."

As Alec is apt to do, he's having some fun with this: So why only 38 Memorial Groves?

His answer should appear today at Error Theory, go check it out!

-------------------------------

Posted by: Ogre at 01:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1231 words, total size 11 kb.

Alec Rawls is the author of the blockbuster book, that will be coming out in February of 2008: Crescent of Betrayal. He also blogs at Error Theory. I previously mentioned how the US Government is building a memorial for terrorists.

Now Cao has recorded a four-part interview with Mr. Rawls about the terrorist memorial. Go have a listen.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Dhimmitude. Always on Watch has a whole category dedicated just to Dhimmitude. So what is it? It's any one or any thing that lowers itself, or submits to the rule of Islam. If you wish to live in peace with Islam, but do not want to be Muslim, you must live in this condition -- completely and totally subject to all whims of any Muslim.

The US Government is working harder and harder to submit to Islam as well. The "memorial" for 9/11 faces Mecca. The plan for this memorial should be completely and entirely scrapped. The news media, Dhimmis, and Muslims like the current layout -- because it will be the world's largest Mosque. I know this has been reported in the past, but again -- the people (Dhimmis) designing this crescent simply refuse to change the design.

If this design is not scrapped and changed, it will be the largest memorial in the world that was created to celebrate an Islamic terrorist victory over the infidels of the United States -- and it will be bought and paid for with American taxpayer cash. I would suggest that if it continues that I might work as an "American terrorist" and sabotage the construction -- but I think I'd have a lot of competition.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:08 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

Breaking News (not really): Iran attacks America again. 11 Americans were wounded and 1 was killed. Hey Democrats, is anyone counting all the deaths and injuries caused by Iranians in Iraq? I didn't think so.

I think for every Iranian missile or bomb fragment found or fired in Iraq, America should drop one 2000-lb bomb in Iran. I bet the madman leader of Iran either stops or his people stop him.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

It's not a day for campaigning. It's not a day for complaining. It's a day for remembering. The United States was attacked, plain and simple. Don't whine about why government hasn't given you enough. Don't complain about why something wasn't investigated. Just think back and remember. Thousands of people were killed on this day -- simply because they were Americans.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

So, where's Mohammad these days? You know Mohammad, the leader of the religion of peace, right? Well, Mohammed's not around these days, but there's lots of people in the world today that claim to be following his lead. What have they been doing?

For one, they're telling people to convert or die. This is a common trend with this religion. They are telling people that they must join the Muslim religion and abandon any other -- if you refuse, members of this religion will kill you. Isn't fear a wonderful way to convert people to your religion?

They're also attacking young children. Remember the discussions a year or so ago where many bloggers were attacked for saying that we cannot win against this enemy because we aren't willing to kill children? This shows yet again that the followers of Islam are perfectly willing to kill and maim anyone who opposes them.

And yes, they're killing family members of anyone who opposes them to. The message of this religion is very clear: you join them or they will kill you. To be sure there are a few -- a very few -- who do not want this type of violence. Unfortunately, the number of people who think this way is very small.

To those who would compare this religion to Christianity, I wonder -- where in the world today will you find Christians telling people to convert or they will kill you? Instead, I think you will find Christians telling people they can be saved and instead doing as their leader told them -- loving others. Where in the world today do you find Christians following their leader and maiming young children? Instead, I think you will find them ministering to children and providing them with blessings and love -- as their leader suggests. And where in the world today can you find Christians murdering innocent people for simply disagreeing with them? Instead, I think you will find the majority of the members of the Christian religion trying to follow their leader and helping families of their enemies.

To those who would equate Christianity and Islam, I humbly suggest that you don't know much about those religions today.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:07 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm quite sure by now that everyone who isn't living under a rock (and even those of us who are) has heard of the bishop who says that we should all worship Allah to "ease tensions." Others more knowledgeable than I have written volumes condemning this bishop. I've seen no official reaction from the Catholic church. But I think I understand Bishop Tiny Muskens.

All Bishop Muskens wants is peace. And he's willing to do anything in the name of peace. Unfortunately, this simply won't work.

Look, I want peace, too. I very much want peace. I will not, however, do anything in order to get peace. This Bishop believes that if he can "build a bridge" between Christians and Muslims, then there will be peace between them. However, he comes from a Christian point of view and truly does not understand the state of mind of the Muslim. If you look at the reaction of the Muslim world to his statement, notice what you see:

However, in one thing, I think the Bishop may be right. The Bishop thinks that within 100 years, all Dutch churches will be using the name "Allah" for God. The way things are going now, that will be the case -- it's called "Dhimmitude." This is the process in which non-Muslims are permitted to live in countries ruled by Islam. Under this situation, ALL citizens are subject to all aspects of the Quran, no matter what your religion. It's a term used when a country has been conquered by Muslims -- to describe the losers in that battle.

In another area, however, I think this Bishop is way off. Now this Bishop is a Catholic. For those who aren't familiar with the Catholic religion, they believe that only priests are qualified to read the Bible and determine it's meaning. Therefore, technically, if you follow the Catholic religion, you're supposed to take the Bishop's word for whatever he says is in the Bible. If you're Christian, you can read the Bible yourself.

The Bishop claims that God doesn't care what you call him. The Bishop says it's okay to call God "Allah" because it just doesn't matter. However, if you read the Bible, the biggest reference to God's name is in Exodus 3:

Moses said to God, “If I go to the Israelites and tell them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ – what should I say to them?”

God said to Moses, “I am that I am.”

But personal religion aside, again, I think this Bishop is misguided. He honestly believes that by appeasing the Muslims that there will be peace today. I want there to be peace -- but this Bishop is willing to give up everything for peace -- including his own religion. Please take careful note of the response of the Muslims world to these actions -- THEY DON'T CARE. In other words, simply calling God "Allah" is NOT advancing peace in any way, shape or form -- it's simply surrendering to the religion of Islam.

Support this Bishop and his actions if you like -- but be prepared to follow all the tenets of Sharia Law if you do.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:08 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 662 words, total size 4 kb.

1 God is I AM. He is very specific about this, because He knew that it would be so easy for us to justify and incorporate other religions. The Romans did it with the Greek gods; the Hebrews did it with Baal and other gods of foreign lands. And what happened to the priests of those false gods? They were judged (quite heavily) by God with the ground sucking them up and stonings etc. You cannot have a Christian perspective and say God and Allah are the same. One is real, one is not.

Posted by: Lysol Pionex (is Brandon Dixon) at August 16, 2007 08:29 PM (kUMvN)

2 That's what the Bible verse says. But remember -- this is a Catholic Bishop. In the world of Catholics, this is a VERY powerful pronouncement!

Posted by: Ogre at August 16, 2007 08:43 PM (GYzrk)

3 gitebghk syulxakm http://aqrdjifj.com hkvsmxxe einjnxcp akjonrva

Posted by: kzjpleow at August 18, 2007 03:43 AM (1be1b)

4 The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it.

Posted by: zovirax at August 19, 2007 08:21 AM (YwSud)

5 Reading well is one of the great pleasures that solitude can afford you.

Posted by: proscar brushwork hardfacing at August 19, 2007 03:17 PM (Z+6Id)

6 Looks like Ogre got bit by a little comment spam!

Posted by: Echo Zoe at August 20, 2007 01:41 PM (nIDjA)

7 Non-stop, Echo, non-stop.

Posted by: Ogre at August 20, 2007 01:48 PM (oifEm)

8 Good Site! Thanks! download mp3 download pm3

Posted by: qew at December 09, 2007 12:52 AM (Z8RkQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Do you have a free moment or two? There's a few soldiers who are away from home who could really use your help. No, it won't cost a thing. Thinking Right is trying to get letters to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine regiment -- all you need to do is write a quick email. Won't you take a moment and make someone a little happier?

Posted by: Ogre at 01:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

I think this cartoon really shows the current problem in Iraq quite well.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Now this just darn neat. Hat tip to Always on Watch.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrats keep complaining that they support the troops. Well, they support the troops like I support Hillary Clinton: I just don't want her to win. A few details about the "support" that the Democrats want to give to the American troops:

To recap here are a few items that the Department of Defense Authorization Act would do:

* A 3.5 percent pay increase across-the-board for all service members and would guarantee a pay increase for members of the American Forces
* $50 million for the Defense Health Program sustainment account for health care facilities, particularly at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
* An increase in the authorized payment from $12,000 to $100,000 for Defense Department military personnel who die while working in a combat zone.
* An additional $4.1 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.

To recap here is what Democrat Senators have said about the troops:

* “We've all made a promise to our servicemen and women that while their away protecting us; we would be in Washington protecting them and their families. We should not let partisan judicial politics stop us from keeping that promise.” (Sen. Mark Pryor, Senate Democrat Conference Web site, accessed 7/19/07)
* “Our first priority should be to ensure that the men and women who honorably serve our country are given the resources they need to succeed both on and off the battlefield.” (Sen. Dick Durbin’s Web site, accessed 7/19/07)
* "As part of the Defense Authorization bill this week, I will introduce an amendment making it clear Congress will provide every dollar and every authority needed to build vehicles resistant to roadside bombs and shaped charges. As long as we have a single soldier in Iraq, we must do whatever it takes to provide them the best protection possible. This must be a national priority. (Sen. Joe Biden press release, 7/16/07)
* “…it is extremely important to make sure our troops continue to know we support them. The president was right to commend the troops for their tremendous efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but honoring them with words is not enough. It’s critical that our troops have the proper equipment they need to do their jobs.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller press release, 1/20/04)
* “As long as our nation's policies put them there, our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.” (Sen. Carl Levin Washington Post Op-Ed, 6/21/07)
* “We are here to say that, yes, we're going to fight hard for all of what government can do -- the needs that they [soldiers] have, the financial needs, whether it's health care needs, mental health care needs, equipment and everything.” (Sen. Mary Landrieu press conference, 7/11/07)
* The first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those whoÂ’ve worn the uniform of the United States of America. Our obligation is to keep faith with the men and women of the American military and their families-whether they are on active duty, in the National Guard or Reserves, or veterans. (Sen. John KerryÂ’s Web site, accessed 7/19/07)
* We must ensure that our troops at home and abroad have the tools they need to protect freedom and democracy across the globe. I'm committed to working together to ensure our military and our men and women in uniform have what they need to do their jobs.” (Sen. Max Baucus’ Web site, accessed 7/19/07)

Yet when it came time to vote on legislation to increase troop pay, to increase money for military healthcare, to increase benefits for military widows and families, to increase the safety of our troops; Democrats staged a self-described stunt and when that failed to even impress their own liberal base, they throw a temper-tantrum and pulled the bill from the floor.

If Democrats really supported the troops they would call on their leadership to quit pandering to the left and pass legislation that actually does support our troops.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:09 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 658 words, total size 4 kb.

Once again, Democrats and others in Congress have shown how they feel about this country and freedom. They honestly don't like freedom. Once again, they are showing that they are willing to bow to Muslims because they don't want to offend them. Once again, this time Congress has voted to allow Muslims and any other terrorists or criminals to sue anyone who reports them for suspicious activity. In other words, as the picture shows, if you see a suspicious package, DO NOT report it! If you do, you can be sued for all you own. Instead, government really is telling you to shut your mouth OR YOU WILL PAY.

Repubicans Respond:
"ItÂ’s official, last night when given the opportunity to stand up for the First Amendment and free speech, Senate Democrats rose in near unison (one yea) to clearly say they oppose free speech rights for American broadcasters. By a 49-48 vote (3/5 required) the Democrat-led Senate voted against considering Sen. Norm ColemanÂ’s (MN) Amendment aimed at guaranteeing free speech protections.

"Among the 48 Democrats voting against free speech protections for Americans:

* Sen. Pryor (AR)
* Sen. Biden (DE)
* Sen. Durbin (IL)
* Sen. Harkin (IA)
* Sen. Landrieu (LA)
* Sen. Kerry (MA)
* Sen. Levin (MI)
* Sen. Baucus (MT)
* Sen. Lautenberg (NJ)
* Sen. Reed (RI)
* Sen. Rockefeller (WV)

"Please check out the NRSCÂ’s online petition and Web site at www.stopliberalcensorship.com intended to alert the American public to the DemocratÂ’s attempts to stifle public debate and to provide a unified voice to say Americans will not stand for Liberal Censorship. Currently the Fairness Doctrine would only impact broadcast media, but how long until Democrat attempts to censor free speech expand to other media outlets?"

Know what my response is to government? The same as usual: Bite me. Sorry, but I'm going to continue fighting for freedom, even if I can't win. I will go down fighting.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 3 kb.