Charles Rust-Tierney, Former President of the VA-ACLU (currently a Youth Coach), Charged With Child Porn Possession

Youth Coach Charged With Child Porn Possession

Feb 23rd 2007- 6:27pm

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) - A youth sports coach in Arlington County who is also a past president of Virginia's American Civil Liberties Union chapter was arrested Friday and charged with receiving and possessing child pornography.

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, of Arlington, made an initial appearance Friday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria and was detained pending a preliminary hearing Wednesday.

It was unclear Friday whether he had an attorney. A call to his home went unanswered.

A federal agent said in a sworn affidavit Friday that Rust-Tierney has subscribed to various child-pornography Web sites the past several years.

The affidavit states that Rust-Tierney also admitted to an agent Friday that he has downloaded videos and photos, which were found in a search of his home, from child porn sites.

Arlington police are continuing their investigation and seeking information from the public on the case.

Newsletters on the ACLU chapter's Web site indicate Rust-Tierney served as president from 2002 through 2005.

Liberals will not be at all outraged at this man's admission of buying and possessing child pornography and will most likely defend him, make excuses for him, or dismiss this arrest as "another one of those things."

Is this why The ACLU fights so diligently to protect the "rights" of pedophiles and pornographers? Is Rust-Tierney the reason? To protect him? And others in the ACLU like Rust-Tierney? Perhaps this is something to consider.

Prognostication: The liberal media will, in no way and at no time, depict this man as the monster he is and will downplay the arrest at every opportunity.

Because he is the former president of the VA-ACLU, this story will be relegated to the "lesser" pages of the printed media and will most likely be glossed over in a 15-second sound byte, if mentioned at all, on the television news.

Because his wife is someone of import, Diann Rust-Tierney of The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty from the Capital Punishment Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, which she has directed since 1991, and as she is sympathetic to child predators, molesters, and rapists and assists them in avoiding the death penalty, it is even more important the liberal media "hide" this arrest from the public at large.

Mr. Rust-Tierney was found to have, and admitted having, pornographic videos of very underage girls that were tied up, crying and screaming, and being forcibly raped. The most heinous and hideous of acts.

Of course, the ACLU will creatively argue that buying pornographic videos of underage children is a matter of, and is protected by, free speech; on the part of the maker of the video and in Mr. Rust-Tierney's right to find his sexual gratification by repeatedly watching the brutal rape of screaming little girls that have been tied up.

ABC's Story:
Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2900174
Just the current facts, little background.

NBC's Story:
Youth Sport Coach Charged In Child Pornography Case
http://www.nbc4.com/news/11096703/detail.html
In which they are completely dishonest by not stating the fact that Mr. Rust-Tierney was a former president of the VA-ACLU. Why would they leave out that important fact? It's more than relevant in a story involving child pornography and abuse. Isn't the ACLU the champion of such victims in upholding their rights? The former Chapter President of the ACLU admits upon arrest he owns, subscribes to, and downloads to disc pornography of underage children. Interesting. NBC makes him out to be "a regular guy and sports coach from the suburbs." Bias? In this article?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

The Washington Times Story:
ACLU ex-president charged in child-porn case http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070223-104642-1644r.htm
Straightforward and fact-driven, including background.

Let's go back and see how the press handled similar stories:

Ex-Boy Scout official faces child porn charges
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/scouts.charges/index.html
CNN, in its headline, says the offender is an Ex-Boy Scout leader.

Homeland Security official arrested in child sex sting
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/04/homeland.arrest/index.html

Again, CNN makes the man's profession the headline and the story goes into explicit detail about the allegations including quotes.

Keep an eye on this, if it even stays in the papers or on the net, and see for yourself the overt bias of the media when it comes to "one of their own".

Do you remember how the media handled the Mark Foley situation? Another something to ponder.

The Not-Too-Illuminated Left

A post found on the political board I frequent from time-to-time, a perfect example of the Left's hypocrisy.

Okay, another funny from the new folks heading up your Congress.

As we all know, Pelosi recently had a watered down ethics bill passed in the House. Basically, it created some level of transparency for Congressmen adding earmarks to legislation and forced disclosure for any personal gain. What made it typical liberal window dressing was the bill made no mention of lobbyist contributions to PACs. So you’d think that a relatively benign bill like this would be an easy bill to pass, even for Liberals.

Not so fast. Over in the Senate, Harry Reid worked overtime to pull out all the provisions which dealt with earmark reform. So what did those sly dog Republicans do?? They amended the bill by adding the exact language Pelosi had in her bill. According to the WSJ, Senate Democrats immediately took to the floor and denounced such Republican trickery, apparently completely unaware the language was from their own beloved Madame Speaker. After stepping to the podium to one by one lambaste Republicans for such a draconian amendment, Senate Democrats, led by Durbin moved to table the amendment. Luckily, they lost, 51 to 46. Of the 46 Senators who voted against the secret Pelosi language, 38 were of course, Democrats.

As it stands now, Harry Reid continues to work tirelessly as promised….. to kill any accountability for federal spending.

ABC Attempts to Make Saddam Hussein a Martyr

A very thinly veiled attempted by the liberal American media to make Saddam Hussein into a "hero", a "martyr", and a "sympathetic figure" in the minds of those that oppose the war in Iraq. Looks like the medias efforts have paid off based on the number of times I have seen this article posted on the intenet.

To counter those "lovey-dovey" thoughts the secular progressives have for Saddam Hussein, I posted the following:

http://shopngvideos.com/products/inside_saddam_s_reign_2

For 24 years, Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party executed political rivals, Shias, Kurds and anyone else who dared disagree - or even tell a joke about the dictator. A chorus of testimonials, unearthed mass graves and discovered documents now reveal the extent to which Saddam and his Baath Party tortured, maimed, raped and murdered Iraqi citizens. As he faces trial for his crimes, NGC goes inside his reign of terror - with rare videotape that shows Baath Party members carrying out Saddam's brutal laws.

This program presents disturbing images of graphic violence and executions under the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Viewer discretion is advised.

http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm
Iraqi Women Under Saddam's Regime: A Population Silenced

Fact Sheet
Office of International Women's Issues
Washington, DC
March 20, 2003

Iraqi Women Under Saddam's Regime: A Population Silenced

Situation for Women in Saddam's Iraq

In 1979, immediately upon coming to power, Saddam Hussein silenced all political opposition in Iraq and converted his one-party state into a cult of personality. Since then, his regime has systematically executed, tortured, imprisoned, raped, terrorized, and repressed the Iraqi people. Iraq is a nation rich in culture, with a long history of intellectual and scientific achievement, especially among its women. However, Saddam Hussein's brutal regime has silenced the voices of Iraq's women, along with its men, through violence and intimidation.

In Iraq under Saddam, if you are a woman, you could face:

Beheading. Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of "Fedayeen Saddam," the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim's head on their outside fences for several days. These barbaric acts were carried out in the total absence of any proper judicial procedures and many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded after criticizing the corruption within health services. (Amnesty International Report, Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, August 2001; Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria)

Rape. The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor." (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)

Torture. The Iraqi Government routinely tortures and kills female dissidents and the female relatives of Iraqi oppositionists and defectors. Victims include Safiyah Hassan, the mother of two Iraqi defectors, who was killed after publicly criticizing the Iraqi Government for killing her sons after their return to Iraq. Women in Saddam's jails are subjected to the following forms of torture: brutal beatings, systematic rape, electrical shocks, and branding. (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; U.S. Department of State, Iraq: A Population Silenced, December 2002)

Murder. In 1990, Saddam Hussein introduced Article 111 into the Iraqi Penal Code in a calculated effort to strengthen tribal support for his regime. This law exempts men who kill their female relatives in defense of their family's honor from prosecution and punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that more than 4,000 women have been victims of so-called "honor killings" since Article 111 went into effect. (UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, January 2002)

U.S. Support for Iraqi Women

All people deserve to live in freedom, including the men and women of Iraq. On March 6, 2003, a group of free Iraqi women met with Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, and Ambassador at Large for a Free Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. The women shared their experiences under Saddam's reign of terror. As this group made clear, Iraqi women are eager to participate in the process of building a peaceful, democratic post-Saddam society. They want their society to once again be based on progressive Iraqi traditions and values. They believe in the universal principles of human rights.

As in Afghanistan, the United States Government is prepared to help Iraqis with the priorities and projects that they identify as the best way to achieve their goals. We will continue to meet with Iraqi women and exchange ideas about their path forward. As Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky stated after her recent meeting with a group of free Iraqi women: "It is clear that the women of Iraq have a critical role to play in the future revival of their society. They bring skills and knowledge that will be vital to restoring Iraq to its rightful place in the region and in the world."

The Politically Skewed UPI

On the political discussion board I visit, someone had posted this article (link is above) as FACT. Well, posted just this leading sentence:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.

After reading this "headline", I knew something untoward was afoot and composed the following reply:

Article Editor

Correcting the misleading article of December 29th.

We had, with deliberate purpose and intent to mislead the reader, published the article using that leading sentence because we know that's all that's usually read when glancing through the paper.

We also know you rely on this first sentence as the whole story, when in fact, it usually is not.

We always use this deceitful tactic when printing news articles of political import because we know the reader usually will not investigate the article further for themselves. Twisting words to obfuscate the truth is very important to us. We can, and do, forward our political agenda, whatever that may be at any given time, every day. We readily admit we take advantage of our reader's lack of insight and willingness to be led.

In the interest of fair play, for just this one article (as there are hundreds of thousands in the archives), we now republish the first sentence, truthfully.

BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Of the 15 million plus citizens of Iraq, about 2,000 feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.

The poster of that article STILL didn't get it.

He responded with this:

But isn't it just amazazing that of the 2000 people they randomly interviewed, they just happened to pick the only 2000 in the entire country that felt the situation was better before the invasion? The odds against are just astounding!

I'd like to see a source for your UPI quote, if you have one.

To which I responded:

Are you that thick? That's the second paragraph of the article you posted.

2,000 people is not the entire nation of Iraq as the article twisted you to believe.

And, he couldn't let it go, so then he posted:

"BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- Of the 15 million plus citizens of Iraq, about 2,000 feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll." is not the second paragraph in that article, and as far as I can tell, you made it up as some sort of lame joke. I'd love to be proven otherwise.

And to answer your first question, I guess I'm probably considered thick by some. It is a relative term after all.

I'm sure some would consider carrying on a conversion with a rude anon who makes up statistics to support his argument to be a sure sign of thickness. In any case, the article didn't twist me to believe anything, I only sited the statistic. I didn't offer any interpretation.

I finished up with:

If you're unable to see through the twisting of words used in that article, as 2,000 people interviewed does not represent the 15 million the article purports, I don't know what to say to you.

I think you're feeling insulted and silly because what you posted was proven to be a political tactic you bought into; hook, line, and sinker. Most will and do fall into the same journalistic trap.

But, now you know better and can, at least I hope you will, investigate an article and the sources it cites to get the whole picture instead of relying on skewed and slanted headlines used to inflame, incite, or promote a particular agenda. You will read more carefully, to a complete understanding of the matter, before using twisted truth as your banner.

He said:

where you seem to be mistaken is in your assumption that I didn't read and fully comprehend the content of the article.

In fact I did note where the poll was taken, and though I'm sure all those other peaceful, settled and content areas of Iraq (which are where, exactly?) would skew the data in your favor by a few percent, I don't think that invalidates the result of the poll, which is that many, perhaps the vast majority, of the recipients of these U.S. military efforts still aren't happy with the results of those efforts.

You can chalk me up as a victim of the leftist news media if you like, but those data cannot be very encouraging to anybody.

Me:

I made no mistake and no assumption.

He:

Certainly you did. You assumed that I fell into a "journalistic trap". The distribution of poll respondants were not to your liking, perhaps, but I would accept the poll results as indicative of the country's opinion within a reasonable margin. Anbar covers roughly a third of Iraq, Najaf is in the south, Baghdad in the north... where exactly would you like included in the poll to gain the other 40% approval needed to break even?

Me:

I think being shown the lack of journalistic integrity and blatant misleading in the article you posted as "truth" and "the way it is" has thrown you for a loop.

It has nothing to do with my liking or not liking the article.

It has to do with the truth.

Not a "version" or a "twsiting" of the truth. Only the truth.

I think you have a problem with math.

By posting a headline which stated 90 percent of Iraq believed something, you wanted, just as the misleading headline did, for everyone to believe that 90% of Iraqis contributed to the poll.

"BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll."

90 percent of 15 million plus (the population of Iraq) is 13,500,000.

The headline would have you believe 13,500,000 of Iraqis believe something.

When investigating the article further, it is discovered 2,000 people were interviewed for the article's "poll" (100% of the participants). 2,000 people that live in terror-filled neighborhoods. Probably specifically targeted as fodder for this "poll" and the generation of the misleading headline.

2,000 is 0.013333333333333334% of 15,000,000 (Iraq's population).

There is a vast difference between 13,500,000 (90% of Iraq's population)

and

2,000 (0.01% of Iraq's population)

Yes, 90% of the 100% Iraqis interviewed for this article (2,000 people) feel this way, but 90% of all Iraqis (as the headline purports) may not. We only know the opinion of the 2,000 people that contributed their opinions to the poll cited as the basis for misleading headline.

I hope you understand how the math facts were twisted into something else for the purposes of this headline and the thousands of other articles published every day.

It is political gossip fodder and propaganda at the lowest level of social and journalistic irresponsibility. The intent with which it was originally published was wholly realized when you reposted the headline as "truth", when in fact, it is not.

He:

Yes, "about" 90% Iraqis feel that way. A reasonable inference from the results of the polled sample. I'm sure that you can appreciate that polling the entire population of Iraq tends to be logistically difficult.

Do you honestly believe that the 2000 interviewees were prescreened for political slant before the poll was taken? Or that those particular 2000 people come from three areas that are so divergent from the general opinion that the hidden, silent majority could carry the results into a favorable review of the invasion and occupation?

I think you have a problem with statistical representation, and I think you are feeling a little silly for suggesting that the general population feels anything but fear and anger at towards the occupation forces.

See there? We can both ascribe internal states to each other. Isn't that fun?

I think you have a problem with statistical analysis, too. Suggesting that the only way to gauge reality is a comprehensive survey of every citizen is ludicrous. The limited poll taken was a sample. A sample can be used to assess characteristics of a larger group. That's how polls work.

Me:

You're hopelessly misguided.

God help us all.

He:

Excellent retort, my friend.

Good night.

Me:

Projecting political propaganda, your personal feelings, or anything else onto the beliefs of the Iraqi people as a whole (of whom you know the personal feelings of how many?) by way of politically slanted news articles, which, proven here are wildly skewed, is irresponsible.

You've completely missed the point, I think purposefully, in order to perpetuate this often-(mis)read and believed misleading information.

What of the character and veracity of the author of this article for the UPI? Was it his/her intention to mislead people with broad and sweeping comments that are based, very loosely, on a journalistic twisting of facts? Yes, it was. Right in the headline.

Your insistence at perpetuating this misinformation leads me to believe you find nothing wrong with how the article (and hundreds of thousands more just like it) is maliciously misleading.

And, because of that, I must ask you to refrain from calling me "friend".

Good night.

He:

I'll be happy to refrain.

Do you have a registered handle that I might look for to avoid such an insult to your journalistically integral self?

I think the irresponsibility you seek is more easily found in those who led our nation to unprovoked war, or in your own statements ascribing motives and feelings to people (myself, the journalist, the Iraqi people outside the poll) based on your own politically slanted views.

Me:

Again, you've completely missed the point. Those blinders you have on must be HUGE.

I have stated no political views whatsoever. Not one. You, however, have projected on to me what you believe my political opinion is for me.

I merely pointed out to you the blatant lie of the headline which you believed and republished thereby perpetuating that lie. I believe you did so unknowingly and with good intention, but, I could not let such a blatant misrepresentation go by without comment. And perhaps a bit of instruction as to the "bad faith" of the media.

You've been caught off-guard and unawares. You've never been shown, in black and white, how the media lies. Your illusion is shattered. Your political beliefs now in question because you now know how the media manipulates with everything it publishes because of being agenda driven and a money-making machine for its advertisers.

Now understaning that you're one to believe the constant barrage of misinformation perpetuated by the media without question, one that is easily manipulated, I wouldn't seek your company for any reason. Good on you for thinking positive about that possiblity, though.

Another Juicy Obfuscation by "The Guardian"

Karen Armstrong
Monday September 18, 2006
The Guardian

In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a dialogue with the Islamic world. “I approach you not with arms, but with words,” he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his book, “not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with love.” Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated the “bestial cruelty” of Islam, which, he claimed, had established itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? “I shall be worse than a donkey if I agree,” he expostulated, “worse than cattle if I assent!”

Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the Muslims he approached with such “love” might be offended by his remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The Vatican seemed bemused by the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope’s words, claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended “to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, and obviously also towards Islam”.

But the Pope’s good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.

Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.

The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this “blood libel” regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.

Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.

In a state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting subterranean disquiet about their activities on to the victims of the Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness. This habit has persisted. The Muslims who have objected so vociferously to the Pope’s denigration of Islam have accused him of “hypocrisy”, pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.

Pope Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany the day after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It is difficult to believe that his reference to an inherently violent strain in Islam was entirely accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his remarks were extremely dangerous. They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.

We simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too many people in the western world unconsciously share this prejudice, convinced that Islam and the Qur’an are addicted to violence. The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were.

With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet’s death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur’anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west’s perceived “double standards” - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.

But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on “Islam”. But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

my comments:

verses from the Koran

"Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter." (Sura 5.33-34)

"Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13)

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Sura 8.37)

"Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah." (Sura 8.60)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

"When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgment is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly." (Sura 17.16-17)

"We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our Might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: 'Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.' 'Woe betide us, we have done wrong' was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light." (Sura 21.11-15)

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Sura 47.4)

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

the verses above are the current verses, the ones which supersede any other "dictate" within the Koran. if there is a contradiction within the writings of the Koran, it is the most recent (by date) verse which is the bottom line, so to speak

in ancient times, the time of Mohammed's beginnings, Islam was, out of the necessity of physical survival, tolerant of non-believers in their quest to convert people to Islam. Islam was the minority back then. they had to "get along" to be accepted in society

as the faithful of Islam grew in number and power, the Allah of Mohammed changed his mind, too, so very conveniently. soon it became time to "call people by the sword", conversion of the infidel to Islam by violence, of any means, and in all situations

once Mohammed conquered Mecca, he was all set for the great Jihad against the non-Muslim world. the prior teachings in the Koran of peace and religious tolerance flew right out the window

modern-day Islam certainly does not interpret these verses literally, but the Islamic extremists do

therein lies the difference, to my way of thinking, between Islam and radical Islam; they cannot be lumped together as a single religion

for the author to lump all of Islam together is naïve, dangerous, and medieval, no matter her scholarly accolades, as is her assertion that separatism exists and is rampant in today's world

it's radical Islam which is frowned upon, shunned, and feared. the followers of the twisted version of Islam which encourages and demands hate for fellow human beings (infidels); their destruction and eradication the only goal of those hateful and vicious believers that hold the decapitating sword in their hands

i find this article completely dishonest

in today's societies, in all the larger cities of the West, communities of differing ethnicity and religion are stacked on top of one another for block after block

all living in peace and harmony, or, at the very least, tolerating well the people next door

here in the US, there are good-natured (but completely tasteless) jokes about how 7-11's are always managed by someone from the Middle East, some gas stations, and some taxi drivers, as well

i don't see anyone avoiding 7-11s, gas stations, or taxi rides because the person behind the counter, at the pump, or behind the wheel may be of Islamic origin

i don't see our schools or universities turning away those of Middle Eastern descent; as professors, teachers, faculty, or students

i don't see hospitals or social welfare organizations ignoring those of the Muslim religion; as doctors, patients, or those in need

ever since the 1960s when race relations were so strained and then civil rights were instituted and made law, don't you feel that ever since that time, that "awakening", each generation has made sure the mistakes of the past are not repeated?

did your parents/teachers/society teach you that races other than your own were inferior or less worthy? no, they did not. and if they did, you certainly know better... but radical Islam does

did your parents/teachers/society teach you not to associate with those of other races or religions? no, they did not. and if they did, you certainly know better... but radical Islam does

did your parents/teachers/society teach you that it was very wrong to cast aspersions, on any one, regardless of race, color, or creed? yes! they did! and if they did not, you certainly know better...

i don't see this hate of Islam the author (whose article is rife with personal opinion and her own brand of hate for Christianity) speaks about at all

except, perhaps, in the minds of those that wish to keep things as an "us" vs "them" scenario, keeping the murky and distasteful soup of victimization and entitlement on a slow, rolling boil

i see this kind of mind-set alive and well for those that need to have a "cause"; something to keep their social and politically correct "compassionate" egos afloat... and thus, the separatism lives on in their minds where none exists in civilized society at large

why is it we do coexist, and quite well, and then someone like Ms Armstrong comes along and infers, persuasively yet incorrectly, that we do not? it's that word "hate" she chose to use to illustrate and sensationalize the article. it's the juicy "gossip" in which some relish and twist before passing it on to two friends, then they twist it some more and tell two friends, and so on. convoluted and misguided

do you, or the people you associate with on a daily basis, hate Islam or the people of Islam? i'm betting - "no". so, where are these masses of people that hate Islam? in the mind of Ms Armstrong?

radical Islam is a wholly different mosque

this is present day. we don't live and function in yesterday or medieval times or the times of the Crusades. the past is over and cannot be changed. we're a forward looking people, the sun will come up tomorrow kind of folks. the history of religions and the lessons well-learned from those histories remain with us, yes, and we live in much more harmonious times because of those lessons

there is no Western prejudice toward Islam and our peril is at the sword bearing hands of radical Islam; to which Ms Armstrong seems to have sympathy since she is unable to realistically differentiate between the two

About Karl Rove

Up above I say something about conspiratorial fun abounding.

*grin* Fasten your seatbelts, as Bette Davis would say, here's what I'm thinking...

Karl Rove? Not guilty of anything but steering a reporter off a story containing false information created by Joseph Wilson 4 (with the complicity of his wife, Valerie Plame?).

Joseph Wilson 4, former ambassador to Iraq under Clinton. Did a good thing while there, but, later, unambassadorized, slipped into obscurity.

Enter Valerie Plame, wife of Joseph Wilson 4 and a specialist on WMD. An employee of the CIA (which gave incorrect information to President Bush leading up to the war in Iraq (deliberately?)), no longer a covert operative as her nine-to-five daily desk job at Langley would suggest. Her last overseas assignment/mission/job having happened nine years past.

Joseph Wilson 4, while applauded by GHWBush, later gave his political allegiance to the Democrats. He worked for and contributed to the campaign of John Kerry for President.

This all makes for fabulous B movie fodder. Plame and her husband, with the backing of John Kerry (and possibly George Soros money) may be responsible for the misinformation leading us into this war. Deliberately planting lies which effected decisions to be made by the Administration based on that disinformation which the Administration believed came from a credible source. That "credible" source being the CIA, and by the CIA, I mean: Plame, using her wimpy husband to debunk a "crazy report", backed by George Soros money, hand-in-hand with the Kerry campaign in an effort to discredit the President and have him look foolish in the eyes of the world to further Soros' personal political vision.

Soros, I believe, has insinuated himself into the minutia of the anti-Bush agenda.

Just my turn at playing Mel Gibson playing a conspiracy theorist.

Fitzgerald’s investigation will be finalized soon. Hopefully prior to October. This is one fascinating summer page-turner.

The Ten Commandments and The Supreme Court

Well, this has been a very intersting morning.

Listening to the BTK killer (Dennis Rader), who plead guilty to everything, detail the murders he committed at the judge's request. The BTK killer began with dates, locations, and names; but the judge said that wasn't good enough and wanted details. The families of two of the BTK killer's victims are in the courthouse and they are the ones that wanted to know the details of their loved ones' deaths. Closure.

Segue into: Thou Shalt Not Kill

Segue into: The Supreme Court and the Two Rulings Made This Morning

Okay, this kind of ACLU hate propaganda irks the hell out of me. So, I'm listening to FoxNews (Bridget Quinn) and she's relaying the latest from the wires as the rulings come in from Kentucky and Texas. I'm thinking, yeah, yeah, yeah... same old stuff. But, wait a minute... Kentucky - No, but Texas - Yes? What's up with that?

So I Google for the webpage of the Kentucky Courthouse. I want to see what the "historical display" looks like. Being a former resident of Alabama, I was thinking it was along the lines of the granite statue which was in the courthouse in Montgomery. Something prominently displayed. Something massive. Something which called attention to itself. Bridget kept talking about the "addition of other documents on display" and I'm thinking, how can that be? Documents? With a granite statue? So, I find the webpage but it's not looking as though I'll find what I was looking for there, so, back to the Google page and, lo and behold, there's a link to exactly what I want.

Here it is: http://www.lc.org/misc/tencommandphotos.htm

That's it. ???? How in the HELL, if you'll please pardon the unheavenly use of language, is this or could this ever be considered an obtrusive display? I just don't get it. And the deciding vote on the Texas display was by a Liberal judge. It's been there for over forty years so it's okay. Something new, though? Mmmmmmmm, probably won't make it.

I don't understand why the ACLU has such a hard time with this. Who decided they are the ones to scour every nook and cranny for anything they deem prejudiced, biased, or contrary to civil rights? Isn't that self-appointed Big Brothership? I'll decided what is okay for me, thank you. If I disagree with something, and I doubt I'd ever go to the extreme the ACLU does, I'll just walk by. That's all that needs be done. Move along. Shake your head. Nothing else. Now, if it's something completely inappropriate, such as a giant billboard of a couple fornicating which would be easily viewed by children, well, that's gotta go. That's just common sense.

This display in Kentucky is so miniscule, so non-flashy, so quiet and unobtrusive, I doubt I'd even spend time reviewing what was framed. And, if I did, it's certainly not something that's going to get my hackles up.

The news article from FoxNews follows with the official details.

Supreme Court Bars Commandments From Courthouses
Monday, June 27, 2005
By Jane Roh
FoxNews

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses, but said a 6-foot granite replica on government land in Texas was acceptable.

In the first ruling, McCreary County v. ACLU , the court said that the Kentucky displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing or supporting one religion above others.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in court buildings or on government property. However, the Biblical laws could be displayed in an historical context, as they are in a frieze in the Supreme Court building. Notably, the first four commandments, which have to do with honoring God and the Sabbath, were obscured by the artist who designed the frieze.

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.

"In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."

"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote. He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

The Kentucky displays have been the target of litigation since they were first posted in 1999. With each lower court ruling against county officials, revisions were made to the displays. By the time the case landed on the Supreme Court's docket, the framed copies of the commandments were part of a larger, more neutral display about the history of American law.

Scalia wrote in his dissent that the changed displays had become constitutionally acceptable. However, during oral arguments in March, Scalia scolded the county for trying to convince the court the displays had been stripped of religious intent, saying it was "idiotic" to dress the commandments in historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence.

Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas have all said that there is nothing wrong with government asserting God's supremacy, while the other justices on the court believe doing so would be to the exclusion of Americans of other faiths or no faiths, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Several justices were particularly disturbed by a resolution passed by county officials in reaction to a lower-court ruling, declaring that American law was derived from the Ten Commandments. While revisions were made to the displays, that resolution was left intact.

In the resolution, county officials declared: "The judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction."

Monday's rulings were perhaps the court's most highly anticipated of the 2004 session. The court has not visited the hotly contested issue since 1980, when religious displays in public schools were ruled unconstitutional.

Interest in the cases was boosted by former Alabama Justice Roy Moore's battle two years ago to keep a giant, 5,300-pound granite replica of the commandments in his courthouse. On Nov. 13, 2003, a judicial panel banished him from the bench because he defied a federal court order to remove the tablets.

The other Ten Commandments case, Van Orden v. Perry , involved a statue donated to the government and placed on grounds outside the state capitol. A Texas court had ruled that the replica, given by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961 and placed among more than a dozen non-religious monuments, did not violate the Establishment clause.

The case was brought by Thomas Van Orden, a former lawyer who is now homeless. Last week, in an interview with the Dallas Morning News, Van Orden predicted the court would rule against him, but said winning or losing was almost beside the point.

"This was never a lawsuit at all," he told the News. "It was always a political question."

The justices, again split 5-4, determined the statue to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.

"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious — they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority.

"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said.

Rehnquist was joined in his opinion by Scalia, and justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Breyer filed a separate opinion concurring in the result.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent that the display was an improper government endorsement of religion. Stevens noted in large letters the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God."'

"The sole function of the monument on the grounds of Texas' State Capitol is to display the full text of once version of the Ten Commandments," Stevens wrote.

"The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in the history of the state," Stevens wrote. "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God."

Justices O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.