Tell Ken Salazar to Drill Here, Drill Now & Save Money!

An email from American Solutions informed me that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is considering postponing a decision on increased off shore drilling for two years.

Yesterday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar suggested he might delay the decision on offshore drilling until 2012. But he went on to say: "...we'll decide based on the information we collected [during the comment period] and the analysis that's been done during this period."

Given the long lead times involved in leasing, exploration & production, any such delay is intolerable to those who want lower fuel prices, increased supply and reduced dependency on our enemies in OPEC.

Monday, September 21, '09 is the deadline for submitting comments on off shore drilling decision. The form invoked by this link YourEnergyOpinion.com will make submitting your comment quick and easy.

Why should you care and take action? Because failure to do so costs you at the pump and in your utility bills. Because dependence of foreign suppliers reduces our flexibility in r foreign and defense policy decisions.

The anti-energy interest groups always submit as many comments as possible at the last minute, so this final push is extremely important.

We cannot let their stall tactics continue to stand in the way of developing more American energy.

If Slick Willy had not vetoed increased leasing and exploration in '95, we would have the benefit of increased domestic production now. Send your comments today, in hopes that the bureaucrats will do the right thing soon enough for your children to enjoy the benefits before they retire.

Ad Hoc Cmte.: Interesting ReadersAd Hoc Cmte.: Interesting ReadersAd Hoc Cmte.: Interesting Readers

Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards was viewed 174 times on Bloggersbase, but only 10 times at Freedom Ain't Free. I do not have a means of tracing readers at Bloggersbase, but Stat Counter's Visitor Activity Report revealed two interesting visitors.

Croatia's Ministry Of Foreign Affairs viewed the post September 15. The United Nations Office At Geneva spent 24 minutes on the post September 16. No referral information was available for either visit.

The committee is scheduled to meet from October 19 to October 30 to work on their proposed protocol to ICERD. The purpose of the protocol is to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Now the UN is aware of the fact that Eye On the UN's reporting about their activities did not go entirely unnoticed. They probably don't know yet that their own favorite weapon is being turned against them. Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence contravenes vital provisions of ICERD, ICCPR & ICPPG. While Islam makes false accusations against its critics, we can make accurate accusations against them. We can prove the fact that Islamic doctrines subject the war cult to being banned under the provisions of those same covenants.

Some of that proof has been published in the International Qur'an Petition, also posted at Bloggersbase, where it drew only 96 readers. Seven previous blog posts detailing Islam's contravention of international law were compiled into an e-book: Islam vs Human Rights which serves as an exhibit of evidence for the petition.

Now is the time for lovers of truth and liberty to stand up for those values by endorsing, publicizing and promoting the petition, just as Islam is ramping up its annual attack on our freedom of speech.

On September 14, Pakistan's Ambassador to the UN, speaking on behalf of the OIC, made remarks about this issue.

The OIC would also like to point out that some of the worst forms of discrimination that lie at the heart of the contemporary human rights discourse such as defamation of religious, increased racial and religious discrimination, incitement to hatred, violence and related intolerance against specific individuals and communities have not found place in the High Commissioners statement. Respect for religious and cultural diversity is fundamental towards achieving die objective of discrimination free societies and a world of equal treatment for all. Calls for restrictions on religious symbols, dress codes or construction of religious sites run contrary to the fundamentals of human rights and must be addressed. We do hope that these important issues will be duly addressed by the High Commissioner in future.

Note their priorities: defamation of Islam is one of the worst forms of discrimination at the heart of human rights discourse. Deaths and displacements caused by their Jihad don't concern them. Slavery is not an issue. Assaults, rapes and impositions against religious minorities in Asia, Africa and Egypt don't rank in their list of human rights issues. Religious discrimination: Jizya imposed upon Christians. Incitement to hatred: read the Qur'an. Violence: its called Jihad and is being waged in Asia & Africa against Christians and Hindus. Dress codes: have you read the Pact of Umar? Construction of religious sites: try to build a church in Egypt or Saudi Arabia! The arrogance and hypocrisy of Islam know no bounds. Lets throw these issues back in their face.

If you value peace, truth and justice, now is the time to demonstrate their importance to you by endorsing, publicizing and promoting the International Qur'an Petition.

Finding Clarity in Afghan Strategy

Can we find clarity in the Afghan strategy debate?
By Col. Tom Snodgrass

After describing and linking to the Obama administration's idiotic maundering Col. Snodgrass provides links to diverse sources of opinion before setting forth a list of critical issues.

1) Taliban re-conquest must be prevented so that Afghanistan will be denied to al Qaeda as a base of future operations;

2) to achieve such denial, tribally ruled Afghanistan must be built into a modern state with a democratically elected representative government;

3) this "nation building" will entail robust US counterinsurgency to protect the population from Taliban intimidation and control until the Afghan government can independently maintain civil law and order;

4) while conducting counterinsurgency guaranteeing representative government, US forces must also train and equip Afghani military and police to enforce law and order; and

5) simultaneously with pacifying Afghanistan, US forces must also assist the Pakistanis in subduing the Taliban and al Qaeda who are threatening both the Pak and Afghan governments from regions on the Pak border adjacent to Afghanistan.

Col. Snodgrass follows up with a list of doubts.

1) the religiously motivated Taliban can be effectively and indefinitely denied power in this 7^th century Islamic culture;

2) that Afghanistan can be lifted from tribal warlordism to a representative democracy;

3) that corrupt Afghani warlords can honestly and successfully administer a regime of law and order that will ensure the loyalty of a very ethnically diverse population;

4) that any Afghani military and police forces we can develop will be sufficient to maintain law and order in a forbidding land consisting of 251,772 square miles of mountains and deserts (about the size of Texas) with a population of 33 million; and

5) that the geographically adjacent corrupt Pak government can prevail over the primal Islamic forces embodied in the Taliban and al Qaeda that are demanding Shariah "justice" for Pakistan.

The tactical objectives are obviously impossibilities. Those things which are necessary can not be accomplished. Col. Snodgrass adds that a successful counterinsurgency would require seven to ten years, which, in the current political climate, are not available.

Having opened that can of worms, Col. Snodgrass dives into the issue of our relationships with Islamic regimes. What he finds at the bottom is unpleasant indeed.

So how does this reality factor into the military strategic equation? Primarily it means that no Islamic government can ever be truly counted on to affirmatively eradicate Jihadist violence against US interests. This in and of itself suggests at the very least that the objective of nation-building in Afghanistan is a fool's errand simply or so remote as to make it foolish. It also means that the likelihood that any Islamic government would be prepared to reject Shariah and embrace Western values is suspect at best.

It distills down to this.

Our emphasis must be on kinetic operations to destroy this generation of Jihadists and on psycho-social operations that intensify kinetic results.

Unfortunately, HellFire launches from drones are becoming increasingly unpopular in the region. "Civilians" are being hurt and killed because the Mujahideen do not separate themselves from them, preferring to use them as human shields. Add th that the lack of will to confront Islam ideologically & psychologically.

The bottom line:

We are just going to have to "shoot the closest bear" one at a time and reconcile our thinking that Jihad will reappear periodically like Haley's Comet.

Col. Snodgrass may be able to accept that, but I can't. One WTC attack was enough. Two were a million too many. One Beslan was enough. One London attack was enough. One Madrid attack was enough. One Mumbai attack was enough. Enough already! Lets put a permanent end to the Jihad. One year before I was born, the "greatest generation" showed Japan what we could do. Can we still do that? Do we have the SISU, the stuffing to tell the lilly livered misfits of the world who disapprove of a single, permanent solution that they can have a piece of the action if they don't like it?

Is there a divine right to wage war against us, rape our widows, enslave our orphans and seize our real and personal property ? Or do we have a divine right to live unmolested, free from the threat and actuality of attack, secure in our lives & property? The two can not coexist. Why the Hell do we maintain the Declaration of Independence if we are not willing to actualize it ? Do we really hold those truths to be self evident, or have we forgotten them? Did we waste the blood of thousands fighting Hitler & Tojo only to submit and surrender to Usama? Is there any desecration more terrible than wasting the blood of those heroes who fought and died to preserve our liberty?

Everything that Col. Snodgrass outlined for us in his excellent essay was entirely predictable eight years ago. We could have and should have nuked Afghanistan off the face of the earth. The invasion is a fool's errand. Allowing reversion to status quo anti is unacceptable.

If we are going to shoot the target of the moment, why are there still terrorist training camps and staging areas in Iran, Syria & Pakistan? Why does any sanctuary for terrorists exist? Why are the Iranian factories that manufacture EFPs still standing? The answer is that this nation has been and is governed by cowards & traitors, not statesman for too many decades.

It should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that either Islam will become extinct or liberty will. If we will not make Islam extinct, we will not maintain our liberty. The Kemalist experiment proves that no compromise is possible, Islam must be eliminated.

If we are not willing to nuke the enemy, then we must use our second best weapon: the fact bomb. We must bombard the Muslims with facts, beginning with the truth about their Prophet, who was a pederast, lecher, pirate and murderer. What God would select such a man as his ultimate messenger? What God promises victory and delivers five successive defeats from an outnumbered and out gunned adversary? Islam's canon of scripture & tradition contains the ammunition we need to shake the faith of any rational Muslim who retains even a scintilla of morality.

If we were led by statesmen instead of traitors, we would begin by creating and distributing a full length feature film documenting the doctrines & misadventures of Muhammad. If we were led by statesmen instead of traitors, we would hear the truth about Islam, that it is a vicious predatory war cult, not a "great religion of peace".

What's that, you say? Islam is a religion; Muslims have a right to believe and practice as they choose? Yeah, right. Muslims have a right to believe that we are rebels against their god who must be killed or enslaved at any cost, that we may be killed, our widows raped and our children sold on the slave market with full impunity. If you believe that, then you might as well commit suicide now rather than wait for them to come for you. We don't need your kind, we need rational people who can think straight.

It is time for the few remaining intelligent, clear thinking people to unite and rise up as one, demanding rational & effective action from the government we ordained to protect us. Begin by signing these petitions and sending them to your family, friends and associates with an exhortation to endorse and forward them. Then send them to your Representative & Senators.

• International Qur'an Petition
• Congress Debate Qur'an Petition
• Outlaw Islam!

Those petitions contain the minimal information required to understand the truth about Islam, with links to the source documents for further exploration. They offer a quick and easy means to spread accurate information about the enemy which attacked us eight years ago. If you need more, such as fliers you can print and distribute and Powerpoint presentations you can attach to emails, you can find them at http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/ .

Interview With the Parents of Tom Burnett Jr.

Burnett radio interview about 9/11 and the Flight 93 memorial Tom Burnett Sr. and his wife Beverly did some 9/11 interviews the last couple of days, remembering their son Tom Jr., who was murdered by Islamic terrorists aboard Flight 93. Mr. Burnett has been trying for several years to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Islamic-shaped crescent on the Flight 93 crash site. In their interview with WSAU radio in Wisconsin, the Burnetts were joined half-way through the hour by Alec Rawls (the author of this blogburst post), who has written a book about the terrorist memorializing Crescent of Embrace design. Mr. Burnett's words are always heartfelt, yet marked by a constant scrupulousness. Emotion never carries him to utter a word beyond what he actually has grounds to assert. Highly recommended listening, perhaps especially for those who are better at judging people than facts. Let's face it, show some people the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent, and they just aren't sure what they are looking at. Point out that the central feature of every mosque is a Mecca-direction indicator, and somehow the pieces don't fall together in their brains: What is that? Just a mysterious diagram to some. Yet these folks can still be good judges of character. So judge the Burnetts. The WSAU interview begins with host Pat Snyder asking Mr. Burnett if America is doing enough as a nation to remember 9/11. Most of us, on being asked any question, will try to answer it, but Mr. Burnett immediately defers, and in the most polite way:

Well, I'm not a very good judge of that. We are tucked away here in the southeast corner of Minnesota...

But if he isn't interested in passing judgment on how much America should do to remember 9/11, he is very concerned that we don't honor the wrong people, and starts right in on the Flight 93 memorial (which Mr. Snyder puts off to later). Both the Burnetts have a sophisticated understanding of American liberty. Talking about the generosity of Americans towards each other and the world, Beverly notes the change that has taken place in her lifetime, where assistance used to be all private, but now the government has gotten involved. She passes no explicit judgment on this development, but just notes what should remain constant (at 17:22):

I think about all the programs we have in the government. I come from a different generation, and my mother and father, and Tom's, that we never really looked to the government all the time. We looked to our neighbors and churches and friends for things. But our government should be there to make sure we're SAFE.

Instead, as Tom and Bev both note, our elites don't even want to acknowledge that it was Muslim terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. It is these same elites who don't want to acknowledge the Islamic symbol-shapes in the Flight 93 memorial. To witness this symbolism would be to tie Islam to 9/11, which to these people is some unconscionable bigotry, regardless of the truth. There is the rub. As Mr. Burnett put it (at 25:16):

All we want--Alec, and the thousands of Americans who back us--we want the truth. What happened? [How did we end up with an Islamist design?] And we want to honor the 40 people. I don't want anything to do with the Islamic fanatics, anything at all.

Mr. and Mrs. Burnett are very thoughtful, careful, rational people. So who is it who is "too far out"? People like the Burnetts, who are skeptical that the architect of a memorial to Flight 93 could plant a giant crescent and star flag on the crash site by mistake? Or is it the people who somehow convince themselves that a crescent and star flag is just fine, so long as we can't prove that it is intentional? Actually, we CAN prove that the Islamic symbolism is intentional. Architect Paul Murdoch does not want history to be able to deny his achievement, so he included extensive redundant proofs of intent, such as the following. Murdoch says the crescent comes from the terror attacks breaking the circle (leaving only the giant Islamic-shaped crescent still standing, hmmm). Remove the parts of the crescent that stick out past the point where the flight path (coming down from the upper left) symbolically breaks the circle, and what symbolically remains standing is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. The full Crescent of Embrace points 1.8° north of Mecca ± 0.1°. Remove the parts of the Entry Portal walls that extend past the flight path at the upper crescent tip and the remaining “true” or thematic crescent points exactly at Mecca, ± 0.1°. All the supposed redesign did was add an extra arc of trees that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle, leaving Murdoch’s circle-breaking crescent-creating theme completely intact. The unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is still a precisely Mecca-oriented crescent, the centerpiece for the world’s largest mosque. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.
A few sentences need more emphasis.

...our elites don't even want to acknowledge that it was Muslim terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. It is these same elites who don't want to acknowledge the Islamic symbol-shapes in the Flight 93 memorial. To witness this symbolism would be to tie Islam to 9/11, which to these people is some unconscionable bigotry, regardless of the truth.

So who is it who is "too far out"? People like the Burnetts, who are skeptical that the architect of a memorial to Flight 93 could plant a giant crescent and star flag on the crash site by mistake? Or is it the people who somehow convince themselves that a crescent and star flag is just fine, so long as we can't prove that it is intentional?

Why should a memorial to the innocent victims of terrorism celebrate the war cult in whose service they were murdered? The faces of the terrorists should be printed on dart boards and toilet paper, along with the book which commands them to make war on us. Their names, their faces and the symbols of their war cult should have no place in any memorial to their victims.