Hope and Change

That is, I HOPE  you don’t notice how often I CHANGE my position.

Another Lying Bastard Alert™, courtesy of You-Know-Who.

H/T:  The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

[Obama advisor Anthony Lake] stressed that Mr Obama, even after withdrawing troops from Iraq over 16 months as he has promised, would maintain “a residual presence for clearly defined missions”. These would include military training, and “preparedness to go back in if there are specific acts of genocidal violence”.…

Highlighting a parallel with his first posting as assistant to Henry Cabot Lodge, a US ambassador in 1960s Saigon, he said: “It is common sense that we could not leave Vietnam successfully unless we left behind a government in Saigon that could govern successfully.

“It seems obvious in retrospect; it was not obvious enough to too many politicians at the time. In Iraq it’s the same problem.”

So not only has his “immediate withdrawal” become a 16-month process, the “complete withdrawal” has become a “residual presence” in case, among other things, we have to “go back in there” in cases of genocidal violence.

Oh, and we can’t leave Iraq at all unless we’re sure that the government we leave behind is capable of governing successfully.

Even if that takes 100 years, right Senator?

Flight 93 Blogburst

Text of a message from Alec Rawls:

Last week’s email campaign is putting some serious hurt on the Memorial Project. Superintendent Hanley and Park Service Director Mary Bomar are both issuing replies that are loaded with boiler plate but evade the simple question that was asked: WHO broke our peaceful American circle and turned it into this giant Mecca oriented crescent? [You can see this boilerplate response in one of my previous posts - GdB]

They are refusing to even think about their OWN explanation for the crescent design. Let’s nail ‘em.

Let’s hope there are some people who are actually listening, thinking through this, and taking action.

Park Service refuses to say who broke the circle

The planned Flight 93 memorial is described as a circle “broken in two places,” with the unbroken part forming a giant Mecca-oriented crescent (originally called the Crescent of Embrace).

Since last week, the Park Service has been inundated with hundreds of emails, demanding to know WHO is being depicted as breaking the circle.

It can only be the terrorists. The circle is a symbol of peace, and only the terrorists can be charged with breaking the peace on 9/11.

Thus the planned memorial shows the terrorists breaking our peaceful circle and turning it into a giant Mecca oriented crescent (which remains completely intact in the so-called redesign). In other words, it’s one giant: “ALLAHU AKBAR!” (heard on Flight 93’s flight recorder as the doomed flight careened towards the ground).

Superintendent Hanley’s reply

More Dishonesty

LYING BASTARD Alert™ (jeez, that’s two in one day), again courtesy of the Obamonster.

Barack Obama declared that “my party” will not take money from lobbyist PACs. However, the lobbyist ban apparently doesn’t apply to personal donations from lobbyists, as Obama’s campaign has proven repeatedly during the primaries. The ban on PAC donations also doesn’t apply to Obama’s party:

To rousing applause, Barack Obama formally announced this afternoon that the Democratic National Committee will follow his lead and begin refusing donations from registered lobbyists and special-interest political action committees.

“They do not fund my campaign,” the presumptive Democratic nominee told a small-town southwest Virginia crowd, after delivering a standard refrain that blames drug and insurance interests for blocking universal health care. “They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States.”

Well, at least not on the presidential level.

The Obama campaign confirms that two other arms of the national party - the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - will continue to accept lobby and PAC money this election. That’s the same position as presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and every affiliate of the Republican National Committee, who all accept lobby and PAC dollars.

To make this clear, lobbyist PACs will continue to fund the Democratic Party, regardless of what Obama claimed earlier today. That has to be the fastest flip-flop since Hillary Clinton changed position on illegal-alien drivers licenses within 120 seconds last November. Obama clearly intended people to believe that the entire party had orders to turn down these donations, which even they acknowledged was false from the beginning.

Nod: Front Page

 

Oba-moshiach

Many are probably aware of the curiously strong pro-Israel speech offered by Obama to AIPAC yesterday. This is the same guy who put Brzezinski and Powers on his team, member of the fanatic Wright’s church? He’s now going to be the Savior and Protector of Israel?

Who’s skeptical (besides me, that is)?

Doug Ross is. From his blog:

Now compare and contrast:

Obama at AIPAC:

…I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran… First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO…Lie. Obama opposes all missile defense technology.

Obama at AIPAC:

There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran… while I don’t want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.Lie. Barack Obama told a crowd of 75,000 last month that Iran is not a threat.

The rest is here, and it’s not any prettier.

Nod: Astute Bloggers

UPDATE: LYING BASTARD Alert™, courtesy of Jihad Watch:

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel’s capital to remain “undivided,” his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday.

[...]

“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.”

“Two principles should apply to any outcome,” which the adviser gave as: “Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.”

He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.

[...]

“It [the "clarification"] means he used the term inappropriately, possibly [possibly??] to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn’t really believe,”

Apparently when Obama was talking about CHANGE all this time, he’s been referring to CHANGING his position every day or so.  THAT’s the only change I can believe in coming from his direction.

Flight 93 blogburst: call for churches to be witnesses for the truth about the Flight 93 memorial

A call for America ’s churches to step up as witnesses for the truth about the Flight 93 memorial

Three segments of American society get paid to investigate and report facts: academia [unless you're Nadia Abu El Haj], the press, and government [uh...]. For two and a half years, all three have been spinning desperately to avoid and suppress the facts about Islamic and terrorist memorializing symbolism in the Flight 93 memorial.

Luckily there is a fourth segment of society that is also charged to witness truth, not for pay, but on religious principle. Asked by Pilate to account for himself, Jesus answered:

To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. [Jn. 18:37.]

Those who follow Jesus are supposed to do the same, which means first of all checking and reporting the facts when the importance of an issue warrants it.

The importance of the Flight 93 memorial to our churches could not be clearer. The Islam of the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 is a religion of murder and deceit. Their self-professed strategy is to hide amongst us, pretending to be trustworthy friends, while plotting mass-murder against Christians, Jews, and all non-Muslims.

Whether this religion of deceit is the “true” Islam, as the bin Ladenists assert, or a bastardization of it, a deceptive memorial to the 9/11 terrorists is a direct challenge to the truth witnessing capacity of our society, and to the truth witnessing character of our Christian churches.

In a contest between deceit and honesty, there is no doubt which is stronger. Witness exposes and destroys deceit. If our churches enter this contest, they win. But will they enter? THAT is the test. If our churches stand by, and fail to witness truth, then the al Qaeda religion of murder and deceit may well succeed in stabbing its terrorist memorial mosque into the heartland of America .

The father of one of our Flight 93 heroes is asking America ’s churches for help

In consultation with Tom Burnett Sr., Alec Rawls has put together a flyer that all of us can take to our local churches to try to organize sanctioned fact-checking efforts that our churches can stand behind publicly two months from now.

August 2nd is the next public meeting of the Memorial Project. Tom and Alec will both be traveling to Somerset PA to rally opposition. Mancow Muller is urging his national radio audience to attend, and groups like Rolling Thunder are also being contacted.

With Mr. Burnett in attendance, even a modest turnout will bring substantial news coverage, but coverage alone is not enough. We are facing a fact-checking blockade by the mainstream media, and can only break it by enlisting churches or other independent groups to sponsor their own fact checking efforts.

Are you a member of any kind of group where interested members could set up an ad hoc committee to check a few basic facts about the planned memorial? The full group or chapter could then make an official decision whether to stand behind this fact checking publicly in a press release that Tom and Alec can announce at the August meeting.

Christian churches may be our best bet, being charged by Jesus to be witnesses for truth, and having “chapters” all over America . Thus this initial effort is addressed in particular to our churches, but any group that wants to expose important truths can perform the same service.

The flyer prints out front and back on a single sheet of paper. It has a couple of color graphics, but prints fine in black and white for inexpensive copying. If you want to participate, just add your contact info at the bottom (the file is MS Word and can be altered), then go see if you can raise some interest!

I’m going to do my part. Are you?

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

Current advocates below the fold.

The Whitewash continues

I wrote several months ago about the inclnation - growing in popularity - to change the description of Islam-inspired Terrorism Anti-Islamic Behavior to something other than jihad, and correspondingly, those acting in this “Un-Islamic” way as something other than jihadi’s, mujahideen, etc. Not that anyone saw it, but if one did, one might recall the term hirabah.

I’ve now seen several posts at JW on this subject - that is, what to call these extremists militants uh, bad guys, beginning with this one from only 4 days ago (”Words matter”: Homeland Security rolls out newspeak campaign, cautions against use of terms like “jihadists,” “Islamic terrorists,” “Islamists” and “holy warriors”), culminating in this one today “Spencer: War On Terror Ends?”. In a nutshell, our enlightened leaders in Washington have decided, definitively now, that our use of these terms is actually giving legitimacy to the miscreants-we-can-not-name perpetrating acts-we-can-not-name.

What is this all about? First, Muslims are offended by “War on Terror” because they see it as a “War on ISLAM“. We’re only spending our precious security resources in surveilling Muslims (allegedly). The prisoners in Guantanamo…they’re all Muslims. It’s obvious, right? Second, as I mentioned above, we’re giving the world the impression - by our use of the same religion-couched terms that the terrorists use - that we agree that they’re justified, that they really ARE fighting for Allah and will be rewarded according to their heroic deeds. You see, Jihad is a GOOD thing in Islam…it just doesn’t mean what they (and we) are saying it means.

Let’s think about this (a novel concept, I know). If, in the last 7 years, more than 11,000 attacks on innocents had been committed by the International Fundy Church of Bob (with the bulk of those attacks being justified, in their minds, by their religious beliefs), isn’t it merely PRUDENCE that would suggest that the Bobbians be scrutinized more closely than the rest of the general public? And, what sense would it make (for US) to decide that TRUE Bobbians don’t act this way (the holy texts notwithstanding), and then to call the dastardly ones “Anti-Bobbians”, or perhaps Stevians? Their acts of defending and expanding the faith aren’t Bobardic, they’re just criminal - again, irrespective of a LONG history of similar behavior that at one time was just fine with all the Bobbian scholars, theologians, theorists, and practitioners…and still is in many parts of the world. If the American government, or British, or French, or Canadian, uses their terminology (these Bobarians), does that REALLY make these criminals more legitimate than they were before we started taking notice? Knowing, of course, that Bobbians have no use for the opinions of Cawfers (that’s non-believers to you uninitiated). If we start calling them Stevians, does that de-legitimize them to those who currently esteem these Bobardic martyrs? Good Grief, are we REALLY so self-important?

Look…they’re criminals, indisputably (at least by most Western laws). But not acknowledging the ideology that drives them is not helping in the fight against them. No one complains when we refer to Marxist or Maoist “rebels”. And if we refer to them that way, are we then saying that ALL Marxists or Maoists (or whatever) are violent thugs? Obviously not.

Someone who is overly sensitive of oblique criticism is usually insecure and/or trying to hide some vulnerability or shortcoming. Caving in to their demands for coddling their feelings does them no favors (it assists in keeping them away from facing, and dealing with, criticisms and consequently from improving and growing), and it minimizes LEGITIMATE security concerns among the rest of the populace.

As I said last time: Call a spade a spade, call a pirate a pirate, call a jihadist (one struggling for Allah, violently or otherwise) a jihadist. If you can’t name your enemy, you can’t know your enemy…and if you don’t know your enemy, you’re lost.

UPDATE:  Raymond Ibrahim over at American Thinker weighs in on this very topic.

Would a Jihadi by Any Other Name Smell as Foul?

[A] NYT article suggests that,

“If we want to say what we mean, what terms better describe [al] Qaeda members and other violent extremists? ‘Muharib’ or the more colloquial ‘hirabi’ or ‘hirabist’ would be good places to start. ‘Hirabah,’ the base word, is a term for barbarism or piracy. Unlike ‘jihad,’ which grants honor, ‘hirabah’ brings condemnation; it involves unlawful violence and disorder.”

Now, as a native Arabic speaker, I regret to say that usage of these terms — that is, Americans trying to be at once politically-correct and descriptive, in, of all languages, Arabic — is, alas, somewhat comedic.  I further suspect that Arabs, especially al-Qaeda types, would find it hilarious and consistent with their interpretations of wishy-washy Americans, who go to great lengths to learn a language only to censor themselves and compromise their precision in that same language, all so they can appear the “nice guy.” 

Which leads to a final point: Arabs and Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government — that is, infidels — to define Islam for them, much less to confer Islamic legitimacy or condemnation on al-Qaeda through the use of subtle word-games.  Calling this or that a “hirabi” or “jihadi” is not about to make any great impression on them, since only an authoritative Islamic entity (e.g., Cairo’s al-Azhar university) is qualified to determine such matters. Thus the US government would do well to worry less about which words will better humor the Arab/Muslim world, and worry more about providing its citizenry with accurate and meaningful terminology. 

Precisely!

Stop the Memorial Blogburst: No more do-overs

No more do-overs for terrorist memorializing architects

Defenders of the crescent design keep accusing Tom Burnett Sr. of trying to get an improper “do over” after failing back in 2005 to sway the design-competition jury. But who is really seeking the do-over? The American people rose up in protest in 2005 when they saw that the Memorial Project wanted to plant a bare naked Islamic crescent and star flag on the flight 93 crash site:

That uproar forced the Memorial Project to agree to redesign the memorial so that it would no longer include Islamic symbol shapes (whether they are intentional or not). But nothing significant was changed. Every particle of the original crescent design remains completely intact in the so-called redesign, which only disguised the original crescent with a few irrelevant trees, placed to the rear of a person facing into the giant crescent.

The American people caught a hijacker trying to re-hijack Flight 93, and the Memorial Project told him to go back outside and try again, which is exactly what he did. Now they accuse Tom Burnett of wanting an improper do-over?

There were dozens of articles and television segments about the crescent controversy this week, mostly in Pennsylvania , with some national news coverage by Fox News television and AP. This post is an attempt to capture the general thrust of the new wave of position statements.

The Memorial Project is inverting every moral imperative at this point, and it all comes from their fervent desire to reverse the results of September 2005. Their embrace of the crescent was rejected by America and they are determined to undo that defeat, to the point of being willfully blind to massive evidence of al Qaeda sympathizing intent.

The new face of the Memorial Project: Edward Felt’s wife and brother take the lead

Sandra Felt, one of the Flight 93 family members who helped select the Crescent of Embrace design, admits that she never paid any attention to warnings about Islamic and terrorist memorializing symbolism in the crescent design:

Sandra Felt has known for nearly three years about complaints that the design of the proposed Flight 93 National Memorial allegedly contains Islamic symbols, but she never gave them any credence.

“I don’t even think about it,” said Felt, whose husband, Edward, died on … United Airlines Flight 93.

And nobody blames her. It shouldn’t be on the Flight 93 families to investigate evidence that any one of us can easily fact check. But Sandra and her brother in law Gordon Felt, now President of Families of Flight 93, are going further, pretending for some reason that the charges people have made against architect Paul Murdoch are actually being leveled against them.

No-bama, cont.

While searching for a particular quote (which to me is probably the strongest statement against supporting this man’s bid for President), I happened across a blog post that summed up nicely in one place many of the common apprehensions we have concerning the Senator’s judgment and character.

Here is the one I was looking for (H/T Denny):

“I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois.” and “I will serve out my full six-year term…I will not [run for President].”

His ultimate contradiction of that one assertion, in which he declares ‘unequivocally” that he will NOT run for President and will finish the job to which he was elected, should tell every American that Mr. Obama can not be trusted.  He either lied, or went back on his word, for no reason other than his own personal gain.  This is not Hope…it is cause for despair.  It is not Change…it is the worst of politics as usual.

The list of incisive questions is here.  

Also, check out this roundup of disingenuous comments Obama has made here (again, thanks to Denny).

CHARGE 1 - “The March on Selma got me born.”

EVIDENCE - Senator Obama was born August 4th, 1961. The march on Selma began March 7th, 1965. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2

COUNTER CLAIM - Senator Obama was talking about the general movement, not specifically about Selma.

REBUTTAL - Senator Obama was in Selma, Alabama, before a mostly AA crowd at the Brown Chapel AME Church on March 4th, 2007. He clearly stated “because some folks were willing to march across a bridge . . . they (his parents) got together, and Barack Obama, Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama!” Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4, 1961. The first march on Selma, Alabama occurred on March 7, 1965.

VERDICT - SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR
* * *

* * *
CHARGE 2 - “My father was just a simple, impoverished goat herder.”

EVIDENCE - Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a privileged, well educated youth, who’s [sic] tribal family owned and controlled all tribal land. SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2, SOURCE 3

COUNTER CLAIM - He was poor to start off with, he only became an educated and successful man later in life.

REBUTTAL - Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was privileged from the moment of his birth. Being born into the powerful tribe of the Luo, he was graced with an ‘upper class’ lifestyle. He later would go on to be ‘Big Man’ of the tribe and work as a Senior Economist in the Kenyan Government.

VERDICT - SENATOR OBAMA, YOU ARE A LIAR

READ THE REST…and vote accordingly.

Holy Sh|te!

I knew that our military establishment had come up with some doozies, but this is something…ELSE.

I’d heard that we had a non-lethal weapon that had been dubbed the Ray Gun, and that it wouldn’t be deployed in Iraq.  Apparently there’s much more to this story.  Excerpted from Front Page Magazine interview with Dave Gaubatz.

The Pentagon officials have intentionally lied…

The Pentagon has had an operational “Ray Gun” since early in 2003. The Ray Gun was designed to be a lethal weapon. It can kill, injury the person very badly, or just slightly depending on the setting of the mechanisms…

The Ray Gun can send a signal at least a football field in width from a long distance from the target and take out (kill) hundreds of enemies within a few seconds. Few if any American troops would need to die…

A weapon that can instantly kill entire battalions is not a weapon our politicians believe the American people could accept [Couldn't the Daisy Cutter bomb do the same thing?]…This simply means PC comes first, and then the lives of our brave troops suffer…

So our politicians believe that Americans will be happier with and additional 4,000 American deaths than they will be with a weapon that basically only endangers those trying to accomplish said deaths.  Hmmm.  I’m not a fan of killing, but war is war.  If we have a weapon that can protect our own, and speed up the end of this conflict, it needs to be used.

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.  - George S. Patton

Flight 93 Memorial Blogburst

QiblaLocator confirms Mecca orientation of Flight 93 crescent

Reader Max K. found another Islamic website with a Mecca-direction calculator. It can be used to construct yet another graphical demonstration that the Flight 93 memorial points to Mecca .

Muslims face Mecca for prayer, with the direction to Mecca calculated by the great circle method. Enter your street address into the search field at QiblaLocator.com and it brings up a Google map with a red line showing the Muslim prayer-direction (or “qibla”) from your home.

At the Flight 93 crash site, Skyline Road passes through the center of what is to become the giant central crescent of the planned memorial. Enter ” Skyline Rd , Shanksville PA” into the QiblaLocator search box and it generates this map:

Red line points to Mecca . (Azimuth, also in red: 55.19° clockwise from north.)

To see how this direction to Mecca compares with the orientation of the planned memorial, first impose some orientation lines on the Crescent of Embrace design:

The short black line connects the two most protruding tips of the half-mile wide central crescent. The long black arrow shows the orientation of a person standing between the crescent tips and facing into the center of the crescent. (Every particle of this original design remains completely intact in the so-called redesign, which only disguises the giant crescent with a few additional trees.)

Next just lay the site-plan graphic on top of QiblaLocator’s Google map:

The red and black lines are almost parallel.

To be precise, the upper crescent tip is the end of the thousand foot long, fifty foot tall, Entry Portal Wall. The bottom crescent tip is the last pair of red maple trees at the bottom end of the crescent walkway. Connect these tips, and the perpendicular bisector (black arrow) points 53.5° clockwise from north (within two degrees of the exact direction to Mecca ).

A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. The Flight 93 Memorial will be the world’s largest mosque.

Earlier Mecca direction graphics

In 2005, Sarah Wells constructed a somewhat similar graphic. She used the Mecca direction calculator at Islam.com to get a qibla line that she superimposed onto the memorial site plan:

Green “qibla” circle shows direction to Mecca from nearby Pittsburgh . Again you can see that a person standing between the tips of the crescent and facing into the center of the crescent will be facing almost exactly at Mecca .

Sarah’s graphic and the QiblaLocator graphic both demonstrate that the giant crescent points to Mecca in the way that Muslims define the direction to Mecca (by the “great circle” or “shortest distance” method).

The first graphic to show the Mecca orientation of the crescent memorial was posted by the pseudonymous Eaotin Shrdlu on September 10, 2005, two days after the crescent design was unveiled:

The large map projection and the small site-plan inset both have north at the top. Etaoin’s graphic shows that direction to Mecca from crash site (green line) and direction of person facing into crescent (red line) are the same.

University of Pennsylvania Professor Tim Baird , a member of the Flight 93 Advisory Commission, says that everyone involved in the Memorial Project is fully aware of the factual accuracy of the Mecca direction claim. Nevertheless, they all stand by as Project spokesmen keep denying the Mecca orientation in the newspapers. The Project even found an academic fraud to tell the press that there is no such thing as the direction to Mecca:

Daniel Griffith, a geospatial information sciences professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, said anything can point toward Mecca, because the earth is round. ( Pittsburgh Post Gazette, August 18, 2007.)

Any Muslim would have denied this absurdity, but the Post Gazette does not want Griffith ’s fraud exposed, because the Gazette itself has been fully complicit in covering up the Mecca orientation of the memorial since 2005. Post Gazette reporter Paula Ward told Alec Rawls in 2006 (download 3, p. 108) that editors and reporters at the Post Gazette saw all of the demonstrations of the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent back in 2005 and made a top level editorial decision not to publish this explosive information. Editor Tom Birdsong thinks it would hurt the Democrats, so he is not going to publish it, and neither are other newspapers.

This shouldn’t be a right-left issue, but try telling our newspaper editors that. Which leaves it up to the rest of us to get the word out about Islamic and terrorist memorializing symbolism in the Flight 93 Memorial. This is going to have to be passed person to person.

You can help. To join our blogbursts, email Cao ( caoilfhionn 1 at gmail dot com) with your blog’s url.

Continued

I’m not saying what - just read.

At Human Events is a tidbit worth passing along.

Let’s follow the money to see if we can find the change Obama has been talking about.

In 2006, Barack Obama requested an earmark of $1 million for the University of Chicago Hospital. It just so happens that Michelle Obama is the Vice President for Community Affairs at the hospital.

As Byron York notes, Michelle Obama made $121,910.00 in 2004 before her husband was elected to the United States Senate. In 2005, after Obama won his election, she made $316,962.00. According to the New York Times, the hospital denies that Michelle Obama ever lobbied her husband on behalf of her employer for the $1 million.  

Barack Obama hopes for change in Washington. It’s a sure bet that the University of Chicago will be keeping Mrs. Obama on the payroll hoping for some change too.

The question is, is this the type of change the voters really want?

Whew…I want a 162% raise this year too!  And all it takes is being intimate with a politician…ew, wait…I, uh…YAK!

Flight 93 Betrayal Blogburst: Joementum!

Alec Rawls did a 45 minute interview with Washington D.C talk-radio host Joe Ardinger Saturday night (3-8-08, Segment 3).

“It rips,” says Alec. “We exposed a lot of the terrorist memorializing parts of the Flight 93 Memorial, and went over the clear proofs of intent that architect Paul Murdoch included in the design.”

Joe’s interests: “Ghosts, UFO’s, The Lizard People from The Hollow Earth, Politics, True Crime, Conspiracies, you get the idea…” If he wants outlandish, the truth about the Flight 93 Memorial is tops, which could just make Joe the man for the Job.

Alec knows nothing about the Lizard People, or Joe’s politics, but this issue ought to transcend all domestic divides, and for Joe it certainly does. “Very fun interview,” says Alec: “Joe is a great host, and he says he wants to keep after this.”

That’s excellent. Thank you Joemericans!

(If Joe’s 3-8-08 Segment 3 link ever disappears, there is a backup copy here.)

To join our blogbursts, email Cao (caoilfhionn1 at gmail dot com) with your blog’s url.