Category Archives: Faith

American Warfighters Deserve Same Consideration as Taliban

Posted on by
1

After being captured on the unmarked battlefields of Afghanistan and Pakistan, members of the Taliban have been granted release after merely pledging not to support or fight for the Taliban anymore.  Why are U.S. warfighters not being granted similar forms of clemency by their own government?

Clockwise from upper left: Michael’s family; Michael; Michael as a youngster; and Michael and his girlfriend, Shannon.

Before addressing that question, it’s worth familiarizing yourself with the Islamic concept of Takeyya.  According to an undated article in Islam Review*, the concept allows Muslims who find themselves under the threat of force to act contrary to their faith and to “utter insincere oaths.”

Fourteen months ago, The New York Times ran an article about attempts to reintegrate members of the Taliban – including many responsible for having killed and/or crippled American soldiers — into society as productive citizens.  The prisoners needed only to pledge — think “oath” — that they would not go back to fighting with the Taliban.  There were no guarantees, of course — just promises — and no apparent concerns about whether or not they were employing Takeyya.  Do you think any of the Taliban who uttered pledges did so simply to facilitate their own release?  Of course, they did!

Now, to answer the question of why U.S. warfighters deserve breaks at least as good as the ones received by their former battlefield enemies, I highlight the case of Army Ranger 1LT Michael Behenna.

Michael’s Platoon

While escorting Ali Mansur, a known Al-Qaeda operative, back to his hometown near Baghdad, Lieutenant Behenna admittedly disobeyed an order and decided to interrogate Mansur.  Why?  There were several reasons:

First, Lieutenant Behenna had good reason to suspect Mansur had been involved in an IED attack two weeks earlier that killed two men — Sgt. Adam Kohlhaas, 26, and Spec. Steven Christofferson, 20 — assigned to the lieutenant’s Delta Company 5th Platoon; and

Second, Lieutenant Behenna had learned that four different Army intelligence officers had interrogated Mansur but had never asked him about the IED attack, a previous threatening phone call made to the lieutenant, a confirmed attempted February attack or his trips to Syria.  Instead, they had only asked him about his possession of illegal weapons and his current employment.

Apparently, carrying the name of one of the largest Sunni families in Iraq had made the Al-Qaeda operative untouchable and prompted U.S. officials to release him.

Now, put yourself in the Lieutenant’s position.

Can you fault him for wanting to learn the entire truth about Mansur’s activities that likely resulted in the deaths of two U.S. soldiers?  I cannot.

How do you explain the lieutenant’s decision to strip Mansur naked and kill him at close range in a culvert?  Without going into all of the details of what took place prior to the shooting, I direct those who think Lieutenant Behenna deserves the punishment he received for killing Mansur to an article I published in February 2010.

Notably, the article includes the text of the sworn affidavit, dated April 21, 2009, in which Dr. Herb MacDonell — a government witness who was never allowed to testify during the lieutenant’s trial — explains how knowledge he obtained while waiting to testify in the case could have changed dramatically its outcome.  For good measure, I share the text of that affidavit again below:

I was retained by the government to testify as an expert witness in bloodstain analysis.  On 16 December 2008 I received a FedEx package from Captain Megan Poirier.  It contained ten envelopes of photographs and reports as well as a video of the scene.  Included was a report by Barbara Liveri, and the autopsy report done by an Iraqi doctor.  Prior to trial, I told the government that using only the photographs at the scene and the nature of the surfaces where the bloodstains were located made it difficult to reach any definitive conclusions.  I had been contacted before trial by Jack Zimmerman, one of the lawyers for First Lieutenant Behenna and told him the same thing.  I was set to travel to Fort Campbell on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, to return on Friday, February 27, 2009.  I was called and asked to come a day earlier, which I did.  I sat in on the testimony of Dr. Paul Radelat and Mr. Tom Bevel.  They testified on Wednesday.

At a recess on Wednesday, I was in the prosecutor’s office in room 13 in the courthouse.  While talking with Dr. Berg about the bullet wounds Ali Mansur received, Dr. Berg gave me information I previously did not have.  Dr. Berg told me that the wound trajectories for both the chest wound and the head wound were horizontal and essentially parallel.

After thinking about this new information, I did a demonstration to show the only logical explanation which was consistent with the autopsy findings, the bloodstains, the final resting position of the body, and the time between shots.  I had Sergeant MacCauley stand directly in front of me, and facing me.  I asked him to raise his right arm a little and then I poked my right index finger in to the right side of his chest under his arm and said, “Bang!  You have just been shot, so drop down.”  The sergeant dropped to his knees and as his head passed in front of my finger, I said, “Bang!  You have been shot again.”  I remarked that this was consistent with the physical evidence.  All three prosecutors, Captains Poirier, Roberts, and Elbert were present when I gave this demonstration and informed them of my opinion.

On Thursday morning during one of the breaks I examined the 9mm bullet and saw it had struck a hard object while traveling backwards.  This is consistent with the bullet tumbling as it exited on of Ali Mansur’s wounds.  The uniformity of the extruded lead into a disk-like configuration shows it was traveling in a horizontal trajectory if the surface it struck was a flat, very coarse, vertical surface.  Logically, that could have been the culvert’s concrete wall.

On Thursday afternoon, the day after this demonstration, I listened to Lt. Behenna testify.  I had seen no written statement made by him.  This was the first time I learned what he said had happened.  After Lt. Behenna described the shooting, I turned to Dr. Berg and told him, “That is exactly what I told you guys yesterday.”  There was a recess about 5:00 pm and Lt. Behenna was still on the witness stand.  I was told by Captain Poirier that I would not be needed, and a flight was arranged for me for that evening.  I told Captains Poirier and Roberts that I could stay another day if necessary. They told me my testimony would not be needed and I could leave to get my flight.

When I went back to room 13 to get my hat, coat, and briefcase the captains on the prosecution team were already in that room.  As I gathered my things I reminded them that although the scenario I had presented to them the day before was unlikely, it still was the only theory I could develop that was consistent with the physical evidence.  It was also exactly the way Lt. Behenna had described the events.  Their reaction was noticeably cold.  I went back into the courtroom and went over to Jack Zimmerman.  As I was putting on my coat I remarked that I was sorry I was leaving because I would have made a good witness for him.  He asked why, and I told him I was a government expert, and could not discuss it with him until after the trial.  He asked me not to leave but I did.  I did not believe it would have been proper for me to have told Attorney Zimmerman any more than I did.  I was not “eager to communicate” with him or I would have told him my concern at that time on Thursday.

I expected that the prosecutors would tell Mr. Zimmerman what I had told them.  When I was released without being called as a defense witness, and had returned to Corning, New York, I was concerned.  I consulted two friends, a Supreme Court judge and a lawyer, and decided to check with Captain Poirier to ensure she had passed on the opinion I had given the prosecutors Thursday afternoon when I was getting my hat, coat, and briefcase.

From reading the judge’s ruling, I believe the misunderstanding may have resulted from the way I interpreted the questions asked during my telephone testimony on Saturday, February 28, 2009.

When I testified that I told Dr. Berg, “That is exactly what I told you guys yesterday,” and did not remember telling my reaction to any other person, I meant right there at that moment in the courtroom.  There was no one else but Dr. Berg sitting nearby who had witnessed my demonstration the day before.  The prosecutors were at counsel table then.

However, at the next recess, when I went to get my hat, coat, and briefcase, I specifically told the three prosecutors in their office in room 13 the same thing I told Dr. Berg.  As I testified on February 28, 2009, “And as I was leaving I told the prosecuting group, I said, “That was exactly what I told you.’”

I do not feel that it is fair to put the opinion I related to Dr. Berg and Captains Poirier, Roberts, and Elbert on Thursday in quotation marks.  Until Wednesday afternoon I had not been told the wound trajectories for both shots were horizontal and parallel.  I had not been provided the bullet to examine.  The scientific process required me to consider the physical and medical evidence in reaching my final conclusion.  That is why I wanted to see the bullet on Thursday.  When I heard Lt. Behenna describe what happened, I did not say other witnesses were lying, or that my conclusion was based on my opinion of the Lieutenant’s credibility.  My expert opinion was based on the fact that the Lieutenant’s description as to how the shooting occurred fit the physical evidence.

I have consulted and testified in many trials, and I know what exculpatory evidence is.  I firmly believe the jury should have heard my testimony.

After reading everything above, can you really fault Lieutenant Behenna for his actions?  I can’t.

Do his actions deserve 15 years in prison?  I think not.

Unfortunately, members of the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces voted, 3-2, in favor of upholding his conviction.  So what’s next?

Americans who disagree with the CAAF decision should implore the presidential candidate who wins the privilege of serving as our next Commander-In-Chief should make it his top priority to grant clemency to Lieutenant Behenna.  I’m willing to be Lieutenant Behenna will pledge never to kill Ali Mansur again.

For more details about Lieutenant Behenna’s case, read Carrie Fatigante’s nine-part series that I published in December 2009.  To read about the more recent developments (newest to oldest), click here.

*I know the article was published at least three years ago, because I cited it in a piece published June 4, 2009.

Bob McCarty is the author of “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice,” a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. His second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” is set for release this fall.

Mitt Romney ‘Competent Turk’ of 2012

Posted on by
Reply

Today at 10 a.m. Eastern, a crowd estimated at more than 34,000 gathered for commencement activities at Liberty University, the world’s largest Christian university, in Lynchburg, Va.  Regardless of what he told those in attendance, Mitt Romney stood out as the “odd duck” for one reason.

Mitt Romney

Not because he’s the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

Not because he’s a successful businessman, husband and father.

But because he’s a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, an organization most evangelical Christians consider a cult.

Page 173 of the 2011/2012 Liberty U Graduate Course Catalog, the course description for THEO 678, Western and New Religions describes it that way, and I suspect the vast majority of the 14,000-plus members of the school’s largest-ever graduating class agree with that description — which they apply equally to Christian Scientists, Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists.

Now, the question about evangelical Christians at Liberty University and elsewhere is, “Will they vote in favor of a Mormon becoming president of the United States?”  And the answer is an emphatic “YES!!!”

To explain my affirmative response, I reach back to a Jan. 21, 2008, post in which I wrote the following:

“I’d rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.”

Asked who he would support in the 2008 presidential race, a Southern Baptist friend of mine cited the statement above, made by Martin Luther, the protestant reformer who lived five centuries ago, as a partial basis for his decision.

In explaining his decision, my friend cited Jimmy Carter, also a Baptist, as the epitome of an incompetent Christian who served as president of the United States.

So who is the “competent Turk” my Baptist friend say he would support? Republican Mitt Romney, a Mormon.

FYI:  Though my Baptist friend did not give any clues as to who, exactly, fit the description of an “incompetent Christian” in 2008, I can tell you with certainty that he was talking about Barack Obama.  Today, I’m calling Obama an incompetent Muslim Christian, too!

UPDATE 5/12/12 at 11:02 a.m. Central:  Below is a one-minute clip of Romney’s commencement speech.

Order a copy of Bob McCarty’s new book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.

Shall We Treat Women Like Broken Dinner Plates?

Posted on by
2

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

On Nov. 2, 2010, the people of Oklahoma were asked to decide a very important question.  They were asked to decide whether or not the state’s courts should be directed to rely solely on federal and state law, or whether other bodies of law… international law, laws of other nations, or Sharia law… could also be used.  State Question 755, amending Article 7, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution, declared that, “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.  Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

When all the votes were counted, 695,650 Oklahomans (70.08 percent) voted to live under existing federal and state law, while 296,944 voters (29.92 percent)… liberal Democrats, Muslims, deceased persons, and a few trouble-makers who sneaked across the border from Texas and Arkansas… voted to live under whatever legal code happened to be the “flavor of the day.”

Just two days later, on Nov. 4, local Muslims filed suit in federal court, seeking to block implementation of the measure.  The suit was filed by Muneer Awad (of the Oklahoma Awads), executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, who expressed the view that the people of Oklahoma had no right to decide the parameters of the constitution under which they live and that the amendment, approved by 70.08 percent of the Oklahoma electorate, was… unconstitutional.  Awad argued that the amendment tramples the “free exercise” rights of a disfavored minority faith (it does not), restricts the ability of he and his fellow Muslims to execute valid wills (it does not), and prohibits equal access to the judicial system (it does not).

The lawsuit further asserted that the Oklahoma amendment “undercuts a central concern of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, sending an unmistakable message that Muslims are religious and political outsiders.”  If Muslims are religious and political outsiders, as Awad suggests, there must be a reason.  Let’s look at the record.

On Nov. 15, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI called on all Muslim countries to protect Christians living among them.  He also called upon Christians and Muslims to show mutual respect toward each other.  Since that date, the Pope has issued numerous appeals for reciprocity, calling upon Muslims to respect the right of Christians to worship freely throughout the Muslim world, just as Muslims enjoy religious freedom in majority Christian nations.  So what impact has the Pope had on slowing the progress of Islamic jihad?

In a report published on Nov. 26, 2010, Khaled Abu Toameh described recent incidents of genocide against Middle East Christians.  The report tells us that, “Christians in Arab countries are no longer being persecuted; they are now being slaughtered and driven out of their homes and lands.”

On Christmas Day, 2011, a radical Islamist group calling itself Boko Haram… which translates to “Western education is a sin”… bombed a Christian church in the Nigerian capital of Abuja, killing 43 and injuring many more.  The Jewish World Review reports that a Boko Haram leader, Abdul Qaqa, gave Christians in northern Nigeria three days to pack up and leave the country.

In 2010, 52 Catholics were slaughtered at a church in Baghdad.  The Chaldean archbishop of Kirkuk is quoted as saying that 57 Christian churches in Iraq have been attacked since 2003.  More than 900 Christians have been killed and more than 6,000 wounded.  In April 2011, 1,000 Christians were slaughtered by Muslim troops in Ivory Coast.  And in October 2011, in Egypt, 24 Coptic Christians were killed and more than 200 were wounded by radical Islamists.

These are but a few examples of the atrocities suffered by Christians in the Muslim world.  And while they represent an indescribable horror for those directly affected, they may also represent a long overdue and much needed wake-up call for the non-Muslim world if they help us to finally see Islam for what it is… and what it is not.  Hopefully, acts of genocide against Christians in Muslim nations will finally serve to convince westerners that Islam and Christianity cannot coexist, side-by-side, unless Christians yield to the demands of radical Islam.

Those who worry that restrictions on Sharia Law… such as Oklahoma SQ 755… may conflict with 1st Amendment rights, must understand that the 1st Amendment prohibits the “establishment of a religion.”  Islam is not a “religion” as we in the West understand the meaning of the term and it cannot be viewed as such.  It is far more than that; it is a social, political, legal, military, and economic system with a spiritual component.

As such, it is governed by and may come into conflict with Articles I, II, III, and IV of the U.S. Constitution, and at least 14 of the 27 amendments.  In fact, as an invading force that attempts to impose its 7th century values on an enlightened 21st century world, in any way possible, violent or non-violent, there is very little in Islam that would not conflict with the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.  Without its religious component, which Muslims conveniently hide behind when claiming 1st Amendment protections, Islam would be just another hate group, a foreign political insurgency that must be defeated, no matter what the cost.

We in the United States have developed social, political, and economic institutions that are the envy of the entire world, and Islam is the last place we would look for guidance in perfecting our Western civilization.  No help is wanted, or needed, thank you very much.

Like most Europeans of the post-World War II era, many Americans have succumbed to the fiction that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that worldwide jihad is merely a pipedream of the radical few.  However, the truth lies elsewhere.  As one Muslim caller to a radio talk show put it, “The liberal (peace-loving) Muslims are on the bus… but the crazies are driving the bus.”  Only when so-called “moderate” Muslims show a bit of courage by unmasking the radicals in their midst will any sort of accommodation be possible.  Until then, Muslims will increasingly be seen as a “disfavored minority faith,” as Mr. Awad refers to them.

In Islamic countries, Christians and Jews are prohibited from practicing their religion freely and openly.  Fair enough.  So I’ll pledge to accept their petty little demands on the same day that Christians, Jews, and everyone else are allowed complete religious freedom in all of the nations of the Islamic world, but not before.  The litmus test for Islam as a “religion of peace” will be the day when Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and all other non-Muslims are free to visit Mecca; and when churches, temples, and synagogues can be built throughout the Muslim world.  Until then, Islam must be viewed, not as the world’s largest religious denomination, but as a primitive alien culture that has not evolved appreciably beyond its seventh-century roots.

Complete reciprocity is the standard that must be met… nothing more, nothing less.

On Nov. 30, 2010, Federal District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down a decision in the Oklahoma SQ 755 case, barring the Oklahoma State Election Board from certifying the results of the election until she could prepare a final ruling.

Because the people of Oklahoma have made “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Awad suit is totally without merit.  To the contrary, the amendment approved on November 2 served only to reinforce the 1st Amendment in that, like it or not, it prohibits the “establishment of religion” for a small minority of Oklahoma citizens.  As might be expected, Judge Miles-LaGrange got it exactly backwards.  (Appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1994, Judge Miles-LaGrange provides just one more horrible example of why we cannot trust Democrat presidents to appoint capable and competent judges to the federal bench.)

Finally, on Jan. 11, 2012, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver agreed with Judge Miles-LaGrange, upholding her injunction against the implementation of Oklahoma SQ 755.  The case now goes back to federal court in Oklahoma City for a decision on the question of constitutionality.

Depending on the outcome of the trial in Oklahoma City, and the anticipated appeal to the 10th Circuit, the people of Oklahoma may have to play the game a bit longer by appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  But if by some chance a majority of justices would find some merit in the lower court decisions, striking down State Question 755, then it will become necessary for Oklahoma to stand on its 10th Amendment rights by engaging in nullification.  Governor Fallin and Attorney General Pruitt will have to inform the federal courts that the people of Oklahoma are sovereign and that they have spoken.  State Question 755 will become part of the Oklahoma constitution and it will be enforced, the opinion of the federal courts notwithstanding.

In a recent interview, a Muslim in Bahrain admitted to having shot his sister in the head four times because she had been forcibly raped.  Although she was the victim of a brutal assault, her violation had brought shame upon her family.  As the brother explained, in Islam, a woman who has been violated is much like a broken dinner plate that must be thrown away; she is no longer of any use and it’s best to discard her so that she can bring no further shame to the family.

It’s time that Mr. Awad and all of his Muslim friends understood that, in Oklahoma, all human lives are valued equally, regardless of gender, and that our women are not like “dinner plates.”  And if he and his CAIR associates don’t like the way we do things; if they refuse to recognize that Sharia law is incompatible with Oklahoma values, then we have a few suggestions for them… and we’ll give them more than three days to pack up and leave; we’ll give them at least a week.

Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

SHAMELESS PLUG:  Be sure to check out Bob McCarty’s new book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.

Couple Fights $500 Fines for Home Bible Studies

Posted on by
2

On May 29, 2009, I shared news about a situation involving what appeared to be a crackdown on people holding Bible studies at their San Diego home.  This week, the same thing appears to be happening in another Orange County, Calif., community, according to a CBS Los Angeles report.

The city of San Juan Capistrano is demanding that a small home Bible study group stop meeting unless they obtain a cost-prohibitive permit, according to officials at the Pacific Legal Institute who are representing the couple who hosted the gathering in their home and offer more details below:

The homeowners, Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, were fined $300 for holding the Bible study. Mr. Fromm appealed the ruling to the City of San Juan Capistrano, which was founded as a mission in the late 1700’s and is home to California’s oldest building still in use, a chapel where Father Junipero Serra celebrated mass. Fromm was told by a hearing officer that regular gatherings of more than three people require a conditional use permit. Officials also stated that further religious gatherings in the home would be subject to a $500 fine per meeting. The City eventually rejected the appeal and Pacific Justice Institute has taken the next step by appealing the decision to the California Superior Court in Orange County.

The Bible study group, which met on Sunday mornings, until the City threatened further fines, was perfectly suited for his home, said Chuck Fromm. There was no noise beyond normal conversation and quiet music on the home stereo system. They met inside their family room and patio area. Many neighbors have written letters of support, denying they were disturbed by the presence of the Bible study. The group is not affiliated with any particular church, nor is it seeking to establish a church in the home.

The City of San Juan Capistrano is insisting the home Bible study is not allowed because it is a “church,” and churches require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in residential areas. Pacific Justice Institute represents the Bible study participants and will fight the city’s decision. In other cases, PJI has represented larger churches that have been required to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars as part of the CUP process, such as engineering and traffic studies, architectural designs and seismic retrofits. CUP’s require public hearings and can be denied outright or granted with numerous limitations.

“Imposing a heavy-handed permit requirement on a home Bible study is outrageous,” said Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute. “In a city so rich with religious history and tradition, this is particularly egregious. An informal gathering in a home cannot be treated with suspicion by the government, or worse than any other gathering of friends, just because it is religious. We cannot allow this to happen in America, and we will fight as long and as hard as it takes to restore this group’s religious freedom.”

If officials in San Juan Capistrano have any sense of right and wrong, they’ll follow the lead of Walt Ekard, who was serving as San Diego County’s chief administrative officer at the time of his city’s wrong move.  He issued an apology and promised an investigation and, eventually, the county withdrew it’s citation against the couple.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, it stands as evidence that persecution of Christians isn’t something that only happens overseas.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

Wallbuilders’ Rick Green to Speak in St. Louis Area

Posted on by
Reply

Are you concerned about passing the torch of freedom on to future generations?  Make plans now to hear Rick Green of WallBuilders.  He’s speaking Saturday at 7:00 p.m. Central at First Baptist Church of Wentzville, Mo.

Green brings a dynamic speaking style and a Biblical worldview that’s well worth hearing, especially during these troubling times.

FBCW is only 40 minutes west of St. Louis on I-70 and tickets are only $8 in advance.  To order, click here.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

Flight 93 Memorial Still Resembles Victory Mosque As 10th Anniversary of 9-11 Attacks Draws Near

Posted on by
3

60%SizeMeccaOrientationGraphicOn Oct. 6, 2007, I wrote and published my first post about the controversial memorial to be constructed at the site where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into the Western Pennsylvania countryside Sept. 11, 2001.

On Feb. 26, 2009, I shared news of Beverly Burnett’s heartfelt letter in which she called for a full, transparent review of the Flight 93 Memorial Project ostensibly being built to honor people who died in the crash, including her adult son, Tom Burnett Jr.

The above posts were but two of nearly a dozen postsI published on the subject.

Today, I share yet another one, courtesy of Alec Rawls and others who are working with Beverly Burnett and her husband, Tom Burnett Sr., to keep this matter in the spotlight as the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 tragedies nears.

* * *

We all know who broke the circle of peace on 9/11.

It was 19 Islamic terrorists. That makes the broken-circle memorial to Flight 93 a memorial to the terrorists, who are depicted not only as smashing our circle of peace, but as leaving a giant Islamic crescent-and-star flag in its place:

Photobucket

They call it a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is just the original Crescent of Embrace: a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, pointing to Mecca.

The damned thing is actually an al-Qaeda victory mosque, with the Mecca-oriented crescent as its mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built.

That is the short version of an advertisement that started running in western Pennsylvania newspapers last week. Alec Rawls sends along this update on the effort to stop the crescent mosque.

10th anniversary ad campaign now underway

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review recently solicited Tom Burnett Sr.’s response to some new design images for the Flight 93 memorial. When he said that the so-called redesign leaves all of the terrorist memorializing features intact, editors instructed reporter Kari Andren to leave his remarks out. They preferred un-interrupted praise from the same few family members who always speak up for the broken-circle design.

The people of Pennsylvania deserve to see what their information gate-keepers don’t want them to know, so Mr. Burnett and his backers decided to begin their 10th anniversary ad campaign a few weeks early. The first full-page color ad just ran in the Somerset Daily American and will appear in two other local papers next week.

For a PDF of the ad copy, click here or on the thumbnail below, or scroll down for the same content formatted for browsing. If anyone wants to help fund additional advertising, a very generous soul has offered to match all donations up to a total of $5,000.

Broken circle ad 1, large thumbnail

More explicit than a giant Islamic crescent-and-star flag?  As the ad-headline notes, the Circle of Embrace “redesign” only accentuates the circle-breaking crescent-creating theme of the original Crescent of Embrace. Mr. Burnett’s full remarks explain:

The only visible change is the addition of an extra arc of trees that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle. The unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is just the original Crescent of Embrace: a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.

People also need to know that a Mecca-direction indicator is the central feature around which every mosque is built. It is called a “mihrab,” and the classic mihrab is crescent shaped.

So the terrorists broke our circle of peace on 9/11, and all that remains standing is the central feature of a mosque. The inclusion of a broken-off part of the circle only accentuates this terrorist-memorializing symbolism. It bastardizes what my son, Tom, and the other heroes of Flight 93 accomplished. The crescent/broken-circle design is a desecration of sacred ground.

Tom Burnett Sr., Northfield, Minn.

Park Service Calls the Circle ‘Broken’

A proper newspaper would ask the National Park Service if the extra arc of trees really does represent a broken-off part of the circle. Still, people can easily verify this crucial fact for themselves. It is right on the park service’s own website. Their “questions about the design” page asks “Is this circle ‘broken’ at all?” Their answer is yes:

… the circle is symbolically “broken” or missing trees in two places, depicting the flight path of the plane, and the crash site.

The locations of these two breaks in the “circle of embrace” are spelled out:

…first, where the flight path of the plane went overhead (which is the location of the planned memorial overlook and visitor center), and second, where the plane crashed at the Sacred Ground (depicted by a ceremonial gate and pathway into the Sacred Ground).

These are the two ends of the extra arc of trees, which starts near the original upper crescent tip and continues down to the crash site. So Mr. Burnett is right. Both ends of the new arc of trees are explicitly broken off. The unbroken part of the circle—what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11—is just the original Islamic-shaped Crescent of Embrace that the park service promised to change.

To illustrate, the ad includes a side-bar of graphics, showing just what is changed and what is not changed in the memorial. This is slightly complicated by the fact that the park service pretended that they were going to make one very big cosmetic change that they are not actually making, but a few pictures easily tell the tale.

The National Park Service pretended the outside of the crescent would be filled in with a forest of trees

A publicity shot of the original Crescent of Embrace design shows what appears to be a bare-naked Islamic crescent-and-star flag planted atop the crash site:

Crescent of Embrace publicity shot

When this blatant Islamic symbolism caused an uproar, architect Paul Murdoch re-worked his mock-up to show a forest of additional trees surrounding the outside of the original crescent:

Circle/Bowl of Embrace publicity shot

Only the inner arc of the crescent remains visible, making the new Circle of Embrace name seem reasonable. But none of these surrounding trees made it into the actual Circle of Embrace design drawings. (The “Stage 1″ drawings, encompassing the area seen in these images, were released in 2009.)

The park service may eventually let the bare field grow in with trees, but this is not a change in the design. The only actual change is the extra arc of trees, seen below in orange. It explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle:

What Circle of Embrace will actually look like

What the Circle of Embrace actually looks like. The original giant crescent still sits naked on an open field and the flight path still “breaks the circle” at the upper crescent tip.

Remove the explicitly broken off part of the circle (in orange), and what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11 is the same giant Mecca-oriented crescent the Park Service promised to change. It constitutes a classic “mihrab,” the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built, and will form the centerpiece for the world’s largest mosque.

Who broke the circle of peace on 9/11?

When the “Crescent of Embrace” was unveiled as the winning design, architect Paul Murdoch explained the crescent name and the crescent shape by saying that the circle was broken on 9/11, leaving only a part of the circle still standing: the giant crescent. The fact that this circle-breaking crescent-creating theme remains completely intact in the broken-circle design demands the question of WHO is being depicted as breaking the circle of peace on 9/11.

The final section of the ad points out that there can only be one answer. We all know who broke the peace on 9/11. Thus the memorial can only be depicting the actions of the terrorists, who are seen not only as smashing our circle of peace, but as replacing it with their own crescent and star flag.

With the media censoring all criticism, people who don’t like all this blatant Islamic symbolism need a way to signal each other directly, so the ad finishes with a handy-dandy flyer that readers can post on windows, walls, bulletin boards, etc:

Who broke the circle, click for PDF

If you want to put a few up yourself, click the image above for a printable PDF, complete with URLs for our petition to stop the memorial and for more information. And here is an ad-copy version that anyone can run in their own local paper (the free weeklies can be pretty reasonable).

As Flight 93 showed, just because the hijacker has control of the cockpit doesn’t mean he can’t still be stopped.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

Poll Asks Americans to Rate God’s Performance

Posted on by
4

One week ago today, I was sitting in the terminal at Love Field in Dallas, waiting to catch a flight back to St. Louis, when I noticed something unusual on the television in the waiting area and took a photo.  Perhaps because I was in the middle of writing a post about my mom’s battle with Alzheimer’s, I forgot to share the photo (below) with my readers.

Though I had been paying very little attention to CNN’s coverage of the debt ceiling crisis, I did notice two hard-to-believe lines of text across the bottom of the screen during one glance toward the television:

The first line, in ALL CAPS, asked, “WHAT IF GOD WERE ONE OF US” (minus a question mark); and

In slightly-smaller type, a second line explained, “Poll: 52% of Americans approve of God’s job performance.”

Why would anyone think those questions worthy and/or appropriate as poll fodder?  Because a Democrat group, Public Policy Polling, was behind the effort.  Need I say more?  That’s what I thought, too.

In reality, some of the poll results are actually quite pleasing. For instance, The Daily Mail reports, God did better than Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, who all had a 33 percent approval rating.

NewsMax offered a rundown on the poll results July 24.  If, however, you want to watch CNN’s broadcast version of the poll story, visit the “In The Arena” blog (where Eliot Spitzer used to hang out with some chick named Kathleen Parker).

There.  Now, I can delete the photo from my phone.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!