Wife Beating In Islam - Only A Rod Will Help

QURAN 4:34 - "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme."

I am no defender of Christianity. In fact... as an atheist, I believe Christianity to be nothing short of a practice of supreme ignorance. However, when compared to the hard liners of Islam… it’s (currently) merely a silly fairy tale whereas Islam appears to be a barbaric practice of thugary and brutality. They are truly orcs in disguise.

Now, apparently, the rules for wife beating are:

• They must not cause bleeding
• They should not break any bones
• They should not be on the face
• They should not bruise her
• If a husband violates these rules, he violates the rules of Allah.

A wife should also comply with her husband in bed! Foolish wife for ever wanting to feign a headache.

Wife beating is not some random act that occurs in the fringe of Islam. It appears to be pervasive throughout the entire religion.

Threats force website to pull Quran video - Watch it here

A 17-minute documentary on the Quran, juxtaposing images of Islam's holy book with terror attacks and bombings by Muslim extremists, was taken down from a British video-sharing website, LiveLeak,com, after the organization reported "serious" threats to its staff members.

Part 1


Part 2



The documentary had been posted against the wishes of the government of the Netherlands by Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP and leader of the Freedom Party. His video is called "Fitna," an Arabic word meaning strife.

It appeared on the political party's website first, but soon disappeared because of "technical difficulties," reported the London Times. Then it appeared on LiveLeak.com, only to be replaced with an advisory.

"Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly affect the safety of some staff members, LiveLeak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers," the organization said.

"This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realized LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one," the site said.

And here is a Muslim's response to the Fitna video.



Yeah baby! Who want’s another dose of fanatical religion? Both sides are disgusting. Plenty of fools to go around. Though I doubt that Christians (fools) post videos of beheadings and whip out a sword to cut someone’s throat.

And here is Geert Wilders, the creator of the Quran video.

Obama - Nothing's Changed

Exxon makes $40 billion/year. So much for alternative fuels as well as energy independence.

Cheney Dismissive about 2/3 of Americans say Iraq isn't worth the fight

Cheney's dismissive response to the will of the people tends to speak volumes regarding the agenday of this current administration as well as that of the conservative neo-cons. Even a good percentage of republicans have come around to have issues with the way this "war" is being fought and the number of casualties of both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Is it no surprise that the democratic party refuses to do anything regarding impeachment? May many more soldiers die and may this administration and the conservative war mongers run this fine country into the ground until the democratic party wakes up and grows a spine and says "STOP!"

With over a million civilians dead, our 4000th US Troopie dead, with a deficit through the roof (that means debt if you're not familiar with the word) and with stagflation looming at our doorstep... how many of you continue to watch Oprah and American Idol instead of giving enough of a crap to learn about what's going on?

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.
CHENEY: So?

Sung like it's never sung before

This is a video of the Cactus Cuties, very talented young ladies ranging in age from 8 to 13 singing The Star Spangled Banner. The performance was at the Texas Tech vs Texas basketball game January 20, 2008 in front of over 11,000 people. The Cuties are Andi, Baylee, Blaire, Madeline and Tatum.

Composed by Francis Scott Key, "In Defense of Fort McHenry", September 20, 1814.Congress proclaimed it the U.S. National Anthem in 1931. Key, a 35-year-old amateur poet, wrote "Defence of Fort McHenry"[1] after seeing the bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland by British ships in Chesapeake Bay during the War of 1812.

The poem was set to the tune of a popular British drinking song, written by John Stafford Smith for the Anacreontic Society, a London social club. "The Anacreontic Song" was already popular in the United States and set to various lyrics. Set to Key's poem and renamed, "The Star Spangled Banner" would soon become a well-known American patriotic song. With a range of one and a half octaves, it is known for being difficult to sing. Although the song has four stanzas, only the first is commonly sung today, with the fourth ("O thus be it ever when free men shall stand ...") added on more formal occasions.

"The Star Spangled Banner" was recognized for official use by the Navy in 1889 and the President in 1916, and was made the national anthem by a Congressional resolution on 3 March 1931 (46 Stat. 1508, codified at 36 USC §301), which was signed by President Herbert Hoover.

Prior to 1931, other songs served as the hymns of American officialdom. Most prominent among them, "Hail Columbia!" served as the national anthem de facto from Washington's time and through the 18th and 19th centuries. Following the War of 1812 and the outbreak of subsequent American wars, other songs would emerge to compete for popularity at public events, among them "The Star-Spangled Banner."

The Lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner
Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.O say, does that star-spangled banner yet waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly sworeThat the havoc of war and the battle's confusionA home and a country should leave us no more?Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.No refuge could save the hireling and slaveFrom the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,Between their lov'd homes and the war's desolation;Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued landPraise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us as a nation!Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Notice the ending of each paragraph.

Custom
United States Code, 36 USC Sec. 301 says that during the playing of The Star Spangled Banner (United States National Anthem) when the flag is displayed, everyone except those in uniform should stand at attention while facing the flag and have their right hand over their heart.

Individuals in attendance that aren't in uniform should remove anything they are wearing on their head with their right hand and hold it at their left shoulder, with their hand held over their heart. Individuals in uniform should show the military salute during the first note of the anthem and stay in this position until the last note. If the flag is not displayed, people in attendance should face the music and respond as if the flag were present.

Carry A Gun

TITLE 10 - Armed Forces

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13—THE MILITIA

§ 311 - DEFINITION OF MILITIA

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Clearly, an obvious definition of what a militia is.

Amendment II - US CONSTITUTION
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Get your guns NOW! Just in case the government decides to get uppity. We all know that our status of a "free state" is in jeopardy. We know that the only way to deal with a government is through more guns, regardless the cost.

Besides, you can always go shootin at people that piss you off too.

Let's see if you can name all of these individuals

Everyone knows we need more guns.

The world just isn't safe without them.

Obama... Yes We Can by Will.I.Am

"I was sitting in my recording studio watching the debates...
Torn between the candidates

I was never really big on politics...
and actually I'm still not big on politics...
but 4 years ago, me and the black eyed peas supported Kerry...
And we supported Kerry with all our might...
We performed and performed and performed for the DNC...
doing all we could do to get the youth involved...

The outcome of the last 2 elections has saddened me...
on how unfair, backwards, upside down, unbalanced, untruthful, corrupt, and just simply, how wrong the world and "politics" are...

So this year i wanted to get involved and do all i could early...

And i found myself torn...
because this time it's not that simple...
our choices aren't as clear as the last elections ...
last time it was so obvious...
Bush and war vs. no bush and no war...

But this time it's not that simple...
and there are a lot of people that are torn just like i am...
So for awhile I put it off and i was going to wait until it was decided for me...

And then came New Hampshire...And i was captivated...Inspired... "
-Will.I.Am

Ron Paul Gets Into It With A Foolish Reporter (Laura Ingram)

Yeah he's a nut, but he's right on the money with respect to the war, constitution and Twinkies!

When George Carlin rants....

Another Political Quiz to see which candidate you're more in agreement with

The GlassBooth.com take the quiz and see who is really in alignment with your beliefs. What's interesting is that people don't really vote for who has their same agenda... they vote for a candidate that has a better chance of winning.

Some do this because they don't want to back a loosing horse. They would rather forego their beliefs and vote for someone they don't agree with because it's a lot safer to be a lemming or a member of the flock of sheep brigade.

Others are a little more strategic, knowing that a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for Bush, way back when. So they intentionally forego voting for their candidate, not being sheepesk, and back a horse that has the best chance of keeping out someone they really, really, really don't like.

Take the quiz.

Mover Mike Keeps Getting It Wrong, This Time About Charlie Wilson

I was going to respond to Mover Mike's little post on Charlie Wilson's War, but gosh darnnit... I've been banned from Mover Mike's little blog, since he really can't handle any real arguments against his little rants, such as "Global Warming is a myth and you hate the troops if you don't support Bush."

1. Dr. Jack Wheeler's blog was rather interesting and provided some valuable information on the Afghan/Russian war and the movie itself. Thank you Mover Mike for bringing this tidbit of info to our attention. Too bad you didn't shut the fuck up after quoting Doc Wheeler. It would have spared me from vomiting after reading your opinion, once again.


2. After making such a stand about how flawed the movie is, Mover Mike ended by stating that "Charlie Wilson who died in 1997" when in fact... Charlie Wilson is actually still alive! Go figure Mover Mike. I just listened to Charlie speak on NPR last month, you can also read about his little biography on biography.com.


3. Mover Mike said, "he fought against the CIA elites who were wrong then as they have been, at least publicly, so many times since. It's a shame that the movie isn't deeper." This is true today as it ever was. It is unfortunate that we do not have enough movies floating around that are capable of exposing the illicit wars and lies that plague the White House while hiding behind excuses that the CIA didn't do it's job good 'nuff!
   
4. Mover Mike quoted Dr. Wheeler as saying, "Charlie Wilson's heroism should be "a deep embarrassment to the party of Pelosi Galore and Lost Harry Reid, the party who apologizes for America's existence and has neither the spine nor will to defend her." Moover Mike, and Wheeler, misconstrue the public’s (democrats) acknowledgment of our government's sins and wrong doings as an unmerited apology to the world. This is not the case. It is called accountability and responsibility. When you have a rogue government engaging in acts that further it’s own agenda at the expense of other people’s lives in other nations… then fuck yeah, that’s well worthy of an apology and maybe… just a little bit of fucking humbleness.
   
   See, that’s something neocons simply don’t have, morals and a “give-a-shit” concern for people of other nations. It’s more, “I got mine, sucks to be you” from the conservative right. Bidness as usual. Yet you touch on a truth, that the democratic party is spineless and does need to be bitch-slapped into acting more accordingly.
   
   The difference is that the real accordance is no more than bringing a real gun to a knife fight where we can finally bury the republican party and their corrupt agenda. With over 700 American bases in over 130 countries… Move Mike and Doc Wheeler see no reason to apologize to anyone, Arab or American, for our foreign policy overt (and especially covert)actions or for the reciprocal and understandable blowback that comes our way in the form of 9/11, etc.
   
   How many more Americans will die from blowback before Mover Mike's POS party decides that maybe... just maybe an apology is called for. An apology for doing the wrong thing to poor people of other nations, to darker skinned people of other nations. In Neoconville... there is no such thing. Imperial Hubris my friends. That's your motto.


5. Mover Mike ends his story by stating, "The final scene is one of Wilson seeking $1 million for schools in Afghanistan, after we spent $500 million on weapons. He was turned down because "no one gives a shit about schools" for Afghanis. That seems to be the Movie's lesson for Americans to the question, "Why do they hate us?" We didn't spend enough money building them back up so the Taliban (Hamas or Palastinians, your choice) marched in." Not only does Mover Mike equate the Taliban with Hamas and Palestinians, he might as well say "Sand Niggers, Rag Heads... take your choice" since they are all the same to neocons of Mover Mike's caliber.
   
   Let me point you to a little page from a little book written in 2000 (pre 9/11 for those who aren't paying attention) by a guy called Chalmers Johnson. The book is called Blowback. On page XIV Johnson said the following, regarding Afghanistan, the CIA and why fanatics like bin Laden BEGAN hating our foreign policy. The section I'm pointing at is highlighted at the bottom of the page.

GOD FORBID if neocons ever questioned the acts of our governments foreign policy.

Oh sure, state that our domestic policy is flawed where the best solution is to immediately initiate a call for a stronger Regressive Tax (for those of you who don't know what that means, it's basically that... the richer you get the lower your percentage of taxes you are expected to pay, i.e. Social Security Tax).

Neocons like Mover Mike have hijacked this country and patriotism to the point that any questioning of our government's actions is tantamount to treason. They hide behind parotted declarations of "Smaller Government! Smaller Government!" Yet they are the first to inflate the hell out of government in order to meet their own wants and ends (especially if you're a fag who's picking out wedding gowns or a woman in need of an abortion. March on Christian soldier Mover Mike.)

Again Mover Mike, thank you for the introduction of Dr. Jack Wheeler. Honestly, Wheeler's words were quite informative and highly enlightening. Good food for thought. But when you use the words of others who are more educated than you to launch into an opinion of your own... somehow... you don't seem quite as astute.

The Highest Rated Political Video on YouTube

You might not remember, but way back in 1994 Cheney was interviewed and opined all the reasons why it would not be a good idea to go into Iraq.

At what point does "quagmire" come up in the discussion instead of "Surge?"

Bush makes fun of himself

Ok, I can't stand the guy... but this is pretty funny.

The most discussed video on YouTube - re: Islam's lack of civilization

It is good to hear criticism of the Muslim beliefs from a Muslim.

David Lynch on iPhones & You Suck At Photoshop

Ok, even though this should be a political blog that bashes neocons... I couldn't help but add these two videos. They're pretty damn funny.

David Lynch on the Iphone


You suck at Photoshop

Abusing Children in the Name of God

God... save me from your followers. And please, please, please stay the hell away from our legislatures and politicians. Ignorance is alive and well in the United States.

Abusing Children in the Name of God
By Shawn F. Peters - Washington Post.com

A hemophilic boy in Pennsylvania bleeds to death over a period of two days from a small cut on his foot. An Indiana girl dies after a malignant tumor sprouts from her skull and grows so enormous that it’s nearly the size of her head. A boy in Massachusetts succumbs to a bowel obstruction. (His cries of pain are so loud that neighbors are forced to shut their windows to block out the sound.)

None of these children benefit from the readily-available medical treatments that might save their lives, or at least mitigate their suffering. Because the tenets of their parents’ religious faiths mandate it, their ailments are treated by prayer rather than medical science. The results are tragic.

It is difficult to determine precisely how many children in the United States lose their lives every year as the result of the phenomenon that has come to be known as religion-based medical neglect. [or how about stupid, inbred darwin candidates]

A landmark study published in the journal Pediatrics uncovered more than 150 reported fatalities over a 10-year period – a tally that one of the study’s authors later said represented only “the tip of the iceberg” of a surprisingly pervasive problem.

Assessing whether forms of religion-related child abuse pose a greater risk to children than more widely publicized threats, such as ritual satanic abuse, a wide-ranging study funded by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded that “there are more children actually being abused in the name of God than in the name of Satan.”

Since the late nineteenth century, hundreds of such instances of abuse have resulted in tangled criminal litigation. The parents charged in these cases – many of them Christian Scientists or members of small Christian churches that ground their doctrines in narrowly literal interpretations of the Bible – often have argued that the First Amendment safeguards their decision to adhere to their faiths’ religious traditions and treat their ailing children solely by spiritual means.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, have balked at the notion that constitutional protections for religious liberty provide an absolute bar to state regulation of religious conduct, particularly when that behavior puts the safety of children at risk. Their task often has been complicated, however, by murky state manslaughter and abuse statutes that appear to provide exemptions for religious healing practices.

Arguing that they were “Christians first, citizens afterward,” a prominent Christian spiritual healer once urged his followers to disregard secular laws that might compel them to forsake their religious beliefs regarding healing. Such is the dilemma that confronts parents who choose to treat their sick or injured children with prayer instead of medicine.

Not only must they safeguard the health of their sons and daughters; they also must try to reconcile their devotion to God with their duties as citizens in a society that boasts a long and sometimes checkered history of regulating uncommon religious conduct.

Defining these obligations through the enforcement of secular laws – especially ones that are constitutionally fuzzy – can be a complicated business. Moreover, there is no guarantee that it will deter devout and stubborn parents from engaging in religious practices that endanger the health of their children. But the alternative – simply ignoring the suffering of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our nation’s churches – seems unconscionable.

Shawn Francis Peters’ latest book, "When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law," was published in October by Oxford University Press. He teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

And killing your brood isn't just for stupid Christians anymore. That's right, Muslims have been able to take this to a WHOLE 'nother level. Remember that Muslim father in Mississaga who beat the hell (literally) out of her 16 year old little daughter for not wearing the traditional Hijab? Yeah... I think he's here legally.


March on Christian soldier and followers of Muhammad. How many more innocents have to die in the name of your disgusting gods?

Take The Electoral Political Compass, See Which Candidate Is In Your Corner

An awesome little test, better than the one I posted before. Take the test, answer about 35 questions about gun control, national security, Mexicans, health care and Chuck Norris.

Last time I took a similar test I was in Bill Richards camp. Looks like I'm scheduled to meet the Obama Girl some time soon!

Iowa Caucus Results - Obama and Huckabee win

You can see the graphic results here.

Obama beat Hillary and Edwards at 37.54% with Hillary and Edwards coming in at 29.43% and 29.71% respectively.

Democrats

• 
  Obama at 27.54%



• Edwards at 29.71%



• 
  Clinton 29.43%

Republicans

• Mike Huckabee 34.29%



• Mitt Romney 25.32%



• Fred Thompson 13.37%



• Chuck Norris 13.24%

Bill Richardson pulled a 2.12% while Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich both came in with 0%. Ron Paul, the YouTube sweetheart, rallied up 9.99% While Giuliani scrapped up a whopping 3.46%.

Get the full details here.

Nice to see that the United States goes for popularity over quality. Reminds me of high school all over again.

And for those of you who don't live in Iowa, who are on the West Coast, who have no friggin idea what a Caucus is or why the hell it's important or why it matters... try Wikipedia. It's rather enlightening.

"The Iowa caucus is an electoral event in which residents of the U.S. state of Iowa elect delegates to the county convention to which their precinct belongs in a caucus. There are 99 counties in Iowa and thus 99 conventions.

These county conventions then select delegates for both Iowa's Congressional District Convention and the State Convention, which eventually choose the delegates for the presidential nominating conventions (the national conventions).

The Iowa caucus is noteworthy for the amount of media attention it receives during U.S. presidential election years: Since 1972, the Iowa caucus has been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States. Although only about one percent of the nation's delegates are chosen by the Iowa state convention, the initial caucus has served as an early indication of which candidates for President might win the nomination of their political party at that party's national convention. ..

The Iowa caucus is commonly recognized as the first step in the U.S. presidential nomination process for both the Democratic and the Republican Parties. It came to national attention in 1972, with a series of articles in the New York Times on how non-primary states would choose their delegates for the national conventions. "

Problems with the Iowa Caucus
There is a debate over the effectiveness and usefulness of caucuses in Iowa.

One criticism is that the caucuses, especially the Democratic caucus, are a step backwards from the right to a secret ballot. Democratic caucus participants (though not Republicans, whose caucuses vote by secret ballot) must publicly state their opinion and vote, leading to natural problems such as peer pressure from fellow neighbors and embarrassment over who his/her real pick might be.

Another criticism involves the sheer amount of participants' time these events consume. The Iowa caucus lasts two hours, preventing people who must work, who are sick, or must take care of their children from casting their vote. What this means is that, if you don't show to scratch your name, you don't vote. Adios amigo.

Absentee voting is also barred, so soldiers who come from Iowa, but must serve in the military lose their vote.

The final criticism is the complexity of the rules in terms of how one's vote counts, as it is not a simple popular vote. Each precinct's vote may be weighed differently due to its past voting record. Ties can be solved by picking a name out of a hat or a simple coin toss, leading to anger over the true democratic nature of these caucuses. Additionally, the representation of the caucus has been questioned due to traditionally low turnout. Others question the permanent feature of having caucuses in certain states, while perpetually ignoring the rest of the country.

There you have it. One nation, under God... and a Presidential candidate via a coin toss. Thank you democracy... no wait, we're not a democracy are we, we're a republic. Damnit. I keep forgetting that.