#1
Ramadan Pork Chops with Bacon and Wilted Greens
Preparation time: ~1 hour
Makes: ~Serves 4
Ingredients:
4 ½-inch-thick rib pork chops
1 Tbsp. and 1 tsp. Oregano
1 tsp. ground allspice
Salt and black pepper
3 Tbsp. olive oil
4 thick-cut bacon slices chopped
4 garlic cloves, pressed
6 cups (packed) wide strips of cooking greens (such as spinach or Swiss chard), stems discarded
12 Ounces Samuel Adams Octoberfest beer
3 Tbsp. Dijon mustard
Optional:
Extra Samuel Adams Octoberfest beer to drink while cooking, (Keeps one from heat exhaustion)
Preparation:
Pre Heat oven to 475.
Sprinkle both sides off pork with 1Tbsp. oregano, allspice and a generous amount of salt and pepper.
Heat oil in heavy, large nonstick skillet over high heat.
Add Pork; brown well, including the edges, turning with tongs, for about 7 minutes
Transfer pork to small rimmed baking sheet. Roast in oven about 9 minutes or until thermometer (inserted into the center of the chops from the side) registers 145.
Meanwhile, add bacon to oil in the skillet. Sauté over medium heat until brown, about 3 minutes.
Mix in garlic. Add greens and cook until just wilted, turning with tongs, about 3 minutes.
Season with salt and pepper
Using tongs transfer greens to colander to drain, leaving some bacon pieces in the skillet for the sauce.
Add Octoberfest and mustard and simmer until slightly thickened, about 3 or 4 minutes. Mix in remaining tsp. oregano and season with salt and pepper.
Mound greans on plates, top with pork. Spoon sauce along side and serve.
Posted by: Jack Bross ||
10/03/2006 11:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ramadan Pork Chops with Bacon and Wilted Greens
that did it, I haven't had but two cups of coffee today.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
10/03/2006 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Pork Satay Skewers Indonesian Grilled Pork
Preparation Time: 45 Minutes
Serves: 4-6 People
Ingredients:
1 Pound Boneless Pork Loin (or use fattier cuts like boneless country style pork ribs)
½ Cup Grated Onion Pulp
2 TBS Crunchy Peanut Butter (avoid brands with sugar and mono or diglycerides)
2 TBS Lemon Juice
2 TBS Soy Sauce
1-2 Cloves Crushed Garlic
1-2 TBS Dark Brown Sugar
1-2 TBS Nam Pla or Nuoc Mam Asian fish sauce
½ -1 TBS Sriracha Hot Chili Sauce
Bamboo or metal skewers for grilling
Optional:
Add extra peanut butter for a delightful nut crust
Use shallots instead of onions for a more complex flavor
Substitute malt sugar, maltose syrup or light amber molasses for the brown sugar
Add 1-2 teaspoons yellow curry powder for a spicier flavor
For a sweeter flavor, brush the grilling skewers with a light coating of coconut snow
Notes: If using D&D Gold yellow curry powder, be sure and add one or two curry leaves from the jar to the marinade. Crack the leaf in half lengthwise and submerge in the marinating liquid. D&D Gold is one of the very best prepared curries I have ever tasted.
This marinade can be made one or two days in advance.
This recipe works equally well with pork, beef or chicken
Preparation:
Blend all of the marinade ingredients well. Cut the pork into ribbons or cubes and submerge in the marinade. Allow cut meat to rest in the sauce for 2 hours or overnight. Before lighting the grill, soak the bamboo skewers in a tall tumbler full of water for about one hour. Upend them and continue soaking to finish. Thread the meat onto the skewers by piercing them in two or more places so that they do not rotate when turning the skewers.
Grill over hot coals. Serve immediately with satay dipping sauce.
[For years, political scientist Bassam Tibi has been urging Muslims to integrate into European societies and Europe to stand up to Islamists. He spoke with SPIEGEL about the weakness of Europe, the orthodoxy of Islam and what Germany needs to do to open up.]
Bassam Tibi, 62, was born in Damascus, Syria and came to Germany when he was 18 to study in Frankfurt. He has been a German citizen since 1967.
SPIEGEL: The administrator of one of Berlin's opera houses, the Deutsche Oper, has cancelled the Mozart Opera "Idomeneo" out of fear of an Islamist reaction. Is this the first sign of Germany bowing down to Islam?
Tibi: It's not the first sign, but rather a repeated one. Recently we have been seeing more and more acts of submission, the most recent case being the Pope's apology. When it comes to Islam, there is no freedom of the press nor freedom of opinion in Germany. Organized groups in Islamic communities want to decide what is said and done here. I myself have been dropped from numerous events because of threats.
One of the salutary results of the Clinton administration, I thought, was that it got liberals and Democrats in the habit of using the first person plural. U.S. military forces in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere were "our troops." NATO and Japan and Australia and all the rest were "our allies."
The second person plural used to come naturally to all Americans. G.I.s in World War II were "our boys" (the second word now politically incorrect and also inaccurate), whether you were a Republican or a Democrat, from the North or the South, black or white. But the Vietnam War got liberals out of that habit. U.S. troops were "the military." They were sent into Lebanon and Grenada not by "the president," but by "the Reagan administration." (Did anyone say that troops were ordered to Normandy or Iwo Jima by "the Roosevelt administration"?) The Gulf War in 1991 was regarded by most Democrats and liberals as "their war."
The success of the Gulf War and the election of a Democratic president the next year got Democrats back into the habit of thinking of the government and the military as "ours." They reveled, especially during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, in portraying themselves as the champions of "our troops." They howled in anger, I think justifiably, when House Minority Leader Dick Armey, looking over to the Democratic side of the aisle, referred to Bill Clinton as "your president."
Today, Democrats are pretty much back to the third person plural. Yes, they still talk of "our troops" from time to time, but usually only to call for them to be "redeployed" from a mission that has been more successful than not, but has not been completed. They seldom mention any soldier's heroism unless they can persuade him to run for office on the Democratic ticket. They talk, instead, about George Bush's war, even though most Democratic senators and nearly half of House Democrats voted to authorize it and -- remember? -- said that they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
And most Democrats are willing, even eager to take unprecedented stands that will retard the fight against terrorism. More than four-fifths of House Democrats voted against the military tribunals bill this week, though military tribunals have always been used to try unlawful combatants, and the bill gave those charged more protections than in the past.
Many have taken the astonishing position that National Security Agency surveillance of suspected terrorists abroad, undeniably legal, must cease when the subject calls someone in the United States until a court warrant can be obtained. Their proposals for immediate or rapid "redeployment" from Iraq are championed with claims that our cause is already lost or with reckless disregard as to whether it will be if their course is taken.
The likely consequences of that stand are laid out in the full National Intelligence Estimate's "Key Judgments" revealed last week -- not just the snippets leaked to The New York Times by liberals in the intelligence community.
Here's one key judgment: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." Here's another: "Perceived jihadi success there (in Iraq) would inspire more fighters to continue the fight elsewhere."
That shouldn't be surprising. If you lose, or are perceived to lose, a war you will likely have more enemies. If you win, you tend to have fewer. Democrats are arguing, based on their cherry-picked section of the NIE, that going into Iraq created more enemies. But the "redeployment" so many of them favor would likely result in our having even more.
Back in 2003 and 2004, supporters of Howard Dean's presidential campaign talked about "taking back our country." The implication was that America is not "ours" so long as George W. Bush is president. Nor is the struggle in Iraq "ours" for many Democrats. It's "their" war, the Bush administration's war. And they seek not the road to victory, but the acknowledgement of failure.
Their pit bull attacks on Bush, their constant references to the Abu Ghraib abuses as if they were typical, their opposition to letting the NSA listen to conversations from al-Qaida suspects to persons in the United States and to letting interrogators of unlawful combatants use techniques that have helped us foil those plotting violence against us -- these amount to a strategy of rule or ruin. You must let us rule this country, or we won't regard it as "our" country anymore. So much for the first person plural.
Mike, where have you been? 'Us' disappeared a long time ago. Personally, having witnessed the dems putting self interest above the good of the country for decades now, I don't want or need an 'Us' anymore. I simply regard them as another enemy.
"Your president is just not that important to us."
- Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), a member of the GOP House (then minority) leadership, from the floor of the House, 1994
Posted by: just sayin ||
10/03/2006 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
that's true, just saying. There is an extreme on both the left and the right who thinks of this as a political football game. One team wears red, one wears blue. They will cheer for "their team" like obnoxious and overbearing soccer moms. It's all about rah, rah, my team. They don't care if the umpire's call is good or bad. It's all about winning and supporting The Team(TM) and to hell with the objective of the game. But the primary difference today is that the majority of those who identify themselves as being conservative, Republican or libertarian still think of themselves as being Americans as well as Republicans or Democrats. The same can not be said for a good percentage of those who identify themselves with being liberal or in the Democratic party.
On One Cosmos Bob Godwin ably describes the bind the Left finds itself in:
They keep stridently referring to Foley as a pervert. While I certainly agree that he is a pervert, I am quite sure I dont understand why they do. Is it because he is attracted to young men? If that is the case, why is he a pervert, when all normal heterosexual men are just as attracted to young female flesh? Can I get a witness?
And then brings his professional expertise to bear.
Pedophilia specifically revolves around fantasies, urges, or sexual behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child. Therefore, we can take the charge of pedophilia right off the table. An interesting aside. A number of years ago, leftist sexual activists put pressure on the American Psychiatric Association to actually change the DSM definition of pedophilia. In the DSM III, it was simply defined as any sexual urges or fantasies toward a prepubescent child. But in the DSM IV, the criteria were changed, so that the diagnosis could only be made if the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress, or some kind of impairment in social or occupational functioning. In other words, according to DSM-IV criteria, even if the boy had been underage, so long as Foley was not distressed or conflicted about his behavior, then he is entirely normal. He gets a pass. He is no different than a heterosexual mansay, John Derek-who was attracted to 16 year-old Bo Derek. Now, in my opinion, John Derek may have been an immature man or a lucky man, but he was not a perverted man. Hiyo!
#2
Absolutely agreed. But according to dems, homosexuality is not perversion. If a man being attracted to a 16 or 17 year old girl is not perversion (I said attraction, not action), then why is it perversion when it's a boy?
#4
If you're only thinking about it, does that make you a pre-vert?
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/03/2006 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Think it may fall into the "bird's nest" test. One can hardly prevent a bird from landing on the top of one's head, but landing and building a nest is yet another story.
#6
No, that doesn't make me a "pre-vert" or you a spelling wizard. It's a question of the norms. Society punishes certain deviance from the norms. When Foley and the Left are the norms, I'm leaving.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/03/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ben falls into the trap that conservatives often do. He asks the question, "Well, what about this?", and just leaves it hanging there, as if that were enough to condemn the behavior and shame the Dems. It doesn't.
The left isn't interested in logic, or in playing fair, or in being decent, or in equal protection. They are interested in advancing cultural Marxism. It doesn't matter (and literally NEVER will) whether or not there is a discrepancy in how people are treated by the press for bad behavior. Different rules for nonleftists are OK if having them furthers the agenda, and fairness be damned. What matters is that the oppressors (anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy, in their minds) are removed by whatever means possible.
The center and the right had better get used to this. The left isn't interested in being fair or doing the right thing. They are only interested in accomplishing their agenda by any means possible, and if that means applying completely different standards to anyone not in their fold than they would to themselves, they'll do it without hesitation and without guilt or morals. Pointing out their hypocrisy isn't going to change one damn thing. Winning at the polls and gaining the ability to appointg judges to make the left ineffective is the only recourse we've got.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/03/2006 6:38 Comments ||
Top||
Patterico is hosting a 4pt series with one of the Psych specialists that worked at GITMO.
Fascinating read into the mind of the enemy.
Asked if they (the detainees) could be rehabilitated and released.
" I dont know that anyone is beyond reason, but I also dont know more than a couple who I think might be ok to release. Might being the operative word there, I wouldnt give the go-ahead on my own for any of them. There I are couple I could understand and would not go out of my way to protest their release. I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning. If I turned out to be wrong about their intent, I could live with that."
Be sure and check out his Pt 1 also. It should be linked on that page.
THE Pakistani government's summer truce with the pro-Taliban tribesman in northern Waziristan, on the Afghan border, may be good for President Pervez Musharraf's political health, but it's sure hurting Afghanistan - where the Coalition fight with the Taliban is definitely on. Since the peace pact was reached, Taliban attacks in southern Afghanistan have jumped a whopping 300 percent, reports the U.S. military.
Sheer coincidence? Not a chance. Musharraf said the deal would quiet the restive tribal areas, and even expel foreign extremists from the area, as well as stopping Taliban cross-border raids. It has surely eased his woes, but it's pure bad news on the anti-terror front.
Musharraf has been helpful in fighting al Qaeda, killing or capturing nearly 700 since 9/11 - and turning some 350 over to the United States for interrogation. But the Bush administration must still pressure him - as strongly as possible - on the Taliban problem. Yet, at least for now, America has little choice but to live with Musharraf's truce.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
10/03/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Should we not fund the democratic parties in Pakland as the Religious/ISI parties have too much power!!!!
#2
I don't think we should fund anything Pakistani, myself. Just keep them busy with our version of taqqiya until we're ready to deal with them properly. But I'm funny that way.
#3
fund nothing! Especially emergency relief. It was diverted to jihad instead of supplying food and aid to needy. F*&k the lying Paks. Sorry if I seem harsh, it's because I am harshly pissed off at the turn of events. We need to make the Paks pay for their perfidy. Hot pursuit and bombing on the Pak side (maybe an ISI camp or two?). What are they gonna do? Cooperate LESS? Limit Perv's book availability? F*&k em- they've chosen their side. AWACS, F-16's, and Patriots for India!
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/03/2006 20:18 Comments ||
Top||
Founded in 1998, Icann is a private company and the global coordinator for the system of international Internet identifiers including both domain names and addresses for Internet protocols.These are important responsibilities for the efficient and secure operation of the Internet.
Although it has federal government oversight, Icann is hardly an instrument of the federal government no doubt to the consternation of many members of Congress and the administration. For that matter, it is hardly the choice of any government or the U.N. either.The U.N. is ultimately a body whose members are governments; Icann, for much the better, has no governmental members.
Although our federal government oversees Icann, it hardly controls it. Our government has, of course, attempted to influence Icann, but it refuses to be influenced. Icann suffers not from benign neglect but from benign independence.
Icann's board consists of more than 20 directors, mostly technocrats from around the globe with relatively little representation from the United States. The individuals tend to be known among the Internet literati, but unknown among the politically or financially powerful in Washington, New York, Brussels, or Geneva. They are not the politically connected individuals who populate the directorships of most U.N. agencies.
There is much that is wrong with Icann. It is a private organization without shareholders and with a board that is ultimately responsible to no one but itself. Its board meets in secret and its procedures are unpredictable and opaque at best. Icann's budget is increasing from $25 million to $34 million next year.The total sum is still minuscule on the scale of budgets of U.N. agencies, but Icann has and could operate on much less.Part of the budget goes to finance meetings in expensive venues around the world. The London School of Economics Public Policy Group recently released a detailed critique of Icann.
Yet for all of its shortcomings, Icann is a precious treasure compared with the next most likely outcome: the emergence of a U.N. agency to govern the Internet. Curiously, the same day the memorandum of understanding was signed with the Commerce Department, Icann issued a press release emphasizing that Icann could be more independent with fewer reporting requirements to the American government. The press release appears intended not for American review but for international consumption. For years, international resentment builds as the Internet has any vestigial connection to the American government, which merely designed and developed the Internet at great expense and then magnanimously gave it to the world gratis.
The very pretext for U.N. interest in the Internet governance and its initiation of the IGF is dissatisfaction with current Internet governance, or lack thereof, under Icann. Kofi Annan has established an advisory group for the IGF and has taken a visible role in the IGF. The IGF has 12 mandates, most of which are thinly veiled foundations for a U.N.role in Internet governance. One example is: "Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries." The approximate translation of this phrasing into standard English would mean the establishment of a new international Internet governance body.
America and every country around the world have much at risk if the Internet were governed by an incompetent or a politically motivated organization. While many in America would prefer that our government had retained more control over the Internet, many more individuals around the world would prefer to sever all remnants of a relationship between the Internet and America. Icann is far from a perfect administrator of the Internet, but it is far better than the alternative being conceived at the United Nations.
A former FCC commissioner, Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is president of Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises. He can be reached at hfr@furchtgott-roth.com.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/03/2006 09:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...Well, we've got to face (or at least the US has to face, us Ranters have known this for a looooong time)the fact that the UN fears two things about the United States:
1: Our freedom of information - that is, the sharing, trading, and revelatiopn of information or data, especially that which has a tendency to influence opinion or events, and
2: The right to bear arms.
The good news on this particular subject is that if the UN ever gets its hooks into the net...there are more than a few people who will sit right down and invent a new one. Human nature will do the rest. The UN will be left with a safe, tame, controlled net that no one except some totalitarian governments uses.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/03/2006 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They don't like the people that invented the internet having control over it, they can invent their own damn system.
Fuck you, UN. You have long overstayed your welcome in the US. Go to Geneva where the Eurocrats will masterbate all over your bloted, rotten corpse and leave us the hell alone.
IT IS NO SECRET THAT the Palestinian people have always struggled with the problem of impotent, self-seeking leaderships, who have historically invested far greater time fending for their own status and position at the helm however worthless than representing the legitimate rights and aspirations of an occupied nation. Alas, the present fails to deviate from that role, although it offers an unprecedented lesson. To differ is only human, indeed. But when political and ideological differences within the Palestinian leadership milieu turn into wide chasms that split further an already weakened and oppressed society in urgent need for national cohesion amid incessant and sadly successful attempts to splinter its national identity then one must dare question the wisdom and merit of such leadership that would allow for, in fact, instigate such a travesty.
The current leadership struggle in Palestine is an illustration of the misguided priorities of Palestinian leaders, and for once, Palestinians must possess the courage to realize and confront it. It has been well established that the current Hamas-led government was a direct manifestation of the democratic choice of the Palestinian people; a choice that was fought resolutely by an alliance that encompasses the United States and other Western allies, Israel and a few Arab governments. It was not the transparency of the elections they have rejected; rather the outcome. Each party in that alliance had good reason to disallow genuine Palestinian democracy from their own self-absorbed viewpoint.
Of course, that rejection was not a mere political position, but quickly translated to the withholding of aid to the Palestinian government, needed to run the affairs of an occupied nation, robbed blind and collectively punished by Israel, a nation that lives, for obvious reasons, under utter economic dependency. With over 160,000 civil servants not receiving their pay checks, however meagre for the last seven months, the Palestinian economy has descended into chaos.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
10/03/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
We reported on September 24 that Egypt had banned three newspaper editions, the current issue of the international Guardian Weekly, the September 19 edition of Le Figaro, and one edition of the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
The reason for the banning of these newspapers was because they contained articles which were "offensive" to Islam. The articles may have offended Islam, but they were 100% true. We have already presented our translation of the article from Le Figaro by Robert Redeker, which has now led to the French philosopher being subjected to death threats.
The September 15 edition of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung contained an article by German historian Egon Flaig. Not able to translate the original German article we did not present our readers with a translation. Flaig's article is long, it is intense, but it is searingly truthful and historically accurate.
We are very proud on Western Resistance to bring you the full translation of Egon Flaig's article, "Der Islam will die Welteroberung". The translation has been made by a delightful German friend, who does not wish to be named. Let me just call her the delicious Diotima. She did the entire translation in one day, a staggering achievement.
Here is Diotima's superb translation of a stunning article.
Le texte de Robert Redeker qui lui vaut les fatwas des jihadistes, du CFCM et du Mrap-LDH, traduit en anglais. A DIFFUSER A TOUS VOS AMIS ANGLOPHONES !
In front of Islamic intimidations, what should the free world do ? By Robert Redeker
(Philosopher and teacher in St Orens de Gameville - about to publish "Breakdown and philosophy" (ed. Pleins Feux)
Published in Le Figaro, Sept 19th 2006
Translated by Claude, France-Echos.com
The reactions triggered by Benedict XVI on Islam and violence are part of the attempt made by Islam to kill the West's most precious value, which is nowhere to be found in the Muslim world : freedom of thought and speech.
Islam is trying to impose its rules on Europe : public swimming pools which are restricted to women at certain times, criticism or caricatures of Islam forbidden, strong demands for Muslim pupils to receive Halal meals in school canteens, struggle to impose the Islamic veil in schools, accusations of "Islam phobia" against free minds.
How could we explain that G-strings were banned from "Paris Plages" last summer ? (note : "Paris Plages" is a yearly event where a 2km sand beach is spread along the banks of the seine river in the heart of Paris during summer)
The argument put forward by Paris mayor was strange : "risks of disorders with public law and order". Did that mean that the groups of frustrated teenagers would become violent upon display of beauty ? or did we fear Islamists demonstrations, with "brigades of virtue" around Paris Plages ?
On the other hand, permitting the Islamic veil - which is enforcing oppression against women - in the streets, is much more of a threat to public law and order than G-string is. It doesn't seem too far-fetched to think that banning G-string is an evidence of Islamic influence over French minds and a more or less conscious submission to Islamic dictatorship ; at least that this is a result of the insidious Muslim pressure over people's minds. Even those who rebelled against the inauguration of a "Parvis Jean Paul II" in Paris don't oppose the edification of mosquees. Islam tries to force Europe to adhere to its vision of mankind.
Like before with communism, the west is under ideologic surveillance. Islam wants to be, like communism before, an alternative to the western civilization. Like communism, it tries to claim its legitimacy and conquer minds by using an emotional reaction of the caring western conscience on foreign beings : representing the voice of the poor and needy on the planet. Yesterday, this voice was supposed to come from Moscow, today it would come from Mecca ! Today again, some intellectuals impersonate this "eye of the Quran", just like they did yesterday for "the eye of Moscow". They excommunicate for Islam phobia like yesterday for anti-communism. In its care for others, typical of the west, a secularization of Christianity can be found, which can be summarized by : the "other" should always have priority over myself. The Westerner, inheriting Christian legacy, is the one who opens his soul and takes the chance of being seen as weak. Just like communism, Islam holds generosity, open-mindedness, tolerance, softness, freedom for women and for sexual behaviors, democratic values, as signs of decline. It tries to exploit these "weaknesses" using "idiots utiles" (useful fools), i,e. good consciences filled with finer feelings, in order to impose Islamic order to the west itself.
The Quran is a book of incredible violence. Maxime Rodinson enumerates, in "Encyclopedia Universalis", a bunch of truths that are just as important as kept unspoken in France because they're simply taboo.
On one hand, « Muhammad showed in Medine some unexpected talents for political leadership and warfare ( ) He made use of private warfare, which was then a common behavior in Arabia ( ) Muhammad was soon to send small groups of its followers to attack Mecca caravans, as a way to punish the ones amongst his peers that rejected his beliefs, and at the same time growing a huge personal treasure."
On the other hand, "Muhammad used this success to take out of Medine, by the means of mass murder, the last Jewish tribe that remained there, the Qurayza, under the accusation that they had a "suspect behavior"."
Finally, « after Khadija died, he married a widow and good housewife, Sawda, and also young Aisha who was barely 9. His tendencies for sex, long kept silent, led him to be married at the same time to around 10 women.
Violence-worshiper, merciless war lord, plunderer, Jews killer, and polygamous sex addict, this is Muhammad as described in the Quran.
Having said that, the Catholic Church is not without reproach itself. Its history is paved with black pages for which it already apologized. Inquisition, witch trials, execution of philosophers Bruno and Vanini (doomed epicureans), and the one, in the middle of the 18th century, of Chevalier de la Barre, accused of heresy, all of these don't plead in favor of the Church's reputation. But the difference between Christianity and Islam appears just there : even if you twist the values of the Evangelicals, the sweet nature of Jesus acts against the drifts of its church. There is no horror done by the church which can be justified by the Evangelicals, as Jesus is non-violent. Returning to the very nature of Jesus is a direct response against the excesses of the church. Returning to the very nature of Muhammad, on the other hand, leads to a reinforcement of hatred and violence. Jesus is a master of Love, Muhammad is a master of Hate.
The ritual stoning of Satan, each year in Make, is not only a superstitious phenomenon. It doesn't just show a maddened crowd flirting with barbarian times, it also has an anthropological reach. Indeed, this is a ritual - that every Muslim is supposed to accomplish - that carves violence as a sacred duty for every believer.
This stoning, which comes each year with death by stampeding of a number of believers, sometimes a few hundreds, is a ritual that contains archaic violence built in. Unlike Judaism and Christianity, which both neutralize violent tendencies of the human being (Judaism starts by rejecting the human sacrifices, that is, entering into civilization, and Christianity transforms this sacrifice into Eucharist), Islam provides a nest for violence, where it can slowly build up.
While Judaism and Christianity are religions where traditions forbid violence and deny its legitimacy, Islam is a religion whose holy book as well as common acts of faith, promote violence and hatred.
Hatred and violence fill the book with which each Muslim is educated, the Quran. Like during cold war, violence and intimidation are the weapons used by an ideology of hegemonic will, Islam, to impose its censorship over the whole planet. Benedict XIV is just painfully experiencing it now. Just like cold war times, the West should be called "the free world" against "the Muslim world" ; and just like during those times, the opponents of such "free world", numerous devoted servants of Quranic Totalitarianism, can move and speak freely within its own borders.
#2
Heh, Miles O'Brien. Now there's a TV Dr Wizard. Hey, didn't he write Like Really Hard Science for Really Dumb Dummies? Or did he just play one on TV?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By Spiegel
On One Cosmos Bob Godwin ably 
