One Less Thing To Worry About

Remember that 40 million dollar media campaign led by David Brock that was to be the main vehicle for independent attacks on John McCain? There were numerous reports about Progressive Media USA about a month ago, and it had some Republicans shaking in their boots.

Well, according to TPM, the group is “quietly shuttering those efforts with barely a whimper”.

Brock has quietly leaked a statement to The Washington Post saying that his group is, for all practical purposes, defunct.

“Progressive Media will not be running an independent ad campaign this year,” Brock’s statement to WaPo said, adding that “donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality.”

One interesting footnote: With the likelihood of Obama donors helping them pretty much non-existent, Brock and company reportedly realized that Clinton donors, too, would be unlikely to help fund an effort to get Obama elected.

Mark Levin asks an obvious question at The Corner:

His group was to be “independent” but now won’t be active because Obama told them to back off? Uh, how is that independent, Brock?

Nevermind that. What can we do to stop McCain’s worst enemy from derailing his campaign for POTUS?

Obama Accuses Bush Of “False Political Attack”

I don’t know what’s false about it:

In a speech to Israel’s Knesset, Bush said that “some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along … We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

And the problem is….?

Responding with a statement, the Obama campaign seized on Bush’s remarks even as it was unclear to whom Bush was referring.

(Well, actually it was pretty clear….to me anyway).

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in the statement. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

Okay, maybe Obama hasn’t gone so far as to say that he favored engagement with terrorists, (although a former campaign adviser certainly has), he has strongly advocated talks with our nations enemies without preconditions; enemies such as Raúl Castro, Chavez, Assad, and the Holocaust denier, Ahmadinejad, (who recently said that Israel is “dying” and that the celebrations are a failed attempt to prevent its “annihilation”). What do you say to such a person other than a reiteration of what Mrs. Clinton said? And do you need to travel all the way to Iran to say it?

But shame on President Bush. It appears he is in violation of rule #2 of Obama’s Rules:

…his toughness on the war on terror can’t be questioned (“attempts to play on our fears”).

More at Hot Air, and Michelle Malkin, (who thinks Obama doth protest too much).

Also see Ace of Spades HQ for awesome Slublog photoshop.


Joe Biden has decided to weigh in on this bru-ha-ha.

Via the Politico:

“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset … and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”

Yeah, hey – stay classy there, Senator.

Anyone but me notice that Democrats become outraged only when an American (in this rare case, the President) criticizes (by implication) a fellow Democrat while on foreign soil, but not when fellow Americans criticize their whole country, or the armed services while on foreign soil?


Oh good lord. Did some kind of moonbat-call go out to all the Dems. Now, here’s Hillary acting all offended:

“On the face of it and especially in light of his failures in foreign policy, this is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced,” said the New York Senator during an impromptu gaggle with reporters. “Unfortunately this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush who has refused to change course in Iraq, neglected Afghanistan and failed to provide leadership on the range of important issues that face our country and the world.”

Jeez, you’d think Bush had said something wrong. Let’s review what he said:

“some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along … We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Nope, he’s right on the mark there, (which happens rarely, these days).

I think he must have hit a nerve.


Well, here’s somebody who liked Bush’s speech:

“If only Israel’s leaders would speak as Bush did”.

Free Speech Ends In Beruit

In “post-Syrian” Lebanon, militia groups Hezbollah and Amal are taking over parts of Beruit, as the Lebanese Army stands and watches:


This week, the Lebanese government made a series of decisions deeming Hizbullah’s communications network to be both illegal and intolerable.

In response, armed forces, primarily from Amal but also from Hizbullah, took to the streets of Beirut, cutting off roads, mostly those leading to the airport; paralyzing life in the city; clashing with the army in western Beirut; besieging the homes of March 14 forces leaders; and attacking and damaging the building housing Future TV, which belongs to Sa’ad Al-Hariri, a March 14 Forces leader forcing the station to halt broadcasting.

TV footage shows that the Lebanese army did not undertake a major counter-operation against the Amal and Hizbullah militias. The militias of the Christians and Druze did not respond at all, while the militia of Sa’ad Al-Hariri, representing Sunni Muslims in Lebanon, reacted in a limited manner. These responses coincided with the unions’ declaration of a general strike, which was later cancelled.

The real objective of Hezbollah is to silence the media in Lebanon:

All over Lebanon, in Beirut, In Tripoli, in Saida, and in Bekaa, Iranian and Syrian allies are targeting the media organizations that are critical of their regimes. This is an orchestrated, pre-planned campaign that includes dismantling hardware, destroying archives and intimidating Journalists.

Watch this video of an eloquent Lebanese journalist speaking out. She starts out calmly, but becomes increasingly impassioned as she continues to describe the events taking place in her country:

From Atlas Shrugs:

Please do everything you can to spread the word and be part of this:

Bloggers and Website owners

Email with the text below to politicians, newspapers and anyone you know who might have access to international media.

Hidden under the coverage of explosions, smoke and gunmen roaming Beirut is the real story: Hezbollah and its backers in Syria and Iran can’t stand any voice that freely express a different point of view. The guns were dispatched to silence the voice. All over Lebanon, in Beirut, In Tripoli, in Saida, and in Bekaa, Iranian and Syrian allies are targeting the media organizations that are critical of their regimes. This is an orchestrated, pre-planned campaign that includes dismantling hardware, destroying archives and intimidating Journalists. We shall not accept tampering with the free exchange of ideas, the main foundation of any democracy.

Hat tips: Gateway Pundit

Flight 93 Memorial Blogburst #31

Crescent shapes with and without Islamic intent: the Obama logo example

The two most widely recognized symbols of Islam are the crescent and the sword. Kind of amusing that Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign logo can be seen to feature both a crescent and a curved Islamic scimitar:

The crescent shape in Obama’s logo has the round part on top, just like a traditional crescent shaped mihrab (the Mecca direction indicator around which every mosque is built). The animation shows the two most famous mihrabs in the world: the mihrab from the Great Mosque in Cordoba, and the Prophet’s mihrab in Medina.

The lighter vertical column in the center-bottom of the logo, presumably meant to indicate reflected light, even conveys the full vertical shape of a traditional mihrab. The scimitar in the animation is from the flag of the Bosnian regiment of the Nazi SS.

If Obama himself had come up with this crescent logo, one might suspect Islamic intent, given his Islamic heritage. But the logo was not designed by Obama. It was designed by a Chicago based branding firm named Sender, which claims credit for coming up with: “a white sunrise against a blue sky, over a landscape implied by red and white stripes.”

Obama definitely deserves to be made fun of for having a fairly obvious crescent shape in his logo, given his efforts to convince the public that he is not Muslim. This is already an uphill climb, when both his grandmother and his cousin are telling documented lies about their religion, claiming to be Christian in one venue while professing themselves Muslim in another. Lying about being Christian: it’s an Obama family tradition!

Still, there is no indication that the crescent and scimitar shapes in Obama’s logo are intended to convey any Islamic meaning. A genuine coincidence apparently. At the opposite pole is the Crescent of Embrace design for the Flight 93 memorial:

Contrast 1: Architect Paul Murdoch CALLS his crescent shaped memorial a crescent

The Crescent of Embrace name proves that the Flight 93 crescent was and is intended to be seen as a crescent. Only very reluctantly did the Memorial Project change the name, and the changes they made to the design are purely cosmetic. Every particle of the original Crescent of Embrace design remains completely intact in the Bowl of Embrace redesign.

Contrast 2: The Islamic symbolism is overt

It is not plausible that an architect, designing a memorial to people murdered by Islamic terrorists, could be oblivious to the fact that his memorial design is laid out in the shape of a bare naked Islamic crescent and star flag, readily identifiable as a crescent and star flag to airliners like Flight 93 passing overhead.

The Memorial Project simply assumes that the Islamic symbol shapes CAN’T be intentional, which is about like seeing an airliner fly into the World Trade Center and assuming it CAN’T be intentional. Do these people even remember the day they are supposed to be memorializing?

Contrast 3: The Flight 93 crescent contains still further Islamic symbolism

It turns out that the giant crescent points to Mecca. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is a well known structure in the Islamic world. It is a mihrab (as seen in the above animation), which gives the direction that Muslims are to face for prayer.

Everyone at the Memorial Project is fully aware that a person facing into the giant crescent will be facing almost exactly at Mecca. This according to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird. Again, they all just assume that this MUST be an innocent mistake (the equivalent of seeing as SECOND airliner fly into the Trade Center, and STILL assuming it can’t POSSIBLY be intentional).

Contrast 4: Proof of intent

Paul Murdoch PROVES that the Mecca orientation is intentional by repeating it in the crescents of trees that surround the minaret like Tower of Voices. Below is an animated run-through of the repeated Mecca-orientations (2 minutes).

You can restart the animation by refreshing the page:

Animated GIF: copy and paste. You can email it! (Animation restarts each time email is opened.) Click image for larger animation, if your connection is fast enough (1MB).

Crescent of Embrace site-plan, showing both the central crescent and the Tower of Voices, here.

Contrast 5: the designer’s own thematic description is clearly terrorist memorializing

The designers of Obama’s logo offer a clearly innocent thematic description of their creation. You can tell just by looking at it what it is MEANT to signify: a white sun coming up into a blue sky over red and white rows of fruited plain. Even the uncanny intimation of the vertical sides of a traditional mihrab are fully explained by the “sun” reflecting off the red and white “landscape.”

In contrast, Paul Murdoch’s thematic account of his design is as nakedly pro-terrorist as his crescent and star layout. Murdoch says that the crescent comes from the terrorists breaking the circle. That is, they broke our liberty-loving circle, and turn it into a giant Islamic-shaped Mecca-oriented crescent.

As Tom Burnett Sr. put it in his letter to American people, asking for help with our petition to keep the crescent design off of his murdered son’s gravesite:

I don’t want to celebrate the terrorist’s circle-breaking crescent-creating feat.

And lest anyone thinks that the giant crescent is no longer present, the Park Service website makes clear that, while the redesign looks more like a circle, the circle is still broken:

The circle is broken in two places that mark the southeastern path of the plane to the crash site. The circle is broken at the entry to the memorial and at the crash site.

The breaks are in the exact same places as before and the unbroken part of the circle (the crescent) remains completely unchanged. It it still points to Mecca. It is still the world’s largest mihrab by a factor of a hundred. The only difference is that now a chunk of the broken off part of the circle is included in the design, which is perfectly consistent with its original terrorist memorializing theme. The terrorists still break our liberty-loving circle and still turn it into a giant Mecca-oriented crescent.

So there you have it. Dueling crescents! Obama’s crescent logo exemplifies innocent coincidence (however guilty Obama may be of lying about his religion). In contrast, the Flight 93 crescent exemplifies proven intent. (More of architect Paul Murdoch’s endless proofs of intent here and here.)

Written by: Alec Rawls, Error Theory

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

Stop the Memorial Blogburst

1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech
A Defending Crusader
A Fine Line Between Stupid and Clever
Al Salibiyyah
And Rightly So
Anne Arundel Maryland Politics
Big Dog’s Weblog
Big Sibling
Cao2’s Weblog
Cao’s Blog
Chaotic Synaptic Activity
Dr. Bulldog and Ronin
Error Theory
Faultline USA
Flanders Fields
Flopping Aces
Four Pointer
Freedom’s Enemies
Ft. Hard Knox
GM’s Corner
Hoosier Army Mom
Ironic Surrealism II
Jack Lewis
Jihad Press
Kender’s Musings
My Own Thoughts
Nice Deb
No Compromises When It Comes To Being Right!
Ogre’s Politics and Views
Papa Mike’s Blog
Part-Time Pundit
Publius’ Forum
Right on the Right
Right Truth
Ron’s Musings
Rosemary’s Thoughts
Smooth Stone
Stix Blog
Stop the ACLU
the Avid Editor
The Renaissance Biologist
The View From the Turret
The Wide Awakes
Thunder Run
Tizona’s Weblog
We Have Some Planes

I would Have Made The Same Mistake.

And mistakes like this one can be expensive:

A popular restaurant has agreed to pay $35,000 to settle a lawsuit with a lesbian who said a bouncer chased her out of the women’s bathroom and forced her to leave because she looked masculine.

The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund announced the settlement Tuesday on behalf of Khadijah Farmer.

The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund ….Gad.

The Caliente Cab Company, while denying the allegations, also agreed to add gender identity to its nondiscrimination policy, amend its employee handbook with a section on customer restroom use and adopt a gender-neutral employee dress code.

The old “sensitivity training” rigamorale.

Farmer said the confrontation at the Greenwich Village eatery occurred June 24 after she attended New York City’s annual Gay Pride march.

According to a story from last year, the bouncer accosted her in the bathroom after a woman who saw her going in complained. She tried to show the bouncer her ID:

The bouncer refused to believe that Farmer was a woman even after she emerged from the stall and attempted to show him her driver’s license, she said.

“He totally dismissed that,” she said, adding that the bouncer told her “he wanted me out of his bathroom and restaurant.”

Farmer was then led out of the restaurant – and her friends were made to pay the bill for their abbreviated meal, she said.

It sounds like the bouncer thought he had a pervert on his hands, and just wanted him out.

Look. It’s really simple. If you’re a chick…dress like one if you want to be able to use public restrooms. If you look like a dude when you enter a women’s restroom you are going to alarm people. That is not their fault. That is your fault. Same thing applies with cross dressing guys. I’m surprised we haven’t seen more cases like these.

Am I the only one who is getting sick of people behaving inappropriately in public, and expecting everyone to just suck it up, or else?

Hat tip: Crime Scene KC