I didn't see this one coming.

I have known three of the plaintiffs in the U.S. Airways suit for almost a decade. Soon after settling in Arizona in 1999, I became involved in the local Muslim community. Before moving to Scottsdale, I usually attended Friday congregational prayer services at the Islamic Community Center of Tempe, Arizona. Often, Ahmed Shqeirat, now the primary plaintiff, delivered sermons at the mosque where he has long been imam. I was struck by the political nature of his sermons. He repeatedly criticized both U.S. domestic and foreign policy and often exaggerated Muslim victimization. He advocated political unification of Muslims internationally and blamed the United States, Israel, and the West for perceived slights. He called for the political empowerment of Muslims in American society.

After hearing several sermons, I spoke and wrote to him to express my dismay at his emphasis of political over spiritual topics. He responded that “secularism is Godlessness” and asserted a right to “speak about political injustice.” The concept of purely spiritual Islam and creation of an intellectual environment welcoming to all Muslims regardless of political persuasion was anathema to him.

To give one example of his abuse of pulpit, during a Friday sermon in April 2004, he displayed an image, which CAIR had distributed, of an American soldier in Iraq with two young Iraqi boys. In the photo, the soldier held a sign saying, “Lcpl Boudreaux killed my dad, then he knocked up my sister.” Shqeirat neither made any attempt to verify the image’s authenticity nor to determine, if real, whether it was representative. Nor, when he was asked, could he explain how such a display related to Islamic theology or spirituality. The goal of using faith identity to divide society highlights the incompatibility of Islamism with traditions of American culture and society.

Ah, the Bourdreaux sign affair. Remember?

Fake as all get out. But it launched a wonderful series of parodies, just as obviously photoshopped as the original. Wish I could find them.

Posted by: Ace at 08:47 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

...except to say that he's "right with God."

The actor and former senator, who was baptized in the Church of Christ, said he gained his values from "sitting around the kitchen table" and said he did not plan to speak about his religious beliefs on the stump. "I know that I'm right with God and the people I love," he said, according to Bloomberg News Service. It's "just the way I am not to talk about some of these things."

...

But the candidate put such speculation to rest yesterday. And he did not seem particularly concerned that his admission would hurt him with voters. "Me getting up and talking about what a wonderful person I am and that sort of thing, I'm not comfortable with that, and I don't think it does me any good," he said. "People will make up their own mind about that, and that's the way I like it."

Well. Given Huckabee's statement yesterday that the power of Christ compels his nomination, I guess it's pretty obvious Fred has fallen in the polls because Jesus is still on the fence over him. Maybe Jesus wants to see the full details of Thompson's Social Security investment plan before He makes His decision.

Thanks to CJ.

Update: I just got an email from the Archangel Gabriel. He says Jesus is concerned Thompson "lacks fire."

Awww, come on. I expected a less obvious analysis from the Lamb of God.

And Hey... Don't get annoyed with me for treating the idea that Christ Himself is Huckabee's campaign manager irreverently. Frankly I think it's pretty irreverent -- and a bit blasphemously messianic -- to suggest such a thing in the first place.

Posted by: Ace at 08:23 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

"Feign death."

Thanks to Fred "someone" Thompson.

Posted by: Ace at 07:55 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, I know. Too much football.

Important update though, regarding Yahoo picks and Thursday night games. There is in fact one deadline. Commenter Steve L. pointed this out to me in the reminder post here. I wasn't sure, and who the hell wants to find out the hard way?

I'll tell you who. Slublog. Who just went 0-16 for the week. I noticed he forgot to make his pick for last night's game and sent him a BOOYAH email thanking him for the point I picked up, and he confirmed he is locked out on the rest of the games.

So there you have it. One deadline. One riot, one Ranger. There can be only one.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 06:49 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Charles Krauthammer gives Mike Huckabee a good thwack. Again, welcome to the race, governor.

Huckabee has been asked about this view that Mormonism is a cult. He dodges and dances. "If I'm invited to be the president of a theological school, that'll be a perfectly appropriate question," he says, "but to be the president of the United States, I don't know that that's going to be the most important issue that I'll be facing when I'm sworn in."

Hmmm. So it is an issue, Huckabee avers. But not a very important one.

And he's not going to pronounce upon it. Nice straddle, leaving the question unanswered and still open -- the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.

And by Huckabee's own logic, since he is not running for head of a theological college, what is he doing proclaiming himself a "Christian leader" in an ad promoting himself for president?

Read the whole thing. It seems this issue is starting to break Romney's way. His speech has people asking why he had to give it, and looking at the motivations of voters in Iowa and South Carolina instead of RomneyÂ’s Mormonism. This makes me wish Huckabee had taken a moment to think of the long-term repercussions of using anti-Mormon sentiment to fuel his rise. Every day he does not strongly condemn the anti-Mormon calls made in his name is another day he reinforces the worst stereotypes about evangelical voters. His weak-tea denouncements combined with the subtle (and not-so-subtle) contrasts of his faith with that of Romney's is turning this from an issues-oriented campaign into a faith-off.

Ignored are Huckabee's views on taxation, the proper role of government, illegal immigration and as we're beginning to see...his honesty about his record.

On his website, Huckabee's tagline is "Faith Family Freedom." I share Huckabee's faith, but after Romney's speech, find myself agreeing more with a Mormon about how that faith should guide, instead of direct, one's political beliefs.

Semi-Dissent [Ace]: But only semi.

If Huckabee had nothing at all to do with stoking anti-Mormon sentiment, I'd say he had absolutely no obligation at all to help Romney out by stating that one's religion shouldn't be a factor. For one thing, there is a very real feeling among many voters that Mormonism is a cult in very bad theological error; Huckabee would be hurting himself among such voters by claiming, against his own beliefs (presumably) and the beliefs of many would-be supporters, that Mormonism is not really any different from Lutheranism.

For another thing, it's just not a candidate's obligation to give up an advantage, even an arguably unfair one, over a rival.

However that all presumes Huckabee had nothing to do with the anti-Mormon push-polls and the like, which I don't presume. We know his supporters are responsible for some of them and he refuses to condemn them; when asked about the last round of anti-Mormon calls, he was the only candidate to not outright deny involvement.

So it's a bit like one's duty to aid someone hit by a car. If someone's lying in the street dying from a hit and run you had nothing to do with, legally you're allowed to drive on by without rendering aid. (Morally, of course, it's a different story.) But if you were actually the driver responsible for the hit and run, you are required to render aid, and if the victim should die due to your inaction, you could face murder charges.

My take of course doesn't matter as Huckabee is going to continue hitting the Jesus Button and pulling the Satanic Cult of Mormon lever throughout the campaign, and it's probably going to continue working for him.

Posted by: Slublog at 06:08 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

It looks like Democrats are abandoning Harry Reid's "take it or leave it" strategy with regards to war funding. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has already admitted that he expects to be voting on funding without any retreat provisions. The deal that is being worked out is a mega-sized omnibus bill to be passed before Christmas.

Hoyer acknowledged Democrats are considering a legislative two-step in which the House would initially pass the catch-all spending bill next week without Iraq funding attached. But the Senate would add the money — as the only way to avoid a GOP filibuster — and House Democrats would reluctantly accept it.

Such a solution would prevent weeks of Democrat-bashing by Bush for failing to provide additional money for U.S. troops in harm's way in Iraq.

The $500+ billion bill would let Democrats (and some fat-cat Republicans) slip through billions of dollars in excess of President Bush's budget targets in exchange for the war funding. That's the compromise. According to outgoing Senator Trent Lott, "The president isn't going to go along with an excessive spending package. He understands that some additional spending could possibly be agreed to."

Republicans remain poised to filibuster if they don't get the war funding. Meanwhile, the Marine Corp is solidifying plans for civilian furloughs in March if the funding doesn't come through. Letters will go out notifying civilian employees of the layoffs by Christmas because federal law requires 60 days notice to the employees and 90 days notice to the unions.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:16 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Right after Thanksgiving I mentioned briefly that a district court judge hearing a terrorism case ordered that the prosecution and the lead defense counsel be given security clearances so they could see secret CIA filings in the case. The judge was reacting to the news that the CIA had lied to her in the Moussaoui trial about the existence of recordings of terrorist interrogations.

Now it turns out that the CIA had tapes of the interrogations, but claimed that no such tapes existed when they were sought by Judge Brinkema and the 9/11 Commission. After that, in 2005, the CIA destroyed the tapes.

The CIA says that they had to be destroyed because (1) they posed a serious security risk to the agents who were recorded; (2) they no longer had intelligence value; and (3) they could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal liability.

The first excuse is a good one for holding the tapes close, not necessarily destroying them. If the CIA has reason to believe that secret material would be made public if it were provided in camera to Judge Brinkema then we are in deeper trouble I thought. Holding out on Congress is more reasonable, since we all expect that certain Congressfolk or their staff would have trouble keeping the video and audio to themselves. But that's still reason merely to hold the tapes close and not to destroy them.

The second excuse also isn't a good reason for destroying the recordings, especially given how much interest there was in Congress about our interrogation techniques. They may not have had any intelligence value, but they would be very valuable to Congress in setting interrogation policy. More than that, the question of treatment during interrogation has been central to a few terrorism trials; that will probably be so for several trials to come.

The third reason is the worst excuse for destroying the tapes. Destroying evidence wanted in court is what sunk Arthur Andersen after Enron. Whether it's reasonable or not to hold out on Congress, actually destroying the tapes when they're wanted for a criminal trial is obstruction of justice. The CIA doesn't get a free pass simply because it's concerned about its own liability.

More than that, this leads to more questions in the Moussaoui trial. He eventually pled guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (one juror refused to vote for death). Does he now get to claim that he was deprived of justice because the CIA lied? What other prosecutions has the CIA jeopardized now that judges have good reason to distrust submissions from intelligence agencies?

We have procedures in place for the use of secret information in trials. If the CIA has reason to believe that those procedures are not adequate to protect state secrets, it should say so. It should not start lying to courts or to Congress. I sincerely hope that the CIA gets smacked down hard for this one.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:59 PM | Comments (84)
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

Kevin Rudd, Australia's new prime minister, was quick to sign the Kyoto Protocol and give his support to the new climate talks going on in Bali. Unfortunately, now that he's responsible for delivering more than promises, he's having to adjust his rhetoric:

A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.

But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr Rudd said the Government would not support the target.

The repudiation of the delegate's position represents the first stumble by the new Government's in its approach to climate change.

Imagine that...if you keep electric companies from expanding their facilities or building new ones, the price of electricity will rise as demand does. There's a word for that. Eco-, eco-something.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:15 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

It started with this pronouncement of Hewitt's:

Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. On every level it was a masterpiece.

...which led to a day of snarking by Allah about who and who cannot be trusted as an analyst.

Hewitt seems to respond to the carping with a post essentially saying... well, I won't characterize his remarks.

As I think the main point to be made is the more insistent and strident one is about a point, the more resistant others are to agree, I'll just be silent and hope others can use that space usefully to re-evaluate precisely what they're saying and how they're saying it.

Posted by: Ace at 06:12 PM | Comments (102)
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

As much CO2 as 20,000 cars being driven for a year.

And that doesn't begin to count the carbon produced by shipping in 3,000 hookers.

Posted by: Ace at 05:46 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.