Three Strikes, Who’s Out?

Dollar, Peso, Amero!

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox confirmed the existence of a plan conceived with President Bush to create a new regional currency in the Americas, in an interview last night on CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

It possibly was the first time a leader of Mexico, Canada or the U.S. openly confirmed a plan for a regional currency. Fox explained the current regional trade agreement that encompasses the Western Hemisphere is intended to evolve into other previously hidden aspects of integration.

US Law, UN Law!

The Bush administration is before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the death penalty, at the behest of the International Court of Justice, a division of the United Nations.

Free Speech, Zoned Speech!

A street preacher whose annual fall campaign often includes a stop in Philadelphia, the self-described “Birthplace of Liberty,” has been arrested for speaking against abortion on public property outside the building housing the Liberty Bell.

[…]

While he was speaking, National Park Service rangers ordered him and others in his group to the other side of the building, where they said they had set up a “free speech zone,” which was far away from any pedestrian traffic entering or leaving the building.

Another Sacrifice in Gaza

Mourning, condemnation follow murder of prominent Christian in Gaza

Hundreds of Muslims and Christians attended a memorial service Sunday for a prominent Palestinian Christian who was found stabbed and shot on a Gaza City street earlier that day.

At Gaza’s Greek Orthodox church, Palestinian mourners gathered around the body of Rami Khader Ayyad, the 32-year-old director of Gaza’s only Christian bookstore who hospital officials say was shot in the head and stabbed numerous times.

Ayyad’s family and neighbours said Ayyad had regularly received anonymous death threats from people angry about his missionary work and was abducted late Saturday afternoon by unknown assailants near his home.

Gateway Pundit has more here.

Giving Pieces a Chance

Over at WorldMagBlog, Lynn Vincent asks, “Would returning East Jerusalem to the Palestinians — but not the Muslim holy site, the Dome of the Rock — quell this type of violence?”

If there is an historical basis for a positive answer, I would like to know it.

Vincent asks the question because of this:

Parsing Jerusalem

A confidant of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Associated Press today that his government would support a division of Jerusalem in which key eastern neighborhoods would be turned over to the Palestinians.

This plan isn’t about giving peace a chance.

It’s about giving pieces a chance. The rationale seems to be that if we give them a piece now, maybe that’ll satisfy them. And if that piece won’t do it, we’ll give them another piece. And another piece.

How many pieces are there to give?

The hope of giving pieces a chance is based on a hope for reciprocity.

Both hopes already have a history of vanity.

Why continue to gives those hopes further chances?

By the way, the Captain observes:

The question for Israelis is whether the people across the table from them are actual partners in peace, or Yasser Arafat under another guise.

We shall see.

The President and His God

Maybe he said this because this was an Interview of the President by Al Arabiya — but I doubt it:

Well, first of all, I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That’s what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace.

If that’s what he believes, that’s what he believes.

I don’t believe the Bible teaches that all religions pray to the same God.

I really should take the time to find the verses that establish that.

Can you help me?

Bright Atheists

World MagBlog reports:

Today, some 5 million Americans claim to be atheists — and they’re coming out of the closet.

Quoting from a linked-to article:

As a result, atheists allege a whole host of slights, hostility, and civil-rights violations. And so many atheists are trying to do what homosexuals did when they pulled off one of the biggest public-relations coups in history, in part by rebranding themselves as “gay.” Atheists are calling themselves “brights.”

Brights.

Whaddayaknow.

Whatever the case, I’d rather not mock them for their efforts at rebranding.

I would rather many atheists come to BeRight in their views of God and in their relationships with God.

BeRight — another way of pronouncing bright. (I made it up all by myself.)

James Hansen on Global Temperatures

The Berean Call reports:

Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.” It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man’s use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in “the next 50 years” fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, “could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Aiding Rasool’s research, the Post reported, was a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen,” who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren’t they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?

[…]

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times’ John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory “court jesters.” We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?

People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There’s nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.

TBC ends with this footnote:

[TBC: We have been criticized for occasionally running stories addressing Global Warming. In view of the political, and more importantly, religious elements that drive this movement, this is an area needing watchfulness. Further, revelations that James Hansen received $720,000 in 2006 from leftist George Soros might be an indication that scientific consensus has a price.]

Frozen Earth: The Once and Future Story of Ice Ages         21st Century Environmental Threat: A New Ice Age? Global Warming at the Tipping Point  Climate Change Research (Two CD-ROM Set)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)         Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming

Lies Are Legal in Politics

How about that!

Sharply split Washington Supreme Court says candidates can lie about political opponents

Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a law that bars political candidates from deliberately making false statements about their opponents violates the First Amendment right of free speech.

Basically, one person decided.

Somehow, 5-4 decisions — while stronger by proportion that 3-2 decisions — seem wrong.

Maybe group rulings need a Win by Two or More threshhold, eh?

Or maybe Margin of One decisions should automatically be put to a vote by 100 bloggers. 😀

Now I may be on to something. (Or at least on something.) 😐

Above all, love God!

since November 9, 2005