Friday, June 30, 2006


One of the advantages of being small, is the Roscoe flies below Blogger's PC radar. Still and all, we probably can't do this awfully often. But this is without doubt the greatest, most imminent evil we face:

Hamas: We will use Jewish skulls to build a bridge to Heaven (16.12.02)

The Hamas website ( published a banner Dec. 16, 2002, encouraging the murder of Jews as part of Jihad (Holy War). The banner depicts an eagle pecking at Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's severed head with the slogan: "We will use the skulls of Zion's sons (Jews) to build a bridge to Heaven."

The banner was signed in the name of the Iz A Din Al Kassam Brigades, which is the military wing of the Hamas terrorist organization.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

From our mailbag

Hey, Roscoe:

What the heck? Wasn’t that al-Chemerinsky that I heard again last night on Hugh Hewitt?

He was saying something about these national security leaks being published by The New Yorkjazeera Times as the “press’s finest hour”—or some such unbelievable treasonous crap.

What’s up with that? I thought you’d taken care of that problem.

S. Connery

Dear S:

Yes, that would be accurate. It was indeed Erwin al-Chemerinsky whom you heard, and that was pretty much what he said. Inexplicably, Hugh apparently believes al-Chemrinsky, a.k.a. American al-Qaeda Consigliere, is a legitimate Leftie to put up against PowerLine’s John Eastman, a la Crossfire.

But, as we’ve demonstrated here on prior occasions, al-Chemerinsky is a radioactive, anti-American, card-carrying board member of the anti-Christian smear artists known as DefCon. (See last week’s posts.) As for why the normally rational Hugh Hewitt would do something like that, despite being duly informed of the problem, God only knows.

It is totally outrageous, but we’re not buying into any personal culpability here. Have you taken this up with Hugh? We thought not. Talk to us after you’ve done so. Consider it your civic duty. That e-mail address would be


Hey, Dude:

You rock! Your suggestions yesterday [STICK A FORK IN THEM] for dealing with The New York Times were inspired. For my part, I’m working on the electromagnetic pulse thing.

But as a lawyer, I have to wonder: Don’t you think the NYT ought to have a concern about potential legal liability in this whole thing?

A. Derschowitz

Dear A:

Great point, Al. In fact, I was thinking of posting another bullet suggesting a class action suit or something. If there’s some way of quantifying the damage done to U.S. interests, perhaps the government could send The New York Times an invoice or attach their taxes or place a lien against their property or something for, like, $15 billion. That ought to get their attention.

At the very least, Department of Justice lawyers could initiate discussions with NYT lawyers about their potential legal liability. Heck, when we can’t have diving boards in municipal swimming pools anymore, you’d think somebody over there might start worrying about potential exposure. We’ve got about 130,000 folks in uniform in Iraq whose lives depend to some extent on our ability to keep military secrets—not to mention some 300 million here at home who are reliant on national security interests.

Right now, if I were a lawyer for The New York Times, I’d be as nervous as the new guy replacing al-Zarqawi.



I want to boycott the major advertisers in The New York Times. Have you got that list yet?

D. Trump

Dear D:

Glad you brought that up. Actually, one of the smaller blogs (somebody named Michelle Malkin) beat us to it. Here it is:

Corporate Headquarters
Rob Henrickson, CEO
MetLife, Inc.
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166

Margaret M. Foran, Senior Vice President,
235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017.

Corporate Headquarters 2001 Edmund Halley Drive
Reston, VA 20191

Dong-Jin Oh President & CEO
Consumer Electronics
105 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Tel: 1800-SAMSUNG
Fax: 973-601-6001


AMD (American Micro Devices)

Happy (not) shopping,

Tuesday, June 27, 2006


So, it’s come to this: It’s either the United States or The New York Times. We can’t have both, apparently.

Us or them. And for the record, we choose the United States.

Not that The Los Angeles Times and others don’t share culpability in these traitorous, treacherous and accelerating exposures of national security secrets in a time of war. But, as New York Congressman Peter King has famously stated, the NYT is a “recidivist, serial offender.” And they’re the leader of the elite, anti-war mainstream mediocracy pack. Take care of them, and you probably take care of them all.

It’s really not that hard. The fish wrappers in most American cities are already on the ropes with declining circulation, advertising and total readership. Even the NYT is barely treading water. They are not exactly dealing from a position of strength, and there are any number of good strategies that could—and should—be applied to the egg-sucking, anti-American miscreants. Such as:

o Our favorite: Call Congressional hearings now. Rep. King’s Homeland Security Committee, among others, could do it. Just the prospect of Bill Keller in the dock, having to explain why what his paper is doing is not treason, would no doubt be remarkably perspective-restoring for all. Advantage: It keeps the executive branch out of the First Amendment fray.

o Revoke their Library of Congress card. Their books are probably all overdue, anyway.

o Revoke their White House press credentials. That’s a no-brainer. Those things are only for legitimate news organizations and Helen Thomas. Come to think of it, revoke hers, too. Why allow nut cases into the White House?

o Indict Bill Keller. Disadvantage: You make a hero out of him, among some. Others, trying to establish their journalistic cojones, may try to emulate Keller’s treachery in solidarity. Indict them, too. Advantage: A judicial strategy that, again, keeps the executive branch out of it.

o Investigate the heck out of suspected government leaksters and bring them up on charges. It worked with former CIA administrator Mary McCarthy, who’s lucky to be a frequent flyer now on She could be behind bars. Laws are being broken, for crying out loud, by our very government servants who are sworn to uphold them.

o Our next favorite: Boycott the NYT’s major advertisers. We haven’t done our homework on this yet, but we will. This would have to be organized and very public for it to work—but, boy, does it work. Especially in today’s newspaper economy, this could have ’em crying “uncle/aunt” in no time. We’ll let you know what we find out.

o Third favorite: A subscription boycott. Disadvantage: Much harder, as most of their subscribers are unregenerate libs. But not all--and people canceling their subscriptions would be very powerful. And it would be a civic blessing. The NYT is a dinosaur, and it should go the way of the dinosaurs. (Uh, just where did they go, anyway?) It’s not like Gotham would be bereft of fish wrappings. There’s the Post and the Daily News and the relatively new—and conservative—Sun. We’re sure they’d welcome NYT subscribers with open arms. And certainly the community would be the better for it.

o Diciest: The NYT could experience an, uh, accident. (Pay attention now, you Delta Force guys.) Like rolling brownouts that only affect Times Square. Like labor difficulties on the delivery docks. Like a mysterious electromagnetic pulse that takes out every electronic device on premises—every 2.5 hours. Like kiddie porn found on Bill Keller’s computer. Like their phone lines jammed with thousands of outside calls for three or four weeks. Let your imagination go wild.

Well, that’s it for starters. Other ideas? Send ’em along. We’ll post ’em. (And, friends of Roscoe: Give us some exposure on this, will you? Our numbers still suck.)

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Congressional hearings, now

In another place, another time, they would have been shot at dawn, hanged until dead or danced with Mr. Sparky. Now in the U.S.A., they get Pulitzer prizes.

Well, we’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: A people who cannot bring themselves to protect their own national security might be many things—an association, a special interest group, a gang. One thing they’re not is a country.

No, we’re not advocating capital punishment or even criminal charges, yet. But do we want to see how far this exposing of national security secrets might go? Do you think there’s anything The New York Times or Los Angeles Times at this point would withhold from publication anymore on the basis of national security concerns?

We don’t think so. It’s like the kid, finding out he’s able to snag one cookie, who goes on to empty the jar. Or the pornographer Rob Black of Extreme Associates, producers of unspeakably vile and degrading “adult” videos, who, in the face of years of government inaction, essentially dared prosecutors on national network television (60 Minutes, November 2003) to try to stop him. The sleaze merchants, of course, were trying to find out if there was a line too far to cross.

It’s time, we submit, to draw that line now for the sleaze merchants in the mainstream mediocracy who seem to be in a headlong race to sabotage their own country in wartime. Let’s show them this is a line too far to cross. And quickly. Immeasurable damage already has been done.

Congress needs to empanel hearings and investigate this shameful situation. The hate-Bush crowd in the enemedia are intoxicated by the knowledge that this White House can ill afford the PR cost of going after journalistas—which would then seem to confirm the canard that Bush, Cheney and the Patriot Act, etc., are anti-American. The legislative branch is going to have to carry the ball on this one.

God help us.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Rhymes with . . .

The first rule of editorial cartooning is that the successful caricature exaggerates some existing characteristic of the victim ... er ... subject. Like Reagan's pompidour or Bob Hope's nose or Bush's . . . ears? Well, the Atlanta Journal Constitution's Mike Luckovich never was one to play by the rules. Luckovich--which rhymes with a good caricature for him--routinely portrays George Bush as a retarded midget with Dumbo ears.

OK. Some people just have a reality all of their own. But now, the talking heads are saying, he's really crossed the line. Where have they been? Luckovich has lived there for years.

The left-wing mediocracy is so eye-watering tiresome, how about a little relief? How about, for example, this?

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Al-Qaeda's American consigliere

So, Sen. Rick Santorum, et al., get the goods on WMD in Iraq, and what's the mainstream mediocracy spotlighting? More wrongdoing by the troops.

Memo to mainstream mediocracy: When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging!

But back to our topic of the week--far-left lawyer and Hugh Hewitt crony Erwin al-Chemerinsky, al-Qaeda's American consigliere. Perhaps you've heard of one of his clients, enemy combatant and Guantanamo detainee Salim Gherebi. Al-Chemerinsky and several other Kunstlerista attorneys, you might recall, sued George Bush for $1 billion. If you don't, here's what Robert Novak reported last November:

WASHINGTON -- The troubled Bush administration won a rare victory this week. The Senate voted to close federal courts to Salim Gherebi, an enemy combatant imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. He is suing the president and the secretary of defense for $100 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages for violation of his rights under the U.S. Constitution. His is one of 174 suits filed on behalf of terrorist detainees, none of them U.S. citizens, that have undermined the war against terrorism.

That outcome is indeed the purpose of suits instigated by left-wing American lawyers. Court filings demanding high-speed Internet service, claiming medical malpractice and seeking DVDs fail to release many prisoners, but they do hamstring U.S. intelligence. The Senate's action this week keeps non-citizen aliens from using habeas corpus, invoked throughout the country's history to protect citizens from illegal imprisonment.

Read the rest here.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

ASK ROSCOE: Who's al-Chemerinsky?

Dear Roscoe:

Is there really a heavily financed organization in America whose avowed purpose is to take down the “religious right”? Or is that just a paranoid fear on the part of conservatives?

Snow White

Dear Ms. White:

Yes, indeed. It’s called DefCon--backed by tens of millions of dollars from liberal sources, including the Tides Foundation. In coming days, we’ll look at some of the specifics of their agenda. Meanwhile, here’s a nifty list of their board of advisors:

Matt Foreman Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Contact: (646) 358-1460;

Ira Glasser former Executive Director of the ACLU from 1978 to 2001. No available contact information.

Kate Michelman former President of the radical abortion group, NARAL. No available contact information.

Bruce Alberts Alberts was president of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. from 1993 to 2005. Contact: (415) 476-0806;

Francisco J. Ayala Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of California, Irvine. Contact: (949) 824-8293;

Chip Berlet Senior analyst at Political Research Associates. Berlet is co–author, with Matthew N. Lyons, of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Contact: (617) 666-5300,

Erwin Chemerinsky Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke University. Contact: (919) 613-7173;

Steven G. Gey Professor of Law, Florida State University. Contact: (850) 644-5467;

Michelle Goldberg Senior writer for Contact: (212) 905-6138;

Steven K. Green Professor of Constitutional Law and History at Willamette University in Salem, Ore. Contact: (503) 370-6732;

The Rev. Fletcher Harper Executive Director of GreenFaith, an interfaith environmental coalition based in New Jersey. Contact:

Esther Kaplan radio and print journalist and the author of With God on Their Side (New Press, 2005), which documents the relationship between George W. Bush and the "Christian right." Contact: The Nation; (212) 209-5400.

Isaac Kramnick Professor of Government at Cornell University. Contact: (607) 255-9175;

Lawrence M. Krauss Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy at Case Western Reserve University. Contact: (216) 368-4070;

Rev. James M. Lawson Jr. President of the Southern Christian Leadership Project. No available contact information.

Patrick Mrotek founder of the Christian Alliance for Progress, a grassroots movement that seeks to reclaim the vocabulary of Christianity from "extremists." Contact: (888) 381-0108.

Harold Varmus President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and member of the Cancer Biology Research Program at Sloan Kettering Institute. Contact: (212) 639-7317;

And, oh yes, Erwin Chemerinsky is a regular guest on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. You might want to e-mail Hugh at and ask him why that is—even after he’s been apprised of the gory details. He needs to come clean--or stop it.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Al-Chemerinsky: Bush, traditional marriage ‘un-American’

Sometimes the best testimony against a person or organization is his own words. In the case of Hugh Hewitt crony, left-wing law professor Erwin Al-Chemerinsky and his smear outfit DefCon, there’s plenty to choose from. Al-Chemerinsky, for example, has been doing al Qaeda’s legal work in fighting the housing of terrorist detainees at Gitmo. More about that later.

For now, consider al-Chemerinsky’s position on traditional marriage—which some in his camp consider the very essence of homophobia. Here’s a statement, in their own words, from DefCon’s Web site:

Religious Right Driving Force Behind Bigoted Amendment

The Campaign to Defend the Constitution (DefCon) today condemned President Bush's call for the passage of a discriminatory constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a clear ploy to pander to the religious right.

"Instead of encouraging debate on real issues, like the promising field of stem cell research, the President has once again caved to this extreme minority, hoping to rally support for a White House plagued by ever dropping approval ratings," said Jessica Smith, Director of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution.

"Our Constitution was designed to defend freedom not destroy it," said Duke University Law Professor and DefCon advisory board member Erwin Chemerinsky. "In 219 years the Constitution has been amended a mere 27 times and only once as the result of a social attitude – prohibition – which was later regarded as a huge mistake. In the case of limiting the freedom of gay and lesbian Americans, an amendment would not only be a huge mistake, it would be un-American."

To read more, smear Vick’s Vapo-Rub under your nostrils and go here.

Then send an e-mail to Hugh Hewitt at and ask him why in the world he’s supporting this insanity.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Hugh Hewitt’s dirty little leftist

No, our mystery man is not Stephen Hawking or Joseph Fahbeetz. For one thing, those are astrophysicists, not lawyers. (Pay attention, please.) For another, Steve and Joe are much better looking.

Our mystery man is—insert drum roll sound file—Erwin Chemerinsky, law professor and author of A Long History of Briefs. That’s another difference from Hawking, who wrote A Brief History of Time. Chemerinsky is also a leftwing moonbat extraordinaire and a card-carrying board member of the smear-artist outfit, DefCon.

As you might recall, DefCon is the group dedicated to “fighting the religious right” that recently placed full-page defamatory ads in The New York Times falsely accusing James Dobson and other prominent evangelicals of receiving payoffs from Jack Abramoff. Only when confronted with the prospect of a major libel case did DefCon back off of its claims. IMHO, the parties should have sued, anyway, to put a stop to this kind of wrongdoing.

Chemerinsky is not a bit player in DefCon. He’s a principal. We have attempted to apprise Hugh Hewitt of this problem more than once, to no avail. (Hugh has responded to us on other occasions, when it suits his purposes.) That’s the only reason we’re going public.

Here’s just the latest communiqué:

From: Daley, Roscoe
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:50 AM
To: 'Hugh Hewitt'
Subject: Disappointed

Knowing what you know about Erwin Chemerinsky, having him continue on your show as a credible legal expert is not conscionable. He is a slanderer and a libeler--a card-carrying board member of that radioactive smear outfit DefCon. In case you've forgotten, here's part of that story:

Check it out. In fact, one of the reasons we’re presenting this information is in the hope that some of our dear readers might feel similarly inclined to drop Hugh a line asking him why he caters to this dangerous kook. Does Chemerinsky have some incriminating photos?

Would you consider doing that? That e-mail address would be

We’ll be presenting more about this wonderful DefCon organization in coming days. It should raise an eyebrow or two.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006


Who is this man?
And why is he regularly on the Hugh Hewitt radio show?

We know the answer to the first question, but the second is a total mystery. Perhaps you can help.

Some clues: Our mystery man is a lawyer—in fact, a law professor. His politics are somewhere to the left of Ward Churchill and Michael Moore. He regularly does a Crossfire sort of commentary opposite PowerLine’s John Eastman. And his most remarkable feature is that he’s an intimate part of a rogue left-wing organization that specializes in smear tactics against Christians and conservatives.

Tomorrow we’ll identify our mystery man and his nefarious activities—and tell how you can help counter his outfit’s vicious lies.

Sunday, June 11, 2006

Travelin' man

The Roscoe is going to be out the first part of the week, with probably little if any opportunity to post anything here. We'll be back in business, though, mid-week, Lord willing.

Meanwhile, be sure to send along those items for Ask Roscoe. Any subject, whatsoever. Even if the question happens to involve something really, really tough--like quantum physics or understanding women--we'll give it our best shot.

And here's a little something to tide y'all over for a day or two:

GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder

The nation just witnessed the dreary spectacle of the most powerful deliberative body in the world weighing the most important social issue of our time – an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defending traditional marriage –in a debate dominated by hypocrisy, cynicism and a concerted effort at reality-avoidance.

Democrats – and half a dozen Republicans – wouldn’t even allow the amendment to come up for a vote. A move to cut off a filibuster (60 votes needed) failed 49 to 48.

“A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry,” slurred the senior Senator from Massachusetts. In so saying, Edward Kennedy labeled all 8 U.S. Catholic cardinals – leaders of his Church – bigots, not to mention that notorious hatemonger, Benedict XVI (who also opposes Brokeback Mountain marriages).

The party of perversion was in rare form. I mean perversion of the truth, not the other kind of perversion – which they also favor.

Howard Dean had a new scream: “Democrats are committed to fighting this hateful, divisive amendment.”

What about not allowing a brother and sister to marry, or a man to marry four women, or a teacher to marry her 13-year-old student, or a man to marry a horse – is that hateful and divisive too, Governor?

The party whose last president didn’t know what the meaning of “is” is, -- the party that condoned Clinton’s perjury -- mobilized its full armada of deceit, deception and slander to misrepresent an amendment which is the essence of simplicity.

In pushing the amendment, the president and Republican congressmen were “playing politics” (i.e., using an issue for political advantage) they whined, something Democrats would never dream of doing – except with Social Security, gun control, abortion, hate-crimes legislation and any other issue on which they decide to pander to part of their constituency.

For Republicans, preserving marriage does make political sense. If not for the presence of marriage amendments on 11 state ballots in 2004 – especially in Ohio – Bush would now be planning his presidential library.

But it also happens to be something a majority of Republican congressmen believe in – and for good reason.

An extension of the it’s-just-politics argument was: “Why are you wasting our time with this, when there’s a war raging in Iraq, gas is over $3.00 a gallon and there’s still no cure for the heartbreak of psoriasis.” For Senate liberals, preserving traditional marriage ranks right up there with organ-transplants for pets as a non-issue.

The Marriage Protection Amendment reads: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

Who would be doing the construing?

The amendment is designed to restrain state and federal judges from staging a coup d’etat from the bench – sweeping aside popular sovereignty and perverting the Constitution, to radically remake the institution that forms the bedrock of civilization, to advance an ideological agenda.

To understand why this is absolutely essential, here are a few statistics to bear in mind:

· 45 – The number of states that have now defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, either by amendment or statute.

· 19 – The number of states in which voters have passed constitutional amendments so defining marriage, most by margins of over 70% (going as high as 86%) – including blue states like Ohio, Michigan, Oregon and Hawaii. Californians passed a marriage statute in 2000.

· 7 – The number of additional states likely to have marriage- affirmation amendments on the ballot this fall – with 8 more poised to enact similar measures by 2008.

· 58% -- The percentage of voters opposed to same-sex marriage in the latest opinion poll.

· 38 – The number of states required to ratify a proposed amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution.

· More than 100,000 – The number of Nebraska voters who signed a petition to put a marriage amendment on their state ballot in 2000.

· 70% -- the vote by which the Nebraska amendment passed.

Again, the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment is about constraining one group, and one group alone -- judges who care nothing about 5,000 years of tradition, biology, the religious values on which our nation was founded, public opinion, the outcome of elections or actions by the duly elected representatives of the people.

Now, a few key dates to note:

· May 17, 2004 – Massachusetts is forced to begin issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples, based on a decision of the state’s highest court which deliberately misread an 18th century document, drafted by John Adams, to require same.

· May 21, 2005 – U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon became the first federal judge to strike down a state marriage protection amendment.

· May 16, 2006 -- Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell overturned Georgia’s marriage amendment, enacted by a vote of 76% in one of the largest turnouts in the state’s history. Currently, there are serious challenges to state marriage laws (efforts to legislate gay marriage from the bench) pending before the state supreme courts in New Jersey and Washington state. Both tribunals are dominated by judicial activists.

Liberal judges will grasp at any straw to throw out a state marriage amendment. Consider the exquisitely crafted decision of Judge Bataillon, surely one of the great legal minds of our age (appointed by Bill Clinton, one of the great political minds of our age).

Bataillon fantasized that by barring homosexual marriage, the state amendment violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right to petition government.

In other words, with the amendment in place, activists can’t lobby the state legislature to enact gay marriage – something no legislature has ever done or could conceivably do, fearing voters’ wrath. Moreover, 70% of Nebraska voters just expressed their firm conviction on this subject – in an election where same-sex marriage proponents had ample opportunity to make their case.

If he was honest, Bataillon would have said that the amendment limits the ability of radicals to persuade a judge to force homosexual marriage on a state.

I just can't wait for the day when a judge declares that not allowing homosexual marriage violates the Magna Carta, the Code of Hammurabi or Roberts Rules of Order.

When not attacking the amendment as hateful, divisive, bigoted and exploitative, opponents (like Shifty John McCain) fell back on that old reliable – federalism. We can’t pass the Marriage Protection Amendment, they pleaded. Everyone knows marriage is a state matter.

But the states have spoken – at ear-shattering decibels. An overwhelming majority define marriage in the only way that makes sense. In almost half of the states, voters have passed marriage amendments to their constitutions by landslide majorities.

The federal Marriage Protection Amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution – which will give their legislatures yet another opportunity to deliberate.

“Leave it to the states” is a euphemism for “leave it to the courts.” The left has always relied on its judicial minions to effect the radical social change (abortion on demand, outlawing public expressions of faith, advancing cohabitation) it could never secure through the democratic process.

By the way, isn’t it nice that after deriding the concept for a half-century and more, the left has suddenly, albeit selectively, embraced states’ rights.

How about leaving gun laws to the states – or environmental protection, or civil rights or the regulation of campaign finance?

For liberals, anything and everything is a proper subject for national regulation – except marriage. States (which liberals view as annoying anachronisms) become sovereign and sacrosanct, only when it comes to amending the Constitution to protect marriage.

On Wednesday, the marriage amendment fell far short of the two-thirds vote needed for passage in the Senate. Along with their Republicans stooges (who suffer from the political equivalent of gender-identity disorder), Senate Democrats voted against Genesis, against human nature and against democracy.

Bigotry and hate were firmly defeated – the bigotry that favors the only unions capable of producing children and the hatred that protects the only institution able to properly nurture them.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Al-Zarqawi and his 70' raisins'

Not that anyone even close to being in his right mind would think for a moment that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, aka The Maggot, could be anywhere but the place where the fire is never quenched and the worm never dies. But just for the sake of argument, what if he were to show up in Paradise? Our friend Yaakov raises an issue most of us have probably never heard about:

Thanks to Yaakov at the Dry Bones Blog.

My, my. Turns out that there's a serious issue here: That business with the 70 virgins may indeed more properly be understood as 70 grapes or raisins. Gosh, imagine al' Maggot's disappointment. Only thing we have to say is "couldn't happen to a nicer guy."

Here's the lowdown on the raisins. It's from The New York Times, so take it with a grain of NaCl.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Works for me

Eat your heart out, mainstream mediocracy! It was a red-letter day for freedom over terror--for good over evil--in Iraq.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, aka the Maggot, is room temperature. And where he's gone, he won't be sawing off people's heads anymore. Praise God.

Unfortunately, our enemedia and many of our politicians no longer can distinguish between good and evil. That was pretty clear listening to their grudging damnations by faint praises. Or, in the case of the Michael Medved show, hearing the part of America that has almost totally lost its mind--those on the Left who believe that 9/11 was a government hoax in order to go to war for the opportunity to kill innocent women and children, etc. Michael is a master at handling these folks, and he provides a tremendous service exposing this problem in America.

For the rest of us, let's just enjoy the moment in the knowledge that the cause is more than just. It's no less than the triumph of good over evil.

If you think that's hyperbole, consider this from Richard Miniter from Human Events Online:

If you are looking for the legacy of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, do not look in the concrete rubble of so-called safe house in Baqubah that became his final resting place. Instead, look less than 10 miles to the west, on the side of the road in the desert town of Hadid, for a pile of cardboard banana boxes.

Inside those boxes were nine human heads.

Some of the heads still had their blindfolds on. Iraqi police are still attempting to identify the murdered men.

Days earlier, in Baquba, Iraqi police found another eight severed heads. One of those heads belonged to a prominent Sunni Muslim imam, who preached peace and tolerance.

Read the rest here.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Marriage amendment tragedy

This is what America smells like when it goes bad. . .

o Men "marrying" men. Women "marrying" women.

o Senators and congressmen without the principles or courage to stand up for the institution of marriage--as evidenced by yesterday's shameful Federal Marriage Amendment vote. Remember these Republican names: Gregg, Specter, Sununu, Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, McCain. John McCain for President? Forget it.

o Our own law enforcement officers suborning degeneracy. Check this out, in the category of "unbelievable":

"Local Police Attempt to Block Collection of Pro-Marriage Petitions".

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

This must be stopped

Canadians must be scratching their heads: We opposed the war in Iraq. What the heck?

Well, now they can thank God they have heads to scratch, most of them. It turns out that one of the 17 terrorists busted last weekend was plotting to murder Prime Minister Stephen Harper and “other leaders.” Early account here.

Which all goes to show that Islamo-terrorism has far less to do with the sins of its victims than with the sins—and demonic bloodlust—of its perpetrators. The Canadian affair is quite an unfolding story with major U.S. implications. See “Another Terrorist Attack Coming Soon?”.

Roscoe predicts: Before long the Cindy Sheehans, Jack Murthas and other monstrosities of the mainstream mediocracy are going to be so last week. Get ready for Global War on Terror Phase 2. We’ve just been living in the shallows so far, compared with what’s coming.

Why do we say that? Because characters like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are just the warm-up acts for the headliners. Want to know more? The Roscoe has been introducing the concept of the Islamic Mahdi = the End Times Antichrist. What we’re leading up to is a new book by a friend of ours, Ralph Stice—From 9/11 to 666.

Check it out. Roscoe just got his hands on a copy himself. Let’s say we anticipate considerable further discussion—and there will be a quiz.

Monday, June 05, 2006

You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone

--Joni Mitchell

Shame on the blogosphere—particularly conservative bloggers, who should know better—for their deafening silence, or even opposition, on the Federal Marriage Amendment. We could name names, but we’ll restrain ourselves, for now.

Many seem to be taking the Arlen Specter RINO Republican duck-and-weave position, which loosely translates: I’m not in favor of gay marriage, but let’s leave it up to the states. (The bill, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., is being heard now in Specter’s Senate Judiciary Committee.) That’s a really bad idea, for a number of reasons.

One is simply the fact that we can’t have a mish-mash of laws from state to state on something so fundamental. The full-faith-and-credit principle at the federal level means homosexuals who are “married” in Massachusetts may legally be able to make that stick when they move to, say, Colorado. It will take time and litigation, perhaps, but eventually the will of a few states will end up being imposed on all the others.

So, the whole idea of “let the states decide” is bogus to begin with. That position is a de facto pro-gay marriage position, however one might try to parse it. It’s a sham.

The other major problem is simply the magnitude of the issue. This isn’t small potatoes. The marriage issue is right up there with the global war on terror. Our entire civilization, whether we realize it or not, rides on such issues.

Think we’re exaggerating? Do the homework, and see how many social problems trace directly back to the breakdown of the family. People like Star Parker make a strong case for salvation of the socially ravaged black community through the restoration of the institution of the nuclear husband-wife family. And that’s really no less true for the rest of us, just a matter of degree.

Monkeying with the institution of marriage is the worst thing we could do, especially at a time like this. If marriage is redefined to mean whatever some special interest groups or activist judges feel like making it, then it really loses all meaning. Cohabitation, already rampant, will replace marriage, which will go the way of Europe, where the cause is all but lost. And so are they, in my opinion. Failure to protect marriage is the beginning of the end for any society.

I agree with President Bush: "Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges." And a constitutional amendment is the only way to prevent that.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Ask Roscoe

Dear Roscoe:

So, it’s been almost five years since 9/11. How come we can’t find Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden? Admit it: Bush is a criminal liar, isn’t he? It really was all about oil, wasn’t it?

Gary Dean

Dear Gary:

Yeah, that Bush and Cheney—they just ripped off all that Iraqi oil so we could have cheaper gas at the . . . Uh, well, never mind. . .

Actually, Gary, Bush is probably the most honest president in my lifetime—a man willing to stand on principle, regardless of how the political winds (or polls) may blow. Defeating Islamo-terrorism is not optional for America. It’s a matter of survival.

As for al-Zawahiri and bin Laden, there are three reasons, basically, that they’re still on the loose:

1. They’re phoney-baloney cowards, either hiding in rat holes like Saddam Hussein, or running around in women’s clothing with their beards shaved. When was the last time you saw a bin Laden video? All the recent communiqués have been audio.
2. Precisely at the time some months ago when the U.S. military began to talk confidently about capturing bin Laden, the mainstream mediocracy began exposing national security secrets, tipping the enemy as to our methods of surveillance and espionage. A hundred years ago, there’d have been some folks getting their necks stretched or having a last cigarette on the firing range.
3. People like you, Gary, who don’t support our military or our President. The enemy knows they can’t defeat us on the battlefield. But they don’t have to. They know all they have to do is wait for lily-livers like you to start bawling and mewling.

So, if you’re not willing to change your mind about this war on terror, my advice to you is to take a sharp knife and cut your own throat, and save them the trouble of doing it for you.

Oh, and have nice day, Gar.


Saturday, June 03, 2006

Weak-End Review


Isn't that ("clarification") what they say in the mainstream mediocracy, MJ, when they don't want to admit they got something wrong? OK, the Roscoe is not sure he got this wrong, but he's been advised that the jury is still out as to whether Inayat Bunglawala is the actual culprit in the Reuters "death threat" against Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs. (See Thursday's post, "Now try this.") It could have been some other Islamniac using his IP address. Bunglawala is just the one suspended while Reuters "investigates."

Oh, and this MJ character (who should have his cursor cleaned out with soap) also wants us to know it wasn't technically a "death threat," but a death "wish." Apparently in his circles it's OK simply to express wishes for Zionist/Crusader pigs' throats to be slit, as long as you're not the one actually doing it. Well, now, what do you suppose would happen if we all started expressing wishes for Muslims or Islamniacs to meet some form of violent death?

Hah!!! Three guesses, and the first 25,000 don’t count.

But while we're clarifying things, MJ's comment was deleted because of some of the language employed. We would highly recommend a book such as Thirty Days to a More Powerful Vocabulary, MJ, so that your comments can actually be published in the future. Such language won't appear here. And BTW, don't anyone bother trying to figure out who this brave MJ is—just call him "profile not available." (But it's from the UK. . .)

Sleeper news item of the weak

One item easily overlooked this week was the "discovery" of Europe's oldest book, a scroll that supposedly sheds light on the evolution of monotheism from polytheism. Read about it here. One little problem: It didn't happen that way.

This insidious idea—modern monotheism evolving from primitive polytheism—was heavily promoted by Sigmund Freud, but it was not original with him. Rather, it was the brainchild of Englishman Edward B. Tylor, who authored a very influential two-volume work on this theory in 1871. This rather specious work indirectly influenced Marx and Lenin in their war against religion and is still accepted as Gospel in most secular American universities today. Which is yet another reason to send our kids to Christian schools. . .

Tylorism, however, remains to this day a theory in search of evidence. For real facts, one would have to go far outside the hallowed halls of the Ivy League and ask honest (read "politically incorrect") cultural anthropologists and Christian missionaries. What you would find is what Don Richardson wrote about in what we consider one of the most significant works in modern Christendom, Eternity in Their Hearts, Regal Books, 1981.

In this classic you will find in culture after culture the real truth is the exact opposite of Tylorism. In fact, pagan polytheism almost universally appears to have been a later corruption of a primeval belief in a single Creator God, often with a Son and sometimes with a holy book that either was lost or prophesied to be brought from far across the water by a foreign people.

If you have not read Eternity in their Hearts, your life is the poorer for it. It's a standard in many church libraries. Or look for it used at, which is where the Roscoe shops for many of his books.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Okay, now try this

Q: If one were to do a Google search on "Reuters death threat," how many hits would there be?
A: 6.6 million.

Q: If one were to do a Google News search on "Reuters death threat," how many hits would there be?

In other words, don't hold your breath. Now, you don't suppose the mainstream mediocracy would be so crass as to cover up for one of their own, do you? Hmm?

It seems a fellow named Inayat Bunglawala posted a desire for the cutting of Zionist/Crusader pig throats on Little Green Footballs that was traceable to his IP address, despite an inept attempt to cover his tracks. Bunglawala, it turns out, is an employee of Reuters in London, although not in their news division, they aver.

If you haven't been following this disturbing story, you're getting too much non-information from the mainstream mediocracy. Go here for a decent overview of this complicated story. NewsBusters and Little Green Footballs, of course, also have the story.

BTW, LGF's Charles Johnson is the guy most responsible for exposing the Dan Rather memogate hoax involving Bush's National Guard records. People should know better than to mess with him.

Also BTW, Reuters is the same news organization that refuses to call a terrorist a terrorist. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," you know. And yes, they really did say that.

More than that, however, this media conspiracy of silence is most damning of all.