Imam warns Ottawa to back off Muslims

Imam warns Ottawa to back off Muslims

By COLIN FREEZE

Monday, July 25, 2005 Updated at 11:15 PM EDT

A controversial Toronto imam warned Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan at a closed-door meeting to stop "terrorizing" Canadian Muslims.

"If you try to cross the line I can't guarantee what is going to happen. Our young people, we can't control," Aly Hindy, the head of Scarborough's Salaheddin Islamic Centre, recalls telling the minister at the May meeting she held in Toronto with dozens of Muslim leaders.

The meeting was part of an effort by Ms. McLellan to reach out to Canadian Muslims amid complaints that the RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service are engaging in racial profiling.

The minister and her officials have been meeting community leaders to explain they are not targeting Muslims generally, only individuals with possible terrorist links.

By many accounts, the meetings have been positive and are contributing to a thaw in relations between Muslims and security agents, even if the exchange in May was a little heated.

Continued at source..........


Here we see what happens with the continued influx of Muslims into Western nations. This is a threat to the Canadians. The question is how will the Canadians deal with theses threats?

U.N. Slams Zimbabwe on Slum Destruction

Glad to see that the UN is doing something worthwhile. However, as usual they are a day late and a dollar short. There is evidence that this is not only occurring to slums.....

Article

Roy Bennett Released From Prison

For many of us who follow the Zimbabwean situation this is wonderful news.








Roy Bennett was released from Chikurubi Prison this morning after spending eight months of his 12 month sentence in custody. It is standard prison procedure to commute a third of any sentence for good behaviour.

The former MDC Member of Parliament emerged from his incarceration unbowed and undaunted in his struggle for justice for all Zimbabweans.

"I am more determined than ever to continue to strive for a better Zimbabwe for all Zimbabweans, the current oppression cannot continue for much longer and sooner, rather than later, the people will assert their rights", he said.

There were emotional scenes outside the prison when Roy was reunited with his wife two children and other family and friends.

"Nothing that I have ever read or seen prepared for the hell that are Zimbabweans prisons", said Bennett.

"The inhumanity with which the prisoners are treated and their total lack of recourse to any representation or justice combined with the filth and stench of daily life is something I will never forget and I will not rest until their conditions are improved," he added.

He also stated that if the opportunity arose and the people for Chimanimani asked him to, he would stand as their representative again.

Bennett was sentenced to a year in jail by the Zanu-PF MPs after pushing the Minister of Justice, Patrick Chinamasa, to the ground during a parliamentary debate. Chinamasa had derided the court orders that Bennett had been awarded that should have seen his property returned after it had been seized by the State and on top of this he had insulted Roy's forefathers.

The sentence was condemned by local and international human rights organisations.

Speaking after the tearful reunion, Heather Bennett said she was proud of her husband and the sacrifice he has made for the betterment of all Zimbabweans.

"I knew Roy would emerge from this ordeal strong, but I am shocked by exactly how determined he to continue to struggle for a new Zimbabwe.", she said.

"But first we are going to spend some time together as a family".

Source

Rhodesia Part 1

This is part one in a series of posts that I will discuss Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

Background: In November 11, 1965 Ian Douglass Smith and the Rhodesian Front led government declared unilateral independence from the United Kingdom. This declaration set off a series of events throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s that would change the political landscape of Southern Africa.

A guerrilla war was fought by the white led, Western orientated Rhodesian military, the African led, Marxist orientated Zimbabwe African National Union and the Zimbabwe African People's Union.

Throughout the 1970’s Rhodesia was subject to international sanctions and was under attack by two paramilitary organizations. Those organizations were financed by the Soviet Union, China and the North Koreans. Rhodesia was financed mainly by South Africa.

As the 1970’s drew to a close, so did the end of White rule in Rhodesia.

With the Lancaster Agreements came elections that produced Robert Mugabe as President of what was to later become the Republic of Zimbabwe on April 18th, 1980.

The interviewee is a friend of mine who graciously sat down and answered my questions. Her identity will remain anonymous as she still has family in Zimbabwe. She and her husband both served in the war.


Question: When did you move to Rhodesia?

Answer: As a tiny baby 1947


Question: What do you remember most about life in Rhodesia?

Answer: Incredible childhood memories, the friendliness, the beautiful land and in the war years the camaraderie amongst the forces, black and white.


Question: How was it to live under UDI and ultimately during the Rhodesian Civil War?

Answer: I was 17 at the time of UDI, Ian Smith was a hero to our family and friends and to a certain extent, I went along with it. Living during the war years – we adapted, women became very strong because their men folk were away so much of the time. My husband was away from us for six week spells every six weeks. Because of sanctions we were rationed fuel. The authorities would work out how much fuel they felt we needed and issued us with monthly “petrol coupons” – they were worth more than gold. Other than that, the country itself became very self sufficient and that was a good thing. We didn’t have imported luxuries .. but we had plenty!


Question: Were you ever in danger during the war or after the war?

Answer: Yes, both in civilian life and in my job


Question: Looking back, were there things that seemed normal to you then that are very abnormal now?

Answer: Yes, very much so, I cannot believe now, how blasé I was about certain war situations.


Question: Did you ever have to travel in those armored cars that I have seen?

Answer: Yes. My brother hit a landmine in one of the very first mine-proofed land rovers, burst his ear drums and if he hadn’t had his elbow out the window, he would have had no other injuries. He was one of the first people to experience terrorism. He came into camp and there was an old man standing waiting for him. He had a floppy hat on his head, but my brother could see blood running down the side of his face, he asked “Eni ndaba, madala?” (What’s the matter oldman) and the man held out his hand, in the palm lay his ear and a bullet labeled with my brother’s name. My brother rushed him to the nearest clinic and then hit the landmine on the way back to camp.


Question: Were any of your loved ones involved in the war?

Answer: Most of us were


Question: In what way?

Answer: I was permanent BSAP and ran a Control Room and the Signals Division in a major area. My husband was with a Recce Unit. My brother was an Inspector in the BSAP and worked as Ground Cover in a large reserve for many years. My brother-in-law was with a major unit. The cousin who was killed, was a Field Reservist (not permanent) with the BSAP – these guys were called “Bright Lights” and went out to farms to protect the owners, did a good job, but one doesn’t hear much about them. Another cousin was with the Grey Scouts (Horse Division) He got shot in the leg. My sister-in-law’s boyfriend was with Support company – a Police unit – he was killed in action. A good friend was a helicopter pilot and kia. Just so many….. Having first hand knowledge of what the units did, and seeing the Situation Reports from all areas every day, my opinion was – and still is – that the war was nothing to do with black vs white … these guys were out protecting the rural people from terrorists. More than anything else they tried to stop the “Freedom Fighters” from harming their own kind. Sometimes the forces had to force the people out of their homes and take them to suitably protected camps, occasionally having to set their homes on fire … so at some stages the poor rurals didn’t know who to be more scared of, the forces or the terrorists. My husband tells a story of having to move an entire village, the unit would have armored vehicles ready to move them and all their belongings, but the locals wouldn’t budge, they were just about at the stage of forcefully removing them… but an old man stepped forward and persuaded the villagers that the move was for their own good. He pointed to several people, naming atrocities committed against them or their families, “You, your sons were taken away” “You, your daughter was raped” etc. and after that the people decided to move. The old man asked if he could move separately – he had a cart and two donkeys, he and his grandson decided to travel by donkey cart. He loaded a hand made table onto the cart, proudly telling my husband that he’d made it with his own hands for his children. The old man set off before the villagers were packed up into the trucks. Some ten minutes later, they all heard a huge blast … the old man, his grandsons, the donkeys, the cart and his table, were blown to smithereens when the cart ran over a land mine. There is a Neil Diamond song “… old man died, he made a table filled with nails and pride … for his children” – my husband has never been able to listen to the song again. Such a simple story amongst all the carnage, but it is one that had a profound effect on me.


Question: My reading is that Ian Smith has essentially said “I told you so” and feels that Rhodesia was sold out by the West and in particular the United Kingdom. He seems to have not changed his point of view since civil war. Has his position changed from that?

Answer: No, I don’t think he has changed his opinion.


Ian Smith



Question: Has your point of view changed since the end of the war?

Answer: In many ways, I understand the “Freedom Fighting” bit somewhat more, but cannot understand the atrocities committed against their own people.


Question: After the war ended what was your feeling about Zimbabwe? I have been told that there were mixed feelings. A lot of anxiety, a lot of excitement, a lot of depression and a lot of skepticism are some of the feelings that I have been told were common in the white community of Zimbabwe..


Answer: Absolutely – a whole gamut of emotions. For me personally, I was on duty the night of the elections and word was out very early that Mugabe had walked it (the BSAP Intel had predicted Muzarewa would get it) – work went on, but my mind was a turmoil – I was scared. I had personally seen instructions given to terrorists by Mugabe, seen his intense hatred for the whites. One letter stands out in my mind. A family we knew who were living in a flat in Harare and only going to the farm some 40kms away during daylight hours, were confronted by terrs, tortured and shot dead. Mother and two teenage daughters. Those terrs were caught and brought in, I saw a letter one of them had written to Comrade Mugabe, it read in part “You would be so proud of us, we killed these white pigs. We made them kneel, then shot them in their legs, we made them pray, then carried on shooting them. So, yeah I was scared, spent the entire night radioing outlying stations getting all the “helping” South African forces back over the border and out of the country before the news broke. A couple of nights later, I went for a drive with my kids and listened to Mugabe speaking on the car radio, he sounded so civil, he sounded so sincere - he wanted the whites not to be afraid, to stay and help the new government keep building a beautiful country… I remember trying to reassure the children. When my husband got home, plans were immediately started for us to leave. He actually left a couple of months before us. There were some worries about his unit and repercussions, but honestly, he will tell you, he just could not conceive of working beside men who he had seen do such terrible things to the rural folk. Make no mistake, the whites were least hit by the terrorists during that war….


Question: Ultimately, were your feelings correct?

Answer: No, the initial fear was not.


Question: Have you been to Zimbabwe since the end of UDI?

Answer: We still have family in Zimbabwe and try to visit every second year, my husband is leaving on the 4th July for a family visit. Last year we went up because my mother in law was ill, she died while we were there and it took the family three months to get her cremated – the crematoriums were out of fuel.


Question: Were any of your family members or friends who were affected by the farm invasions?

Answer: Yes, three family farms were lost. One of the families refugeed to Australia, they actually left their farm signed over to the farm workers, who were fifth generation, but of course the workers were chased off the land and Mugabe’s cronies took it over.


Question: What do you hear from people you know in Zimbabwe? Is the situation as bad as is reported in the media?

Answer: It is worse! You know, most whites have some options, but the black people there do not – they are, in the majority, pitifully hurt and so much worse off than in the wicked UDI days!


Question: When Mugabe dies and the situation in Zimbabwe stabilizes would you ever consider moving back?

Answer: We have considered it on and off, but we only have two kids, one in the UK and one in Australia … so plans change!


Question: Upon reflection, what are your thoughts on Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front?

Answer: Ian Smith was never the hero to me as he was to a lot of whites and in recent years I’ve felt he should just shut up, as he was making a fool of himself. The Rhodesian Front – don’t let anyone kid you – was about as bad as the apartheid regime in SA…. Just not so “In your face” about it. The segregation there was not talked about as much as the segregation here was.

Question: After the war you moved to South Africa?

Answer: Yes


Question: What are some of the major differences between life in South Africa and life in Rhodesia?

Answer: The “Net blanke” signs. Rhodesians were incredibly friendly and hospitable people in comparison. The thing that struck me the most – even in 1979 – was the difference in the behaviour of the black people. Still to this day I feel so much safer with Zimbabwean blacks than I do with the people here. We had far more black friends there than we do here. The hatred towards whites when we arrived here was palpable, I still maintain it is to a certain extent, despite 11 years of democracy.


Question: Did you see a difference between UDI and Apartheid?

Answer: Not a lot


Question: How had your perceptions changed at that point due to your Rhodesian experience?

Answer: Not a lot, I still feel that the majority blacks get a raw deal, despite the change of governments – and in Zimbabwe they are worse off, for sure.


Question: Did you fear that transition in South Africa would bring about a Mugabe style dictatorship with the ANC?

Answer: No, I felt a lot better about Mandela and Mbeki than I ever did about Mugabe or even Muzarewa and I hated Nkomo with a passion.



Robert Mugabe


Joshua Nkomo


Abel Muzorewa


Nelson Mandela


Thabo Mbeki

Question: What do you see for the future of South Africa?

Answer: Hmmm! I am more positive than most, but that could be an age related thing, as for sure in my life time things will be okay here. I was initially very disappointed that my children left Africa – though I never voiced that to them. I couldn’t really understand why they would want to leave when they had such wonderful lives here and had never had a crime committed against them in any way at all … my personal feeling was that the negativity had got to them. However I understand more now, perhaps because both families have settled so happily. I think if there was a magic button to switch positivity on and negativity off, we’d have more hope for a bright future. It’s kind of like the biblical “As ye thinketh, so ye shall be” … the crime situation has to be brought under control somehow, but it’s kinda like the more crime is highlighted the more crime there is.


Question: What do you see for the future for Zimbabwe?

Answer: Not much. Even if Mugabe dies tomorrow and a reasonable leader came into power, it will still take thirty years to build that country up again.

Constantine: Thank you very much for your time. This has been very informative.

Porsche 356c

1965 Porsche 356 C 

My new hobby!

Here is my fathers 1965 356c hard top convertible. After a long process of getting the car back from the jerk whom my father was dealing with we are now almost done with the restoration.

I will be sharing the car with my brother and we are both happy that the car is back with the family and away from from the nasty liar whom my father was dealing with. I literally cannot think of a redeeming quality the man has. In the interest of good taste I will leave my comments about him at the fact that he has great difficulty telling the truth and he has offensive body odor. You know who you are Klaus you liar.....

My Time in Byzantium..........

I have been searching for a spiritual home for the last few years. I have felt more and more that the modern Catholic mass is not fulfilling my needs. To be honest, the lack of ritual and tradition has caused me to become rather disengaged from the Church. However, I respect the throne of St. Peter and believe that the man who sits on the throne is Christs representative on earth. As my search continued I looked for a Church in the area where I live. On the website for the arch diocese I came across "Byzantine Rite" Catholics. So I called the Church to ask about them. I heard back from their priest who assured me that I was very welcome in their Church and that we are members of the same Church, but of a different rite. Therefore I attended Mass. After, getting a bit confused with crossing myself the opposite way I felt right at home. The incense, the Icons, the chanting and the community were what I was searching for.

One aspect of the Liturgy that I loved was the display of the Blessed Icons. Here is what their website says:

Icons play an important role in the spiritual life of Byzantine Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. An icon is not merely a picture of Christ or of a saint, much less a religious decoration, but an expression of the most fundamental realities of our faith and a making present of the heavenly reality they depict.

Icons are realistic images, but they do not seek to depict the flesh of our fallen human nature, but the glorified bodies of those who are filled with the Holy Spirit of God. This is why the iconographer does not strive for the natural realism of a photograph. This would only reproduce the physical reality of this world. Rather his intention is to suggest spiritual beauty, transfiguration, deification. It also explains why the figures in icons are usually heavily draped with clothing in physical beauty. In Byzantine icons the physical presentation is meant to be colored by the spiritual reality just as the body of Christ reflects divine glory in a physical way.



The Liturgy is breathtaking. The beauty and glory was second to none.

Here is what their website says:

The Divine Liturgy expresses this life in Christ flowing from our union with God. The night before He offered Himself for our salvation, Jesus said: "I am the true vine and my father is the vine grower. He prunes away every barren branch, but the fruitful one He trims clean to increase their yield. You are clean already, thanks to the word I have spoken to you. Live on in Me, as I do in you. No more than a branch can bear fruit of itself apart from the vine, can you bear fruit from Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who lives in Me and I in him, will produce abundantly, for apart from Me you can do nothing" ( Jn 15:1-5). Our participation in the Liturgy is described as an experience of the Kingdom of God- a foretaste of heaven, because during the Liturgy we are nourished by the vine which is Christ.

Jesus gives us a strong example of the importance of prayer, of time alone spent with God, listening in the quiet of our hearts to the awesomeness of God's love. Often Jesus "prayed in a certain place, spent the night in prayer" to gain strength and power for the mission His Father entrusted to Him. The disciples, observing the power and the peace that are the fruits of prayer, asked Jesus to teach them to pray. He said to them: " When you pray, say:' Father, hallowed be Your name, Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins for we too forgive all who do us wrong and subject us not to the trial'"


An example of an Eastern Chant can be found here.

It is said that Russian ambassadors came to Constantinople and said upon attending the Divine Liturgy: "We did not know whether we were in heaven or earth for upon earth there is no such sight or beauty; we only know that there. God is present among men."

I agree with them.

Beer of the week

A few years ago a friend of mine and I were at our local Trader Joes and came across a beer from Namibia. Being that I am one of 3 people in California that knows where Namibia is I thought I would give it a try. I was not disappointed. Windehoek Lager is one of the finer beers I have ever had. The crisp yet refreshing taste is second to no other lager. It was only $3.99 per 6 pack from Trader Joes which makes it cheaper than most American beers of its quality.

Windhoek is brewed in the African nation of Namibia which used to be known as Southwest Africa. It is brewed using German brewing standards as Namibia is a former German colony.

This was a favorte beer for my friends and myself during our "bottle hockey" stage!

A Quick Message to Newsweek Magazine.....

........just wanted you to know what I think of your reporting.

Reaction to Pat Buchanans World War II article

Or should I say over-reaction

Let us look at what Pat said:

Was World War II worth it?

In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."

Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.

To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.

To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:

For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.

Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.

Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.

The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.

If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.

As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.

Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.

How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?

True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.

Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling – not British and French. Understandably.

Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.

-------------------

I can’t see how this statement is incorrect. What I would have replied to Mr. Bush is “What were we going to do about it?” It was a terrible that Stalin got his filthy hands of Eastern Europe, particularly Poland the Czechoslovakia. However, at the time there was nothing that we could do about it. Were we willing to then go to war with the Soviets? Were we willing to forcibly extract them from Eastern Europe? The answer is no.

The problem is of course the reaction that Buchanans detractors had. Look at the frenzy found in Newsday.

None of the hysterical people involved in this article gets the point that Pat is making.

The fact is that Stalin is the greatest mass murderer in History (Perhaps Mao surpassed him but we don’t know for sure). Stalin killed about 10 times more people than Hitler. That is not a judgement, it's a fact. To state that fact does not make one a bigot. One should understand that there was no easy answer to the Stalin question at the time.

Quote:

---

Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League, called Buchanan's comments "immoral" and "bordering on Holocaust denial.

---

Funny how one reads things into statements that they want to see. If I were Pat I would wear the fact that Abe Foxman disapproves of me as a badge of honor. The man is a demagogue of the first order.

Quote:

---

Former Mayor Ed Koch offered this blunt rebuttal: "I believe that no decent human being should ever sit down at the same table with Pat Buchanan and I am shocked that otherwise responsible, respectable citizens share platforms with him on Sunday shows."

---

Yeah God forbid one engages in an exchange of ideas. Someone should really shut Pat up. His views are far too beyond the pale. Come on. People really need to grow up.

Looking at Pat’s article:

Quote:

---

Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."

---

There was no liberation. One brutal totalitarian system was replaced with another.

Quote:

---

Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.

---

Again, this is a statement of fact.

Quote:

---

If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.

---

Again, what I would ask Pat is: What were FDR and Churchill going to do about it? Stalin’s forces were there. At that point were they willing to go to war to force the Soviets out of Eastern and Central Europe? That being said: If I were a Pole, Czech, Slovak, etc I would not venerate either man. They did what was best for their own nation states not what was best for the small nations that fell under Soviet rule.

My Favorite Painting

The Oath of the Horatii by Jacques-Louis David

Wikipedia gives the story behind the painting:

In Roman mythology, the Horatii were a set of male triplets from Rome. During a war between Rome and Alba Longa during the reign of Tullus Hostilius (approx. 672-642 B.C.), it was agreed that settlement of the war would depend on the outcome of a battle between the Horatii and the Curiatii. The Curiatii were a set of male triplets who were from Alba Longa and of the same age as the Horatii.

In the battle, the three Curiatii were wounded, but two of the Horatii were killed. The last of the Horatii turned to flee. The Curiatii chased him, but because they were wounded became spread out from one another, which allowed the Horatius to slay them one by one.

When the victorious Horatius returned carrying the spoils of victory, his sister cried out in grief because she realized the Curiatius she had been engaged to was dead. The Horatius killed his sister, proclaiming, "So perish any Roman woman who mourns the enemy." For the murder, he was condemned to death but was saved when he appealed to the people.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.






Davids other works that I love include:



The Death of Socrates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Napoleon

And of course:

La Mort de Marat

SA farmer wins land grab battle

This from the BBC:


A white South African farmer whose land was invaded by 40,000 squatters has been awarded compensation by the country's highest court.

Land rights are a contentious issue across Africa

Braam Duvenhage was entitled to damages from the state because it had failed to protect him from the land invasion, the Constitutional Court ruled.

Police refused to intervene after the squatters occupied part of his family's farm at Modderklip, near Johannesburg.

The case has been seen as a test case of farmers' property rights.

Disregarding farmers' rights was "a recipe for anarchy", the ruling said.

Eleven years after the end of apartheid, white farmers still own much of South Africa's most fertile land but the government says it will not forcibly seize land, as in neighbouring Zimbabwe.

No evictions

The amount of compensation has not yet been set and the state can appeal against the decision.

The ruling by acting Chief Justice Pius Langa comes after a five-year legal battle by Mr Duvenhage, which began when 400 squatters moved onto his land in mid-2000.

The numbers grew steadily and the area - consisting of 50 hectares of the 2,400-hectare farm - is now known as the Gabon informal settlement.

"I find that it was unreasonable of the state to stand by and do nothing in circumstances where it was impossible for Modderklip to evict the occupiers because of the sheer magnitude of the invasion and the particular circumstances of the occupiers," the judge said.

He said the family were entitled to compensation, to be backdated to 31 May 2000 and paid by the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs.

He also ruled that the squatters could stay on the land until alternative accommodation was made available by the authorities.

Pope seeks to beatify John Paul

I love John Paul II but this is far too soon after his death.

This from the BBC:
-----------------------





Pilgrims at the Pope's funeral called for his immediate sainthood

Pope Benedict XVI has begun the process of beatifying his predecessor John Paul II, the first step to sainthood.

"The cause for the beatification of John Paul II is open," the new Roman Catholic leader told priests meeting at Rome's Basilica of St John in Lateran.

The Pope waived the usual rules which require a five-year wait before the Church begins to make someone a saint.

John Paul II died on 2 April, leading to widespread calls from Catholics worldwide for him to be made a saint.

Standing ovation

"And now I have a very joyous piece of news for you," Pope Benedict XVI said in Italian before making the announcement in Latin.

The Pope read out a letter from Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, the official in charge of sainthood, in which it said that Benedict XVI himself had authorised the start of the beatification process.

The news was met with a standing ovation from the priests attending the meeting.

It comes on the anniversary of an assassination attempt on John Paul II in 1981, when he was shot in St Peter's Square by a Turkish gunman.

Life examined

Information will now be gathered on the former pope's life and teachings, including all private writings from the period before he became pope, and checked for orthodoxy to ensure that he expressed no heretical views.

Pope John Paul II abandoned the five-year rule when he beatified Mother Teresa

A commission of historians will be appointed to gather all of the documents together, which will then be examined by panels of theologians, and cardinals and bishops.

If a two-thirds majority agree with John Paul II's beatification Pope Benedict XVI will then be called upon to give his own approval.

But Vatican expert Michael Walsh told the BBC that for the process to be complete the Vatican authorities will then have to establish that a miracle has been ascribed to Pope John Paul II.

"They have to prove someone has been miraculously healed... by his intercession, by praying to John Paul II, he or she has recovered from cancer or something of that sort," he said.

Miracle needed

In the days following his death Italian media carried a number of reports of alleged miracles attributed to Pope John Paul II, including one claim that an American man suffering from a brain tumour was cured after receiving communion from the late pontiff.

But the alleged miracles occurred during the Pope's lifetime, and the beatification process studies those occurring after the candidate's death.

Beatification allows public veneration of the person and for the person to be known as "Blessed". For actual sainthood, proof of at least two miracles is required.

Beatification allows public veneration of the blessed person

In normal circumstances five years must pass between the death of the person proposed for beatification and the start of the procedure, to avoid emotion playing a part.

However, John Paul II dispensed with this rule himself when in 2003 he beatified Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

The entire processes was completed just six years after her death.

On Friday Pope Benedict XVI also announced who would succeed him as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Sixty-eight-year-old William Levada, Archbishop of San Francisco, is the first American to hold the post as the Vatican's chief watchdog of orthodoxy.

The Real History of the Crusades

Crisis Magazine published a great article about the Crusades By Thomas F. Madden. There are very few articles that I have seen written with more clarity than this one.

It is long but enjoy the read:

With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word "crusade" in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?

Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.

Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a "teaching moment," an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands. (emphasis added by Constantine)

Continued at source

Under EU Pressure, Turkey Moves to Improve Non-Muslim Property Rights

(AFP) -- The Turkish government has drafted a bill sought by the European Union to address complaints from non-Muslim religious foundations over restrictions to their property rights, Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin said Tuesday.

"From time to time, there have been complaints from (non-Muslim) community foundations and EU officials... This bill aims to eradicate to a great extent those complaints," Sahin told reporters after a cabinet meeting.

He said the draft bill would be sent to parliament in several days, without explaining what specific measures it contained.

The EU, set to open membership talks with Turkey on October 3, has long pressed Ankara to amend legal provisions restricting the property rights of non-Muslim religious foundations in the country.

Predominantly Muslim Turkey is home to small communities of Christians, mainly Orthodox Greeks and Armenians, and Jews, most of them concentrated in Istanbul.

In an October report on Turkey's democratization progress, the EU said that non-Muslim communities "lack legal personality, face restricted property rights and interference in the management of their foundations, and are not allowed to train clergy," even though their freedom to worship was largely unhampered.

"Their existing properties are permanently at risk of being confiscated and attempts to recover property by judicial means encounter numerous obstacles," the report said.

Source:

The Beauty of the Hagia Sopia

The once great Cathedral of St. Sophia was one of the most beautiful churches in the entire world. It was desecrated by the Turks and "turned" into a Mosque. However, the beauty that was there before the Turks defiled it remains.

















Source: The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople





Pat Buchanan is correct once again.....

I recall the the proponents of NAFTA telling us how wonderful NAFTA would be for the United States. I recall the free traders telling us what benifits the American people would wreap. Well as any Califonian can tell you, it has been a catastrophe.

Pat's Article

* Between 1993 and 2004, the U.S. trade deficit with Beijing grew 700 percent to $162 billion.

* In the last decade, China’s total trade surplus at U.S. expense was $805 billion.

* China’s leading exports to us, which account for almost half her $162 billion trade surplus, came from shipments of computers, electrical machinery, and parts.

* Leading U.S. exports to China (Boeing alone excepted) were, in ascending order: meat, meat offal, fibers, ore, slag, ash, organic chemicals, fertilizers, copper, cereals, raw hides, skins, pulp of wood, cotton, and the big seller—oil seeds and oleaginous fruits (soybeans). All very, very high-tech stuff.

# The U.S. trade surplus with Mexico has vanished and the annual trade deficit is now running above $50 billion a year.

# The cumulative trade deficit with Mexico is now over $300 billion.

# 1.5 million illegal aliens are caught each year crossing our border and 500,000 make it in to take up residence and enjoy all the social programs a generous but over-taxed America can provide.

---------

More bad news for the American working class.

Really funny video

I would like to thank the guys at Big-boys.com for this gem. They call it "A real pain in the ass."

This video is funny on a bunch of different levels

Crossroads to a Crossroads…Republic or Empire

Crossroads to a Crossroads…Republic or Empire

The fever that people have come to about George Bush does not address the real dilemma that faces the American people. The reasons that others state for their objection to the Bush Administration policies are not a new phenomenon. Most screams about his “abuse of power” are seen as silly because Americans are either used to Presidents acting as Bush does or they recognize the hypocrisy of those making the charges. The yells that Bush was terrible for not working through the UN during the latest Iraq War have fallen mostly upon deaf ears for two reasons. #1-Americans see the UN as ineffectual and corrupt (a wise belief). #2-They also know that the very people who were asking Bush to place the national security of the US in the hands of the UN were the same people who stayed silent or supported Bill Clinton as he ordered the launch of numerous missile attacks into Iraq as well as Sudan and Afghanistan. What has been lost in the frenzy of Bush bashing is the fact that we are only seeing the symptoms of a greater virus that has infected the United States. The greater virus is the usurpation of power from the legislature to the lesser representative branches of the American government, the Courts and the Executive Branch. This devolution of power from the peoples representative body, Congress to the less representative branches will lead to the break-up of the American Republic as we know it. Today we see that the great questions that occupy the minds of Americans are no longer debated in the halls of Congress. Instead we have courts dictating law as they have with Abortion and Presidents waging War with out Declarations of War by Congress as with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and again in Iraq. If the American people are not careful we will never again have the choice to go to war or legislate laws. This is not the case now but the erosion of the Republic is well at hand.

The Founders of the American Republic were avid students of the classics and understood the Roman Republic. They understood that Americans have a great deal in common with Romans. Both civilizations were founded as colonies of other great civilizations (Troy to Rome, Britain to the US). Both exceeded their mother civilizations in power and influence. Therefore the American founders studied Rome because they wanted to avoid the problems that led to the downfall of the Roman Republic, and led to the Imperial Tyranny. What they understood, and many people today forget is that Great Republics are not conquered from outside forces, they are destroyed from within. Thus, the declines of Republics take time, they do not occur over night. This was true of Rome; this will be true of the United States. The decline of the American Republic will not come under the rule of George Bush, nor will it come under his successor or even his successors successor. Instead it will come as the American people become more and more tolerant of the less democratic branches of government becoming more and more powerful over time. This was true of Rome itself.

We now see that the courts, the most undemocratic branch of our republican form of government are imposing rule against the peoples will. For instance, we currently have a situation where a state supreme court ordered the state legislature to pass a bill allowing for gay marriage. Since when do courts have such a right? The republican form of government allows for co-equal branches of government, not superiority of the courts. The peoples house is being ignored and in many cases dominated by the other branches. This was true during the Terry Schivo case. The courts simply thumbed their nose at Congress. This must stop if we are to preserve the Republic. Specific issues demonstrate the need to fight tyranny of the Judiciary and the Executive. The most debated and divisive issue in American politics is Abortion. This issue would go away tomorrow if the people were able to decide upon the law rather than have activist courts dictate what they are to do. It goes against the republican instincts of Americans to have no voice in such a controversial issue. This should have been decided as a States rights issue under the 10th amendment instead of the Supreme Court finding rights in the Constitution that were not clearly spelled out. If the people of Utah do not want Abortion or Gay Marriage they should be able to prevent those institutions. If the people of Massachusetts want these institutions they should be able to.

Another sign of an emerging empire is a rather un-American aggression in foreign policy. We have strayed very far from the founders’ belief in allowing Europe’s problems to be their own and to stay out of foreign entanglements. It is true that we no longer live in the same world as they did. It is true that we should use our influence when it is necessary for our national interest but we have gone too far. Our foreign policy is becoming more and more aggressive and is laying the foundations for hostility toward our nation from nations that would otherwise be allies. Our current policies are causing suspicion at the least and objection at the most with the majority of people throughout the world. This is due to the change in attitude toward the rest of the world. No longer do we see the world through the republican lens, instead we throw weight around as an empire would. Let us look at the current encirclement of Russia that is occurring. Since the fall of the Soviet Union the United States has begun to form a cordon sanataire around Russia. This is being done through the expansion of NATO and through the propping up of friendly regimes in traditionally Russian dominated areas. Ukraine and Georgia are examples of this movement. In the last ten years the Russians have had to accept NATO expanding up to its frontiers and is powerless to do anything about it. This again is being done by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Both parties do this under the banner of furthering democracy. The spread of democracy is a wonderful thought but is against our national heritage. We should as our founders argued, support democracy where we can but not engage in foreign entanglements.

This has caused a significant strain in our relationship with Russia. Let me state that there are few greater targets of Islamic terror than Russia. Russia could be a strategic ally in the current war on terrorism but has instead been made to take a stance against American policy due to the aggression of the last two Administrations. Americans are unaware of this and are uninterested when told about the movements of our government and how we are making enemies for future generations. When Russia begins to reassert itself Americans will be told that they are to fight a defensive war against Russian aggression but will not know that the ground work for that aggression was planted throughout the last 10 years. Again, looking to history we see that Roman citizens were always told that their wars were defensive. Thus pre-emptive war was an easy option for them.

George Washington understood the parallels of the two great Republics more than any other person of his time. His Presidency was modeled after the Roman virtues of Cincinnatus. Cincinnatus was appointed dictator of Rome for six months during a war with the Aequi, a neighboring city-state. He raised an army, defeated the Aequi and saved Rome. He then relinquished power and returned to his farm. The selflessness and reluctance to power were not lost on Washington (He later founded the Order of the Sons of Cincinnatus). He like Cincinnatus guided his young nation through a time of extreme crisis (the American Revolution), established the Republic and retired to his farm at Mount Vernon. The precedent was set. Presidents were to enjoy great power during times of crisis but were expected to withdraw from power after two terms in a peaceful transition of power and were to guide the Republic through crisis not for personal glory but for preservation of and dedication to the Republic.

Presidents throughout history are bound by traditions set by Washington but history has eroded those traditions to our present state. We must remember that Republics do not fall necessarily for insidious reasons. The erosion of the foundations of the Republic and the devolution of power to the Executive and Judicial branches has occurred for very altruistic reasons. One major crisis was that brought this about was the American Civil War. The Constitutional rights of Americans were suspended during the war, and the Executive Branch asserted itself in the form of Abraham Lincoln as the dominant force in the American government. Senators were deported to the Confederacy for opposition to the war and the other branches of government were ignored if they got in the way of conducting the war. This was all done for very altruistic reasons, to preserve the Union and free the Slaves. However, another precedent was set for the fledgling Republic. Throughout the next 142 years the centralized government has become more of a factor in American life and the President has become more powerful than the founders intended. It should be noted that this erosion has come from all sides of the political spectrum. Republicans are guilty of it as are Democrats.

For the most part the leaders of the Republic have been well meaning men, who have the best interest of the Republic in mind. However, this will not always be the case. When will the American Caesar appear? Let us not forget that when Caesar entered Rome it was believed that he was her savior. We see now that he did not enter Rome with her best interest in mind but his own.

It is a historical truth Democracies and Republics are ruled by the will of the people and since the people have a vested interest in their government, they are willing to fight and die for it. This was true for Thebes when they resisted Sparta. This was true for Rome when they resisted the Carthaginians. We know now that the fall of Rome was only possible because Romans no longer thought that Rome was worth fighting for. Hence, in the last days of the Roman Empire, Barbarians made up greater numbers in the ranks than did Roman citizens. With declining recruitment numbers and more and more foreign nationals enlisting we are seeing a similar phenomenon. When will Americans stop believing that the United States is worth fighting for? When will the people cease to believe that it is worth losing their lives or the lives of their loved ones for democracy in other lands? When will we cease to believe that just government is derived from consent of the people? There are troubled waters ahead for the United States and the world. For if Americans do turn to becoming like Romans we could become the monsters that the rest of the world assumes we are.

Beer of the week profile: Chimey

I discovered Chimay while traveling through Belgium with my wife and in-laws. I enjoyed the full bodied taste and loved the strength!

I owe a personal debt of gratitude to Chimay as the many many bottles of it that I consumed during my fathers illness and subsequent death, help get me through that terrible period.

Here is a little history from their website.

------------



In order to understand the reason that the monks brew beer, we invite you to consider an essential historic moment.

The monks of the Abbey of Scourmont at Chimay belong to the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance, known generally as Trappists.

These monks, who follow the Rule of Saint Benoit (going back to the 6th century) take the name of "Cistercians" from the monastery of Citeaux, founded in Burgundy in the 12th century.

The Cistercian monasteries are divided into two great Orders, of which one is historically attached to the Abbey of La Grande Trappe, in Normandy. From here originates the popular name of "Trappists".

The monks dedicate their life to the worship of God in prayer and meditation. Making a vow of celibacy, they live in a community, under the direction of an abbot and renounce all personal possessions.

The heart of their life is their work and they try hard by these means to secure aid for the poorest people.

The work of the monks has for a long time essentially been the cultivation of crops in the field, but recently this has extended to light industry, in particular food and agricultural activities. This is how, in the northern part of the country, they have brewed beer for many centuries.

Since the monks carry out their work with the same concern for perfection that they strive for in their life of prayer and study, brewing has become a true art over the course of time in the abbeys and has been perfected at the Abbey of Scourmont through the most modern scientific methods.

It was during the summer of 1850 that a small group of monks established themselves on the wild plateau of Scourmont close to Chimay.

They had to do a lot of work to transform the barren soil of this region into fertile farmland.

Around the monastery that they had built, which was of great beauty and simplicity, a farm was developed, followed by a cheese making plant and a brewery.

The Abbey of Scourmont gave birth to various industries which made it the principal provider of employment in the region and into which it injected a powerful dynamism.

Their role of initiators no longer being necessary, the monks gradually withdrew from the direct administration of all these companies in order to continue their life seeking God, shared between prayer, study and manual work.

The production and distribution of Chimay Trappist beers is performed by S.A. Bières de Chimay.

Chimay is always brewed on site at the abbey, which guarantees its authenticity and quality. It is bottled at Baileux, a few kilometres from the Abbey.

------
Source

Fire and booze don't mix!

Okay, I must admit that I was once a young fraternity guy (Sig Ep....purple and red till I'm dead!) and was dumb enough to shoot booze that had been lit on fire. I burned my mouth terribly! The effects were not however, as bad as what happened to this poor guy!



My favorite part of this clip is the guy throwing a glass of water on the guy.....classic.