Follow, As I Wanda Tuinphro.

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to another installment of My Brouhaha With BrooWaha. In yesterday's post [Update on Last Friday's Post] I related how Wanda had submitted a second article to this, so-called, citizen newspaper - BrooWaha.com. This article, Website: Catholic Bashing, OK. Muslims, Not So Much, exposes the hypocrisy of the editors of BrooWaha who, out of political correctness, would not publish an article critical of Islam, but did not hesitate to publish an article that bashes the Catholic Church.

When I submitted the article, I did not expect it to be published; that was not, after all, the purpose of sending the piece to the editors. Needless to say, I was a little surprised when the article was actually published. You can find it here.

Almost immediately after the article was put online, a comment was left. This comment came so quickly that I suspect it was written by one of the editors of BrooWaha. Of the article on Islam, (which the editors had refused to publish) [Is Islam a Religion of Peace?] he said,
"If an article wasn't written with hatred it would be published whatever religion was involved."
Of course, we know now this statement is false. The article submitted by Wanda [Will the Pope Apologize for Rizal?] was filled with as much hatred for the Catholic Church as one could imagine, yet it was published by BrooWaha without a second thought.

There are differences, of course, in the two articles. In the piece on Islam, every accusation made was supported by a link to evidence backing up that accusation. When I wrote of Jehovah's Witnesses missionaries being beheaded by Muslims in the Philippines in 2002, I provided a link to Council on Foreign Relations report which notes the incident (along with several more Abu Sayyaf terrorist attacks).
When I mentioned, "In an example of Muslim religious tolerance, during this past Ramadan, a group of Sunni Muslims killed at least 59 '.....Shiite apostates who sold their faith for money to be a tool used in a war against Iraqi Sunnis ' " I backed up my statement with a link to the story published in the Manila Bulletin.

Likewise, all the references to Muslim violence, from the murder of Theo van Gogh to Aisha Bibi's mutilation, were supported by evidence.

That certainly wasn't the situation with the article on the Catholic Church. Not one shred of evidence or link was put forth by the writer.

The editors of BrooWaha had no qualms about publishing a hate piece against the Catholic Church.....even when it was obvious to anyone with an ounce of awareness that the writer was phony; only a dunderhead would believe that "Wanda Tuinphro" was a real name.

As pointed out by blogger Al of Is Anybody There?, the comments that followed avoided the issues brought up by Wanda's last article and focused, instead on personal attacks on yours truly. Those commenting had previously fallen for Wanda's hoax and were none too happy.

Now, my work concerning BrooWaha has come to an end .........unless I decide to create another persona. Of course, I wouldn't do that; would I?

Update on Last Friday's Post.

The most pertinent question brought up by my last post, Website: Catholic Bashing, OK. Muslims, Not So Much, was put forward by LarryD of Acts Of The Apostasy, when he asked,
"So - are you going to expose them for their hypocrisy?"

I wasn't sure just how to go about exposing the site, other than writing the post and sending emails to a few folks.....none of whom are particularly influential. I knew I wanted the editors of BrooWaha to read my post; I also wanted some of the regulars at the site to see the management for what they truly are.

My first thought was to have "Wanda Tuinphro" submit Friday's post to the folks at BrooWaha. I knew it would not get published; I wasn't sure how they would react. Would they eliminate mine two accounts there? Since that was a possibility, I decided to send links to the blog post to some of the writers. The article that "Wanda" had submitted originally had generated comments from two such writers and a message from a third. Saturday morning, I sent messages containing a link to Friday's post, to those three, letting each one read my accusations against BrooWaha.com.

All three sent a reply to me, though only one of the three seems to have enough reading comprehension to have understood the point of the post.

This morning around 5:00 AM, I had Wanda submit the post to the editors of BrooWaha as an article. Now, six hours later, the decision on what to do with the article is still "pending". I know, of course, the article will never see the light of day. I'm simply curious to see how the editors will respond. Right now, their response seems to be, "let's just ignore the whole thing".

Website: Catholic Bashing, OK. Muslims, Not So Much.

I honestly wish the circumstances hadn't turned out this way; I would like to think that I had been wrong in my assumptions and that this post would be unnecessary.

This post is a continuation of one I had written this past Tuesday, entitled My Brouhaha with BrooWaha. For those of you who have not read that post, allow me to bring you up to speed.

Last weekend, I happened upon a website called BrooWaha.com. The website is promoted as "Your Citizen Newspaper", enabling writers to board another vehicle in hopes of getting their words out onto the Internet. Thinking it might be a good opportunity, I submitted two pieces from my blog right away, both of which, were published.

It was my third article which started this rather odd chain of events. I submitted a piece which I posted onto this blog - Is Islam a Religion of Peace? - In that post, I laid out several instances where Muslims had committed what can only be described as atrocities. In each instance, the perpetrator was acting in accordance with Islamic law.

This article was rejected by the editors of BrooWaha. I suspected that the reason for the rejection could only be out of Liberal, political correctness which maintains that telling the truth about Islam makes one a bigot.

In his comment on my Brouhaha post, blogger LarryD opined,

"I bet if you submitted a post about the eeeeeeevviiiilllllll Catholic Church, they'd publish it without a second thought."

I was certain Larry was correct, so I'd do just that.

Many of my readers will recall some of my posts from 2009, where I created characters to goof on a group of Nigerian scammers who had sent emails to one of my accounts. One of these characters was a "woman" I had given the name, Wanda Tuinphro. It was time to bring Wanda back to life and have her open an account with BrooWaha.com.

After creating a profile for Wanda, I set about putting together an article. Rather than spend a lot of time writing some sort of anti-Catholic drivel which I didn't really believe, I googled the phrase evil catholic church and after going through a number of pages, found a blog written by someone who despises the Catholic Church. I simply copied portions of one post - along with something from the comments section - and put it all together, calling it "Will the Pope Apologize for Rizal?"

Wanda submitted that article, along with a photo of Jose Rizal. Of course, the website, which would never publish something defaming Islam, had no problem publishing Wanda's article.
As I write this, the article can be found here.

On the front page of the publication, the article is referred to as "persuasive".

Naturally, because I have no idea how long the article will remain online - particularly if someone hammers BrooWaha - I have taken screen shots as evidence, which I'll post below.

Funny thing, I haven't actually read all the terrible things Wanda "wrote", but someone who visits the website was impressed. After reading the trash, this person commented,

"You have to wonder sometimes what Christ would think of all the evils, past, present and future, done in his name. If I were he, I don't think I'd be flattered. Christ's message was this: "Love God. Love Your Neighbor." Five words, and from those five words, rivers of laws and rules and opinions and translations have flowed, until today, when we stand entangled in words that have lost their heart, their power and their message.

So, no, I don't think you will receive your apology, so long as the earthly sector of the church is run by fallible humans. Maybe we should have a World Day of Forgiveness. Then we could start from scratch, with clean hearts and wiser heads and make a better job of it."

Muslim Cabbie Stabbed.

Michael Enright, the young man alleged to have stabbed a Muslim cab driver, has thrown a proverbial spanner in the works.

It would have made it easier on everyone had Enright's story followed all the familiar paths; if only it had fit all our preconceived notions, we wouldn't have to think so much. Rather than being a right wing nut, a Tea party member who opposed the building of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, Enright can more accurately be describes as left-wing liberal supporter of the Ground Zero Mosque. Enright was a volunteer for Intersections International whose "core mission is tied to interfaith dialogue and cross cultural cooperation, especially with our Muslim brothers and sisters."

In his statement on the crime Rev. Robert Chase, Executive Director of Intersections International said Enright "shared our vision for a diverse and peaceful world".

Clearly, alcohol was involved. It's being reported that Enright had problems with drinking, though friends believed he had been sober for a year.

Further complicating the issue, the NY Post is reporting that the victim, cab driver Ahmed Sharif, was opposed to the construction of the Mosque at Ground Zero. The NY Post article ends appropriately; "Tuesday's stabbing must be taken for what it was: the act of a disturbed individual who is now in custody."

My Brouhaha with BrooWaha.

This past weekend, I happened upon an ad for website called BrooWaha.com which, at first, looked as if it might offer something of interest to me.

Calling itself "Your Citizen Newspaper" it looked like the ideal vehicle for reaching a larger audience with my blog.

After opening an account, I submitted than my first article....actually it was a retitled copy of my blog post on in vitro fertilization clinics in India. So far, so good.

No long afterward, I submitted my blog post, Obama- a "Limbaugh Christian"? This articled was accepted, as well, though the title came out as "Obama..a "

That article brought down the wrath of a few Liberals and consequently, it was my brouhaha with one such Progressive that prompted me to write my post, Is Islam a Religion of Peace? which I submitted to the editor soon after.

Two hours after I submitted my piece on Islam, a rejection email arrived in my inbox.

Judging from the articles published on the website, there's no doubt that that rejection was done because of Liberal, political correctness.

I went to the perseverances in my account and tried to disassociate myself from BrooWaha but could not find any way to do so.

I sent an email, but to no avail. So, after 24 hours with no response to my email asking to terminate my connection, I submitted an article which, basically stated that I wanted my associate with those folks to end........along with the BrooWaha Bites jpg shown in this post.

If they haven't deleted my account in another 24 hours, I'll submit this post.

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Recently, I have been accused of intolerance and bigotry because I admittedly do not subscribe to the premise - as laid out by the likes of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama - that Islam is a religion of peace. I've been told that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and it is only a small group of extremists who carry out acts of violence. Extreme acts of religious violence are also carried out by a minority of Christians and Jews, I'm told.

Search as I might, I have yet to come across a single case where Christians or Jews have beheaded Jehovah's Witnesses as Muslims did in Philippines in August 2002. Kidnappings and beheadings by Muslims aren't restricted to Jehovah's Witnesses; farm owner Doroteo Gonzales in April 2009 and school teacher Gabriel Canizares in November, 2009 are two examples off the top of my head, so to speak.

There are examples of murder committed by Christians - such as the killing of abortionist, George Tiller. However, I have yet to read of any Christian minister or scholar who justifies Tiller's murder as Muslim scholar and preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi justifies suicide bombings by Muslims.

In an example of Muslim religious tolerance, during this past Ramadan, a group of Sunni Muslims killed at least 59 ".....Shiite apostates who sold their faith for money to be a tool used in a war against Iraqi Sunnis."

While Christians have protested and boycotted the works of Dan Brown, as well as the films of Ron Howard, because of "The Da Vinci Code", so far as I know, no Christian has called for a fatwa against Brown as Muslims did against Salman Rushdie nor was Howard killed by Christians as Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by Muslims because of his film concerning the topic of violence against women in some Islamic societies.

Perhaps we could ask Abdul Qayuum and his lover, Siddiqa how peaceful the followers of Islam are.......oh no, we can't. The two were recently stoned to death for trying to elope.

Lastly, we might ask Aisha Bibi her thoughts on the so-called peace loving religion of Islam.

Spade Cooley.

I love music....all sorts - nearly every genre.

This is the reason I've become such a fan of Pandora Internet Radio. No matter where I want to travel musically, I can get there via Pandora.

Yesterday, I took a notion to listen to Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys. I enjoy hearing Western Swing occasionally, though I'd hardly be called an expert. While listening to the genre on Pandora yesterday, I went to wikipedia to read a bit on the subject. It was in that article that I first learned of Spade Cooley, a popular Western Swing band leader whose career ended in 1961 when he was arrested and convicted for the murder of his second wife.

Prior to his downfall, Cooley was an extremely popular entertainer, having appeared in countless films. In 1960, he reportedly had $15 million......certainly not something to scoff at in 1960 dollars.

Sadly, Cooley was an alcoholic and a violent one to boot. According to trutv.com, Cooley forced his 14 year old daughter to watch as he killed her mother.

Cooley was found guilty and sentenced to prison. Just before he was scheduled to be released on parole, he died of a heart attack while performing a benefit concert.

Although Cooley was the "King of Western Swing" and a friend of Roy Rogers, it isn't easy finding examples of his work today; fitting punishment for his having committed such a horrible murder. I was able to locate a Youtube video of his band in a Three Stooges movie, "Rockin' in the Rockies".
Cooley is the fiddle playing band leader in this video. I've also followed his video up with a video of Bob Wills doing the same song, so we can get a proper idea of Cooley's value as a musician.

Obama - a 'Limbaugh Christian'?

A recent poll conducted by The Pew Forum reveals that 18% of Americans believe that President Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. Imagine that.

The poll also shows that only 34% say that Obama is a Christian. Personally, I fall in with the 43% of Americans who do not know what religion the President follows.

This poll was conducted prior to Obama's recent statements regarding the Ground Zero Mosque and it would be interesting to see if those percentages have changed.

Joshua DuBois, who Time magazine once called "Obama's pastor-in- Chief", is a bit surprised by the poll numbers. According to the Washington Post, DuBois said,

"While the president has been diligent and personally committed to his own Christian faith, there's certainly folks who are intent on spreading falsehoods about the president and his values and beliefs."

If Obama is, indeed, a Christian, then he is what I would call a "Rush Limbaugh Christian". By this, I do not want to imply that I believe Obama has an ounce of Conservatism in his body. No, a "Rush Limbaugh Christian" can fall within either political camp. If Obama believes himself to be a Christian, then like Rush, it is a generic sort of Christianity which is dangerously close to Indifferentism (a belief that all religions - and in this case, all forms of Christianity - are equally valid).

I got the idea of calling these sorts of generic, non-denominational Christians "Rush Limbaugh Christian" after listening to Limbaugh side-steeping the issue when a caller once asked Rush what his religious background was; he simply stated "Christian".

We know that Obama and Limbaugh reportedly have the same view concerning the issue of same-sex "marriage" versus civil unions. Both Obama and Limbaugh are on record as having said they support civil unions between same-sex couples; that view doesn't conform to traditional Christianity. Like far too many people, Obama and Limbaugh have modified Christianity to fit their already pre-conceived opinions rather than allow themselves to be changed by the teachings of Christ.

I can't imagine that either Obama or Limbaugh would be pleased by my comparison, but often the truth hurts. It would profit both men to take a serious look into what the Church teaches. Both men may picture himself as a prophet, but both are less god-like than many of their followers contend.

Obama and the Mosque Near Ground Zero.

Sometimes I have to wonder just how much common sense President Barack Obama actually has. In many ways he acts as if his situation - viz a viz the attention he gets for the things he says and does - hasn't changed since the days before he became a household name. There was once a time when he could say one thing to one particular group while saying something different for another group. When he was Barry Obama, no one noticed, now, as President, the media latches on to every word he says no matter the venue. His recent comments on the mosque near ground zero tells me he hasn't caught on to that yet.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported that "President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan........"

During Friday's White House Iftar dinner, Obama used the argument of "religious freedom" to give Muslims the impression that he, as the NY Times headline read, "strongly backs Islam Center near 9/11 site".

On Saturday, after receiving criticism from all sides on this issue, Obama "clarified his statement" by saying that, of course, Muslims have the right to build a mosque where ever they like, but he said he didn't necessarily think building a mosque so close to Ground Zero was a wise thing to do.

Being a typical politician, the President does the typical CYA.

Michael Gerson opines that Obama may have been "hapless" but was right in his assessment.

According to their website, the programs at the Cordoba Initiative (the group behind the build of the mosque) "are designed to cultivate multi-cultural and multi-faith understanding across minds and borders. In the ten years since our founding, the necessity to strengthen the bridge between Islam and the West continues to prevail. Cordoba Initiative seeks to actively promote engagement through a myriad of programs, by reinforcing similarities and addressing differences".

Is building a mosque so close to where Muslim extremists killed thousands of people a way to "cultivate multi-cultural and multi-faith understanding across minds and borders"?

I have to agree with National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman who wrote,
"The better way for Muslims seeking reconciliation and moderation would have been for them to reach out to the families of the victims, who we are sure could have recommended any number of actions to achieve those goals other than the present plan."

In an effort to stir up the pot, so to speak, the NY Daily News points out that "Mosque gets all the press, but area near Ground Zero full of bars, porn, liquor stores, salons."

My fear is that, in the not so distant future, after the Muslim mosque and community center is built, some wacko, American terrorist will attempt to blow up the mosque. Then all Hell will break loose.

In Vitro.

This is so wrong on oh, so many levels; it's difficult to know just where to begin.

In India, home of 1.2 billion souls, in vitro fertilization clinics are now the latest craze, particularly for women 60 years old and older.

India does not, apparently, place many - if any - restrictions on it's 550 registered in vitro fertilization clinics; it seems like anything goes. According to a Washington Post article, in the National Fertility Center in Hisar,Haryana India only 60% of the women impregnated at the clinic carried their pregnancies to full term.

The article goes on to say that the clients fall into two categories; one group of older women who wish to eliminate the "stigma" associated with infertility and a second group of career minded couples who choose to wait until their careers were established before having children. Both groups are inherently selfish; choosing their own desires over what might be best for the child.

Reading the Washington Post article, one can begin to appreciate the Catholic Church's policy concerning What’s Wrong With In-Vitro Fertilization:

Father Tadeusz PachoIczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, explained that the Church teaches that the procedure is immoral for several reasons. "It undermines the meaning of sex. It violates the exclusivity of the couple's marriage covenant," Father Pacholczyk said. "It says that it is okay to manufacture life in a laboratory as if it were a commodity, when it should be the result of human love."

"There's also the ancillary evil of freezing embryonic humans that are later abandoned or poured down the sink if they are not useful," he added. In addition, Father Pacholczyk noted that babies created through in-vitro fertilization have an elevated risk of birth defects. "Studies have shown a six fold elevated risk for in-vitro fertilization children contracting an eye disease called retinal blastoma versus normally conceived babies," he said. "In-vitro fertilization is very unnatural. You're extracting ova from the woman, culturing them and inspecting the developing embryo in a laboratory setting. They are in a completely unnatural environment for a very long time before they are put back into the womb.

Further research into the Church's stance on the immorality of in vitro lead me to a story from 2006 [Good News, You're Pregnant - Bad News, You're Fired. and Catholic School Teacher Fired for Having In Vitro].
Like far too many Catholics, Kelly and Eric Romenesko knew very little about the Church's teachings in this area. Kelly, who was a French teacher at a Catholic school, was fired after informing her supervisors that she had become pregnant via in vitro. Since the church forbids IVF, she had violated school rules requiring teachers to live according to Catholic doctrine.

Kelly Romenesko reportedly said,

"I did not know what the Catholic doctrine stated against in vitro fertilization. Yes, I signed a contract, but the contract was vague in my opinion. I didn't know what I was doing as far as in vitro goes that that went against doctrine. My understanding was it was the Ten Commandments."

According to one article,

"When Romenesko asked for time off for fertility treatments, her boss at Xavier High School, where she was hired in 2002, referred her to a priest who laid out the church's problems with IVF. She says she left the meeting with the sense that 'this is against church teaching, but I am a good person and will be accepted by the church.' She and Eric are still considering what to do with the frozen embryos left over from their IVF."

Being someone who believes the Roman Catholic Church should follow his teachings, Eric Romenesko said,

"I think the issue here is the fact that Kelly was released from her job for being pregnant, not the in vitro fertilization itself," Eric said. "Our daughters have been baptized Lutheran at this point in time. Kelly and I haven't converted yet."

Mr. Romenesko is, of course, a bozo. The Church encourages Catholics to have children and according to her own statement, his wife had the sense that 'this is against church teaching'.

Deal Defeats Handel.

Former Congressman, Nathan Deal defeated former Georgia Secretary of State, Karen Handel in the runoff to be the Republican candidate in the Georgia governor's race.

He wasn't my first choice. I had backed Handel after she received the endorsement of Arizona's governor Jan Brewer. Still, Deal is far and away a much better pick than former governor, Democrat Roy Barnes.

According to examiner.com Deal's margin of victory was less than 1%. Handel could have asked for a recount under Georgia law but choose to concede, insuring GOP unity behind Deal.

There's certainly no hard feelings on my part. I'm not going to speculate as to why Deal was chosen by such a slim margin. It was a close race.

From the AJC :

"Yesterday, Karen Handel called Nathan Deal a 'corrupt relic of Washington.' Today, however, Handel said she is endorsing him as the GOP nominee for governor."

Current GA. Governor, Sonny Perdue, had remained quiet during the GOP primary. Now, he's giving his support to his fellow Republican;

“Our Republican family has nominated an outstanding candidate for Governor.

“Nathan Deal has worked tirelessly to represent our Georgia values in Washington against the forced liberal agenda pushed by Roy Barnes’ allies such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and John Edwards. The refusal of those leaders to listen to the will of the people on critical issues such as out-of-control spending and health care mandates simply reminds Georgians about the way Barnes ruled imperially here before 2003.

“In contrast, Nathan is a common-sense conservative who has consistently represented the principles and beliefs of our state’s citizens. Unlike his opponent, Nathan Deal listens first and talks second. Now it is time for our family to come together and keep Georgia moving forward.”

Politics, as usual.

New Routine.

Yesterday was my son J.P.'s first day in school. Because of my work schedule, I have, for years, kept him at home with me until just before going into work (at 3 PM) when I would drop him off at a baby sitter's home to stay until my wife got off work at 3:30.

Now that he is in pre-k, I have six or seven hours of "alone time" to do things that I couldn't always do before while I was watching him. This new routine means more time to do whatever I wish to do.

Now that he's in school, I can more easily find the quiet time to meditate and/or pray the Rosary and although he and I often went to Mass together on Friday, it is easier now for me to attend Mass every day.

And of course, I'll have more time to spend on writing. The additional time spent in meditation, pray and Mass will be easily put to good use. I'm not so certain that the additional time that can be spent writing will be nearly as productive.

Only time will tell.

8-9-10

First day of school for J.P..

14 hour work day for me.

No post until tomorrow.

A Not So Hidden Agenda.

There was never any doubt in my mind that a homosexual, Federal Judge in California would overturn that state's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex "marriage".

Likewise, there was never any doubt that, whatever Judge Vaughn Walker decision would be, the losing side would continue to press on and eventually bring the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

To me, the question has been, why do homosexuals want so called, "same-sex marriage" legalized in the first place? I can understand why a couple would desire to have their relationship sanctioned in a religious ceremony but, what purpose is served by having the relationship recognized by the State?

There are, of course, some tax advantages that married couples have which unmarried couples are not afforded. These advantages could be eliminated were we to get rid of the income tax and put the Fair Tax into effect. With a Will, one can leave their possessions to anyone they choose......marriage isn't required for that. Social Security regulations should be changed to allow individuals to pass on their money to whom ever they choose as well.

So, why then do so many homosexuals argue for "marriage equality"?

A comment on an article in the On Faith section of the Washington Post [Proposition 8 ruling in California: religion roundup] gives us a clue;

"Religions should not be participants in the marriage business. Once gays become fully enfranchised and have the right to marry, I cannot see how we can continue to give tax exempt status to religious institutions that discriminate against gays in any way.

In the interim, clerics should not be permitted to conduct marriage ceremonies; marriage is a legally binding contract. If religious institutions wish to perform some sort of post-marriage ceremony, fine. But, again, any institution that does not fully accept the rights of gay citizens should not benefit from nonprofit status. Period."

Traditionally minded Churches do not, of course, permit homosexual sex.

The motive behind this push for "same-sex marriage" is the destruction of morally as we've known it for thousands of years. Those behind this movement want to destroy the Church and all those who recognize the truth of homosexuality being a sin against God and Nature. Sex is, fundamentally, about reproduction of the species. Homosexuality is disordered.


Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court may very well uphold Judge Walker's decision. An earlier Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand and even as "conservative" as this current court is alleged to be, Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land.

Those cheering Judge Walker's decision may claim that theirs is a fight for equality but, true equality does not and cannot exist. Theirs is a fight to destroy religion and truth.

Birthday Cake for President Obama.

Thanks to Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, I was able to send a "birthday cake" to the President.

You all can send one too by going to http://happybirthdayfromaz.com/ .

Send in yours right away!!!!!!

See the one I sent here.

Time to Keep Disgruntled Democrats on the Reservation.

The following quote is from an article that appears in the Aug. 9, 2010, print and iPad editions of TIME magazine.

"The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband's house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn't run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose."

Does this cover photo put an end to the debate over whether we should continue the war in Afghanistan?

Will Obama's increased dependence on Predator drones and the, so called "targeted killing" improve the lives of Afghan women?

A blogger going by the name "Sara" points out in What Happens Even When We’re In Afghanistan,

"The implication that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan would lead to more cases like Aisha’s, or that it is exclusively the U.S. military presence in the country that prevents these egregious human rights abuses, is specious at best (especially because Aisha’s “punishment” was meted out last year, while significant strides were being made for Afghan women–not prior to U.S. involvement in 2001). So not even our presence in the bruised nation entirely prevented the violence that the cover suggests would continue if we withdrew."

In the New York Times article referenced to above, it's noted that,
"..........the lack of apparent progress in the nearly nine-year war is making it harder for Mr. Obama to hold his own party together on the issue."

Can there be any doubt that Time is using the cover of the magazine to keep those disgruntled Democrats in line? The essence of the Democrat Liberal mindset is emotion. The propaganda machine at the magazine is predicting the emotional response to this horrible image of a disfigured, Afghan teen aged girl will persuade many Progressives to get with their President on this.

Sinead O'Conner Weds For The Third Time.

I guess I'm out of it. I'm not up on all the latest news of marriages of all the celebrities that inhabit this planet. I'm only just now learning of Sinead O'Connor's third marriage.

The official statement posted on her blog read, in part,

"Thanks be to the Great Lord Jah.
Rastafarai.
Dread I.
Conquering Lion I.
One love."

Some time after becoming a "priest" of the heretical Latin Tridentine Church, taking the name "Mother Bernadette Mary" (and subsequently being excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church) O'Conner vowed a commitment to chastity....a vow she broke soon afterward. With the references to Jah and Rastafari, it appears she may have abandoned her "priesthood" as well.

The story of her third marriage gives a list of the names of her former husbands, as well as the fathers of her children. Like the photo we see on the left, it's not a pretty picture.

First husband, John Reynolds with whom she had one son, Jake.

2nd child, Roisin was fathered by John Waters with whom she never married.

Second husband, Nick Sommerland. No children together.

3rd child, Shane was fathered by Donal Lunny with whom she never married.

4th child, Yeshua was fathered by Frank Bonadio with whom she never married.

Third husband, Steve Cooney.

The tale of personal life as given in wikipedia is bizarre beyond comprehension.

Once famous for her singing, O'Conner is now mainly known for her criticism for the Catholic Church in general and the Pope in particular. She is often interviewed concerning sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and articles on the issue usually mention that she was abused as a child. By this mention, the impression is given that she was sexually abused by someone inside the church, when, according to her, she was actually physically abused by her mother.

Don't be surprised to read of her third divorce soon.

Update: 12/27/2011
Sinead O'Connor ends fourth marriage after 16 days.