"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

The Pope is still backpedaling and trying to reconcile with the Islamic world, and I still don’t understand what was so wrong with his speech. What he said was basically this, “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God;” calling for a peaceful cultural and religious dialogue. He added a reference to the terrorism associated with Islamic extremists, and by quoting the Byzantine emperor, suggested how inhumane and evil it is to spread faith by violence. Within minutes after the Pope’s speech there was outrage.

I found an article on The Guardian’s opinion page entitled “We cannot afford to maintain the ancient prejudices against Islam.” [Guardian Unlimited] I know, consider the source, but the author seems to be representative of a significant population. After all, the Pope has been condemned, but there hasn’t been a great deal of public rebuke over Ahmadinejad calling the holocaust a “myth,” or similar comments by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, who has regularly vows to destroy Israel, or even Rosie O’Donnell who suggested that extreme Christianity can be just as dangerous as Islam extremist.

Okay, maybe Hitler was a self-professed Catholic, and maybe you can use him as an example of extreme Christianity, but if you do, you must also consider the nine countries that mobilized over 20 million soldiers to fight against him. Where are the 20 million soldiers in this war, or do the Islamo-facists need to kill six million people for us to recognize the threat? We all know they would try, especially if the six million were American.

The article goes on to suggest that “Islamophobia” has been engrained in Western culture since the crusades and there is no basis for this type of “bigotry.” I admit, there is no basis for any bigotry, but of course there is a basis for “Islamophobia;” nineteen Islamo-facists carried out the TWC attacks. Perhaps those nineteen were religious deviants as the articles says, and perhaps they did “[violate] essential Islamic principals,” but what about the continued violence in England, Spain, Morocco, Russia and Indonesia. Were all these acts of deviants? Where is the rebuke from the Islamic leaders in that part of the world?

It's people like Karen Armstrong, the author of the artice above, who have helped contribute to the "Islamophobia" she desribes. People are not afraid of Muslims, Ms. Armstrong, they are afraid of dying. The problem, Ms. Armstrong, is not the bigotry of the West, it is the cowardice of people who, like you, are afraid to accept the Pope's truth and stand up to the evils of this world.

"The hottest places in hades are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." Dante (1265 - 1321)

Congress is deadlocked in its debate on what is considered “cruel treatment and torture, or humiliating or degrading treatment,” according Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions [Article 3: Geneva Conventions] with regards to interrogations in the war on terror. Do you know what is in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions? Do you think Usama Bin Laden or Ayman Al-Zawahiri does? Or better yet, Omar Sheikh; do you think Omar whipped his pocket copy of the Geneva Conventions before he beheaded Daniel Pearle? Of course they don’t! Article 3 is specifically aimed at prisoners of war. Now for the umpteenth thousand time, these are not prisoners of war as defined by the same Geneva Conventions. These are enemy combatants, and they really don’t care about how they are supposed to behave with regards to the rules of war. These people have been promised heaven, and they will do what is necessary to get there.

So, with all this controversy, I had to ask myself, “What would Sipowicz do?” You remember Andy Sipowicz, the hot-tempered detective from ABC’s NYPD Blue. Perhaps Sipowicz wasn’t an A student in political correctness, but who needs to be PC with someone, who if given the opportunity, would plant a bomb in an elementary school. He was often caustic, bigoted, and unapologetic. He didn’t give a rip about who you were, where you were from, or what your cause was. If you committed a crime or knew who did, he was going to get the information he needed, even if it meant smacking you around.

Now, I understand Sipowicz was a hot-head, he got into trouble every now and then, and the NYPD probably isn’t as lenient as portrayed. But what is wrong with allowing the CIA all means necessary? How much punishment is really due an operative who helped thwart a bombing? I have been asked, what would I do if one of my family was being held hostage, and someone knew where they were, how would I respond, how would I act? Like most Americans, I would risk life, limb, and liberty, to find out where they were. So, what if it were hundreds of family members? What would Sipowicz do?

Today the House passed the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 which would "require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide... proof that the individual is a citizen of the United States..." Of course, why didn't we think of this before?! Let's make sure those people voting are actually citizens of the United States. BRILLIANT!!

Yahoo! News