Web crawl snapshots generously donated from Accelovation. This data is currently not publicly accessible.
From the site:
Accelovation is pioneering the delivery of Insight Discovery™ software solutions that help companies move from innovation idea to product reality faster and with more success.
Our solutions are used by leading firms in the Fortune 500 and beyond – companies from a diverse set of industries ranging from consumer packaged goods to high tech, foods to chemicals, and others. We help them mine the online world for market and technical insights to help speed the process of innovation.
The men shout "Allahu akbar," which means "God is greatest," before pulling Berg to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. You see the hacking start. You hear screaming. You see the butchery completed as the five men hold up his bloody head, delighted with their deed.
"...the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God. They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me. I have told you this so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you."
Neither an overcast sky nor protesters against religion on public property dampened the enthusiasm of several hundred participants in the National Day of Prayer rally on the steps of City Hall on Thursday.
But the ironically named "freethinkers" were present.
Even so, protesters from the Freethinkers Association of Central Texas quietly displayed signs Thursday saying "'Keep Church And State Separate' — Ulysses S. Grant" and "Religion on Government Property is Unconstitutional and Unpatriotic."
Pointing across the street to San Fernando Cathedral, Hugh Henry said, "If this were being held over there, we'd be happy. We don't object to what they're doing; we object to where they're doing it."
A local pastor showed true Christian spirit.
The Rev. Robert Emmitt, pastor of Community Bible Church, welcomed the protesters.
"There aren't many countries in which prayers and protestors can stand on the steps of City Hall without being afraid of arrest either for praying or protesting," he said, drawing applause.
I'm sure, pastor, you have no interest in silencing the protestors. The problem is that the "freethinkers" have every intention of passing laws, or reinterpreting the Constitution such that you and your fellow Christians would, in fact, be arrested for praying on the steps of City Hall.
"Freethinking" brownshirts - not an oxymoron in this case, unfortunately.
The athletic teams of the University of the Incarnate Word (UIW), a local Catholic University, have been known as the Crusaders. Now today, of course the word "crusade" means nothing except what it meant 1,000 years ago. Forget all of the usage which has developed since then. Forget that the Crusades in any case were merely a response to aggressive wars of conquest by Muslims. Forget that self-righteous Muslims want you to believe that "jihad" is not the same thing as "crusade". No, we must change the name of the Catholic university's team mascot to avoid offending non-Christians.
Meanwhile, thousands of imams took to the pulput throughout the Muslim world last Friday for the usual proclamation of death to the infidel Americans and Jews. And we rename our sports mascots lest Muslims be offended. Which merely proves, once again, the moral superiority of our culture.
After taking well-deserved abuse for the kowtowing, UIW president Lou Agnese weighs in with a vacuous commentary which explains the name change is "not to pander to other cultures"...it's "to pander to other cultures so we can increase enrollment."
Across the highway, at Trinity University, two professors display an astonishing inability to formulate a coherent, logical argument against a thesis they oppose.
A magazine article arguing that Hispanic immigration threatens to divide the United States represents little more than xenophobia and shoddy scholarship, professors from several San Antonio universities said Friday.
The article referred to is "The Hispanic Challenge" by esteemed political philosopher Samuel Huntington. Now, there is certainly ground for debating the merits of Huntington's thesis. The problem is, instead of attempting to address the theory, or substantiate their charge of "shoddy scholarship", the professors simply sputter victimization dogma.
"This is just the latest generation of xenophobia toward people like us," said Arturo Vega, an associate professor of political science..."We have been imagined and found wanting," [Arturo Madrid, a Trinity University humanities professor] said. "We have been imagined and found fearsome and loathsome."
What's loathsome is a university professor who is incapable of mounting a logical argument. And your students pay $900 per semester hour to sit at your feet? C'mon, Los Profes, the days of playing the victim card are gone. Now, you must actually have an argument if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you will, quite rightly, be "found wanting".
Your editorial of 27 April, "Terrorism cases put Constitution on trial" offers your prejudgment of the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on the detention of American citizens Hamdi and Padilla. You state: "The evidence against both men seems flimsy." Since no one has seen the evidence, that would seem to be a rather presumptuous statement to make. Indeed, the entire thrust of your argument is that the government has operated in secret in the cases and not made the evidence open to public scrutiny. How, then, can you possibly claim the evidence is "flimsy"?
You go on to make another prejudgment regarding the validity of the potential decision: "How the Supreme Court rules in both cases goes far beyond the fate of the plaintiffs. It has to do with whether this nation remains a nation of laws." This strongly implies that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government, then we are no longer "a nation of laws". That's interesting, because the last I heard, the Supreme Court was, in fact, the final say on the constitutionality of our laws. Yet, it seems from your editorial the Supreme Court decision will only be valid if it aligns with your preconceived notion of the case. Such disregard for the rule of law as is displayed by your editorial is what I call "simply not American."