North Dakota to extend borders

[Hypothetically speaking] Recently the US Government has declared that the northwest Border of the State of Minnesota from 50 miles south of Fargo to the Canadian border was to be annexed to the State of North Dakota. The slice of annexed land would be drawn 10 miles into the current Red River Valley. The reason given by the government was in order to settle disputes over bar closing times that ensue in the courts and spend hundreds of thousands of tax payers money. Also the government sited that tax revenue from cigarette sales would increase for North Dakota. The Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain issues like this were constitutional and so the enforcement of the proposed legislation will begin next week. A spokes-person for the US government made a statement this past Wednesday, "If it works for the Nation of Israel it can certainly work for the States of North Dakota and Minnesota."

I trust you didn't think that I was being serious? If you did I hope you read the following link

Troops storm synagogues

A number of weeks ago Senator Tancredo, in a discussion with a talk show host was given a hypothetical situation and responded hypothetically that if the US suffered an extreme terrorist attack on US soil how should we respond. The Senator answered by saying that we should place holy Islamic sites on our target list. There was a certain backlash by Democrats. And many from this side of the aisle were also stunned by the Senators frankness. On his blog Hugh Hewitt threw his voice into the ring and made very excellent political and humanitarian sense. But I have come to an almost certain conclusion, human nature being what it is, that I disagree with Hugh. One of his major points was that targeting holy Islamic sites would enrage or at least insight 'peaceful Muslims' against the US and not against militant Islamic Terrorist. At first I could see that very clearly and still have a vestige of why that might be true.

Then I saw the story I linked to above and my brain went into overdrive. Maybe thinking too fast for cooler logic to prevail. But if Jewish military are willing to storm Jewish places of worship to forcibly resettle Jewish people out of their 'governmentally emancipated property' Why can't, why wouldn't, why shouldn't, cooler headed and numerically dominant Muslims be able to forcibly control an extreme faction of Islamic Terrorist. Answer: because they don't want to? Because they agree with the extremist? Because they have nothing to gain or to lose by remaining silent?

Maybe I'm too simplistic. Maybe I'm too much of a geo-political neophyte? Maybe I don't understand the Muslim mindset but I certainly can't get into the head of a Jewish Military person who would act on orders to storm a synagogue. Maybe we should give Tancredo's hypothetical response some weight and see what happens?

May God help us all!!!

Peace