Here are other blogs that enjoyed the speech: Macranger is very positive about the speech, calling it the best speech he has heard all year. Jay Curry and Stop the ACLU like the video as well, as does Kim Priestap. (Hat tip to PoliGazette)
Monday, December 31, 2007
Here are other blogs that enjoyed the speech: Macranger is very positive about the speech, calling it the best speech he has heard all year. Jay Curry and Stop the ACLU like the video as well, as does Kim Priestap. (Hat tip to PoliGazette)
Do you recall at the end of one the Republican Debates Huckabee came up to Romney to apologize about an interview that would appear in the NYT Magazine that be construed as publicly criticizing Mormonism yet that was not the intent? And that Romney accepted that apology with a brandishment that one’s religion should not be an issue among legitimate issues in the electoral process.
Now Huckabee is saying that Romney owes him an apology for the negative campaign ads that blatantly are lying about Huckabee and making claims for Romney that are outrageously untrue.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Now here is the thing that has got my attention about Savage: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been running an active PR campaign to get Savage fired by talking his sponsors into dropping him.
If CAIR feels threatened by Savage, then regardless of Savage’s motives, he has become a person of favorable interest to me. CAIR is an evil organization that publicly passes itself off as a moderate Islamic human rights watch dog for American Muslims; however the twist is CAIR has had members and leaders convicted for ties to Islamist Terrorists of which Hamas seems to be the primary benefactor. Friends that is neither moderate nor American to support psycho-Islamist terrorist suicidal and homicidal murdering terrorists. O and I forgot to mention racist, for Hamas where it controls education in schools or Mosques incessantly teaches hatred of Jews that would warm the corpse of Adolf Hitler with glee.
Apparently Savage has talking up the CAIR mud and CAIR has decided to throw its money into silencing Savage. In which case Savage responded with a civil suit of copy right infringement in CAIR using skewed editing radio snippets of Savage to make him look bad.
Savage is taking the legal war between himself and CAIR to the next level. Savage is amending his law suit:
The amended lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a "political vehicle of international terrorism" and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida. (WND)
Although I am not a Michael Savage fan I say, “SICK’EM BOY!”
Saturday, December 29, 2007
The classic example is Saudi Billionaire Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz who litigated Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld an American citizen in Britain over her book “Funding Evil” published in America.
Ehrenfeld did not have the resources to fly to Britain to fight the litigation in which the defender has the burden of proof instead of the plaintiff as in America. Ehrenfeld’s no show resulted in a civil litigation victory for Terrorist funder Bin Mahfouz. Since Ehrenfeld is not a British citizen the effect of the loss is not enforced as binding in America; nevertheless Bin Mahfouz’s victory has affected Ehrenfeld’s well being in America.
Dr. Ehrenfeld has another expose book ready to publish about the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood; however due to the British litigation by Bin Mahfouz, Ehrenfeld cannot find a major Publishing House to take on the project.
Bin Mahfouz’s litigation then has used the Western judicial system to squelch Freedom of Speech not only in Britain but in America as well.
It is disgusting that major Publishing Houses are so fearful of American enemies such as Wahhabi Islamists that fund terrorism. They should put their Capitalist minds together and promote the sales of such a book if only to have the funds to push back with litigation of the Bin Mahfouz Islamist of the world.
JRH (Hat tip to Don Moore of Blind Conservatives)
Thompson has the best Conservative plan to lead America's future as opposed to the Democrats of tax and spend and moral socialism. Or Ron Paul who will cause America to go down in flames as he disable the military.
December 28, 2007 3:38 PM ET
A transcript released by the Pakistani government Friday of a purported conversation between militant leader Baitullah Mehsud, who is referred to as Emir Sahib, and another man identified as a Maulvi Sahib, or Mr. Cleric. The government alleges the intercepted conversation proves al-Qaida was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto:
Maulvi Sahib: Peace be on you.
Mehsud: Peace be on you, too.
Maulvi Sahib: How are you Emir Sahib?
Maulvi Sahib: Congratulations. I arrived now tonight.
Mehsud: Congratulations to you, too.
Maulvi Sahib: They were our men there.
Mehsud: Who were they?
Maulvi Sahib: There were Saeed, the second was Badarwala Bilal and Ikramullah was also there.
Mehsud: The three did it?
Maulvi Sahib: Ikramullah and Bilal did it.
Mehsud: Then congratulations to you again.
Maulvi: Where are you? I want to meet with you?
Mehsud: I am in Makin. Come I am at Anwar Shah's home.
Maulvi Sahib: OK I will come.
Mehsud: Do not inform their family presently.
Maulvi Sahib: Right.
Mehsud: It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her.
Maulvi Sahib: Praise be to God. I will give you more details when I come.
Mehsud: I will wait for you. Congratulation once again.
Maulvi Sahib: Congratulations to you as well.
Mehsud: Any service?
Mauvliv: Thank you very much?
Mehsud: Peace be on you.
Maulvi: Same to you.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Terrorist organizations are usually hot to claim the glory of a perceived victory. Here I am reading the government knows who did the assassination and is going after the surviving assassination cell. It may be true, but something just reads as to convenient and tidy of an explanation from a nation that has not controlled al Qaeda and the Taliban that have blatantly operated from the sovereign nation of Pakistan.
I still think there was collusion within the Pakistan military and their Intelligence modus operandi in the assassination of Bhutto.
Here is the Yahoo News account of the Musharraf government findings:
By MUNIR AHMED, Associated Press Writer
December 28, 2007 5:03 PM ET
Pakistan's government announced it had evidence that an al-Qaida operative was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, who was laid to rest Friday as the army tried to quell a frenzy of rioting that left 27 people dead less than two weeks before national elections.
The government, led by President Pervez Musharraf, also said Bhutto was not killed by gunshots or shrapnel as originally claimed. Instead, it said her skull was shattered by the force of a suicide bomb blast that slammed her against a lever in her car's sunroof.
The new explanations by the government in the death of Bhutto, Musharraf's most powerful foe in the elections, were part of a rapidly evolving political crisis. The rioting by Bhutto's furious supporters raised concerns that this nuclear-armed nation, plagued by chaos and the growing threat from Islamic militants even before the killing, was in danger of spinning out of control.
Pentagon officials said Friday they have seen nothing to give them any worries about the state of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
While many grieving Pakistanis turned to violence, hundreds of thousands paid their last respects to the popular opposition leader as she was placed beside her father in a marble mausoleum in the Bhutto ancestral village in southern Sindh province.
"I don't know what will happen to the country now," said mourner Nazakat Soomro, 32.
The government said it would hunt down those responsible for her death in the lawless tribal areas along the Afghan border where Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders are thought to be hiding.
"They will definitely be brought to justice," Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said.
The government released a transcript Friday of a purported conversation between militant leader Baitullah Mehsud and another militant.
"It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her," Mehsud said, according to the transcript. The government did not release an audiotape.
Cheema described Mehsud as an al-Qaida leader who was also behind most other recent terror attacks in Pakistan, including the Karachi bomb blast in October against Bhutto that killed more than 140 people.
Mehsud is thought to be the commander of pro-Taliban forces in the tribal region of South Waziristan, where al-Qaida fighters are also active.
In the transcript, Mehsud gives his location as Makin, a town in South Waziristan.
This fall, he was quoted in a Pakistani newspaper as saying that he would welcome Bhutto's return from exile with suicide bombers. Mehsud later denied that in statements to local television and newspaper reporters.
Cheema announced the formation of two inquiries into Bhutto's death, one to be carried out by a high court judge and another by security forces. Bhutto was assassinated Thursday evening after a rally in the garrison city of Rawalpindi near Islamabad. Twenty other people also died in the attack.
On Thursday, authorities had said Bhutto died from bullet wounds fired by a young man who then blew himself up. A surgeon who treated her, however, said Friday she died from the impact of shrapnel on her skull.
But later Friday, Cheema said those two accounts were mistaken. He said all three shots missed her as she greeted supporters through the sunroof of her vehicle, which was bulletproof and bombproof.
He also denied that shrapnel caused her death, saying Bhutto was killed when she tried to duck back into the vehicle, and that the shock waves from the blast knocked her head into a lever attached to the sunroof, fracturing her skull. The government released a photograph showing blood on the lever.
Denying charges the government failed to give her adequate security protection, Cheema said it was Bhutto who made herself vulnerable and pointed out that the other passengers inside Bhutto's bombproof vehicle were fine.
"I wish she had not come out of the rooftop of her vehicle," he said.
Bhutto's death sparked deadly rioting that killed at least 27 people, according to an Interior Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Rioters in the southern city of Karachi torched 500 vehicles, 13 banks, seven gas stations and two police stations, police chief Azhar Farooqi said. The violence killed 13 people, including five workers in a garment factory that was set ablaze, police said. A shootout between rioters and police wounded three officers, police said.
Another six people died from suffocation in Mirpurkhas, about 200 miles northeast of Karachi, when a bank building was set on fire, said Ghulam Mohammed Mohtaram, the top civilian security official in Sindh province.
About 7,000 people in the central city of Multan ransacked seven banks and a gas station and threw stones at police, who responded with tear gas. Media reports said 200 banks were attacked nationwide.
Vandals also burned 10 railway stations and several trains across Sindh province, forcing the suspension of all train service between Karachi and the eastern Punjab province, said Mir Mohammed Khaskheli, a senior railroad official.
An Associated Press reporter saw nine cars of a train completely burned. Witnesses said all the passengers were pulled out before the train was torched.
Desperate to quell the violence, the government sent troops into the streets of Hyderabad, Karachi and other areas in Sindh. In Hyderabad, the soldiers refused to let people out of their homes, witnesses said.
The army readied 20 battalions of troops for deployment across Sindh if they were needed to stop the violence, according to a military statement.
"We will sternly deal with those who are trying to create disorder," Cheema said.
Paramilitary rangers were also given the authority to use live fire to stop rioters from damaging property in the region, said Maj. Asad Ali, the rangers' spokesman.
"We have orders to shoot on sight," he said.
Many cities were nearly deserted as businesses closed and public transportation came to a halt at the start of three days of national mourning for Bhutto.
Prime Minister Mohammedmian Soomro said the government had no immediate plans to postpone Jan. 8 parliamentary elections, despite the violence and the decision by Nawaz Sharif, another opposition leader, to boycott the poll.
"Right now the elections stand where they were," he told a news conference.
The United States, which sees Pakistan as a crucial ally in the war on terror, was counting on Musharraf to proceed with the vote in the hope it will cement steps toward restoring democracy after the six-week state of emergency he declared last month.
Keeping the election on track was the biggest immediate concern in sustaining an American policy of promoting stability, moderation and democracy in Pakistan, U.S. officials said Friday.
Bhutto's death left her populist party without a clear successor. Her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, who was freed in December 2004 after eight years in detention on graft charges, is one contender to head the party although he lacks the cachet of a blood relative from the Bhutto clan's political dynasty.
Throughout the day, hundreds of thousands of mourners arrived in Bhutto's hometown of Garhi Khuda Bakhsh in tractors, buses, cars and jeeps for her funeral cortege and burial.
Bhutto's plain wood coffin, draped in the red, green and black flag of her Pakistan People's Party, was carried in a white ambulance toward the marble mausoleum about three miles away, passing a burning passenger train on the way.
Associated Press reporter Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
As of this writing there is only guessing who is directly responsible for the assassination from the region of the world in which the Religion of Peace is the dominant religion.
The consensus of the Symposium was really mixed. The mentioned culprits: al Qaeda and allied Islamists, Taliban and allied Islamists, Infiltrating terrorist Islamists in the Pakistan Military, Infiltrating terrorist Islamist in the Pakistan version of a Secret Service, sympathizing Pakistan Secret Service of Islamists itself, Pervez Musharraf and a sympathetic element of the Pakistan military.
The only agreeing link is Islamism, the apparent dominant voice of Mohammedanism of the modern Mohammedan dominated lands.
My guess is that Bhutto caused a temporary alliance of all of the above to cause Bhutto’s death.
Despite a checkered past in past Pakistani politics, her current presence was rallying an opposition that rejected both Islamism and the pro-Western ruling oligarch dictatorship within the Pakistani military. A successful Bhutto would be a huge challenge to the death cult idealism of the Islamist terrorists and a huge challenge to ruling by semi-military fiat by the later.
In essence all Pakistani factions opposing Bhutto’s rise stood to gain with her death.
America is in the uncomfortable Machiavellian position of being forced to choose between two repressive elements in Pakistan: The Pakistan military and Islamist terrorists. Of course it would be global suicide to choose America’s primary enemies thus America will be forced to put its strength behind Musharraf and the military.
I have the impression that Musharraf and the pro-Western elements of the military are becoming more and more unpopular with the Pakistani people. Thus the people that are not happy with Musharraf are being driven to the Islamists even though they may not be Islamists themselves.
This portends a Sunni version of the Shia inspired Iranian Revolution. If an Islamist revolution triumphs over a pro-Western Pakistani military, then Islamists would control Pakistan’s already established nuclear arsenal.
The Shah of Iran overthrown by Khomeini was extremely solid behind America. The Shah even tried to Westernize Iran with a bit of success even though the regime was repressive. The Shah was deserted by a deluded President Carter who felt the end of the Shah would bring democracy to Iran. Oops! Selling out the Shah brought Sharia Law and a repressive regime that made the Shah look like a Western Saint.
Bhutto’s death sets America up for the dreaded repetition of history. Oh yes, a Democratic Party Presidential victory will guarantee handing a nuclear arsenal over to Islamist terrorists just as Carter did in the ‘70’s.
I really like Huckabee’s stand to vocally utilize Christianity as a political forum. Way too many Republicans are too concerned about being Politically Correct in addressing Christian Conservative social issues. On the other hand is Huckabee stumping for votes that he may later abandon due to the pressures of Presidential politics? Huckabee’s history makes him a Conservative gamble in trustworthiness; however fighting for Christian Conservative social issues is something I believe could reverse the moral darkness that the moral relativity of Secular Humanism (err … Democratic Party) has infected America’s culture.
Here is the latest update email I have received from the Fred Thompson’s Fred08 Blog:
Great news this morning from the Iowa bus tour. An important Iowa newspaper endorses Fred for President!
"Thompson is unapologetic on his views and is a straight-shooter," writes the Ottumwa Courier. Read why this Iowa newspaper say Thompson is the best man to lead America... http://www.ottumwacourier.com/opinion/local_story_360221446.html?keyword=secondarystory
· "...Thompson believes work must continue in Iraq despite growing concerns American troops should return home. We have to 'finish what we're doing,' he said, adding the United States must continue the fight there and in Afghanistan."
· "On economic issues, Thompson is blunt. The time is now to reform the American economy. He says the country needs 'market-based approaches to reform that guarantee benefits for those who need them and embrace personal responsibility and cost-effectiveness without raising taxes.'"
· "Thompson said 'it is a moral imperative that requires action now' and he wants a full account of the government's fiscal books for 'all to see and understand.'"
· "The man from Tennessee is no-nonsense, speaks plainly and believes action is needed now, not later.... Fred Thompson will do just that."
Fred is back in Iowa this week, where he continues the final push to the caucus on January 3rd. And he has a terrific new TV spot. You can see it now at Fred08.com. Take a look, and forward this message on to 10 of your friends.
Fred needs your help to put it on the air. We need to put $248,846 in the bank before 6 PM EST on Friday, December 28th to do it.
As of this morning, we've raised more than $70,000. With your help, we can reach our goal for Fred! You can be part of the momentum by making a contribution today.
In 1996, more than 40% of Republican caucus voters said they made their decision of who to vote for in the final week. Click here to watch video of a couple from Creston, IA. 5 Republican presidential candidates have come through their town, but after hearing Fred last night, they believe he's the right man to lead America and take the GOP to victory in 2008! Together, we can move votes to Fred if we get his TV ad on the air!
Show your support today by donating or signing up to make phone calls into Iowa to encourage people to vote for Fred on January 3rd.
The part you should notice is the insightful endorsement of Fred Thompson for President by the Ottumwa Courier. If you are convinced Fred is the man as I am you may wish to consider to help in some way with the links for donations or leg work.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
It is a huge step for a politician to do something so Politically Incorrect in this election’s atmosphere. Huckabee has a dump truck load political dirt from his past to overcome; however putting the Christ back into Christmas is a blinder that devout Christian voters might look askew to the dirt and see a social Conservative light that has been dimming over the years.
It is a smart move by Huckabee. Romney could not dare to inject such Christian symbolism into his campaign for it would re-awaken Mormon theological doubts by Christian big dog supporters who lined up behind him.
For my man Fred to get his poll numbers up, he will have to roll some dice on some sensitive political issues.
Let’s face it, although the Paleocons in the Republican may deplore the actual influence of mobilized Christian Right voters, they are still the king makers in the Republican Party. For a GOP nominee to win, he is going to have to sway a chunk of those Christian Right voters to their side. Now it might be a little different in the big dog November 2008 election in which the Christian becomes a faction of American voters, but even then the Christian Right’s ability to get people out to vote is remarkable if the Christian Right operates on inspiration rather than disappointment.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment)
The problem the Christian Right and many Conservatives have with Liberal Activist Judges and Justices is the interpretation of “Establishment Clause.” The Left and/or Progressives believe the implication of the clause is that religion can have zero association with anything taxpayer supported on all levels of government. The Christian Right and many Conservatives believe the clause merely prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION as the religion of the land or nation. Thus the Christian Right believes the symbols of the moral foundations of America (i.e. Judeo-Christianity) are inclusive on public lands as long as the Federal Government does not establish the symbolism as representative of a particular Christian Denomination.
Now let’s look at the next clause of the First Amendment: [Congress shall make no law] prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. religion).
Everybody from the fringe Left to the fringe Right pretty much understands this to mean the Federal Government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, in other words – Freedom of Religion.
Unfortunately the Leftist interpretation of the Establishment Clause has become a weapon aimed at Christianity’s free exercise of Religion in recent years. Since the Leftists in the Judiciary have become firm on the non-existent Constitutional term “Separation of Church and State,” the Christian religion has slowly been exorcised from a public forum (particularly in public schools) with the unconstitutional promotion of non-Christian religions in public schools.
The primary case in point is that schools are prohibited from allowing Bible reading or Christian cultural history to be taught yet alternative religions and the humanist religion of Secular Humanism are becoming mandated norms in our public schools.
Religions such as Mohammedanism, Hinduism and Buddhism (to name a few) are required as practicing role models to instill a counter Christian cultural understanding of other religions. The worst example is the forcing of students to recite the Quran and pray toward Mecca with the weak explanation of teaching the understanding of alternative cultures and religions. Hello! Christianity is prohibited in the class room.
Another religion being foistered among the young are the various New Age cultic religions propagated into schools and public forums as an alternative to Christianity.
I don’t have a problem of stacking various religions equally in the class room comparatively; however Christianity is not part of that comparison. Leftists whine of “Separation of Church and State” and thus prohibit the equal ground of Christian ethos and morality to be taught equally with the alternative religions. This directly breaks the second clause of the First Amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity and establishing the study of other religions as an alternative to Christianity.
Some might say, “Did you see the word ‘Secular’ in Secular Humanism?” The very word “secular” denotes something other than religion. The reality of course is that the tenets of Secular Humanism have taken on a cultic value. Thus all that defines a religion such as setting values and tenets and mindsets that compete with other religions have transformed Secular Humanism into a religion. The only difference from Secular Humanism from other Religions is that the god of Secular Humanism is the relative terms of human philosophy; ergo humanity collectively is god.
Now let’s bring this discussion home about Presidential Candidate Barak Obama running for the Democratic Party nomination.
Obama is an articulate charismatic speaker. This has aided him in catching up in the polls to his adversarial harsh sounding rival Hillary Clinton. Not too long ago Hillary was thought of as the unstoppable Queen of the hill that many felt was a certainty for the Democratic Party nomination.
Enter Oprah Winfrey into the endorsement fray. Oprah not only endorses Obama but is actively campaigning for an Obama nomination. And it is her right to do so.
If Oprah is successful in knocking the Queen off the top of the hill with Obama replacing Hillary as the Democratic Party nomination, then you Christian Right people should know a few things about Oprah personal religious beliefs that she is entirely free to practice.
Oprah is a devoted New Ager that hangs with New Age big dogs such as Marianne Williamson and Neal Donald Walsch. Oprah is heavily hooked into the New Age principles of “A Course in Miracles.” All this is no big deal as far as the freedom of religion goes.
Here is my concern. Obama is not exactly a moderate. He has a Mohammedan past and attends what the Christian Right would term a progressive Church. The term “progressive” is another way of saying liberal. The Denomination that Obama attends is the United Church of Christ (UCC), which is notorious for abandoning the Scriptures of the Bible as Divine and supports such things as homosexual rights and abortion.
So I am thinking Hillary is a Leftie; however Obama by association is even more a fringe moonbat Leftie. And Oprah is using her star power and influence to hook Obama’s charisma to the Democratic Party.
For Conservatives and the Christian Right, this is dangerous stuff!
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Then I read this at Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) and I awoke from the influence of deadly spiritual lies.
By Peter LaBarbera
December 20, 2007
Americans For Truth about Homosexuality
This post is Excerpted
They have the power, the money and the influence.
We have the Truth.
They have Hollywood and the media.
We have the Truth.
They have the schools, the universities, the professional organizations, the corporate “diversity” programs.
We have the Truth. And the simple truth is that homosexual behavior is always wrong, but it can be overcome — like any sin — in a person’s life through the power of the Christ of Christmas, who came not to “condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.” (John 3:17)
You know what? I wouldn’t give up God’s Truth for all the power and money in the world.
In the last 16 months since AFTAH came on the scene as a full-time organization, we have been mocked, vilified and, well, HATED by homosexual activists as few other pro-family groups. Here’s one example from a fanatical homosexual blogger who called me “one of the most hated men in America”:
LaBarbera, a man who would bury the Constitution under six feet of damp earth, haunts us thanks to the freedom he’s allowed by that very same document. In many civilized countries, LaBarbera would be in jail for hate language that makes all other hate language seem like benign nursery rhymes.
In any case, LaBarbera has started a new website called “Republicans For Family Values.” Of course, LaBarbera is as much of a Republican (not my favorite people) as cancer is a sentient life form and LaBarbera is as familiar with family values and values overall as you and I are familiar with why Peter LaBarbera’s mother hasn’t killed herself out of embarrassment.
Such cruel slanders come with the territory, from lost souls who project their own hatred for God and His values onto those of us who “agree with God,” and who are merely doing our best to uphold godly values in the culture — against a multi-faceted “gay” lobby that spends far more in promoting homosexuality than all the pro-family groups combined do in opposing it.
Yes, they call us “pornographers” because we expose the unique, vanguard role of the homosexual lobby in promoting shocking public indecency and perversions like the “Folsom Street Fair,” which occurs every year in Nancy Pelosi’s own district, and which she can’t seem to condemn despite it’s unprecedented and illegal public nudity and sex acts in the streets, and its awful anti-Christian bigotry.
They say that I must be secretly “gay” – because I fight the homosexual movement.
They say that I have a homosexual bathhouse obsession — because we seek to expose and close down the resurgent homosexual sex clubs that serve as breeding grounds for deadly diseases — the same sort of clubs facilitating anonymous homo-sexual acts that helped spread AIDS in America in the first place (see Randy Shilts’ And the Band Played On).
They call us “judgmental” — because we affirm the truth that “gay (c)hristianity” mocks God and His Word — and is no more plausible than, say, ”adulterous (c)hristianity.”
The(y) despise us when we speak the truth in love that homosexual men and women can change and overcome homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ, whose humble earthly birth we celebrate this season.
Yes, they absolutely HATE us because we stand unapologetically against their sexual ideology as one that a holy Creator can have no part of. This “culture war” is not about us — it’s about right versus wrong, and those who, “wise in their own eyes,” would cast God and His moral law aside by calling ”evil good and good evil.” (Isaiah 5:21)
Nancy Pelosi could not have been more wrong in what she told the adoring audience of homosexual activists at the Human Rights Campaign gala: our holy and loving God cannot “bless” sin — much less a sexual sin group like HRC that spends tens of millions of dollars every year to promote homosexuality in politics and culture, even to America’s youth.
But God will “certainly bless” you when you stand for His Truth, no matter what the cost.
Will you stand with Americans For Truth today? Please prayerfully consider as generous a year-end gift as you can to AFTAH, as we prepare for another year of standing against the lies of the pro-homosexuality movement in our culture.
God bless you, and Merry Christmas!
Americans For Truth (http://www.americansfortruth.org/)
“For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not sent his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:16-19; NIV)
Is Nancy Pelosi Right? Can God ‘Bless’ America with Homosexual Activism?
- [Blog Editor: This is an appeal for funds to battle the well organized and financed homosexual agenda in America.]
Can God bless homosexual activism? Nancy Pelosi thinks so. Speaking before the world’s most powerful homosexual pressure group, she said: “God has certainly blessed America with the work of the Human Rights Campaign.” Help Americans For Truth oppose such lies with a tax-deductible, year-end gift.
Recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) appeared before a massive fundraiser put on by the largest homosexual pressure group in the world, the Human Rights Campaign, to accept their 2007 National Equality award. In her speech — which you can watch by clicking HERE — Pelosi praised HRC “for being a powerful and positive counterbalance to the voices of hate.” Thus she confuses, as does the group that honors her, defense of marriage and the natural family — and opposition to homosexuality – with “hate.”
Here is how Speaker Pelosi ended her speech:
“Thank you, HRC. May God bless you. God has certainly blessed America with the work of the Human Rights Campaign.”
Support AFTAH with a Year-End Gift!
Will you support Americans For Truth with a year-end gift to sustain us in our daily battle to answer the lies of the homosexual movement and their powerful allies? Click HERE (http://www.americansfortruth.org/donate/) to donate by credit card or Paypal. Or you can send your tax-deductible gift of $500, $100, $50 or whatever you can give to: Americans For Truth (AFTAH), P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.
NOTE FROM AFTAH: Please forward this appeal on to your friends and family members.
Copyright © 2006-2007 Americans for Truth. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, December 21, 2007
This has plagued President Bush particularly in the State Department and the CIA. If they don’t like the boss’ political agenda they merely defy it by throwing a monkey wrench into the political cogs to thwart the Policy in some way.
Unfortunately that “someone” is a member of a think tank rather than the government powers that actually can bring reform. Helle C. Dale writes of a Commission that was set up just for this purpose; however the Commission’s only power is that of the ink and quill of recommendations.
To be honest I do not dislike McCain, I just do not feel the alignment with his independent thinking. McCain could simultaneously support something I find vital for America and something I find deplorable for America. I would rather have a Candidate that comes as closest to the same issues I feel aligned with.
I got to tell you for me that is still Fred Thompson.
Political pundits that are aligned with other Republican Candidates are trying to disparage my man Fred with an accusation of laziness. You know what? The President that terminated Soviet Communist militarism without firing a shot (and yet voted by the MSM most likely to push THE NUCLEAR BUTTON) was also accused of laziness. Success though tends to render reevaluation of criticism. Reagan buried the Soviet Communists by outspending them in a military buildup. The Great Communicator successfully managed the Executive Branch of Government not by laziness, but by timely delegated authority.
According to what I have read at the non-judgmental website OnTheIssues.org Fred Thompson lines up with a majority of issues I support. Of course there are some things that I might scratch my head about; nonetheless on what I consider the majors (Pro-Life, Pro-Victory, Pro-Conservative, allowing States to decide social issues (Federalism), illegal aliens and taxes); Fred is the man for 2008.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The theme of the speech was the word “jihad” and the near total absence of the word by Republican and Democratic candidates for President in using the word about America’s enemies.
Spencer (who I admire very much) believes the Presidential candidates’ lack of using jihad in naming America’s enemies is due to the fear of being labeled a racist and rocking the Politically Correct boat.
For the Democrats I totally agree with Spencer. They are laying in wait with their political pop guns to shoot the accusation of racist to any candidate that accuses Islam or Islamism of operating a jihad against America.
For the Republicans there may be a tinge of fear of bucking Political Correctness however I suspect most of the Republicans wish to win the nomination on issues that do not connect them to President Bush Policy on Iraq. The reason for this is that the Mainstream Media (MSM) and the Democratic Party have used half truths and out right lies to manipulate the American public that Iraq is a failure and the President is to blame.
The reality is there is plenty of blame game to go around from Bush, to rebellious elements in his Intelligence modus operandi and within the State Department as well as with duplicity in Congress among Democrats that switch back and forth on Iraq depending on how it can undermine President Bush or politically aggrandize a Congressman.
Take or leave my thoughts on the Candidates’ reluctance to name America’s enemies and their declared holy war known as “jihad.” Otherwise I am in total agreement with Robert Spencer.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
I often read from antagonistic Lefties and homosexual addicts that there is no agenda to transform America into the morally relative thinking of acceptance of sinful and lecherous homosexuality as something beyond an alternative lifestyle, rather the agenda is to manipulate the moral thinking of Americans that homosexuality is normal and biological and thus non-acceptance and criticism fall into the descriptive words of hate-speech, bias, prejudice and bigotry.
Of course there is an agenda and I am finding out the homosexual programming begins in the California Public School system as early as two years old.
Think of that! The State is programming moral relativity and prohibiting NORMAL keys for training children such as Christian Morality or even that heterosexuality is normal.
If it is happening in California, what other Left leaning State (or Conservative State with a Leftie Judiciary) are programming our children to a proclivity of homosexuality and prohibiting the normalcy of Christianity and heterosexuality? For example when stories are read references to “Mom and Dad” or “Husband and Wife” are expunged and replaced with homosexual friendly terminology.
God Bless America and God HELP America from the evil devices inspired by the Accuser and Deceiver; it is such subtle deception that separated humanity from the Creator and twisting humanity in the Fall of human nature. Thank God there is a Deliverer that will ultimately shine light where such humanistic darkness pervades.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
I just came across a classic example of Liberal lying this time relating to the Israeli versus Arabs that call themselves Palestinians conflict.
The pro-Arab Liberal in question is Daniel Levy. Levy was having a kind of forum style debate with anti-Jihadist David Frum on bloggingheads.tv a day after the fruitless (for Israel anyway) Annapolis Peace Conference.
Daniel Levy is a Senior Fellow of the New American Foundation (NAF) that bills itself as neither Left nor Right but a Think Tank for ideas and solutions. The introduction to the snippets of the bloggingheads debate by the Middle East Forum (MEF) says the NAF “advertises” itself as a Center-Left organization. The somewhat maligned but easily accessible Wikipedia posts that the NAF has board members that include the Left and the Right.
The thing is Levy is considered a man of reputable scholarship; nonetheless at the bloggingheads debate between Levy and Frum, Levy is exposed as a Liberal lying fact manipulating pro-Arab anti-Israeli.
by Noah Pollak
National Review Online
December 7, 2007
Middle East Forum
Daniel Levy has of late become one of the most sought-after leftist commentators on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and one of the most frequently quoted and interviewed pundits on the subject in the mainstream press. His name regularly appears in news stories in the New York Times and Washington Post, among other papers. Cultivating an image of expertise and sobriety, he is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, which advertises itself as a center-left source of serious analysis. The day after Annapolis, he debated David Frum for 40 minutes on bloggingheads.tv, the video of which was posted at the end of last week and which has now been posted on the New York Times's website.
Levy's performance was astonishing. His preferred tactic was to repeatedly digress from the debate in order to lecture Frum on what he claimed to be the "historic context" of the conflict; his appearance on Bloggingheads is one of the most misleading performances I've ever seen on the conflict from a putatively serious person. This is a long fact-check, but I think it's a necessary one.
Yasser Arafat's Involvement in the Intifada
Frum: I think there are very few people who would take the view that what happened on the Temple Mount was a spontaneous upsurge of Palestinian public opinion.
Levy: Well, the Mitchell Commission actually took that view. there was a commission, an international commission, that was brought in to say what happened and how do we stop it, and the Mitchell Commission did NOT come out on the side of the argument that said, ‘the Palestinians were just waiting to for a moment to start a violent intifada.' So the one internationally-sanctioned but non-partisan group that was asked to look into this drew a very particular conclusion.
Several minutes later:
Frum: So there are people who say that Yasser Arafat did not start that war?
Levy: Well I'm saying that the Mitchell Commission did not come out with the finding — and this was the only internationally authorized, non-partisan assessment of this — the Mitchell Commission did not come out with that finding, and I think it's very important to put that out there.
Well, indeed, let's put the Mitchell Commission report out there. The MC was charged, in a December 2000 letter from President Clinton, with proposing ways "to end the violence, to prevent its recurrence, and to find a path back to the peace process." The MC report stipulates:
We are not a tribunal. We complied with the request that we not determine the guilt or innocence of individuals or of the parties. We did not have the power to compel the testimony of witnesses or the production of documents. Most of the information we received came from the parties and, understandably, it largely tended to support their arguments. [emphasis added]
The purpose of the MC was thus not to add fuel to the nascent intifada by delving into issues of culpability; it was to cool the violence by showing the parties a path toward peace. In the report, which is quite long, the findings on culpability for starting the intifada were essentially a restatement of the views of both sides:
…we were provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act; neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising.
Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI [Government of Israel] to respond with lethal force.
On this basis, it is disingenuous to declare that the Mitchell Commission absolved Yasser Arafat of involvement in starting the intifada. By the commission's own admission, it was neither within its purview nor its competence to render such a judgment. It is also important to note that the MC was convened at the very beginning of the intifada, before the voluminous and incontrovertible evidence of Arafat's complicity in the terror war had been exposed, making Levy's portrayal of the Mitchell Commission as the definitive exculpation of Arafat all the more implausible. Anyone wishing to look into this material can start with the massive and unrefuted report of the Israeli government on exactly this subject from May, 2002; a lengthy, two-part investigation in 2002 by the German paper Die Zeit (see here and here); a 2003 study by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; David Samuels's exhaustive 2005 Atlantic magazine cover story, in which Palestinians who worked intimately with Arafat during both the first and second intifadas are quoted explaining, in detail, Arafat's involvement in choreographing Palestinian rioting and terrorism; and another in-depth reported analysis, this one by the Jerusalem Post's highly-respected Palestinian affairs reporter, Khaled Abu Toameh.
After everything that has come to light about Arafat's involvement in instigating and then clandestinely leading the intifada, it is beyond misleading for Levy to pound the table about a report published in the first months of the intifada that was charged with neither investigating nor judging Arafat's involvement in the hostilities. This is not honest analysis.
The Khartoum Conference and the Six Day War
As part of his project to advance the theme of Israeli intransigence, Levy said to Frum:
Many historians now look back at the Khartoum conference, which is remembered as the Arabs all saying "no no no" to anything with Israel, was actually an opening ploy in a negotiation, and the messages that were sent were actually very different messages.
This is rubbish. The Khartoum Conference, where the famous "three no's" were declared — no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel — took place in late August, 1967. What Levy doesn't mention is that immediately following the Six Day War, Israel, using America as an intermediary, attempted to give the Sinai back to Egypt and the Golan back to Syria. I quote from Conor Cruise O'Brien's history of Zionism and Israel, The Siege:
In the immediate aftermath of the dazzling victory [in the Six Day War], Levi Eshkol's Government of National Unity was prepared to surrender large quantities — though never all — of the occupied territories, in exchange for peace. On June 19, 1967, the Cabinet adopted a four-point resolution, which it communicated to the Government of the United States on June 22, but did not make public.
According to this resolution, Israel was prepared, in exchange for a full peace treaty, to withdraw to the international border with Egypt, with the provisos that Sinai was to be demilitarized, and Israel's freedom of movement guaranteed in the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal. Israel was also prepared to withdraw to the international border with Syria, with the Golan Heights to be demilitarized.
Why would Egypt and Syria have needed to join an "opening ploy in a negotiation" — by way of the Three No's, no less — when Israel had already offered those states their territory back? The reason, of course, is that Egypt and Syria wished to continue attempting to destroy the state of Israel, which they again tried in 1973. But in Levy's telling, Israel apparently didn't catch on to the nuances of the signals emanating from Khartoum, which the Israeli government should have understood to mean that the Arabs wished to open negotiations. If only Daniel Levy had been around back then to explain all of this!
Levy's treatment of the Six Day War is equally bizarre, as revealed in the following exchange, after Frum mentioned that the Arab states started the war:
Levy: Wait wait, so wait, the Arab states started the war in ‘67, David?
Frum: They provoked it.
Levy: I kind of remember a preemptive Israeli strike, maybe I'm wrong.
Frum: They provoked it by violating the terms of the armistice of 1956.
Levy: But there was a preemptive strike by Israel.
Frum: Yes, there was a first strike by Israel, after the Egyptians violate the armistice that ended the conflict, the hostilities in 1956, you know this.
Levy: But you also know who started the war.
Frum: Yes, because there was a direct threat to the existence of the state. When you violate an armistice, that starts the clock toward a conflict.
Levy: [Angrily] But when you violate international law every day, that's fine.When you put a civilian settler population in occupied territory, that's fine.
Levy has lost control of his intellectual faculties here. He surely knows that there was no occupation or settlements before the Six Day War, because Israel had not won the Sinai, Golan, Gaza, and West Bank yet. Why the ranting about something that hadn't happened yet? And speaking of international law, about whose violation Levy routinely works himself into a state of high moral outrage, one of the main causes of the 1967 war was indeed a flagrant violation of international law — Egypt's. The armistice agreements that concluded the Suez War in 1956 stipulated that the Straits of Tiran — which connect the southernmost Israeli port of Eilat to the Red Sea, and the wider world — are international waters open to every country. Egypt, in May 1967, blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, cutting off one of Israel's two most vital ports, as clear a casus belli for war as exists, and an unequivocal violation of the armistice agreements. And let's not forget the continuous Syrian shelling of Israel from the Golan Heights; Nasser's repeated threats to invade Israel and slaughter its citizens; his demand (immediately complied with) that U Thant, the secretary-general of the U.N., remove the peacekeepers in the Sinai that had been in place since 1956 and on the basis of whose presence Israel had withdrawn its forces in 1956; or Nasser's massive mobilization of his army toward the border with Israel in May, 1967.
It feels ridiculous to even be writing a defense of Israel's preemptive strike against Egypt in 1967. The only people who insist that Israel started the Six Day War are crackpots and unhinged anti-Zionists. And Daniel Levy.
In 1994 there is the attack [by Baruch Goldstein on February 25th, 1994] at the Hebron tomb of the patriarchs. Until that moment there has been no Palestinian use of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. … That's when the suicide bombings first started. There is a hiatus, the suicide bombings end. Israel during the period of quiet then assassinates admittedly a terrorist, the guy known as The Engineer, in Gaza. Then you have a spate of suicide bombings. The suicide bombings during the current intifada don't begin in September 2000, they begin several months after the intifada started. When do they begin? They begin after Israel carried out assassination policies, targeted killings, so again, I just think that if you see this outside of a historical context, you can't understand it.
This is not historical context — it is historical fabrication. The first suicide bombing against Israeli civilians happened on April 16, 1993, at the Mehola Junction, almost a full year before Baruch Goldstein's atrocity in Hebron. The Engineer was killed on January 5th, 1996, and in that three-year period, not including the Mehola attack, there were seven Hamas suicide bombings that killed 58 Israeli civilians, and one Islamic Jihad bombing that killed 21 Israeli civilians — 79 Israelis total. The very reason The Engineer was killed by the Shabak was because of his involvement in the Hamas bombings that occurred exactly during the period in which Levy claims there was a "hiatus" in attacks.
His telling of the second intifada is as equally twisted. According Levy, suicide bombings commenced in response to Israel's targeted killings of Palestinians, a cause and effect proposition. But suicide bombings in the second intifada didn't begin "several months" after the intifada started — they began exactly in the opening weeks of the intifada. There were Islamic Jihad and Hamas bombings on October 26, November 2, 20, and 26, and on December 22, 2000. Meanwhile, the first Palestinian terrorist killed in a targeted killing was Hussein Abayat, who in the weeks before he was killed by the IDF had perpetrated the shooting murders of three Israelis and the critical wounding of another. Abayat was killed on November 9, two weeks after the first suicide bombing of the intifada. Whoops.
There is a reason why Levy's "errors" all work in one direction, and one direction only: It is because he would like to convince his listeners of a narrative which holds that Palestinian terrorism has always arisen in response to Israeli provocations — and thus that Israel has brought such terrorism on itself. His telling of history would also have us believe that Israel has never been genuinely interested in peace with its neighbors, while the Arabs, despite all the genocidal rhetoric and wars of annihilation, have actually been trying to signal to Israel for decades that they are ready for peace. Beyond these observations, I would rather speculate on Levy's deeper motives. It is not clear, after all of this, what credibly is left of Levy's views on the conflict — or what should be left of his reputation for honesty, objectivity, or expertise.
Noah Pollak is assistant editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
I say Sick’em Parks!
JRH 12/18/07 (Hat tip ccpga Yahoo Group)
Bob Parks, Featured Writer
December 17, 2007
The New Media Journal
To the "Honorable" Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, California:
As a citizen of the United States of America, I find your comments today beyond insulting. Your competence to hold the hallowed office of House Speaker should be questioned.
During a press conference today, you said of Republicans...
"They like this war. They want this war to continue."
Let me be clear: No Republican I know "likes" war. I know of no Republican that woke up this morning, happy in the knowledge that someone, somewhere in the world, was the latest casualty of a war.
It's not anyone's fault but your own that the current climate on Capitol Hill is as acidic as it is today. Like the cowboy you, and many in your party, have accused President Bush of being, you came into the reigns of power declaring the end of "business as usual". What the American people have seen is exactly that, and more.
What is most reprehensible about your remarks is your continued LIE, (that's right, I said it), LIE that the Iraq war was one you never condoned or authorized. You, and many like you, continue to assert that we were brought into this war by some sadistic figment of George W. Bush's imagination.
You, and many like you, claim that the president got us into this war via manufactured intelligence. Some of your supporters state that Vice President Cheney was also responsible for this faulty intel. You go to those supporters and continue to LIE to them. They, in turn, repeat those lies, and your statement that Republicans "like this war" is the culmination. I contend we would have never been attacked on 9/11 in the first place if the very people you support, and have supported, did their jobs defending our country in the first place.
But to imply that Republicans created this war out of some warped sense of machismo proves that you are either a liar or delusional.
The reason we went to war with Iraq is because there were clear links between Saddam Hussein, terror, and the 9/11 attack.
Some of us will not let our nation (and the world) forget that on December 16, 1998, two years before George W. Bush became president, and while the current president William Jefferson Clinton had authorized air strikes against Iraq, you, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement that in part read...
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
"The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.
"I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means."
I only present your words because many of your supporters today say that President Bush concocted the whole notion of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a reason to go to war. Again, George W. Bush was the governor of Texas at the time. YOU were a member of the House Intelligence Committee. YOU had "intelligence" in 1998 that you seemed comfortable enough with at that time.
You never told President Clinton to "calm down". You never said about President Clinton what you told the press about Republicans today….
"We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq. But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress."
You never referred to President Clinton's long distance, cruise missile strikes as "his" war.
Let's not forget, as you seem to have, we did not start this war. There was a link between Iraq and 9/11. As a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, you should have known that the previously "waterboarded" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, called the "mastermind' of the 9/11 and other terror attacks worldwide, was actually an Iraqi intelligence agent. He could not, and would not, take action without the approval and blessing of Saddam Hussein.
Is that not a link, Madame Speaker?
Our young men and women have volunteered to go and fight this war, so the very people you deem less evil than Republicans, will not strip you of your seat of power, and condemn you to a private life in hijab hell. What they are doing takes what many of you on Capitol Hill refer to as "courage."
You could learn something from them.
Bob Parks is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal, a member/writer for the National Advisory Council of Project 21, VP of Marketing and Media Relations/Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, and VP of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly and host of the Outside the Wire radio program on the Intel Radio Network.
The New Media Journal.us © 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Greater inspection of incarcerated written material and religious meetings (particularly of the Mohammedan kind) needs to be increased.
This should not be a First Amendment issue for convicted felons who have made the choice to challenge the rule of law by breaking it; however the innocent until proven guilty incarcerated may have to find how far Free Speech issues can be limited if it is incitement toward conspiracy to break the law further by teaching jihad/Islamist terrorism.
(Hat tip to Stakelbeck on Terror)