Wake up, America! While the world cries, "Islamophobia", it's anti-Semitism that is on the march, and the UN is the chief culprit. Defund and throw them the h*** out of our country.
Read from Human Events:
Israel on U.N.'s 2011 Hit List
by Pamela Geller
"U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced Friday that one of the United Nations’ top goals in 2011 will be bettering living conditions in the Gaza Strip and forcing Israel to end all 'settlement' construction in Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem.
You couldn’t make it up. Pressuring Israel is the U.N.’s top goal for 2011. Not the imminent threat of war on the Korean Peninsula or the North Korean nuclear threat. Not the Iranian nuclear threat. Not the very dangerous situation with the ongoing jihad in Pakistan. Not the huge new wave of refugees and illegal immigrants into Europe, Israel and the United States. Not the insoluble situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nor did Ban say anything about the referendum for Southern Sudan independence, which is needed to stop the jihadi genocide that continues there. And he was likewise silent about the banking crisis in the Western world and the financial collapse of some European Union countries.
No, none of that matters. The United Nations has to spend its time improving living conditions in Gaza.
What a joke. There is no real 'humanitarian crisis' in Gaza. Always the Jewish people are clubbed like baby seals with Islamic lies about how Israel is starving the Muslims in Gaza. (There is no such thing as a 'Palestinian.' There never has been an independent Palestinian state or recognized Palestinian nationality in the history of the world; Arafat and Co. invented it in the 1960s for propaganda purposes.)
The Jewish blockade starves the poor poor Muslims, so that they have nothing to live on except the billions upon billions of jiyza paid by American taxpayers and European Union dhimmis. Want to know how much dough they have left after they purchase their missiles, arms and bombs? Photo after photo has come out of Gaza showing stores overwhelmingly overflowing with food, toys, candy, anything you could want. They recently opened a big luxury mall there.
The abundance of food and other goods in Gaza is mind blowing. Perhaps that’s why last summer Hamas began refusing all humanitarian shipments -- they had nowhere to put it all. The population was stuffed.
Hamas calls all this 'Israeli propaganda,' but actually it’s the result of Palestinian propaganda. Don’t believe your eyes, believe Islamic lies. The 'Palestinians' first invented their nationality itself and now they’re conning the world into thinking they’re starving when obesity rates are soaring there.
This is a propaganda war -- and the information battle space is the front, and big media is aligned with the jihad force. Always, the media repeats the relentless meme of the poor starving 'Palestinians.' The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) creates the narrative and the media supplies the libelous judeophobic hyperbole.
And so the 'humanitarian aid' keeps pouring in. Terror statelet Gaza is the biggest fund-raiser in the world. Yet there are no starving Muslims in Gaza, but there are plenty in Darfur, as a result of the relentless jihad against the Darfur in Sudan.
Still, Ban Ki-Moon and the U.N. are going after Israel, not Sudan.
And the settlements? They are Jews building houses on Jewish land. Period. The Israelis are under siege daily. Anyone who understands Islamic anti-Semitism and the religious motive behind the genocidal jihad against the Jews, and the true history of the Middle East, will urge Israel to build more homes in Judea and Samaria and to create defensible borders.
The great Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders said it best in a speech in Tel Aviv two weeks ago: 'People are mistaken when they assume that giving up Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem and letting the Palestinians have it, will end the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. In 2005, Israel sacrificed the settlements in Gaza for the sake of peace. Did it get peace? On the contrary, because the conflict is essentially ideological, the situation worsened. Because the conflict is ideological, territorial concessions are counterproductive. Ideologies cannot be defeated by concessions. They are encouraged and emboldened' by them.
And now Ban Ki-Moon is set to encourage and embolden the genocidal jihadists in 2011, and help them reach their goal of destroying Israel. Fires are raging all over the globe, and instead of trying to put them out he is bullying the Middle East’s only democracy and America’s staunchest ally.
The United Nations is truly proving to be a collective negation of humanity."
Friday, December 31, 2010
What a Year It Was!
As 2010 comes to a close, it is a perfect time to review some of the important accomplishments which took place this year. Despite the passage of ObamaCare, financial reform, START, and the repeal of DADT, 2010 was a great year for conservatism.
Thanks to President Obama and his comrades in Congress, Americans woke up to the horrors of liberalism and returned to a desire for the conservative principles which once made this country great: small government, low taxation/spending, and freedom. We are on the march, taking our country back, one step at a time. Hallelujah!
Read from Human Events:
Top 10 Conservative Successes In 2010
by Kenneth Hanner
"The just-passed 2010 will be remembered as a banner year for conservatives. Here are the Top 10 successes for the conservative movement last year.
(1) GOP captures House: Republicans made historic gains in the House of Representatives, picking up 63 seats in the midterm elections and regaining control after four years in the minority. With the presidency and Senate still in Democratic hands, picking up the chamber will provide a much-needed check on the Left's ambitious agenda. And the best news of all: Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
(2) Rise of the Tea Party: The Tea Party became a major force in the American political landscape. With its fiscal responsibility agenda, the amorphous Tea Partiers had a major impact on the midterm elections and breathed new life into a GOP that was still reeling after its 2008 electoral shellacking. Now if they just could do a better job in vetting some of their candidates (see Colorado, governor).
(3) States turn Right: The midterms also saw massive conservative gains in the states with Republicans picking up 680 seats in legislatures across the country and winning gubernatorial posts from Democrats in such key states as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin. That means the redistricting based on the 2010 census will strongly favor the GOP, resulting in more House pickups in 2012.
(4) Judge rules against Obamacare: Federal Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Obamacare's individual mandate was unconstitutional. With Obama holding a veto pen, the best way to stop Obamacare will be in the courts. It probably will all come down to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
(5) Omnibus spending bill defeated: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acted as if the election never happened and tried to ram a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill through the Senate during the lame-duck session. Republicans held firm, and Reid pulled back the pork-filled legislation. By flexing their muscles, Republicans made it clear that the election pushed the power pendulum in the Senate to the right.
(6) Gains in the Senate: While falling short of taking back the Senate, Republicans still gained six seats and will have plenty of solid conservatives in the freshmen class. Senate newcomers Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) are rising stars in the party. With Democrats having more than twice as many seats to defend in 2012, look for a Republican Senate takeover in the next election.
(7) DREAM Act defeated: Harry Reid also tried to sneak the DREAM Act through the Senate during the lame-duck session -- a payback to Hispanic leaders for their help in his tough re-election bid. The DREAM Act, intended to give amnesty to illegal immigrants who enroll in college or enlist in the military, fell five votes short of the total needed for cloture. With the GOP House takeover, immigration policy will likely be toughened.
(8) GOP diversity: The GOP had never fielded so many winning women and minority candidates. Just look at the list: South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Florida Rep. Allen West, South Carolina Rep. Tim Scott, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. It will be hard for the Left to pin the racist/sexist label on the Republican Party when it is running so many attractive, dynamic and diverse candidates.
(9) Cap and trade dead: The midterm election put the final stake in the heart of the cap-and-trade legislation, with Harry Reid not even trying to revive it in the lame-duck session. While there is virtually no chance a similar bill could make it through the new, more conservative Congress, Republicans need to work to keep the Environmental Protection Agency from enacting the measure administratively.
(10) Obama tanks: Obama fell hard from his messianic pedestal as even the Left soured on him. His drop in the polls was a result of his own failures: his tepid response to the Gulf oil spill, his economic policies not creating jobs, his crusade to enact an unpopular Obamacare. And his ineffective and gaffe-filled campaigning for the Democrats in the midterms was a gift to Republicans eager to nationalize the elections."
What a year it was! As we approach 2011 and a Republican-controlled House and more evenly divided Senate, we must remain alert to stealth-like manuevers from the White House in the form of executive orders. Obama's narcissism and arrogance are sure to show their true colors now that the president does not have a Congress willing to pass any of his nasty, radical legislation. Welcome to gridlock in D.C.
Thanks to President Obama and his comrades in Congress, Americans woke up to the horrors of liberalism and returned to a desire for the conservative principles which once made this country great: small government, low taxation/spending, and freedom. We are on the march, taking our country back, one step at a time. Hallelujah!
Read from Human Events:
Top 10 Conservative Successes In 2010
by Kenneth Hanner
"The just-passed 2010 will be remembered as a banner year for conservatives. Here are the Top 10 successes for the conservative movement last year.
(1) GOP captures House: Republicans made historic gains in the House of Representatives, picking up 63 seats in the midterm elections and regaining control after four years in the minority. With the presidency and Senate still in Democratic hands, picking up the chamber will provide a much-needed check on the Left's ambitious agenda. And the best news of all: Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
(2) Rise of the Tea Party: The Tea Party became a major force in the American political landscape. With its fiscal responsibility agenda, the amorphous Tea Partiers had a major impact on the midterm elections and breathed new life into a GOP that was still reeling after its 2008 electoral shellacking. Now if they just could do a better job in vetting some of their candidates (see Colorado, governor).
(3) States turn Right: The midterms also saw massive conservative gains in the states with Republicans picking up 680 seats in legislatures across the country and winning gubernatorial posts from Democrats in such key states as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin. That means the redistricting based on the 2010 census will strongly favor the GOP, resulting in more House pickups in 2012.
(4) Judge rules against Obamacare: Federal Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Obamacare's individual mandate was unconstitutional. With Obama holding a veto pen, the best way to stop Obamacare will be in the courts. It probably will all come down to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
(5) Omnibus spending bill defeated: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acted as if the election never happened and tried to ram a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill through the Senate during the lame-duck session. Republicans held firm, and Reid pulled back the pork-filled legislation. By flexing their muscles, Republicans made it clear that the election pushed the power pendulum in the Senate to the right.
(6) Gains in the Senate: While falling short of taking back the Senate, Republicans still gained six seats and will have plenty of solid conservatives in the freshmen class. Senate newcomers Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) are rising stars in the party. With Democrats having more than twice as many seats to defend in 2012, look for a Republican Senate takeover in the next election.
(7) DREAM Act defeated: Harry Reid also tried to sneak the DREAM Act through the Senate during the lame-duck session -- a payback to Hispanic leaders for their help in his tough re-election bid. The DREAM Act, intended to give amnesty to illegal immigrants who enroll in college or enlist in the military, fell five votes short of the total needed for cloture. With the GOP House takeover, immigration policy will likely be toughened.
(8) GOP diversity: The GOP had never fielded so many winning women and minority candidates. Just look at the list: South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Florida Rep. Allen West, South Carolina Rep. Tim Scott, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. It will be hard for the Left to pin the racist/sexist label on the Republican Party when it is running so many attractive, dynamic and diverse candidates.
(9) Cap and trade dead: The midterm election put the final stake in the heart of the cap-and-trade legislation, with Harry Reid not even trying to revive it in the lame-duck session. While there is virtually no chance a similar bill could make it through the new, more conservative Congress, Republicans need to work to keep the Environmental Protection Agency from enacting the measure administratively.
(10) Obama tanks: Obama fell hard from his messianic pedestal as even the Left soured on him. His drop in the polls was a result of his own failures: his tepid response to the Gulf oil spill, his economic policies not creating jobs, his crusade to enact an unpopular Obamacare. And his ineffective and gaffe-filled campaigning for the Democrats in the midterms was a gift to Republicans eager to nationalize the elections."
What a year it was! As we approach 2011 and a Republican-controlled House and more evenly divided Senate, we must remain alert to stealth-like manuevers from the White House in the form of executive orders. Obama's narcissism and arrogance are sure to show their true colors now that the president does not have a Congress willing to pass any of his nasty, radical legislation. Welcome to gridlock in D.C.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Earn Your Respect
The Islamic world demands that the West show respect for them and their violent religion, though they do not return the favor. Respect does not typically occur unless it is earned.
Front Page Mag has an interesting article listing ten suggestions for Muslims on how they could best earn our respect:
How to Make Islam Respectable
[...]
"We in the West – apart from Obama and his sycophants – are accustomed to the understanding that respect cannot simply be expected, much less demanded; it has to be earned. So now the question becomes, what must that majority of Muslims who want respect for their religion do to earn it? How can they make their religion, well, more respectable?
What follows are ten suggestions (some of which mirror Robert Spencer’s five ways to end Islamophobia) for those Muslims cited in the Gallup poll to take to heart – those who, like Rodney Dangerfield, lament that they can’t get no respect.
10. Stop waging violent jihad.
[...]
9. Cooperate to the fullest with law enforcement to root out the terrorists in your midst.
[...]
8. De-radicalize your mosques
[...]
7. Start respecting the rights of women
[...]
6. Start reciprocating religious tolerance
[...]
5. Update your penal code from 'medieval.'
[...]
4. Let the whole cartoon thing go.
[...]
3. Stop trying to curtail our free speech and to criminalize Islamophobia
[...]
2. Stop letting the Muslim Brotherhood speak for you.
[...]
1. Start taking responsibility for your own destiny instead of blaming the West"
[...]
Go here for all the details.
Front Page Mag has an interesting article listing ten suggestions for Muslims on how they could best earn our respect:
How to Make Islam Respectable
[...]
"We in the West – apart from Obama and his sycophants – are accustomed to the understanding that respect cannot simply be expected, much less demanded; it has to be earned. So now the question becomes, what must that majority of Muslims who want respect for their religion do to earn it? How can they make their religion, well, more respectable?
What follows are ten suggestions (some of which mirror Robert Spencer’s five ways to end Islamophobia) for those Muslims cited in the Gallup poll to take to heart – those who, like Rodney Dangerfield, lament that they can’t get no respect.
10. Stop waging violent jihad.
[...]
9. Cooperate to the fullest with law enforcement to root out the terrorists in your midst.
[...]
8. De-radicalize your mosques
[...]
7. Start respecting the rights of women
[...]
6. Start reciprocating religious tolerance
[...]
5. Update your penal code from 'medieval.'
[...]
4. Let the whole cartoon thing go.
[...]
3. Stop trying to curtail our free speech and to criminalize Islamophobia
[...]
2. Stop letting the Muslim Brotherhood speak for you.
[...]
1. Start taking responsibility for your own destiny instead of blaming the West"
[...]
Go here for all the details.
The Most Closely Watched News Story of the Year
I knew many Americans were outraged by the plan to build an Islamic mosque and cultural center just steps away from Ground Zero. But, I am surprised to hear that 85% of those polled were actually paying attention to this story.
We must remember the millions of Americans who fell hook-line-and-sinker for the promise of "hope and change" offered by the snake oil salesman who occupies the White House. That in itself doesn't give one confidence in his fellow Americans to know what is going on in this country.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Rasmussen Poll: Ground Zero Mosque Most Followed Story of 2010…
"But..but..but it’s not a mosque, it’s an 'Islamic cultural center'…
(Rasmussen)- 'American Adults shared two of the chief concerns of Likely Voters in 2010, the Gulf oil leak’s impact on the economy and plans for a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City.
Rasmussen Reports conducts two separate national tracking surveys, one of both Adults and one of Likely Voters. The latter are generally surveyed on political issues in the news, while adults are asked more often about timely economic and social issues. After all, if it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.
In both tracking polls, we ask respondents how closely they have followed recent news stories about the topic we’re asking about – Very Closely, Somewhat Closely, Not Very Closely, Not At All Closely, Not Sure.
The story most closely followed by all Adults last year in Rasmussen Reports economic surveys was about plans to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center. In mid-August, 58% were following that story Very Closely, with another 27% following somewhat closely. This story attracted little attention until President Obama commented upon it and made it a national issue.
But four of the stories in the Top 10 economic surveys for the year, including #2, 3 and 4, were about the disastrous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the April 20 explosion of a deepwater drilling platform.
By mid-June, 54% were following stories about the oil leak Very Closely. Over the next month, similar majorities continued to monitor developments in that story as possible UN involvement with the cleanup was considered and as the impact on the overall U.S. economy became clearer.'"
We must remember the millions of Americans who fell hook-line-and-sinker for the promise of "hope and change" offered by the snake oil salesman who occupies the White House. That in itself doesn't give one confidence in his fellow Americans to know what is going on in this country.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Rasmussen Poll: Ground Zero Mosque Most Followed Story of 2010…
"But..but..but it’s not a mosque, it’s an 'Islamic cultural center'…
(Rasmussen)- 'American Adults shared two of the chief concerns of Likely Voters in 2010, the Gulf oil leak’s impact on the economy and plans for a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City.
Rasmussen Reports conducts two separate national tracking surveys, one of both Adults and one of Likely Voters. The latter are generally surveyed on political issues in the news, while adults are asked more often about timely economic and social issues. After all, if it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.
In both tracking polls, we ask respondents how closely they have followed recent news stories about the topic we’re asking about – Very Closely, Somewhat Closely, Not Very Closely, Not At All Closely, Not Sure.
The story most closely followed by all Adults last year in Rasmussen Reports economic surveys was about plans to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center. In mid-August, 58% were following that story Very Closely, with another 27% following somewhat closely. This story attracted little attention until President Obama commented upon it and made it a national issue.
But four of the stories in the Top 10 economic surveys for the year, including #2, 3 and 4, were about the disastrous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the April 20 explosion of a deepwater drilling platform.
By mid-June, 54% were following stories about the oil leak Very Closely. Over the next month, similar majorities continued to monitor developments in that story as possible UN involvement with the cleanup was considered and as the impact on the overall U.S. economy became clearer.'"
Man of Integrity Speaks Out
How should a Christian serving in the military respond to the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell? Should he abide by the Biblical standards near and dear to him? Or should he put his career first and ignore the acceptance of perversion that is being pushed upon the military? I say the first choice should be taken, even if it costs him his career. God will honor a man who stands for righteousnes.
The Obama regime will destroy the best military machine on the face of the globe with its offensive push of the homosexual agenda. To appease a small percentage of military personnel, he has alienated many patriotic Americans who desire to serve their country, but cannot accept the gay lifestyle because it is contrary to their religious belief system.
Read from WND:
THE GAYING OF AMERICA
Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination
Asks to be relieved of command over repeal of 'gay' ban in military
"President Obama's repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy is already damaging the U.S. military.
An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.
Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo 'behavior modification' training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.
The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:
'Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy
1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.
2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it.'
'I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers,' the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.
The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.
'These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can't do this job once they begin to implement this policy,' he told WND.
Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.
'Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service,' said the officer. 'I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey,' referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.
'I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don't believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They're going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle.'
Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military's ban on open homosexuality.
'I don't believe the steps they're taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit,' the officer told WND. 'DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they'll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody's face and commanders won't be able to do anything about it.'
The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment:
'I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you'll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don't believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution.'
As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.
The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.
'One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation's defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That's when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation.'
Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military's ban on open homosexuality."
The Obama regime will destroy the best military machine on the face of the globe with its offensive push of the homosexual agenda. To appease a small percentage of military personnel, he has alienated many patriotic Americans who desire to serve their country, but cannot accept the gay lifestyle because it is contrary to their religious belief system.
Read from WND:
THE GAYING OF AMERICA
Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination
Asks to be relieved of command over repeal of 'gay' ban in military
"President Obama's repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy is already damaging the U.S. military.
An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.
Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo 'behavior modification' training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.
The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:
'Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy
1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.
2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it.'
'I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers,' the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.
The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.
'These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can't do this job once they begin to implement this policy,' he told WND.
Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.
'Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service,' said the officer. 'I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey,' referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.
'I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don't believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They're going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle.'
Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military's ban on open homosexuality.
'I don't believe the steps they're taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit,' the officer told WND. 'DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they'll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody's face and commanders won't be able to do anything about it.'
The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment:
'I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you'll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don't believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution.'
As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.
The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.
'One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation's defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That's when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation.'
Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military's ban on open homosexuality."
The Muslim Invasion
4.6% of the British population and growing. The UK, and much of Europe for that matter, have been invaded by Muslim immigrants who breed like rabbits and have no intention of assimilating with the rest of the population. Compare that to typical Europeans who have a very low birth rate, and it will be only a matter of time until Europe is overwhelmingly Muslim. The clock is ticking.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Pew Research: Britain’s Muslim Population Has Increased 74% Since 2001, From 1.65 Million to 2.87 Million…
"And by far the most radicalized in Europe…
(Telegraph)- 'There is a remarkable statistic in today’s main Daily Telegraph leader:
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life estimates that there are 2,869,000 Muslims in Britain, an increase of 74 per cent on its previous figure of 1,647,000, which was based on the 2001 census. No demographic statistics are reliable in an era of open borders, but such an expansion is unprecedented.
Pew’s UK figure for 2010 is 2,869,000, which is equivalent to 4.6% of the population. In absolute terms, the UK has the third largest Muslim community on the continent, after Germany (4,119,000) and France (3,574,000).
The figure of 2.87 million was first published by Pew in a little-noticed press release last September, announcing a report on Muslim Networks and Movements in Western Europe. The Pew Centre, based in Washington DC, is one of the most respected demographic research bodies in the world; its methodology is scrupulous and its approach non-partisan.'
Keep reading…"
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Pew Research: Britain’s Muslim Population Has Increased 74% Since 2001, From 1.65 Million to 2.87 Million…
"And by far the most radicalized in Europe…
(Telegraph)- 'There is a remarkable statistic in today’s main Daily Telegraph leader:
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life estimates that there are 2,869,000 Muslims in Britain, an increase of 74 per cent on its previous figure of 1,647,000, which was based on the 2001 census. No demographic statistics are reliable in an era of open borders, but such an expansion is unprecedented.
Pew’s UK figure for 2010 is 2,869,000, which is equivalent to 4.6% of the population. In absolute terms, the UK has the third largest Muslim community on the continent, after Germany (4,119,000) and France (3,574,000).
The figure of 2.87 million was first published by Pew in a little-noticed press release last September, announcing a report on Muslim Networks and Movements in Western Europe. The Pew Centre, based in Washington DC, is one of the most respected demographic research bodies in the world; its methodology is scrupulous and its approach non-partisan.'
Keep reading…"
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Ahmadinejad Met with Malik Shabazz and Louis Farrakhan
What is the one thing that most radical scumbags in our nation have in common? They seem to be attracted to Barack Obama, and vice versa, like flies to excrement.
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Shock Audio: New Black Panther Leader Reveals Collusion at NYC Meeting With Ahmadinejad to Build Alliance, Secure Raw Materials and Overthrow America
"It is important to remember Obama's close ties to these haters and subversives. Louis Farrakhan and Obama have a long history, and it was Obama's Department of Justice that refused to prosecute the Black Panthers who were threatening white voters in Philly.
This is a terrible thing, but it was expected. What makes it deadly is that Obama is in the White House.
[...]
Hat tip The Blaze."
The following comment from The Blaze says it best:
"I’ve said it before, and it’s worth repeating. This is Obama’s unholy trinity: communism, islam and black supremacy. The last one is and will continue to be undefeatable because the topic is taboo."
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Shock Audio: New Black Panther Leader Reveals Collusion at NYC Meeting With Ahmadinejad to Build Alliance, Secure Raw Materials and Overthrow America
"It is important to remember Obama's close ties to these haters and subversives. Louis Farrakhan and Obama have a long history, and it was Obama's Department of Justice that refused to prosecute the Black Panthers who were threatening white voters in Philly.
This is a terrible thing, but it was expected. What makes it deadly is that Obama is in the White House.
[...]
Hat tip The Blaze."
The following comment from The Blaze says it best:
"I’ve said it before, and it’s worth repeating. This is Obama’s unholy trinity: communism, islam and black supremacy. The last one is and will continue to be undefeatable because the topic is taboo."
Fox News Rules--UPDATED
Each your heart out, libs. This should give the Obama regime more incentive to silence its critics since more and more Americans are tuning into real news, rather than the propaganda coming from CNN and MSNBC.
From Weasel Zippers:
Domination: During 2010 Fox News Had More Total Viewers Than MSNBC, CNN, And HLN Combined…
"Ouch…
(Business Insider)- 'It was also the only news channel to hit the top 10 in cable networks, ranking fourth in Primetime behind USA, ESPN and TNT.
Want some context for that? Fox News’ total viewers for the year exceeded MSNBC, HLN, and CNN combined.
That dominance came primarily at the expense of CNN which lost 29% of its total viewership in 2010 and 34% of its prime time viewers. Yes, you read that right.
MSNBC, meanwhile stayed the course in total day total viewers – it was the only news channel not to drop in that category — but dropped 5% year over year in prime time total viewers and 9% in the prime time demo.'
Keep reading…"
UPDATE: For a few laughs, check this out:
Ouch: During 2010 Olberdouche Lost 25% of His Audience in Key 25-54 Demographic. . . Update: Olby in Denial…
From Weasel Zippers:
Domination: During 2010 Fox News Had More Total Viewers Than MSNBC, CNN, And HLN Combined…
"Ouch…
(Business Insider)- 'It was also the only news channel to hit the top 10 in cable networks, ranking fourth in Primetime behind USA, ESPN and TNT.
Want some context for that? Fox News’ total viewers for the year exceeded MSNBC, HLN, and CNN combined.
That dominance came primarily at the expense of CNN which lost 29% of its total viewership in 2010 and 34% of its prime time viewers. Yes, you read that right.
MSNBC, meanwhile stayed the course in total day total viewers – it was the only news channel not to drop in that category — but dropped 5% year over year in prime time total viewers and 9% in the prime time demo.'
Keep reading…"
UPDATE: For a few laughs, check this out:
Ouch: During 2010 Olberdouche Lost 25% of His Audience in Key 25-54 Demographic. . . Update: Olby in Denial…
Stealth-Like Move by Obama Regime
What a shock! The administration of Chicago thug-style politician Barack Obama has pulled a fast one over the American people. Good ole Sarah Palin was right-on when she said that the "let grandma die" healthcare rationing bill would call for death panels. After all, how else are they going to get costs down? It's time to encourage grandma to not prolong her life. Instead, she can just suck it up and die early. The party of compassion strikes again.
We already know, Diogenes, Arizona has refused organ transplants for Medicaid patients. It is truly a shame for those who are suffering, but it sounds like a budget issue. Like many other states, Arizona is broke. I wonder if it has anything to do with illegal aliens overwhelming the state. Ya think?
However, sneaking in the death panels after railing about being accused of having them in the first place is truly disturbing. Sure, this is about money, too. In an Obama nation, the elderly will be thrown under the bus while we, the taxpayer, are expected to foot the bill for abortions for the poor and healthcare for illegal aliens. It's the dishonesty coming from the Obama regime that has everyone upset, not to mention our concern for our elderly loved ones.
Read from Joshua Pundit:
Once Again..Sarah Palin Was Right About The Death Panels
"As I mentioned before, Sarah Palin was exactly right when she mentioned that ObamaCare featured rationing and Death Panels..and now me have it confirmed by no less a source than Pravda-on-the-Hudson.
Originally, the language on the so-called 'end of life planning'- AKA death panels- was removed before ObamaCare was shoved through, although the provision for those Independent Medical Advisory Boards was left in, which amounted to the same thing.
However, President Obama sneaked the language back in under the guise of regulation, so MediCare is now going to pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which includes directives to forgo what's termed 'aggressive life-sustaining treatment.'
The decision was made back in November, after the midterms and goes into effect January 1st....and we're now hearing for the first time during the Christmas holidays news doldrum, when people are distracted and their attention is elsewhere.
To paraphrase lunatic and ex-congressman Alan Grayson, Obama and the Democrats just want you to die quickly. And there's no clearer indication of that than Obama's choice to head Medicare and Medicaid, Dr. Donald M. Berwick...a radical proponent of rationing care who Obama shoved through as a recess appointment.
This approach to health care is strikingly similar to the Nazi's policy of rationing care and weeding out what they termed 'unnütze Esser', useless mouths.
Expect Obama to sneak more 'regulation'in on this and other matters that bypasses Congress. Which is exactly why the entire Obama agenda has to be repudiated and defeated."
Of course, the Obama regime comes out with its typical response to any controversy: Blame it on Bush.
From Gateway Pundit:
Disgusting. White House Says Bush Supported Death Panels Too — NOT True (Video)
"This past weekend it was reported that Democrats inserted death panel language back into their unpopular health care bill. Democrats defended this move once they were caught by insisting that Bush supported death panels, too.
The Hill reported:
'The Obama administration is trying to quiet talk about so-called “death panels” after The New York Times reported Sunday that a new Medicare regulation includes incentives for end-of-life-care planning…
However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.
“The only thing new here is a regulation allowing the discussions … to happen in the context of the new annual wellness visit created by [healthcare reform],” Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin told The Wall Street Journal.
In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.'
Not true.
Republican analyst Matt Schlapp corrected this latest lie by the Obama Administration.
Bush vetoed the end of life provision that went into law in 2008.
RedState has more.
'What The Hill’s Jason Millman forgot to mention in his article was that President Bush VETOED the 2008 bill and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto forcing him to sign the legislation into law. The bill dealt with doctors’ reimbursements and more, but the Democrats slipped in the end-of-life planning by opening up the Social Security Act, which I have stated many times is dangerous, because once changed, it is difficult to amend again and allows for tinkering with the Medicare fee schedule and covered services definitions and requirements.'
The fact that the Obama Administration claimed that the Bush Administration supported the end of life provision is a complete lie.
And, they know it.
More… Critics charge Democrats with dirty tricks to keep death panels alive."
We already know, Diogenes, Arizona has refused organ transplants for Medicaid patients. It is truly a shame for those who are suffering, but it sounds like a budget issue. Like many other states, Arizona is broke. I wonder if it has anything to do with illegal aliens overwhelming the state. Ya think?
However, sneaking in the death panels after railing about being accused of having them in the first place is truly disturbing. Sure, this is about money, too. In an Obama nation, the elderly will be thrown under the bus while we, the taxpayer, are expected to foot the bill for abortions for the poor and healthcare for illegal aliens. It's the dishonesty coming from the Obama regime that has everyone upset, not to mention our concern for our elderly loved ones.
Read from Joshua Pundit:
Once Again..Sarah Palin Was Right About The Death Panels
"As I mentioned before, Sarah Palin was exactly right when she mentioned that ObamaCare featured rationing and Death Panels..and now me have it confirmed by no less a source than Pravda-on-the-Hudson.
Originally, the language on the so-called 'end of life planning'- AKA death panels- was removed before ObamaCare was shoved through, although the provision for those Independent Medical Advisory Boards was left in, which amounted to the same thing.
However, President Obama sneaked the language back in under the guise of regulation, so MediCare is now going to pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which includes directives to forgo what's termed 'aggressive life-sustaining treatment.'
The decision was made back in November, after the midterms and goes into effect January 1st....and we're now hearing for the first time during the Christmas holidays news doldrum, when people are distracted and their attention is elsewhere.
To paraphrase lunatic and ex-congressman Alan Grayson, Obama and the Democrats just want you to die quickly. And there's no clearer indication of that than Obama's choice to head Medicare and Medicaid, Dr. Donald M. Berwick...a radical proponent of rationing care who Obama shoved through as a recess appointment.
This approach to health care is strikingly similar to the Nazi's policy of rationing care and weeding out what they termed 'unnütze Esser', useless mouths.
Expect Obama to sneak more 'regulation'in on this and other matters that bypasses Congress. Which is exactly why the entire Obama agenda has to be repudiated and defeated."
Of course, the Obama regime comes out with its typical response to any controversy: Blame it on Bush.
From Gateway Pundit:
Disgusting. White House Says Bush Supported Death Panels Too — NOT True (Video)
"This past weekend it was reported that Democrats inserted death panel language back into their unpopular health care bill. Democrats defended this move once they were caught by insisting that Bush supported death panels, too.
The Hill reported:
'The Obama administration is trying to quiet talk about so-called “death panels” after The New York Times reported Sunday that a new Medicare regulation includes incentives for end-of-life-care planning…
However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.
“The only thing new here is a regulation allowing the discussions … to happen in the context of the new annual wellness visit created by [healthcare reform],” Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin told The Wall Street Journal.
In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.'
Not true.
Republican analyst Matt Schlapp corrected this latest lie by the Obama Administration.
Bush vetoed the end of life provision that went into law in 2008.
RedState has more.
'What The Hill’s Jason Millman forgot to mention in his article was that President Bush VETOED the 2008 bill and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto forcing him to sign the legislation into law. The bill dealt with doctors’ reimbursements and more, but the Democrats slipped in the end-of-life planning by opening up the Social Security Act, which I have stated many times is dangerous, because once changed, it is difficult to amend again and allows for tinkering with the Medicare fee schedule and covered services definitions and requirements.'
The fact that the Obama Administration claimed that the Bush Administration supported the end of life provision is a complete lie.
And, they know it.
More… Critics charge Democrats with dirty tricks to keep death panels alive."
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Which Religious Group Is Discriminated Against in the U.S.?
Contrary to what our president once said, America is not a Muslim nation. We were founded on Judeo-Christian values, and the overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves Christians, though we get no respect and are mocked on a daily basis for our faith.
Read an interesting article suggesting what life would be like in America if Christians were treated as special-class citizens as the elitists choose to treat Muslims. From Human Events:
If Christians Were Treated Like Muslims
by Gary Bauer
"Few Americans would deny that Judeo-Christian beliefs and values informed the Founding of this country and that they continue to shape much of American life today. Nor would many of us deny that Americans who embrace Islamic values are a distinct minority here.
I raise these two facts because of an emerging reality: that, in a variety of contexts, American Muslims are treated better than American Christians. That might seem like a bizarre assertion, so think about it in another way: What if the Christians were treated like Muslims in America, and Muslims like Christians?
If Muslims were treated like Christians in America, Muslims would have to tolerate the defamation of their holiest images in our national museums, acts which would be called 'artwork' -- and, if particularly provocative, even given taxpayer-funded grants from the National Endowment for the Arts. They would also have to accept Korans being burned and thrown into toilets, which instead of inciting worldwide outrage and retribution would provoke a collective shrug of the shoulders.
If Muslims were treated like Christians, Muslims would be mocked by late night TV talk show hosts and lampooned in crude cartoon parodies. If Christians were treated like Muslims, conspicuous Christianity would be celebrated by our elites as a sign of our diversity and open-mindedness, not disparaged as an embarrassment, a nuisance and a breach of the law.
If Christianity were treated like Islam, our students would be taught a white-washed version of Christian history, with the troubling bits miscast or omitted from textbooks and lesson plans.
If Christianity were treated like Islam, if an evangelical Christian committed an evil act in the name of his faith, he would be portrayed in the media as a deviation from, not a personification of, the Gospel message. Meanwhile, our political and media elites would hasten to assure the public that evangelical Christianity is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of evangelical Christians do not support terrorism.
If Christianity were treated like Islam in America, our president, a professed Christian, would proudly attend Christian-themed dinners and events while skipping Ramadan dinners, not vice versa. And Muslim politicians would go out of their way to assure people that their faith would not affect their policy-making.
If Christianity were treated like Islam, Christmas and Easter would be publicly celebrated for what they are — the signature events of Christianity, marking the birth and the death and Resurrection of Christ — not stripped of all their theological meaning and transformed into secular holidays devoted to crass consumerism.
If Christians were treated like Muslims, NASA would be tasked with reaching out to Christians and recognizing their faith's profound achievements and contributions to science, math and engineering, instead of being told to make Muslims feel good about their rather meager scientific accomplishments.
If Christians were treated like Muslims, the Catholic Church's stances on sex, contraception and human life would be revered as welcome departures from our over-sexed, self-obsessed culture, not condemned as a cause of disease and death in the less-developed world. And if Muslims were treated like Christians, the application of Sharia law around the world would be met not with stony silence but with the outrage it deserves.
If Christians were treated like Muslims in America, amusement parks would celebrate 'Christian Family Day,' (Six Flags recently celebrated 'Muslim Family Day'), and Christians would be asked to embrace, not set aside, their religious convictions at the door when they entered the public square. Meanwhile, Muslim imams, not Christian pastors, would fear hate crimes lawsuits for preaching orthodox views of sexuality and sin.
The notion that American Muslims face discrimination, even to the point of violence, is often posited by America's elites. But that idea evaporates under scrutiny. Remarkably few hate crimes are reported against Muslims (fewer than one-eighth those against Jews). What's more, Muslim immigration to America has risen sharply since September 11, 2001, and Muslims thrive, economically and educationally, once they arrive.
In fact, it is Christians, not Muslims, who increasingly encounter cultural elites who are hostile to their beliefs and values.
Sadly, Christians will never be treated like Muslims by America's elites. Why? Because Christianity can be attacked without fear of retribution. The Christian response to insult and attack -- 'to turn the other cheek' -- contradicts the knee-jerk call to violence of many Islamists.
It's also because left-wing elites and radical Islamists are united in the common cause of upending the Judeo-Christian culture and roots of American society.
I’m not in favor of burning the Koran, and I don’t think insulting or defaming symbols of any religion constitutes art. At a time of the year when intolerance for public displays of Christianity is most acute, it is my Christmas wish that Muslims and Christians would be treated equally."
Read an interesting article suggesting what life would be like in America if Christians were treated as special-class citizens as the elitists choose to treat Muslims. From Human Events:
If Christians Were Treated Like Muslims
by Gary Bauer
"Few Americans would deny that Judeo-Christian beliefs and values informed the Founding of this country and that they continue to shape much of American life today. Nor would many of us deny that Americans who embrace Islamic values are a distinct minority here.
I raise these two facts because of an emerging reality: that, in a variety of contexts, American Muslims are treated better than American Christians. That might seem like a bizarre assertion, so think about it in another way: What if the Christians were treated like Muslims in America, and Muslims like Christians?
If Muslims were treated like Christians in America, Muslims would have to tolerate the defamation of their holiest images in our national museums, acts which would be called 'artwork' -- and, if particularly provocative, even given taxpayer-funded grants from the National Endowment for the Arts. They would also have to accept Korans being burned and thrown into toilets, which instead of inciting worldwide outrage and retribution would provoke a collective shrug of the shoulders.
If Muslims were treated like Christians, Muslims would be mocked by late night TV talk show hosts and lampooned in crude cartoon parodies. If Christians were treated like Muslims, conspicuous Christianity would be celebrated by our elites as a sign of our diversity and open-mindedness, not disparaged as an embarrassment, a nuisance and a breach of the law.
If Christianity were treated like Islam, our students would be taught a white-washed version of Christian history, with the troubling bits miscast or omitted from textbooks and lesson plans.
If Christianity were treated like Islam, if an evangelical Christian committed an evil act in the name of his faith, he would be portrayed in the media as a deviation from, not a personification of, the Gospel message. Meanwhile, our political and media elites would hasten to assure the public that evangelical Christianity is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of evangelical Christians do not support terrorism.
If Christianity were treated like Islam in America, our president, a professed Christian, would proudly attend Christian-themed dinners and events while skipping Ramadan dinners, not vice versa. And Muslim politicians would go out of their way to assure people that their faith would not affect their policy-making.
If Christianity were treated like Islam, Christmas and Easter would be publicly celebrated for what they are — the signature events of Christianity, marking the birth and the death and Resurrection of Christ — not stripped of all their theological meaning and transformed into secular holidays devoted to crass consumerism.
If Christians were treated like Muslims, NASA would be tasked with reaching out to Christians and recognizing their faith's profound achievements and contributions to science, math and engineering, instead of being told to make Muslims feel good about their rather meager scientific accomplishments.
If Christians were treated like Muslims, the Catholic Church's stances on sex, contraception and human life would be revered as welcome departures from our over-sexed, self-obsessed culture, not condemned as a cause of disease and death in the less-developed world. And if Muslims were treated like Christians, the application of Sharia law around the world would be met not with stony silence but with the outrage it deserves.
If Christians were treated like Muslims in America, amusement parks would celebrate 'Christian Family Day,' (Six Flags recently celebrated 'Muslim Family Day'), and Christians would be asked to embrace, not set aside, their religious convictions at the door when they entered the public square. Meanwhile, Muslim imams, not Christian pastors, would fear hate crimes lawsuits for preaching orthodox views of sexuality and sin.
The notion that American Muslims face discrimination, even to the point of violence, is often posited by America's elites. But that idea evaporates under scrutiny. Remarkably few hate crimes are reported against Muslims (fewer than one-eighth those against Jews). What's more, Muslim immigration to America has risen sharply since September 11, 2001, and Muslims thrive, economically and educationally, once they arrive.
In fact, it is Christians, not Muslims, who increasingly encounter cultural elites who are hostile to their beliefs and values.
Sadly, Christians will never be treated like Muslims by America's elites. Why? Because Christianity can be attacked without fear of retribution. The Christian response to insult and attack -- 'to turn the other cheek' -- contradicts the knee-jerk call to violence of many Islamists.
It's also because left-wing elites and radical Islamists are united in the common cause of upending the Judeo-Christian culture and roots of American society.
I’m not in favor of burning the Koran, and I don’t think insulting or defaming symbols of any religion constitutes art. At a time of the year when intolerance for public displays of Christianity is most acute, it is my Christmas wish that Muslims and Christians would be treated equally."
No One Cares About Christian Persecution
Imagine if there were Muslims suffering persecution at the hands of Christians. Our president would be shouting from the rooftops about the unjustness and demanding that Muslims be protected. What if it were Christians suffering at the hands of Muslims? What would he do then? You guessed it: nothing, nada.
Read from Hot Air:
Congress presses Obama to act on attacks on Christians in Iraq
"The war in Iraq has mainly been an exercise in partisanship, at least since the presidential election campaign of 2004. Since Barack Obama took office, however, the issue has mainly faded to the background as Republicans and Democrats alike tacitly agreed to support the administration’s decision to abide by the status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) negotiated by George Bush and Nouri al-Maliki in 2008 that will see the bulk of US forces withdraw by the end of next year. However, that schedule has generated further bipartisan agreement that the White House needs to do more in the wake of al-Qaeda attacks on Christians in Iraq to get the Iraqi government to defend the right to freedom of worship:
'Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are fervently pressing the White House to stem mounting attacks on Christians in Iraq. …
Since 2004, 40 Christian churches and institutions have been bombed, according to the Chaldean Assyrian Syriac Council of America, seven alone on the eve of Orthodox Christmas in 2007.
In a recent letter to President Obama, the group warned that the current situation “promises more innocent Christian blood in Iraq, more turmoil in that country, and more shame for America.” …
Before the ouster of Saddam Hussein, there were about 1.4 million Christians in Iraq, comprising about 3 percent of the population, said Eshoo. Today, through a mass exodus and violence that has included a dozen clergy killed or kidnapped, about 400,000 remain.
“The numbers are stunning,” [Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)] said. “We are really struggling to have the issue taken as seriously as it should be taken.”'
The problem Congress sees is that of waning US influence in direct proportion to the withdrawal of troops. The White House has a rapidly-closing window in which to use its leverage to assist the Iraqi Christians; after next year, the US may have less influence than any time since the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to shape the direction of Iraq. Since the attacks, the House passed a resolution condemning the 'bloodbath,' and sent letters to Hillary Clinton and the GAO to review funding and protection policies for the 'indigenous religious communities' in Iraq, apparently to little avail.
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the co-chair of Eshoo’s Religious Minorities in Iraq Caucus, scolded President Obama for a weak, politically-correct response to the terrorist attacks:
'He also criticized the Obama administration for not mentioning “Christian” or “church” in condemning the attack, charging this downplayed the systemic targeting of the faithful.
“The United States strongly condemns this senseless act of hostage taking and violence by terrorists linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq that occurred Sunday in Baghdad killing so many innocent Iraqis,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said after the massacre.
“What you’re seeing is the eradication of the Christian community,” Wolf said. “The world has pretty much turned away.”'
Wolf says that the White House rarely responds to the concerns of the RMI Caucus, and gets the impression that the issue is 'not at the top of the list' with the administration at the moment. If so, Wolf and Eshoo are fighting the clock to get Obama to use what influence remains to stop the eradication of the Christian communities in Iraq. The bipartisan nature of these concerns should have the White House scrambling to get in front of the issue; instead, it appears that no one in the administration has the stomach to challenge Maliki and his government to act with more strength to protect religious freedom. That does not bode well for future management of the US-Iraq relationship."
And from Jihad Watch:
Obama calls Pakistani Prez to appeal for clemency for Asia Bibi -- no, wait...
"Actually, Obama has done nothing whatsoever about Asia Bibi, the Christian woman who faces judicial murder for blasphemy in Pakistan. But he did find the time to call the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles to congratulate him for giving Michael Vick a second chance.
With all the money we give these Muslim nations, we have every right to pressure them, yet we don't. In the words of Kanye West, "Obama doesn't care about Christians."
Sign the petition to tell Pakistan not to execute Asia Bibi
Read from Hot Air:
Congress presses Obama to act on attacks on Christians in Iraq
"The war in Iraq has mainly been an exercise in partisanship, at least since the presidential election campaign of 2004. Since Barack Obama took office, however, the issue has mainly faded to the background as Republicans and Democrats alike tacitly agreed to support the administration’s decision to abide by the status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) negotiated by George Bush and Nouri al-Maliki in 2008 that will see the bulk of US forces withdraw by the end of next year. However, that schedule has generated further bipartisan agreement that the White House needs to do more in the wake of al-Qaeda attacks on Christians in Iraq to get the Iraqi government to defend the right to freedom of worship:
'Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are fervently pressing the White House to stem mounting attacks on Christians in Iraq. …
Since 2004, 40 Christian churches and institutions have been bombed, according to the Chaldean Assyrian Syriac Council of America, seven alone on the eve of Orthodox Christmas in 2007.
In a recent letter to President Obama, the group warned that the current situation “promises more innocent Christian blood in Iraq, more turmoil in that country, and more shame for America.” …
Before the ouster of Saddam Hussein, there were about 1.4 million Christians in Iraq, comprising about 3 percent of the population, said Eshoo. Today, through a mass exodus and violence that has included a dozen clergy killed or kidnapped, about 400,000 remain.
“The numbers are stunning,” [Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)] said. “We are really struggling to have the issue taken as seriously as it should be taken.”'
The problem Congress sees is that of waning US influence in direct proportion to the withdrawal of troops. The White House has a rapidly-closing window in which to use its leverage to assist the Iraqi Christians; after next year, the US may have less influence than any time since the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to shape the direction of Iraq. Since the attacks, the House passed a resolution condemning the 'bloodbath,' and sent letters to Hillary Clinton and the GAO to review funding and protection policies for the 'indigenous religious communities' in Iraq, apparently to little avail.
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the co-chair of Eshoo’s Religious Minorities in Iraq Caucus, scolded President Obama for a weak, politically-correct response to the terrorist attacks:
'He also criticized the Obama administration for not mentioning “Christian” or “church” in condemning the attack, charging this downplayed the systemic targeting of the faithful.
“The United States strongly condemns this senseless act of hostage taking and violence by terrorists linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq that occurred Sunday in Baghdad killing so many innocent Iraqis,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said after the massacre.
“What you’re seeing is the eradication of the Christian community,” Wolf said. “The world has pretty much turned away.”'
Wolf says that the White House rarely responds to the concerns of the RMI Caucus, and gets the impression that the issue is 'not at the top of the list' with the administration at the moment. If so, Wolf and Eshoo are fighting the clock to get Obama to use what influence remains to stop the eradication of the Christian communities in Iraq. The bipartisan nature of these concerns should have the White House scrambling to get in front of the issue; instead, it appears that no one in the administration has the stomach to challenge Maliki and his government to act with more strength to protect religious freedom. That does not bode well for future management of the US-Iraq relationship."
And from Jihad Watch:
Obama calls Pakistani Prez to appeal for clemency for Asia Bibi -- no, wait...
"Actually, Obama has done nothing whatsoever about Asia Bibi, the Christian woman who faces judicial murder for blasphemy in Pakistan. But he did find the time to call the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles to congratulate him for giving Michael Vick a second chance.
With all the money we give these Muslim nations, we have every right to pressure them, yet we don't. In the words of Kanye West, "Obama doesn't care about Christians."
Sign the petition to tell Pakistan not to execute Asia Bibi
Monday, December 27, 2010
Only 38% Support Individual Mandate
More bad news for the Obama regime. Naturally, in his quest for power, the tyrant vacationing in Hawaii could care less what us peons think.
From The Blaze:
New Poll: Opposition for Individual Mandate Hits 60%
"A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that support for President Obama’s individual insurance mandate has declined by six points in the last four months, and opposition has swelled to 60 percent.
According to the poll, only 38 percent of those polled support the mandate. In August, that number was 44 percent. And as support dwindles, opposition increases. In August, 56 percent opposed the measure, a number that how now grown to 60 percent.* The new numbers are all-time lows and highs respectively.
The new numbers come on the heels of a federal judge in Virginia ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional."
From The Blaze:
New Poll: Opposition for Individual Mandate Hits 60%
"A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that support for President Obama’s individual insurance mandate has declined by six points in the last four months, and opposition has swelled to 60 percent.
According to the poll, only 38 percent of those polled support the mandate. In August, that number was 44 percent. And as support dwindles, opposition increases. In August, 56 percent opposed the measure, a number that how now grown to 60 percent.* The new numbers are all-time lows and highs respectively.
The new numbers come on the heels of a federal judge in Virginia ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional."
Israel Haters in Israel
America's Left has a great disdain for its country and blames it for all the world's woes. I guess we shouldn't be surprised to learn that Israel has its own self-loathing leftists who are eager to placate the Muslim world and rejoice in the thought of Israel handing over its God-given land to savages who have absolutely no desire to live in peace.
Read from Front Page:
Israel’s Israel-Bashing Left
"'If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,' Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas told reporters in Ramallah on Saturday. And reiterated: 'when a Palestinian state is established, it would have no Israeli presence[.]'
Even to say that Abbas’s words elicited yawns—let alone charges of racism and Nazism—among those who champion the cause of a Palestinian state would be an exaggeration, since even a yawn is a kind of reaction.
The Israeli Left, however, has been going pretty wild lately in leveling such charges—not, of course, against the respective Palestinian entities in the West Bank and Gaza but against Israel itself. And as usual, much of the venom is concentrated in the Israeli Left’s flagship publication, the daily newspaper Haaretz.
'The fire of hatred and racism is ablaze in Israel'—thus, no less, the paper opened its editorial on Thursday. And it extended the metaphor in Sunday’s editorial, charging Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with supplying 'fuel for the fires of racism and xenophobia.'
On Friday, columnist Ari Shavit wrote of Israel’s 'xenophobic stench' and 'xenophobic frenzy' and that 'the virus of hatred is making Israel look and sound like a benighted racist country.'
Also on Sunday, columnist Zvi Barel, in a barely coherent rant, asked whether 'Israeli racism [can] be eliminated through law, trial and punishment, or is it already part of the Israeli identity?' Barel also averred that for Israelis, 'being Israeli means belonging to a separate race that also happens to be Jewish; what counts is the Israeli race.'
But even these were bested by another Haaretz op-ed on Sunday, this one by Hebrew University scholar Daniel Blatman. For Blatman, Israel is not just a swamp of racism but—no less—on the verge of Nazism. As he writes:
'Millions of people in Germany who would not have defined themselves as anti-Semites and certainly not as Nazis were swept up in the messianic and pseudo-religious public atmosphere. Israel today is becoming slowly and increasingly swept up in “redemptive xenophobia.”… In the Israel of today, we can observe quite a few conditions whose presence in other societies and among other peoples led to racial separation, ethnic cleansing and even genocide…the domestic reality in Israel today is 1932.'"
Read it all.
These leftist knuckleheads in Israel take their self-loathing to a new level, tending to ignore the fact that their very existence is at stake.
Read from Front Page:
Israel’s Israel-Bashing Left
"'If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,' Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas told reporters in Ramallah on Saturday. And reiterated: 'when a Palestinian state is established, it would have no Israeli presence[.]'
Even to say that Abbas’s words elicited yawns—let alone charges of racism and Nazism—among those who champion the cause of a Palestinian state would be an exaggeration, since even a yawn is a kind of reaction.
The Israeli Left, however, has been going pretty wild lately in leveling such charges—not, of course, against the respective Palestinian entities in the West Bank and Gaza but against Israel itself. And as usual, much of the venom is concentrated in the Israeli Left’s flagship publication, the daily newspaper Haaretz.
'The fire of hatred and racism is ablaze in Israel'—thus, no less, the paper opened its editorial on Thursday. And it extended the metaphor in Sunday’s editorial, charging Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with supplying 'fuel for the fires of racism and xenophobia.'
On Friday, columnist Ari Shavit wrote of Israel’s 'xenophobic stench' and 'xenophobic frenzy' and that 'the virus of hatred is making Israel look and sound like a benighted racist country.'
Also on Sunday, columnist Zvi Barel, in a barely coherent rant, asked whether 'Israeli racism [can] be eliminated through law, trial and punishment, or is it already part of the Israeli identity?' Barel also averred that for Israelis, 'being Israeli means belonging to a separate race that also happens to be Jewish; what counts is the Israeli race.'
But even these were bested by another Haaretz op-ed on Sunday, this one by Hebrew University scholar Daniel Blatman. For Blatman, Israel is not just a swamp of racism but—no less—on the verge of Nazism. As he writes:
'Millions of people in Germany who would not have defined themselves as anti-Semites and certainly not as Nazis were swept up in the messianic and pseudo-religious public atmosphere. Israel today is becoming slowly and increasingly swept up in “redemptive xenophobia.”… In the Israel of today, we can observe quite a few conditions whose presence in other societies and among other peoples led to racial separation, ethnic cleansing and even genocide…the domestic reality in Israel today is 1932.'"
Read it all.
These leftist knuckleheads in Israel take their self-loathing to a new level, tending to ignore the fact that their very existence is at stake.
Abortion Agenda on MTV
MTV has a special about teenage girls becoming pregnant. If handled correctly, this could have a positive impact on girls, encouraging them to be more careful using birth control before becoming sexually active, or bet yet, to abstain from premarital sex. No dangers of an unwanted pregnancy in the latter scenario.
But, this is the media we are talking about. Therefore, we can count on them to promote abortion without communicating all the horrors associated with it, the number one horror being the murder of one's own offspring. I can't imagine that MTV will share that little nuggest of truth with America's youth.
Read from The Blaze:
MTV to Air Special on Pregnant Teens Getting Abortions
"After showcasing dozens of teen mothers on the cable network’s '16 and Pregnant,' MTV now plans to air a special on would-be teen moms getting abortions.
According to Entertainment Weekly, the special report will air three days after Christmas — Dec. 28 at 11:30 p.m. — and will follow one '16 and Pregnant' teen mom as she debates whether or not she should have an abortion to end her latest pregnancy.
The special must come as welcome news to blogger Jessica Valenti who has encouraged MTV to help 'destigmatize' the practice and wondered earlier this year, 'Where are the pregnant teens who choose not to stay pregnant? Where are the abortions?'
'I realize that it’s controversial to document a teenager who decides to end their pregnancy, but the fact is that nearly a third of all teen pregnancies end in abortion. But if you were to watch MTV, you’d never know that – you’d think all young women choose to go through with the pregnancy. …
If MTV wants to take the lead in a national conversation about teenage pregnancy, they have to tell the whole story.'
The teen abortion special, titled 'No Easy Decision,' will also feature Hollywood doctor extraordinaire Dr. Drew Pinsky who will talk with young women who have already had abortions. MTV sources say the documentary will cover all sides of the issue, including the importance of contraception and the devastating effects of facing such a decision."
But, this is the media we are talking about. Therefore, we can count on them to promote abortion without communicating all the horrors associated with it, the number one horror being the murder of one's own offspring. I can't imagine that MTV will share that little nuggest of truth with America's youth.
Read from The Blaze:
MTV to Air Special on Pregnant Teens Getting Abortions
"After showcasing dozens of teen mothers on the cable network’s '16 and Pregnant,' MTV now plans to air a special on would-be teen moms getting abortions.
According to Entertainment Weekly, the special report will air three days after Christmas — Dec. 28 at 11:30 p.m. — and will follow one '16 and Pregnant' teen mom as she debates whether or not she should have an abortion to end her latest pregnancy.
The special must come as welcome news to blogger Jessica Valenti who has encouraged MTV to help 'destigmatize' the practice and wondered earlier this year, 'Where are the pregnant teens who choose not to stay pregnant? Where are the abortions?'
'I realize that it’s controversial to document a teenager who decides to end their pregnancy, but the fact is that nearly a third of all teen pregnancies end in abortion. But if you were to watch MTV, you’d never know that – you’d think all young women choose to go through with the pregnancy. …
If MTV wants to take the lead in a national conversation about teenage pregnancy, they have to tell the whole story.'
The teen abortion special, titled 'No Easy Decision,' will also feature Hollywood doctor extraordinaire Dr. Drew Pinsky who will talk with young women who have already had abortions. MTV sources say the documentary will cover all sides of the issue, including the importance of contraception and the devastating effects of facing such a decision."
Four Wives Beat Their Husband to Death
Though I would never condone murder, I must admit that after hearing case after case of Muslim men mistreating and sometimes killing their women, this story makes me chuckle.
From Weasel Zippers:
Bangladesh: Muslim Man Beaten to Death by His Four Wives…
"Reverse honor killing?…
Dhaka, Dec 22: 'A 46-year-old man, who kept his multiple marriages a secret from his four wives, was beaten up to death in Bangladesh, local media reported on Wednesday, Dec 22.
According the sources, the victim, namely Yunus Bepari, an auto-rickshaw driver, attended a marriage party with two of his wives. Co-incidentally, he had an encounter with his third wife and situation revealed that the victim had another wife (fourth) in another village.
The four wives, who were unaware of their husband’s multiple marriages, beat him up mercilessly and when Bepari was taken to the near by hospital, he was declared dead.
According the Islamic Shariah (law), a Muslim man is allowed to take up to four wives, but that should be with the consent of his existing wives.'"
From Weasel Zippers:
Bangladesh: Muslim Man Beaten to Death by His Four Wives…
"Reverse honor killing?…
Dhaka, Dec 22: 'A 46-year-old man, who kept his multiple marriages a secret from his four wives, was beaten up to death in Bangladesh, local media reported on Wednesday, Dec 22.
According the sources, the victim, namely Yunus Bepari, an auto-rickshaw driver, attended a marriage party with two of his wives. Co-incidentally, he had an encounter with his third wife and situation revealed that the victim had another wife (fourth) in another village.
The four wives, who were unaware of their husband’s multiple marriages, beat him up mercilessly and when Bepari was taken to the near by hospital, he was declared dead.
According the Islamic Shariah (law), a Muslim man is allowed to take up to four wives, but that should be with the consent of his existing wives.'"
Saturday, December 25, 2010
What a Sicko!
No ifs, ands, or buts, Jesus was a Jew. What would the Father of Terrorism, Yasser Arafat, know about Jesus?
I imagine it's kinda hot where he is. Enjoy it for eternity, Yasser.
Read from Jihad Watch:
Jesus was a Palestinian -- "no one denies that," says PA TV
"Over here, sir! Me, sir! I do! I do, sir!
Islamic supremacism and appropriation of history, delegitimizing Christianity as well as Judaism, is rooted in the Qur'an; it goes all the way back to the declaration that Abraham was a Muslim (3:67).
Note also the fiendishly obscene Islamic antisemitism manifested here: Jesus was the "the first Palestinian Shahid," i.e., the Jews killed him. Arafat was trying to turn the Palestinian jihad against Israel into a perverse and evil Passion Play. "Jesus was a Palestinian- 'no one denies that,' says PA TV," by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik for Palestinian Media Watch, December 24:
'One of the ways the Palestinian Authority attempts to create a Palestinian history is to deny the Judean/Jewish nationality of Jesus, and misrepresent him as a "Palestinian."
Palestinian Media Watch has documented this ongoing Palestinian Authority historical revision. Recently on PA TV, the author Samih Ghanadreh from Nazareth was interviewed about his book "Christianity and Its Connection to Islam."
The following is the transcript of the discussion describing Jesus as a Palestinian:
Religious program on PA TV: This is our religion
Author: "The Shahid (Martyr) President Yasser Arafat used to say: "Jesus was the first Palestinian Shahid (Martyr)." I heard him say that sentence many times."
PA TV Host: "He [Jesus] was a Palestinian; no one denies that."
Author: "He [Jesus] was the first Palestinian Shahid (Martyr). He (Arafat) attributed this Martyrdom to Palestine, as well."
[PA TV (Fatah), Dec. 3, 2010]...'
Read it all."
I imagine it's kinda hot where he is. Enjoy it for eternity, Yasser.
Read from Jihad Watch:
Jesus was a Palestinian -- "no one denies that," says PA TV
"Over here, sir! Me, sir! I do! I do, sir!
Islamic supremacism and appropriation of history, delegitimizing Christianity as well as Judaism, is rooted in the Qur'an; it goes all the way back to the declaration that Abraham was a Muslim (3:67).
Note also the fiendishly obscene Islamic antisemitism manifested here: Jesus was the "the first Palestinian Shahid," i.e., the Jews killed him. Arafat was trying to turn the Palestinian jihad against Israel into a perverse and evil Passion Play. "Jesus was a Palestinian- 'no one denies that,' says PA TV," by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik for Palestinian Media Watch, December 24:
'One of the ways the Palestinian Authority attempts to create a Palestinian history is to deny the Judean/Jewish nationality of Jesus, and misrepresent him as a "Palestinian."
Palestinian Media Watch has documented this ongoing Palestinian Authority historical revision. Recently on PA TV, the author Samih Ghanadreh from Nazareth was interviewed about his book "Christianity and Its Connection to Islam."
The following is the transcript of the discussion describing Jesus as a Palestinian:
Religious program on PA TV: This is our religion
Author: "The Shahid (Martyr) President Yasser Arafat used to say: "Jesus was the first Palestinian Shahid (Martyr)." I heard him say that sentence many times."
PA TV Host: "He [Jesus] was a Palestinian; no one denies that."
Author: "He [Jesus] was the first Palestinian Shahid (Martyr). He (Arafat) attributed this Martyrdom to Palestine, as well."
[PA TV (Fatah), Dec. 3, 2010]...'
Read it all."
Born to Die
Sometimes things don't work out as planned. I had no intention of posting today, but instead, traveling out of town to visit my in-laws for Christmas. But, in the middle of the night, my husband woke up with terrible pain, more than likely from a kidney stone. We went through this scenario about five years ago on the first night of a vacation in a beach community we had never visited before, and it ended with a visit to the emergency room. Hopefully, we can avoid that this time.
Needless to say, my five children went to their grandparents for the day. My husband is in bed attempting to sleep, despite his pain, and I am sitting here with nothing to do, but be on call if he needs me.
Yet, through all the change in plans, I rejoice in the celebration this day of the birth of my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, the only child born to die, and that death was to deliver us from all our sins. What a Savior! What a friend! Jesus truly is the reason for the season. Merry Christmas to all.
Needless to say, my five children went to their grandparents for the day. My husband is in bed attempting to sleep, despite his pain, and I am sitting here with nothing to do, but be on call if he needs me.
Yet, through all the change in plans, I rejoice in the celebration this day of the birth of my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, the only child born to die, and that death was to deliver us from all our sins. What a Savior! What a friend! Jesus truly is the reason for the season. Merry Christmas to all.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Merry Christmas
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Van Is Pretending
The commie, Van Jones, the one Obama and Valerie Jarret have been watching since his days in Oakland, admits that he's been doing some pretending. You think so, Van?
Here him in his own words, via New Zeal:
Van Jones on 'Pretending' To Get Regulations
Unbelievable! Van Jones lied through his teeth about his communism.
Now here he is openly admitting that the left is 'pretending' there is a need for environmental regulations.
Like any good Leninist, or his former boss Barack Obama, Van the Scam knows you have to falsify the truth to get what you want."
Military Reacts to DADT Repeal
The American Pravda may be enjoying the decision to sodomize our military, but vets groups aren't quite so pleased.
Read from World Net Daily:
THE GAYING OF AMERICAVets protest plan opening military to homosexuals
Officer requests command relief over scheduled 'behavior modifications'
By Eugene J. Koprowski
"Veterans and active duty personnel alike are reacting harshly to the news that Barack Obama has signed the repeal of the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy, and one much-needed leader already could be lost to the military.
A lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army has confirmed to WND that he is asking to be relieved of the command of his squadron because of the new policy. And former combat personnel are telling WND that they are continuing to keep the pressure on Congress to reverse itself.
'I have already requested through my chain of command that I be relieved of command of my squadron prior to new policy implementation on grounds that my personal beliefs don't permit me to force the coming "behavior modifications" training and other inevitable policies on my soldiers,' the officer, whose name has been withheld, wrote to WND.
The statement highlights the question of whether soldiers themselves are ready to go along with the controversial social experiment imposed by Congress, or whether they'll carefully withdraw from command positions and troop ranks, pack their bags and leave the military.
Earlier, during congressional debate over the radical Obama plan to make the military more 'gay'-friendly, officials reported that 12.6 percent of the personnel, some 264,600 soldiers, said they would leave sooner than planned because of the change. Another quarter of a million said that would be among their options when considering their careers.
The survey, done by the military itself, said nearly one-third of Marines would leave sooner than planned and another 16.2 percent would consider that – hitting possibly half of the members of the corps."
Read the rest.
Read from World Net Daily:
THE GAYING OF AMERICAVets protest plan opening military to homosexuals
Officer requests command relief over scheduled 'behavior modifications'
By Eugene J. Koprowski
"Veterans and active duty personnel alike are reacting harshly to the news that Barack Obama has signed the repeal of the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy, and one much-needed leader already could be lost to the military.
A lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army has confirmed to WND that he is asking to be relieved of the command of his squadron because of the new policy. And former combat personnel are telling WND that they are continuing to keep the pressure on Congress to reverse itself.
'I have already requested through my chain of command that I be relieved of command of my squadron prior to new policy implementation on grounds that my personal beliefs don't permit me to force the coming "behavior modifications" training and other inevitable policies on my soldiers,' the officer, whose name has been withheld, wrote to WND.
The statement highlights the question of whether soldiers themselves are ready to go along with the controversial social experiment imposed by Congress, or whether they'll carefully withdraw from command positions and troop ranks, pack their bags and leave the military.
Earlier, during congressional debate over the radical Obama plan to make the military more 'gay'-friendly, officials reported that 12.6 percent of the personnel, some 264,600 soldiers, said they would leave sooner than planned because of the change. Another quarter of a million said that would be among their options when considering their careers.
The survey, done by the military itself, said nearly one-third of Marines would leave sooner than planned and another 16.2 percent would consider that – hitting possibly half of the members of the corps."
Read the rest.
Obama: Cutting America Down to Size
First, he demoralizes our troops by sodomizing the military. But, oh, that's not good enough for the America-hating Barack Obama. To finish up his job of cutting America down to size, he leaves us defenseless with his moronic START treaty.
What planet does he live on that he thinks we can have a world without nuclear weapons? Tell that to the evil regimes in North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.
Is anybody with a brain believing this nonsense? This a rerun of the Jimmy Carter presidency. The real question remains: Is Obama a bumbling idiot like his predecessor, or is he intentionally undermining the security of our nation? If it's the latter, that's grounds for impeachment.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Obama: START Treaty Will Help Us Seek a World Without (American) Nuclear Weapons (Video)
"Our naive far left Commander in Chief celebrated a 'world without nuclear weapons' today after the signing of the START Treaty with Russia. Of course, the only nuclear weapons he is worried about and can control are US nuclear weapons.
So far he has been unable to persuade Iran, Syria and North Korea to join him in making his childish wish a reality.
'This treaty will enhance our leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and seek the peace of a world without them.'"
Check out this comment from Gateway Pundit:
GrayRider commented:
"The New START Treaty negotiated by Team Obama with the Russians is a bad deal, one that will essentially kill our right to modernize our nuclear arsenal or to build a comprehensive missile defense system.
START will gut the U.S. military by reducing the arsenal of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to insufficient levels because that is exactly its point. The Russians have demanded that the American arsenal be reduced to the size of the Russian arsenal projected for the 2010s. It is well known that Russia has fewer delivery systems subject to START provisions than the U.S. The treaty is clearly designed to bring the U.S. strategic arsenal down to the sorry state of the Russians’. And Russia cannot afford to maintain its arsenal at its present size, let alone greatly increase it, as Putin has threatened to do.
Within just a few years the number of Russian launchers will shrink substantially just due to age, attrition and deterioration. The New START is not needed. All it will do is lessen our capabilities while appeasing the Russians. That is dangerous!
The verification procedures are unreliable. The Russians already have violated both SALT treaties and START 1. You’d have to be out of your mind to think that they would not do so with the New START. A weakened America due to the New START will only encourage N. Korea, China, Pakistan and Iran to ramp up their nuclear capabilities.
It’s completely laughable to take the Russians threat of triggering a new arms race if we don’t sign START. The Russians don’t have the economic means to carry it out. But, the threat does show how favorable the treaty is to Russia and exposes what an unreliable and disingenuous partner they would be.
Reagan would have never signed away national missile defense in a world full of present and future threats from multiple nuclear powers on the basis of a deal with just one of them.
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese has stated 'Reagan was adamant that no arms-control agreement be allowed to encumber the pursuit of advanced ballistic missile defense technology.'
President Reagan would have said a strong 'Nyet!' to the new START.
Furthermore, the Senate shoul have reviewed the full pre- and post-treaty negotiating record to see how much say Moscow will have in American deployment of missile defense. Why was Team Obama withholding this material? Is there something to hide? Moreover, what was the rush to cram this through during the lame duck session with such little scrutiny? Is there something to hide?"
What planet does he live on that he thinks we can have a world without nuclear weapons? Tell that to the evil regimes in North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.
Is anybody with a brain believing this nonsense? This a rerun of the Jimmy Carter presidency. The real question remains: Is Obama a bumbling idiot like his predecessor, or is he intentionally undermining the security of our nation? If it's the latter, that's grounds for impeachment.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Obama: START Treaty Will Help Us Seek a World Without (American) Nuclear Weapons (Video)
"Our naive far left Commander in Chief celebrated a 'world without nuclear weapons' today after the signing of the START Treaty with Russia. Of course, the only nuclear weapons he is worried about and can control are US nuclear weapons.
So far he has been unable to persuade Iran, Syria and North Korea to join him in making his childish wish a reality.
'This treaty will enhance our leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and seek the peace of a world without them.'"
Check out this comment from Gateway Pundit:
GrayRider commented:
"The New START Treaty negotiated by Team Obama with the Russians is a bad deal, one that will essentially kill our right to modernize our nuclear arsenal or to build a comprehensive missile defense system.
START will gut the U.S. military by reducing the arsenal of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to insufficient levels because that is exactly its point. The Russians have demanded that the American arsenal be reduced to the size of the Russian arsenal projected for the 2010s. It is well known that Russia has fewer delivery systems subject to START provisions than the U.S. The treaty is clearly designed to bring the U.S. strategic arsenal down to the sorry state of the Russians’. And Russia cannot afford to maintain its arsenal at its present size, let alone greatly increase it, as Putin has threatened to do.
Within just a few years the number of Russian launchers will shrink substantially just due to age, attrition and deterioration. The New START is not needed. All it will do is lessen our capabilities while appeasing the Russians. That is dangerous!
The verification procedures are unreliable. The Russians already have violated both SALT treaties and START 1. You’d have to be out of your mind to think that they would not do so with the New START. A weakened America due to the New START will only encourage N. Korea, China, Pakistan and Iran to ramp up their nuclear capabilities.
It’s completely laughable to take the Russians threat of triggering a new arms race if we don’t sign START. The Russians don’t have the economic means to carry it out. But, the threat does show how favorable the treaty is to Russia and exposes what an unreliable and disingenuous partner they would be.
Reagan would have never signed away national missile defense in a world full of present and future threats from multiple nuclear powers on the basis of a deal with just one of them.
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese has stated 'Reagan was adamant that no arms-control agreement be allowed to encumber the pursuit of advanced ballistic missile defense technology.'
President Reagan would have said a strong 'Nyet!' to the new START.
Furthermore, the Senate shoul have reviewed the full pre- and post-treaty negotiating record to see how much say Moscow will have in American deployment of missile defense. Why was Team Obama withholding this material? Is there something to hide? Moreover, what was the rush to cram this through during the lame duck session with such little scrutiny? Is there something to hide?"
Those Stingy Liberals--UPDATED
Contrary to what liberals like to tell us, it turns out that conservatives are the compassionate ones. Those bleeding-heart liberals are stingy with their own money, though they are eager to rob you of yours.
I believe I've shared these statistics in the past, but they are worth mentioning again. From Human Events:
Scrooge Was A Liberal
by Ann Coulter
"It's the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force. Didn't Jesus say, 'Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven'?
Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.
But for liberals like Al Franken, it's beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare's point that the 'devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.'
What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: 'Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.' (2 Corinthians (9:7)
Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to 'the poor.' They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.
The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do. (Unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity.)
Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.
In his book 'Who Really Cares?' Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals, secular conservatives and 'religious' liberals.
His surprising conclusion was ... Al Franken gave the most of all!
Ha ha! Just kidding. Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity -- $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.
Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in 'charities' that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children's elite private schools.
Indeed, religious people, Brooks says, 'are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way.'
Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent.
They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.
On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more -- and 50 times more to secular charities -- than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.
Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as 'insufferable blowhards.') These 'bleeding-heart tightwads,' as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.
Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also 'significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier.' (Count Nancy Pelosi's change carefully!)
Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That's up 7 percent from last year!)
We'll review specific liberals next week.
Needless to say, 'religious liberals' made up the smallest group at just 6.4 percent of the population (for more on this, see my book, 'Godless').
Interestingly, religious liberals were also 'most confused' of all the groups. Composed mostly of blacks and Unitarians, religious liberals made nearly as many charitable donations as religious conservatives, but presumably, the Unitarians brought down their numbers, making them second in charitable giving.
Brooks wrote that he was shocked by his conclusions because he believed liberals 'genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did' -- probably because liberals are always telling us that.
So he re-ran the numbers and gathered more data, but it kept coming out the same. 'In the end,' he says, 'I had no option but to change my views.'
Every other study on the subject has produced similar results. Indeed, a Google study of philanthropy found an even greater disparity, with conservatives giving 50 percent more than liberals. The Google study showed that liberals gave more to secular causes overall, but conservatives still gave more as a percentage of their incomes.
The Catalogue for Philanthropy analyzed a decade of state and federal tax returns and found that the red states were far more generous than the blue states, with the highest percentage of tightwads living in the liberal Northeast.
In his book 'Intellectuals,' Paul Johnson quotes Pablo Picasso scoffing at the idea that he would give to the needy. 'I'm afraid you've got it wrong,' Picasso explains, 'we are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians.'
Merry Christmas to all, skinflint liberals and generous Christians alike!"
UPDATE: More from Ann regarding those cheapskate liberals, and she names names.
Liberal Give 'Til It Hurts (You)
I believe I've shared these statistics in the past, but they are worth mentioning again. From Human Events:
Scrooge Was A Liberal
by Ann Coulter
"It's the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force. Didn't Jesus say, 'Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven'?
Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.
But for liberals like Al Franken, it's beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare's point that the 'devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.'
What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: 'Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.' (2 Corinthians (9:7)
Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to 'the poor.' They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.
The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do. (Unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity.)
Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.
In his book 'Who Really Cares?' Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals, secular conservatives and 'religious' liberals.
His surprising conclusion was ... Al Franken gave the most of all!
Ha ha! Just kidding. Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity -- $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.
Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in 'charities' that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children's elite private schools.
Indeed, religious people, Brooks says, 'are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way.'
Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent.
They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.
On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more -- and 50 times more to secular charities -- than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.
Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as 'insufferable blowhards.') These 'bleeding-heart tightwads,' as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.
Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also 'significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier.' (Count Nancy Pelosi's change carefully!)
Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That's up 7 percent from last year!)
We'll review specific liberals next week.
Needless to say, 'religious liberals' made up the smallest group at just 6.4 percent of the population (for more on this, see my book, 'Godless').
Interestingly, religious liberals were also 'most confused' of all the groups. Composed mostly of blacks and Unitarians, religious liberals made nearly as many charitable donations as religious conservatives, but presumably, the Unitarians brought down their numbers, making them second in charitable giving.
Brooks wrote that he was shocked by his conclusions because he believed liberals 'genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did' -- probably because liberals are always telling us that.
So he re-ran the numbers and gathered more data, but it kept coming out the same. 'In the end,' he says, 'I had no option but to change my views.'
Every other study on the subject has produced similar results. Indeed, a Google study of philanthropy found an even greater disparity, with conservatives giving 50 percent more than liberals. The Google study showed that liberals gave more to secular causes overall, but conservatives still gave more as a percentage of their incomes.
The Catalogue for Philanthropy analyzed a decade of state and federal tax returns and found that the red states were far more generous than the blue states, with the highest percentage of tightwads living in the liberal Northeast.
In his book 'Intellectuals,' Paul Johnson quotes Pablo Picasso scoffing at the idea that he would give to the needy. 'I'm afraid you've got it wrong,' Picasso explains, 'we are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians.'
Merry Christmas to all, skinflint liberals and generous Christians alike!"
UPDATE: More from Ann regarding those cheapskate liberals, and she names names.
Liberal Give 'Til It Hurts (You)
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
"Judge Me by the People Who Surround Me."
What a foolish comment for Barack Obama, of all people, to have made while campaigning for president in 2008. Of course, he knew he had the corrupt America Pravda on his side and that they would never expose him or his associates for who they really were.
Nevertheless, how about we take him up on his offer?
From John McTernan:
"I went to college and sat under the Left's godless teachings. I was a federal agent for 26 years, and worked amongst the Hard Left. I closely watched them in action. On line, I debated many hard core Leftists, and on my blog for several years I have watched very closely the Hard Left in action. I have read a lot of their writings.
These people have an agenda to take over America and destroy all who stand in their way. Bible believing Christians are directly in their way. Many of them are killers in their hearts, and you can easily tell this, as many of the advisers surrounding Obama admire Castro, Mao, and any other 'Leftist' tyrant and their ideas. They need the army and law enforcement to take over the nation, and sodomizing the military is the perfect way of purging out anyone who opposed them. What a victory this was to advance their agenda.
The key to how dangerous the situation is for Americans is to look at Obama and the people he appointed as advisers surrounding him. A president appoints people who reflect his thinking and will advance his agenda. Obama was directly connected to Reverend Wright for 20 years and this man hated America. Obama began his political career in the home of William Ayers ,an unrepentant terrorist from the Vietnam war. This is just a few of Obama's dangerous connections in his background, but he continues this with his appointed advisers. During the 2008 election campaign, Obama said on several occasions 'Judge me by the people who surround me.' The following is a brief list of his appointees who he can be judged by:
Anita Dunn, the White House communications director (who led Obama's war on Fox News), said that Mao Zedong was one of her two favorite 'political philosophers' whom 'I turn to most' for answers to important questions. Mao was a mass murderer who killed up to 100 million people!
Green jobs czar, Van Jones, had to exit in disgrace after he admitted that 'I was a Communist.'
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, signed a 2006 manifesto endorsing polygamous households. This document, called 'Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,' argues that traditional marriage should not be 'privileged above all others.'
Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in which he declared that the government 'owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission.'
Samantha Power, is on Obama's National Security Council. She is famous for writing a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about genocide, which she defined so narrowly that it excluded Joseph Stalin and Mao.
WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore, Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith
Science Czar: John Holdren,In a textbook (Ecoscience) he advocated subtly poisoning the water supply with 'sterilants' to force birth control, draconian measures aimed at population control, compulsory abortion, government-directed adoption placement, of all babies born out-of-wedlock involuntary fertility control by direct means, forbidding any family to have more than two children, a 'planetary regime' to dictate population size and resource use.
Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske, A devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle. Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports legalization of all drugs.
Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter, Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America.
Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney, Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico. Author of a statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico.
AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley, Radical Homosexual. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and special rights for homosexuals.
Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery, ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.
Safe School Czar: Kevin Jennings, a former school teacher who advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men. He founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He published six books on gay rights and education.
The above members of the Obama administration reflect him."
YIKES! AMERICA IS SCREWED!!
Nevertheless, how about we take him up on his offer?
From John McTernan:
"I went to college and sat under the Left's godless teachings. I was a federal agent for 26 years, and worked amongst the Hard Left. I closely watched them in action. On line, I debated many hard core Leftists, and on my blog for several years I have watched very closely the Hard Left in action. I have read a lot of their writings.
These people have an agenda to take over America and destroy all who stand in their way. Bible believing Christians are directly in their way. Many of them are killers in their hearts, and you can easily tell this, as many of the advisers surrounding Obama admire Castro, Mao, and any other 'Leftist' tyrant and their ideas. They need the army and law enforcement to take over the nation, and sodomizing the military is the perfect way of purging out anyone who opposed them. What a victory this was to advance their agenda.
The key to how dangerous the situation is for Americans is to look at Obama and the people he appointed as advisers surrounding him. A president appoints people who reflect his thinking and will advance his agenda. Obama was directly connected to Reverend Wright for 20 years and this man hated America. Obama began his political career in the home of William Ayers ,an unrepentant terrorist from the Vietnam war. This is just a few of Obama's dangerous connections in his background, but he continues this with his appointed advisers. During the 2008 election campaign, Obama said on several occasions 'Judge me by the people who surround me.' The following is a brief list of his appointees who he can be judged by:
Anita Dunn, the White House communications director (who led Obama's war on Fox News), said that Mao Zedong was one of her two favorite 'political philosophers' whom 'I turn to most' for answers to important questions. Mao was a mass murderer who killed up to 100 million people!
Green jobs czar, Van Jones, had to exit in disgrace after he admitted that 'I was a Communist.'
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, signed a 2006 manifesto endorsing polygamous households. This document, called 'Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,' argues that traditional marriage should not be 'privileged above all others.'
Regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in which he declared that the government 'owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission.'
Samantha Power, is on Obama's National Security Council. She is famous for writing a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about genocide, which she defined so narrowly that it excluded Joseph Stalin and Mao.
WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore, Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith
Science Czar: John Holdren,In a textbook (Ecoscience) he advocated subtly poisoning the water supply with 'sterilants' to force birth control, draconian measures aimed at population control, compulsory abortion, government-directed adoption placement, of all babies born out-of-wedlock involuntary fertility control by direct means, forbidding any family to have more than two children, a 'planetary regime' to dictate population size and resource use.
Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske, A devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle. Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports legalization of all drugs.
Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter, Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America.
Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney, Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico. Author of a statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico.
AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley, Radical Homosexual. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and special rights for homosexuals.
Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery, ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.
Safe School Czar: Kevin Jennings, a former school teacher who advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men. He founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He published six books on gay rights and education.
The above members of the Obama administration reflect him."
YIKES! AMERICA IS SCREWED!!
"A Soulless, Godless Military"
What a shock! Congress passes legislation to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, which violates the Word of God, as California, the state which most vocally speaks out in support of homosexuality, is experiencing major flooding.
That wasn't all. Congress repealed DADT last Saturday, and what did North Korea do? It threatened us with nuclear war. When will these thick-headed politicians learn that God will not be mocked?
President Obama signed the repeal of DADT today, and the loony Nancy Pelosi celebrated by singing "God Bless America". Unbelievable! She spits in the face of God and all His principles of morality, and then has the audacity to sing "God Bless America".
Our country is deteriorating at a fast pace. Thank God, we voted out so many of these godless leftists or two years from now she would be singing "Allah Bless America" when passing legislation supporting Sharia law.
More insights from John McTernan:
Sodomizing the Military (Part 1)
"'Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.' Jude 1:7
On December 18, 2010, the US Senate voted to repeal the military laws regarding homosexuality. Starting late last Summer, as it appeared the laws were going to be revoked, both military and civilian leaders started to make startling comments about what was going to happen when it was repealed.
These comments made it clear that the Hard Left was going to use homosexuality to purge the Christians out of the military. They were not going to allow chaplains to remain in the military who said that homosexuality was a sin. Vast sections of the American public are now in great danger as the Hard Left will be in control of the entire United States military. This is a danger Americans never had to face until now.
This is going to be a real purge, just as Stalin and all the tyrants in the past purged anyone who they even suspected might be a threat to them. The tyrants would simply kill their opposition or send them to a forced reeducation camp. The American purge is going to be much more subtle. There will be no bloodshed as it will be silent and cunning. Anyone in the military who speaks out will be court-marshaled, demoted, harassed or by whatever way possible forced to resign.
The military will be purged of anyone, from private to general, who will not go along with the Hard Left agenda. The military that remains will be morally beaten down and with soldiers that are godless; thus leaving the military without a soul. These will be the type of soldiers who will do whatever they are told. These are the type of soldiers who could be used against the American people.
Please do not think that the Hard Left would not use the American military against the people. The Left hates Christians with a passion that is only matched for Nazis towards the Jews. They hate and despise Christians for standing against abortion and homosexuality. They hate anyone who is in any way associated with the Holy God of Israel. You can see this hatred on college campuses, the political left and in the media. Now, they are going to be in control of the US military with all of its power.
The direct attack on American people started last August when Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, the Army's deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel matters, spoke to 500 soldiers about the repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' at the European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The general did not mince this words but laid out exactly what was going to happen to anyone in the army, from private to general, who did not go along with the homosexual agenda. He is in the position to know what was going to happen as he is a policy maker!
Top general calls Christian soldiers 'bigots' 09/16/10 'Those serving who oppose the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) agenda are no longer welcome.' Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them," Lt. Gen. Bostick said. 'But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you're always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.'
Witness to Bostick Comments 09/23/10 This is the military that the Obama regime wants. Look how bold this general is to speak out. He has no fear whatsoever of any repercussions for what he says! The military is now riddled with people like this.
'After awhile, the sanctimonious and pompous answers given by him and his panel were easy to overlook. However, the simultaneous gasp of a few hundred people came when Gen. Bostick responded to the morality and religious aspects of homosexuality. It is absolutely true that Gen. Bostick in part thinks that Christians were bigots and racists and those who felt homosexuality was immoral should start looking for a new line of work. He even went on to say that there will be zero tolerance for chaplains to preach against homosexuality and those that did would most likely be dealt with under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.'
EDITORIAL: Outing the new gay Army 09/23/10 'I think there's a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do in the military,' Senator Inhofe told The Washington Times. 'And this all comes from the administration. It's put a lot of senior military people in a very awkward position of being forced into something they know is wrong.' This is the perfect way to drive the senior military people out and replace them with the Hard Left Fascists that are now pouring into leadership. It is a purge and coup all rolled into one!
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was very clear and did not mince words that whoever did not go along with the homosexual agenda would have to look for a new job.
Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work 12/02/10
The purge could not be made any clearer 'Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday. Mullen told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the military is based on meritocracy, 'what you do, not who you are.' He said if Congress changes the don't ask, don't tell policy then the U.S. military will comply. And if some people have a problem with that, they may not want to join the service.'
The Hard Left wants a soulless, godless military so it can be used without a conscience to turn on the American people. They need the God-fearing out because they will not go along. You are now looking directly at a purge. Obama and the Hard Left are tyrants. They will subtlety, over about a year, purge out everyone who stands against their agenda. They then will be able to use the military against the 'hate' people in America. Anyone who is against their agenda will be defined as a 'hate' group. This is exactly what the Communists and Nazis did: they defined anyone against them as an enemy of the state or people. It is no different with the Left in America. On the top of the 'hate' list will be real Christians.
Risk of gap between US military and society: Gates
Pentagon Widens Christian Ban; Graham Says It’s Anti-Religion
Franklin Graham: Obama 'Giving Islam a Pass,' Warns of Persecution
The Hard Left is shouting out from the roof tops that they are going to drive the Christians out of the military. If they do this, THEY WILL USE THE ARMY AGAINST THE PEOPLE. If they drive the Christians out of the army, the next move will be out of society. If we do not fit in the military, then we do not fit in America. We will become the enemy of all that is 'good' in their eyes.
Sodomy means more to them than almost anything else because it is something that is so clearly against God. They are in total rebellion against God. In fact, in a real sense they are at war with the Holy God of Israel. It is of the utmost foolishness to be at war with the LORD. In the short run, evil can appear to succeed, but in the long run the God of Israel's word always wins out."
That wasn't all. Congress repealed DADT last Saturday, and what did North Korea do? It threatened us with nuclear war. When will these thick-headed politicians learn that God will not be mocked?
President Obama signed the repeal of DADT today, and the loony Nancy Pelosi celebrated by singing "God Bless America". Unbelievable! She spits in the face of God and all His principles of morality, and then has the audacity to sing "God Bless America".
Our country is deteriorating at a fast pace. Thank God, we voted out so many of these godless leftists or two years from now she would be singing "Allah Bless America" when passing legislation supporting Sharia law.
More insights from John McTernan:
Sodomizing the Military (Part 1)
"'Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.' Jude 1:7
On December 18, 2010, the US Senate voted to repeal the military laws regarding homosexuality. Starting late last Summer, as it appeared the laws were going to be revoked, both military and civilian leaders started to make startling comments about what was going to happen when it was repealed.
These comments made it clear that the Hard Left was going to use homosexuality to purge the Christians out of the military. They were not going to allow chaplains to remain in the military who said that homosexuality was a sin. Vast sections of the American public are now in great danger as the Hard Left will be in control of the entire United States military. This is a danger Americans never had to face until now.
This is going to be a real purge, just as Stalin and all the tyrants in the past purged anyone who they even suspected might be a threat to them. The tyrants would simply kill their opposition or send them to a forced reeducation camp. The American purge is going to be much more subtle. There will be no bloodshed as it will be silent and cunning. Anyone in the military who speaks out will be court-marshaled, demoted, harassed or by whatever way possible forced to resign.
The military will be purged of anyone, from private to general, who will not go along with the Hard Left agenda. The military that remains will be morally beaten down and with soldiers that are godless; thus leaving the military without a soul. These will be the type of soldiers who will do whatever they are told. These are the type of soldiers who could be used against the American people.
Please do not think that the Hard Left would not use the American military against the people. The Left hates Christians with a passion that is only matched for Nazis towards the Jews. They hate and despise Christians for standing against abortion and homosexuality. They hate anyone who is in any way associated with the Holy God of Israel. You can see this hatred on college campuses, the political left and in the media. Now, they are going to be in control of the US military with all of its power.
The direct attack on American people started last August when Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, the Army's deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel matters, spoke to 500 soldiers about the repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' at the European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The general did not mince this words but laid out exactly what was going to happen to anyone in the army, from private to general, who did not go along with the homosexual agenda. He is in the position to know what was going to happen as he is a policy maker!
Top general calls Christian soldiers 'bigots' 09/16/10 'Those serving who oppose the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) agenda are no longer welcome.' Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them," Lt. Gen. Bostick said. 'But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you're always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.'
Witness to Bostick Comments 09/23/10 This is the military that the Obama regime wants. Look how bold this general is to speak out. He has no fear whatsoever of any repercussions for what he says! The military is now riddled with people like this.
'After awhile, the sanctimonious and pompous answers given by him and his panel were easy to overlook. However, the simultaneous gasp of a few hundred people came when Gen. Bostick responded to the morality and religious aspects of homosexuality. It is absolutely true that Gen. Bostick in part thinks that Christians were bigots and racists and those who felt homosexuality was immoral should start looking for a new line of work. He even went on to say that there will be zero tolerance for chaplains to preach against homosexuality and those that did would most likely be dealt with under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.'
EDITORIAL: Outing the new gay Army 09/23/10 'I think there's a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do in the military,' Senator Inhofe told The Washington Times. 'And this all comes from the administration. It's put a lot of senior military people in a very awkward position of being forced into something they know is wrong.' This is the perfect way to drive the senior military people out and replace them with the Hard Left Fascists that are now pouring into leadership. It is a purge and coup all rolled into one!
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was very clear and did not mince words that whoever did not go along with the homosexual agenda would have to look for a new job.
Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work 12/02/10
The purge could not be made any clearer 'Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday. Mullen told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the military is based on meritocracy, 'what you do, not who you are.' He said if Congress changes the don't ask, don't tell policy then the U.S. military will comply. And if some people have a problem with that, they may not want to join the service.'
The Hard Left wants a soulless, godless military so it can be used without a conscience to turn on the American people. They need the God-fearing out because they will not go along. You are now looking directly at a purge. Obama and the Hard Left are tyrants. They will subtlety, over about a year, purge out everyone who stands against their agenda. They then will be able to use the military against the 'hate' people in America. Anyone who is against their agenda will be defined as a 'hate' group. This is exactly what the Communists and Nazis did: they defined anyone against them as an enemy of the state or people. It is no different with the Left in America. On the top of the 'hate' list will be real Christians.
Risk of gap between US military and society: Gates
Pentagon Widens Christian Ban; Graham Says It’s Anti-Religion
Franklin Graham: Obama 'Giving Islam a Pass,' Warns of Persecution
The Hard Left is shouting out from the roof tops that they are going to drive the Christians out of the military. If they do this, THEY WILL USE THE ARMY AGAINST THE PEOPLE. If they drive the Christians out of the army, the next move will be out of society. If we do not fit in the military, then we do not fit in America. We will become the enemy of all that is 'good' in their eyes.
Sodomy means more to them than almost anything else because it is something that is so clearly against God. They are in total rebellion against God. In fact, in a real sense they are at war with the Holy God of Israel. It is of the utmost foolishness to be at war with the LORD. In the short run, evil can appear to succeed, but in the long run the God of Israel's word always wins out."
James Clapper Clueless
When it comes to national security, the Obama Administration is totally incompetent, incompetent with a capital "I". They can consider themselves blessed that we haven't been attacked on their watch on our own soil by those who carry out man-made disasters.
Oops, that's right, we have, at an Arkansas Army recruiting office and at Fort Hood. Plus, the Christmas Day undie bomber nearly pulled off a fast one in Detroit last year. Thankfully, that was thwarted, no thanks to the Obama regime.
Yes, we all know, Diogenes, 9/11 happened under Bush's watch, but even you should admit that we lived in a different world prior to that horrific September day.
Read about the latest Obama regime blunder, via Hot Air:
WH reverses on Clapper, admits he wasn’t briefed on UK terror arrests
"Immediately after James Clapper professed ignorance of the arrests in the UK of a dozen suspected terrorists during an ABC News interview, the Obama administration denied that Clapper hadn’t been briefed on the news. They blamed Diane Sawyer for asking an “ambiguous” question. However, as Jake Tapper reports, the White House admitted this morning that Clapper hadn’t been briefed at all:
'After initially suggesting that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s inability to answer a question from ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer about the arrests of 12 suspected terrorists in London was because her question was too “ambiguous,” the Obama administration acknowledged Wednesday morning that retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Clapper had not been briefed about the arrests at the time of the interview.
“Director Clapper had not yet been briefed on the arrests in the United Kingdom at the time of this interview taping,” said ODNI spokeswoman Jamie Smith in a statement.
Clapper, she explained, had been “working throughout the day on important intelligence matters, including monitoring military and political developments on the Korean Peninsula, providing answers to questions concerning the ratification of the START nuclear treaty, and other classified issues. He wasn’t immediately briefed on London because it didn’t appear to have a homeland nexus and there was no immediate action by the DNI required. Nevertheless, he should have been briefed on the arrests, and steps have been taken to ensure that he is in the future. The intelligence community as a whole was fully aware of this development and tracking it closely.”'
So, now we have Clapper not being briefed, and the White House not being briefed on Clapper not being briefed. It’s a festival of incompetence! Wouldn’t it have been better to actually pick up the phone and ask Clapper whether he had been briefed before blaming Sawyer for confusing him?
This explanation also stretches credulity to the breaking point. Clapper is not in charge of Homeland Security; he runs the National Intelligence Center, whose scope is global. In fact, it’s specific mission is to focus on all threats and act as a clearinghouse of intel for the entire American intelligence community. And how do we know there isn’t a homeland nexus? The man running American intel and in charge of the NIC didn’t even know about it. Did the NIC know about it? If they did, shouldn’t someone have picked up a phone and told the boss?
Besides, how difficult would it have been to brief Clapper on the arrests? By the time of the interview, all anyone had to do was print out any of dozens of media reports on the topic, if for no other reason than to let him know they occurred. If the DNI is too busy to get briefed, well, perhaps Congress needs to reorganize the intel community again, and this time properly, to reduce rather than expand the bureaucratic baggage."
Thanks to JDL for tip.
Oops, that's right, we have, at an Arkansas Army recruiting office and at Fort Hood. Plus, the Christmas Day undie bomber nearly pulled off a fast one in Detroit last year. Thankfully, that was thwarted, no thanks to the Obama regime.
Yes, we all know, Diogenes, 9/11 happened under Bush's watch, but even you should admit that we lived in a different world prior to that horrific September day.
Read about the latest Obama regime blunder, via Hot Air:
WH reverses on Clapper, admits he wasn’t briefed on UK terror arrests
"Immediately after James Clapper professed ignorance of the arrests in the UK of a dozen suspected terrorists during an ABC News interview, the Obama administration denied that Clapper hadn’t been briefed on the news. They blamed Diane Sawyer for asking an “ambiguous” question. However, as Jake Tapper reports, the White House admitted this morning that Clapper hadn’t been briefed at all:
'After initially suggesting that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s inability to answer a question from ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer about the arrests of 12 suspected terrorists in London was because her question was too “ambiguous,” the Obama administration acknowledged Wednesday morning that retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Clapper had not been briefed about the arrests at the time of the interview.
“Director Clapper had not yet been briefed on the arrests in the United Kingdom at the time of this interview taping,” said ODNI spokeswoman Jamie Smith in a statement.
Clapper, she explained, had been “working throughout the day on important intelligence matters, including monitoring military and political developments on the Korean Peninsula, providing answers to questions concerning the ratification of the START nuclear treaty, and other classified issues. He wasn’t immediately briefed on London because it didn’t appear to have a homeland nexus and there was no immediate action by the DNI required. Nevertheless, he should have been briefed on the arrests, and steps have been taken to ensure that he is in the future. The intelligence community as a whole was fully aware of this development and tracking it closely.”'
So, now we have Clapper not being briefed, and the White House not being briefed on Clapper not being briefed. It’s a festival of incompetence! Wouldn’t it have been better to actually pick up the phone and ask Clapper whether he had been briefed before blaming Sawyer for confusing him?
This explanation also stretches credulity to the breaking point. Clapper is not in charge of Homeland Security; he runs the National Intelligence Center, whose scope is global. In fact, it’s specific mission is to focus on all threats and act as a clearinghouse of intel for the entire American intelligence community. And how do we know there isn’t a homeland nexus? The man running American intel and in charge of the NIC didn’t even know about it. Did the NIC know about it? If they did, shouldn’t someone have picked up a phone and told the boss?
Besides, how difficult would it have been to brief Clapper on the arrests? By the time of the interview, all anyone had to do was print out any of dozens of media reports on the topic, if for no other reason than to let him know they occurred. If the DNI is too busy to get briefed, well, perhaps Congress needs to reorganize the intel community again, and this time properly, to reduce rather than expand the bureaucratic baggage."
Thanks to JDL for tip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
