Yesterday morning, Texas Governor and possible Republican Candidate for President Rick Perry, did something that was labelled shameful and harmful in the eyes of many Liberals and so-called “Fiscal” Conservatives in our great nation:

He actually prayed (GASP!) at a Houston Prayer Breakfast, along with over 30,000 other Americans.

OH, THE HORROR!

Standing on a stage surrounded by thousands of fellow Christians, Gov. Perry called on Christ to bless and guide the nation’s military and political leaders and “those who cannot see the light in the midst of all the darkness.”

Gov. Perry prayed:

Lord, you are the source of every good thing. You are our only hope, and we stand before you today in awe of your power and in gratitude for your blessings, and humility for our sins. Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government, and as a nation we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us, and for that we cry out for your forgiveness.

Speaking for around 13 minutes, the Governor read several passages from the Bible (OH, NOES!) during the prayer rally he sponsored. Thousands of people stood or kneeled in the aisles or on the concrete floor in front of the stage, some wiping away tears and some shouting, “Amen!”

Governor Perry also asked those in the audience to pray for President Obama:

Father, we pray for our president, that you impart your wisdom upon him, that you would guard his family.

Those who refuse to accept the fact that this great nation was founded on a Judeo-Christian belief system, by actual Christians, or as they like to derisively call us, Christianists, are beside themselves over the fact that Gov. Perry unshakably proclaims Jesus Christ as his Savior.

For example, here’s the New York Times, attempting to retain a facade of neutrality, while obviously seething inside:

In many ways, the rally was unprecedented, even in Texas, where faith and politics have long intersected without much controversy — the governor, as both a private citizen and an elected leader, delivering a message to the Lord at a Christian prayer rally he created, while using his office’s prestige, letterhead, Web site and other resources to promote it. Mr. Perry said he wanted people of all faiths to attend, but Christianity dominated the service and the religious affiliations of the crowd. The prayers were given in Jesus Christ’s name, and the many musical performers sang of Christian themes of repentance and salvation.

Mr. Perry, a lifelong Methodist who regularly attends an evangelical megachurch near his home in West Austin, has been speaking and preaching in sanctuaries throughout Texas since he was state agricultural commissioner in the 1990s. Organizers for the event, called The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis, estimated that more than 30,000 people were at Reliant Stadium when Mr. Perry spoke…

The Times went on to mention that the seating capacity of the Event Center is 71,500, and pointed out all the empty seats in the upper deck, just for good measure.

The Prayer Breakfast was held nine days after a federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed against Governor Perry by a national group of atheists. Their flimsy argument was that his participation in the rally in his official capacity as governor violated the First Amendment’s requirement of separation of church and state.

Defeated in court, the miserable members and supporters of that group, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, were among dozens of people protesting outside the stadium. Others miscreants included gay activists who criticized Mr. Perry for supporting the American Family Association, which organized and financed the rally. The association is a conservative evangelical group based in Mississippi that is listed as an antigay hate group by the nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center.

Gov. Perry invited his fellow governors to join him, but only Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican, attended. Gov. Rick Scott of Florida made a video statement that was played in the stadium.

Then, there’s this from yahoo.com:

On Thursday, a Fox News opinion website called Fox Nation aggregated a “Playbook” column by Politico’s Mike Allen about President Barack Obama’s 50th birthday bash, changing Allen’s typically long headline with this:

‘Obama’s Hip-Hop BBQ Didn’t Create Jobs’

The private party included dinner (“BBQ chicken, ribs, hamburgers, hot dogs, pasta, salad”) in the Rose Garden was attended by Obama’s staff and celebrities including Al Sharpton, Jay-Z, Chris Rock, Charles Barkley, Steve Harvey, Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson. There were performances by Stevie Wonder, R&B singer Ledisi, jazz legend Herbie Hancock. A DJ “played Motown, hip-hop, and ’70s and ’80s R&B.”

“The president asked everyone to dance — and they did!”

The headline, not surprisingly, immediately sparked renewed charges of racism against the network. But Fox is standing by it.

Bill Shine, Fox executive vice president of programming in charge of the Fox Nation site, defended the decision in a statement to The Cutline: “We used the hip-hop reference per Politico’s Playbook story this morning which stated ‘Also present: Chicago pals, law-school friends, donors–and lots of kids of friends, who stole the show by doing dance routines to the hip-hop songs, in the center of the East Room.'”

The network has shut off further comments on the article, which were becoming incendiary.

“We found many of the comments to be offensive and inappropriate and they have been removed,” Shine said.

Previously, the Rapper/Poet/Actor known as Common performed a poetry reading at the White House on May 11, 2011.

His appearance was protested by the New Jersey State Police and their union.

The focus of their concern was the song “A Song For Assata” about a member of the Black Liberation Army named Assata Shakur, previously known as Joanne Chesimard, who was convicted in 1977 of the first degree murder of New Jersey state trooper Werner Foerster. Lyrics of “A Song For Assata” claim that Shakur was wrongly convicted.

Assata had been convicted of a murder she couldna done/Medical evidence shown she couldna shot the gun.

Reportedly, at another poetry reading, Common said, “flyers say ‘free Mumia’ on my freezer,” a reference to Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.

Jay Carney, the White House Secretary,in speaking for President Obama said that the president does not support, but actually opposes, some of the kind of words and lyrics that have been written by Common and others. Even though the president does not support the lyrics in question, he believed that some reports were distorting what Mr. Lynn stands for more broadly.

If he does not support those lyrics, why was Common allowed in the White House, and, furthermore, why was Hip Hop played at Obama’s 50th Birthday Party?

And yet…the media focuses on a Texas Governor, who dares to proclaim Christ as his  Personal Savior.

Yesterday, on Father’s day 2011, NBC utilized their impeccable taste and creative skills to put together what they perceived as an electrifying, patriotic opening for the United States Open Golf Championship.

The opening featured a reading of the Pledge of Allegiance by a group of children in a classroom.

That would have been enough to stir the patriotic soul of even the most callous observer, right?

Wrong!

It stirred up Americans’ sense of Patriotism, alright. The idiots at NBC edited out the phrase UNDER GOD!

This is what viewers of the golf tournament heard:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, with liberty and justice for all.

And once was not enough for NBC. They did it twice!

The kids actually recited the pledge two times.  NBC edited the second version to not only leave out UNDER GOD, but ONE NATION, as well.

To say that Americans got stirred up is probably an understatement. Immediately, viewers took to Twitter and internet comment boards, calling NBC “scumbugs” and pledging to boycott the network.

Of course, once they realized that the overwhelming majority of America’s did not appreciate their selective editing,  NBC tried to feebly apologize.

From washingtonpost.com:

NBC apologized for cutting the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance in its leadup to coverage to the U.S. Open at Congressional Country Club.

The move quickly drew criticism Dan Hicks said, during the broadcast of Open action:

We began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago and when we did it was our intent to begin the coverage of this U.S. Open Championship with a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship being held in our nation’s capital for the third time. Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone and we’d like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it.

Once is an accident.  Twice is deliberate.

So,  how did the phrase UNDER GOD come to be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

According to associatedcontent.com:

In 1953, Representative Louis Rabaut, a Democrat from Michigan, introduced the first bill in the U.S. Congress that would officially add “under God” to the Pledge. Rabaut’s effort was not immediately successful. It was, however, passed by Congress the following year, 1954. The Presbyterian Reverend George M. Docherty, who counted then-President Eisenhower among his congregation, was seen as influential in pushing the change.

In 1954, there were actually two bills introduced into Congress seeking to modify the Pledge of Allegiance by adding “under God.” The Senate passed one such bill. Congressman Rabaut, however, blocked efforts to pass that bill in the Congress, insisting that his bill be passed instead. On June 7, 1954, Congress did pass the Rabaut version, and the Senate passed the same bill on June 8, 1954.

The decision of Congress to add “under God” to the Pledge was, at least in part, a reaction to the Cold War with Soviet Russia. One of the differentiating factors between Soviet Communism and American

Democracy was that the Soviets officially advocated atheism. The phrase “under God” was seen, therefore, to reaffirm an important distinction between the two competing worldviews.

On June 14, 1954, President Eisenhower signed the bill officially adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. The President remarked that, “millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town … the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”

NBC isn’t alone in the zeal to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance.  Harry Reid did it on April 12th, 2011, while citing the Pledge on the floor of the Senate:

Liberals have been pursuing their quest for years. In 2002, Minnesota Congresswoman Betty McCollum left the phrase UNDER GOD out of the Pledge, while leading it on the House Floor:

What is it about the phrase UNDER GOD, being in the Pledge of Allegiance, that causes Liberals to react like vampires in the shadow of the Cross?

On December 1st, 2008, in an article titled “It’s Time to Update the Pledge”, posted on newsweek.washingtonpost.com, Sally Quinn wrote:

Today, pluralistic America is engaged in mortal combat against anti-modern, fundamentalist, religionized humanity.

It isn’t our belief in God that makes us different. It’s our belief in the liberties (religious and other) enshrined in the Constitution. The American creed is faith in liberty for all, not the religion of most.

Evidently, Ms. Quinn, Rep. McCollum, Sen. Reid, and their fellow Liberals at NBC have failed to heed the words of United States President John Adams who penned:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant Americans, are actually the least tolerant of all?

NBC and their Liberal brethren would be well-served to watch and learn from this explanation of our nation’s Pledge of Allegiance, given by America’s Clown Prince of Comedy, Mr. Richard “Red” Skelton, who, coincidentally, ended his long and storied career in network television with a half-hour series on NBC in 1971.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the incomparable Mr. Red Skelton:

Why do Liberals hate Israel?  And why are the majority of American Jews Liberal?

This is a paradox that has perplexed Christian Conservative Americans, such as myself, for a long time.  What is it about the existence of the state of israel that vexes the minds of Liberals and Progressives so?

David Mamet, a former Liberal turned Conservative author is  in the process of publicizing his new book, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture, which studies in depth the themes he announced in his 2008 op-ed for the Village Voice, “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal.’

Yesterday, June 11th, 2011, americanthinker.com’s Rick Richman posted an article, reviewing Mamet’s new book. In this article, the author touches upon the subject of Liberal Anti-Semitism:

In a chapter entitled “The Intelligent Person’s Guide to Socialism and Anti-Semitism,” he first argues that “social justice” is a sort of Sunday religion that does not carry over to the pressures of the workweek, and he illustrates his thought as follows:

One may bemoan the plight of the Palestinians, who have elected a government of terrorists and daily bomb their neighbor to the West, but we realize that any support past the sentimental is elective: we do not want to live there, nor to go there, and we blink at the knowledge that monies spent in their support may be diverted to the support of terror, and of organizations pledged not only to kill all the Jews, but to kill Americans and Westerners of all faiths.

Where does sympathy stop, and where may it not become sanctimony and hypocrisy?

And then he answers his own question with a mini-drama:

Our American plane has been forced to land at some foreign airport, by the outbreak of World War III. It will not be allowed to depart. Two planes are leaving the airport; we must choose which we want to board. One plane is flying to Israel and one to Syria, and we must choose.

That’s where the sympathy stops.

No one reading this book would get on the plane to Syria. Why? It is a despotism, opposed to the West, to women, to gays, to Jews, to free speech. … And yet one may gain status or a feeling of solidarity by embracing the “Arab cause.”

Mamet’s mini-drama works even if you believe Israel is not a “laudable precious democracy” but “guilty of all the horrors” alleged against it:

I assert that you would still fight with every force and argument at your command to get on the Israeli plane, you and every hard Leftist and every head-shaking misinformed One Worlder and anti-Semite up to and including Jimmy Carter and Noam Chomsky, would, if the issue were his life, suspend his most cherished convictions of Israeli perfidy, and plead for the protection of that state you would then not only acknowledge but assert to be your ally …

There is nothing any reader of this book would not say or do to get himself and his family on the Israeli plane.

Per the americanthinker.com article, one of Mamet’s own previous books: The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred, and the Jews, which is basically an extended letter to his fellow Jews, has a Foreword to the book which ends with this striking paragraph:

To the Jews who, in the sixties, envied the Black Power Movement; who, in the nineties, envied the Palestinians; who weep at Exodus but jeer at the Israel Defense Forces; who nod when Tevye praises tradition but fidget through the seder; … whose favorite Jew is Anne Frank and whose second-favorite does not exist; who are humble in their desire to learn about Kwanzaa and proud of their ignorance of Tu Bi’Shvat; … who bow the head reverently at a baptism and have never attended a bris – to you, who find your religion and race repulsive, your ignorance of your history a satisfaction, here is a book from your brother.

Also, per the article, in his new book, The Secret Knowledge, Mamet asks the following pertinent and poignant question:

Why would any American Jew wish to become a “citizen of the world”? This fantasy is akin to one who believes in the benevolence of Nature. Anyone ever lost in the wild knows that Nature wants you dead. Enjoy the benefits of liberty and defend them as an American, rather than posing as a “citizen of the world.”

In an earlier article, posted on June 2, 2011, on americanthinker.com, Why Does the Left Hate Israel,  Richard Baehr attempts to answer David Mamet’s question:

…I have been to several of the left wing Israel hate fests. They are scary. There is real passion in the air. There is something about Israel that gets the juices going. Anti—Semitism is a part of it. There are a lot of people who are envious of Jews, on the left as well as the right. Patrick Buchanan thinks Jews have hijacked the conservative movement. But on the left, particularly in the academy, and in journalism, I am certain there is professional envy of the many Jewish faces and what better way to get even, and get back for sometimes losing the competitive battle, than by picking on the Jewish state as a surrogate. Leftist Jews sometimes lead the assault against Israel in these venues, thereby giving the attacks, whatever their reason, greater moral authority. Few Jews will stand up for Israel in these environments, because of the great pressure on the left to conform to the group think in the institutions they control.

…The evidence I believe is clear today that Israel faces far greater threats from the left than the right. The left is reflexively anti—Israel and has established important beachheads in significant American institutions— academia, the media, and the old line Protestant ‘high’ churches, as well as in the very seats of government power in many Western European countries, and their intelligentsia. It is not surprising that Israel seems unable to get a fair shake from college professors, the BBC, Reuters, NPR, or liberal churches. Being anti—Israel has become part of their religion.

As a Christian American, I know who I support in the Middle Eastern Conflict:  God’s Chosen People. 

You see, I’ve read The Book.  I know the ending.  Hallelujah!

In the meantime, pajamasmedia.com’s Andrew Klaven presents the following solution to the problem of Israel, with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

As he himself says:

Now, why didn’t somebody think of this before?

 

 

 

According to officials with our government, President Barack Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) and his Administration are ramping up a covert war already in progress, striking at militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets.

The Administration is trying to take advantage of internal conflicts in Yemen that has threatened the stability of the small country’s government in Sana, a United States ally. Yemeni government troops had been battling militants linked to Al Qaeda in the southnbut they have now retreated back to the capital. According to our government, the strikes are one of the few options to keep the militants from consolidating power.

Meanwhile, in Iran, where any mention of an Iranian nuclear weapon is taboo, its brutal government continues to swear that its nuclear program is entirely for peaceful, civil purposes.

Yeah, right.

An article appeared on the Gerdab website, run by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, on April 24th, looking forward to the day after Iran’s first test of a nuclear warhead. The following is a translation of the text:

The day after Iran’s first nuclear test is a normal day.

The day after Islamic Republic of Iran’s first nuclear test will be an ordinary day for us Iranians but in the eyes of some of us there will be a new sparkle.

It’s a good day. It’s seven in the morning. The sun is not fully up yet but everywhere is bright. In the northern hemisphere many countries are beginning the day…

The day before, probably in central deserts of Iran, where once Americans and some other Western countries wanted to bury their nuclear waste, an underground nuclear explosion has taken place. The strength of the explosion was not so great as to cause severe damage to the region nor so weak that Iranian scientists face any problems in running their tests.

Today is a normal day like any other. Like 90% of the year, there is news about Iran, and these are the headlines which can be seen on foreign news sites:

Reuters: Iran detonated its nuclear bomb

CNN: Iran detonated nuclear bomb

Al-Jazeera: The second Islamic nuclear bomb was tested0

Al-Arabia: The Shia nuclear bomb was tested

Yahoo! News: Nuclear explosion in Iran

Jerusalem Post: Mullahs obtained nuclear weapon

Washington Post: Nuclear explosion in Iran, Shock and despair in Tel Aviv

Meanwhile, the domestic media will offer many congratulations to the Hidden Imam and the Supreme Leader:

Keyhan: Iran’s first nuclear bomb was tested

Jomhoori-e-eslami: Iran successfully carried out a nuclear test

Iran: By order of the president, Iran’s 100% homemade nuclear bomb was tested

Ettela’at: Iran’s much anticipated nuclear bomb exploded

The news commotion will not knock life in Iran off balance. Civil servants will punch in at work on time as always, while some will be late as always. …The day after the Islamic Republic of Iran’s first nuclear test will be an ordinary day for us Iranians but in the eyes of some of us there will be a new sparkle. A sparkle of national pride and strength.

Don’t worry , Gentle Reader, with our involvement in  now 4 wars and all the  turmoil in the Middle East, President Obama has come up with a solution to bring peace among the warring Arab nations and make them allies of America:  split Israel in half.

There’s just one problem with Obama’s brilliant display of Smart Power!

Israel Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu told our boy Scooter:

No way.  No how.

From my article  Obama Gets Schooled, posted May 21st:

The day after Obama spoke to the American people from the State Department, with an audience of 12 sycophants, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, commanding the nation of Israel to give up half of their nation to the Palestinions, including a number of Christian holy places, he had a scheduled face-to-face meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu.

To say that it did not go well for Obama, is like saying that General Custer had a minor disagreement with the Indians.

In a magnificent display of leadership, Prime Minister Netanyahu told Obama what he could do with his command that Israel return to its 1967 boundaries.

Their meeting ran over by two hours, cancelling their luncheon plans.

While the two leaders agreed that there must be ironclad Israeli security alongside a Palestinian nation, no progress whatsoever was made on the issue of where the borders should be.

In response to Thursday’s speech by Obama, Netanyahu said:

While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines. These lines are indefensible.

As they sat together on a couch in front of the cameras after their private meeting, an uncomfortable looking Obama tried his best to spin their meeting into a positive thing. The president said:

Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulatons and language. That’s going to happen between friends.

Looking toward Netanyahu, he added:

What we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluation of any prospective deal.

The  following video from The Jerusalem Center, explains exactly why Israel’s security is dependent upon keeping her borders just as they are.

Zechariah 12:3

3 On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will gather against it.

Richard Glover is an Australian Broadcaster and Sydney Morning Herald Op Ed Columnist.  The following statements are from a piece that the newspaper published by him, yesterday morning:

Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ”Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimeters of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling – ”climate change stopped in the year 1998” is one of their more boneheaded beliefs – their mouths will be above water. If not …

OK, maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one’s opponents is not ideal. But, my God, these people are frustrating. You just know that in 20 years’ time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers. ”Who me? Oh, no, I always believed in it. Yes, it’s hard to understand why people back then were so daft. It’s so much more costly to stop it now.”

That’s why the tattoo has its appeal.

The Mark of the Beast?

Leonard Weinstein, ScD, published an article on 4/25/2009 titled Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem. 

Here are some excerpts:

A hypothesis has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth’s average temperature.

…In order to support a hypothesis, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the hypothesis, and the predictions then need to either happen or be falsified. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a hypothesis, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the hypothesis is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his hypothesis of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and helped raise the concept to the status of theory.

Many predictions however are less easily supported. For example, weather forecasting often does a good job in the very short term but over increasing time does a poor job. This is due to the complexity of the numerous nonlinear components. This complexity has been described in chaos theory by what is called the butterfly effect. Any effect that depends on numerous factors, some of which are nonlinear in effect, is nearly impossible to use to make long-range predictions.

However, for some reason, the present predictions of “Climate Change” are considered by the AGW supporters to be more reliable than even short-term weather forecasting. While some overall trends can be reasonably made based on looking at past historical trends, and some computational models can suggest some trends due to specific forcing factors, like any respectable hypothesis, specific predictions need to be made, and then shown to happen, before the AGW models can have any claim to being reasonably valid.

The AGW computational models do make several specific predictions. Since the time scale for checking the result of the predictions is small, and since local weather can vary enough on the short time scale to confuse the longer time scale prediction, allowances for these shorter lasting events have to be made when examining data that is supposed to be supporting the predictions. Nevertheless, if the actual data results do not significantly support the stated predictions, the AGW hypothesis must be reconsidered or even rejected as it stands.

…The final question is what prediction has the AGW hypothesis made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the hypothesis. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much falsifying evidence for the AGW hypothesis as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also very likely some contribution to the present temperature variations from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it is almost certainly a small effect and not a driver of future climate.

Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic AGW hypothesis fails.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney disagreed with Professor Weinstein, just last Friday:

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

“It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”…

In addressing climate change and energy policy, Romney called on the United States to break its dependence on foreign oil, and expand alternative energies including solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal.

Man-caused Global Warming has been revealed as nothing more that a con game, designed to make money for its investors and to bring power and prestige to its prophets.

Al Gore has turned out to be the P.T. Barnum of our time.  And, for Mitt Romney to make a statement like this, does nothing but illuminate a dangerous naivete and questionable judgement.

 

 

 

 

 

Hanging out on Conservative websites, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend: an intentional redefinition of Conservatism.

Pundits and posters who have a socially Liberal agenda, or, are quite often just plain Liberal, have tried to corrupt old fashioned Conservatism and mutate it into whatever they want it to be:  from Libertarianism to  Progressivism.

In Washington, D.C. on Friday, there was convention held by the Faith and Values Coalition.

The Coalition is headed by Ralph Reed, who made his name as the political strategist for the Christian Coalition in the 1990s. It was founded by Reverend Jerry Falwell in November of 2004.

As I wrote yesterday, faith plays a very important role in Americans’ lives, as does the concept of family values. 92 % of Americans believe in God. 75 % of Americans self-identify as Christians.

The GOP faces a problem. The only insider giving lip service to matters of faith and values, Mike Huckabee, has announced that he isn’t running.

The only other potential candidate who is unafraid to proclaim their Christianity is former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, whom the GOP Elite seems to be ignoring as long as they can.

So, how can the GOP Elite try to convince Christian Conservatives that they’re one of them?

In their minds, the answer was, by showing up at a two-day convention in Washington, DC, to brag on how strong and traditional their faith and values are, in order to try to solicit Christians’ votes.

At Friday’s session, the candidates and potential candidates spoke about religious/social issues and low-tax crusades, in an attempt to bridge the gap between Fiscal Conservatives (Moderates) and Reagan Conservatives (SoCons).

If the GOP power structure can’t accomplish this feat, they will lose the upcoming National Election, because even the Gallup polls show that there are far more Conservatives in this country than there are Moderates.

Speaking of Moderates, Moderate  Jon Huntsman told the crowd:

I do not believe the Republican Party should focus solely on our economic life to the neglect of our human life. If Republicans ignore life, the deficit we will face is one that is much more destructive. It will be a deficit of the heart and of the soul.

Flip-floppin’ Moderate and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, proclaimed that it’s “a moral tragedy for us to pile up more and more debt” that is passed on to younger generations.

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (yawn) was there. Pawlenty was raised Catholic but became an evangelical while dating his future wife, Mary. Pawlenty began and ended his speech to the convention on Friday with biblical quotes. He said the nation must turn toward God, protect the unborn, support traditional marriage and keep Americans secure.

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who is slowly moving toward beginning a presidential campaign, reminded the crowd that she home-schooled her five biological children and served as foster mother to 23 others. She also reminded the audience that “marriage is under siege” in America, and then, closed with a prayer.

Perennial presidential candidate,Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, struck his familiar libertarian themes, and quoted from the Bible’s first book of Samuel.

Rick Santorum and Herman Cain were scheduled to speak yesterday, with former Godfather’s CEO Cain  giving the keynote speech of the convention.

Cain delivered a barn burner of a stump speech, per thehill.com:

“We have become a nation of crises,” he said. “And we have a severe deficiency of leadership crisis in the White House.”

Speaking to the largely evangelical crowd, Cain invoked Scripture from the beginning and related spiritual experiences when explaining what inspired him to run for the White House. He cited his desire to “make this world a better world” for his grandchildren, as well as his struggle with cancer five years ago.

When asked in a brief interview with The Hill if he considers himself a social or fiscal conservative candidate, he said that “those are just labels.” He cited his opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion and emphasized his business credentials, asserting that he was both.

Cain, who has never held elected office, addressed questions of his lack of foreign policy experience by claiming that Obama lacked those credentials, too.

“Reporters like to ding me that I don’t have any foreign policy experience,” Cain said. “Uh, does the current president have any?”

He criticized the Obama administration for having a “foggy foreign policy” and said that his position on Israel would be straightforward.

“The Cain doctrine would be real simple when it comes to Israel: You mess with Israel, you mess with the United States of America,” he said to a long standing ovation.

Now, there’s a man who gets it.

Americans long for a return to genuine Conservatism.  Reagan Conservatism.  We are not Europe.  We are not some Third World Barrio. This is America.  We are Americans…and we are exceptional.

 

An Australian group, going by the name of Mypeace, has launched a blasphemous, ill-informed “public awareness campaign in that country’s largest city of Sydney. It’s tagline:

Mypeace says that the purpose of the campaign is

to inform, not offend.

Uh huh.

One Catholic bishop has called the campaign

a direct assault on Christian beliefs.

Billboards in the metropolitan Sydney area sport one of four simple slogans:

• Jesus: A Prophet of Islam
• Holy Qur’an: The Final Testament
• Muhammad: Mercy to Mankind
• Islam: Got Questions? Get Answers.

According to Islamic doctrine, the 7th century Arabian Mohammed was the last in a long line of prophets of Islam stretching back to Adam, and including Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Jonah, John the Baptist – and Jesus. The “Got Questions?” ad in Sydney also describes Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed as “prophets of Islam”.

Every billboard invites Australians to get in touch with mypeace by phone or online, for literature and a free copy of the Qur’an. According to the Muslim organization, the ads will stay up for one month.

Later in 2011, the slogans will be seen on numerous public buses in the city.

One of the billboards calling Jesus a Muslim was vandalized a day after it was put up.

According to Mypeace, it is attempting to

address the many misconceptions on Islam, to educate fellow Australians on Islam, invite them to ask any questions that they may have.

On its website, Mypeace states that

“Islām” is an Arabic word which means peaceful, willing submission – submission to the code of conduct ordained by God. So Islam is a religion, but it is also a complete way of life based upon a voluntary relationship between an individual and his Creator. It is the way of life ordained by God which was taught by each of His prophets and messengers, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them). What distinguishes Islam from other religions is that it refuses to accept any form of creation, whatsoever, as a deity worthy of worship. Instead, it emphasizes the exclusive worship of the one God who created the entire universe and to whom all creation will eventually return.

Monotheism is the foundation of Islam and its most important concept which cannot be compromised in any way. Not only is God acknowledged as the sole creator and sustainer of everything in existence, but Islam declares that He is the only true deity and He alone is worthy to be worshipped. Further, it recognizes that the attributes of God are nothing like those of His creation and cannot be compared to it; He is absolute, perfect and unique. By following God’s guidance as revealed in the Quran, an individual can obtain meaning and purpose in this live and eternal paradise in the hereafter. [‘Permission from ‘Saheeh International’]

“peaceful, willing submission”…Daniel Pearl remains unavailable for comment.

Julian Porteous, auxiliary bishop at the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, fought back in an article, writing:

In Australia with its Christian heritage a billboard carrying the statement ‘Jesus A prophet of Islam’ is provocative and offensive to Christians.

Central to Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is more than a prophet. He is the Son of God. He is acclaimed Lord and Savior of humanity. This statement is a direct assault on Christian beliefs.

According to the Bishop, religions should not

set out to antagonize those with differing beliefs.

Dialogue between the religions can only take place when it is founded in mutual respect. It is not fostered by provocative statements.

Porteous urged Mypeace to withdraw the ads.

In a related story, gallup.com posted a poll on Friday whose results showed that 92 % of Americans still believe in GOD.  This result is only 4 % lower than the 96% figure that Gallup pollsters found when they asked the question in 1944.

Among to those polled, belief in God drops below 90% among younger Americans, liberals, those living in the East, those with postgraduate educations, and political independents. However, belief in God is nearly universal among Republicans and conservatives and, to a slightly lesser degree, in the South.

How many of these American believers in God are Muslim?

Per adherents.com:

According to an academic review of available survey-based data in 2001, informed by information provided by Muslim organizations and mosques, the highest reasonable total number of Muslims in the United States is 2.8 million.

A more realistic number, supported by statistically significant survey data comparable to what has been used to to calculate the sizes of other religious groups, is less than 2 million Muslims in the United States, or about 0.5% of the total population.

Estimates of the U.S. Muslim population of 6 million, 8 million, 10 million or more may indeed be correct, but are not supported by empirical data. Such numbers may best be understood as “spiritual” numbers, rather than actual numbers.

However, according to the American Religious Identification Survey from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, 75 % of Americans identify themselves as Christian.

The vast difference in numbers probably explains why we haven’t seen Mypeace’s “public awareness” campaign in America…yet.

 

 

 

 

D-Day, also called the Battle of Normandy, was fought on June 6, 1944, between the Allied nations and German forces occupying Western Europe. To this day, almost 67 years later, it  still remains the largest seaborne invasion in history. Almost three million troops crossed the English Channel from England to Normandy to be used as human cannon fodder in an invasion of occupied France.

The twelve nations who participated in the invasion included Australia, Canada, Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia, Greece, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom, and, of course. the United States of America.

The codename for the invasion was Operation Overlord. The assault phase was known as Operation Neptune. Operation Neptune began on D-Day (June 6, 1944) and ended on June 30. Operation Overlord also began on D-Day, and ended with the crossing of the River Seine on August 19.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower faced a daunting task in the planning of such a massive invasion. He would have to move his forces 100 miles across the English Channel and storm a heavily fortified coastline. His enemy was the weapon-and-tank-superior German army commanded by the “Desert Fox” Erwin Rommel, one of the most brilliant generals of the war.

Less than 15 percent of the young men called upon to sacrifice their lives for our freedom in the invasion had ever seen combat.

A crossing of the unpredictable and dangerous English Channel had not been attempted since 1688. Once the invading forces set out, there was no turning back. The channel was soon hosting a 5,000-vessel armada that stretched as far as the eye could see, transporting both men and vehicles across the channel to the French beaches. Not to mention, the Allies also launched 4,000 smaller landing craft and more than 11,000 aircraft.

By the time the sun set on June 6, more than 9,000 Allied soldiers were dead or wounded, and more than 100,000 had made it ashore, capturing French coastal villages. Within weeks, supplies were being unloaded at Utah and Omaha beachheads at the rate of more than 20,000 tons per day. By June 11, more than 326,000 troops, 55,000 vehicles, and 105,000 tons of supplies had been landed on the beaches. By June 30, the Allies had established a firm foothold in Normandy. Allied forces crossed the River Seine on August 19.

There has never been an exact count of the sacrifices made on D-Day. Although, it is estimated that more than 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded, or went missing during the battle. 209,000 of those who lost their lives were Allied forces. In addition to almost 200,000 German troops killed or wounded, the Allies also captured 200,000 soldiers. Captured Germans were sent to American prisoner-of-war camps at the rate of 30,000 per month, from D-Day until Christmas 1944. Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed during the battle.

Basically, the invasion of Normandy was a success, due to sheer force of numbers. By July 1944, some one million Allied troops, mostly American, British, and Canadian, were entrenched in Normandy. During the great invasion, the Allies assembled nearly three million men and stored 16 million tons of arms, munitions, and supplies in Britain.

Among the young men who stepped off those boats, in a hail of gunfire, was a fellow named Edward, whom everyone called Ned, from the small town of Helena, Arkansas.  Already in his young life, Ned had been forced to drop out of school in the sixth grade, in order to work at the local movie theatre to help support his mother, brother, and sister faced with the ravages of the Great Depression.

He was a gentle man who loved to laugh and sing, having recorded several 78 rpm records in the do-it-yourself booths of the day. And now, he found himself, a Master Sergeant in an Army Engineering Unit, stepping off a boat into the unknown, watching his comrades being mercilessly gunned down around him.

Ned, along with the rest of his unit who survived the initial assault, would go on to assist in the cleaning out of the Concentration Camps, bearing witness to man’s inhumanity to man.

The horrors he saw had a profound effect on Ned.  One that he would keep to himself for the remainder of his life.  While his children knew that he served with an Engineering Unit in World War II, they did not know the full extent of his service, until they found his medal, honoring his participation in the Invasion of Normany, going through his belongings after he passed away on December 29, 1997.

How do I know so much about Ned?  He was my Daddy.  You see, my love of Christ and, of this country, comes from my Earthly father, 40 years my senior.

I was raised by members of the Greatest Generation.  It is today that we pause to remember their sacrifices at home and abroad.  Not only theirs, but the sacrifices made by our Best and Brightest and their families, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

May God bless them all and may He hold them in the hollow of His hand.

After calling our strongest ally on the carpet yesterday and telling them that they must give half of their country away, United States President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm)meets today with that country’s, Israel’s, Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, face-to-face.

To call today’s meeting tense is like saying Lindsey Lohan has a slight drinking problem.

After Obama’s speech Thursday, in which he called for a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, as part of his magnificent vision for an U.S.-brokered peace deal, Netanyahu responded, saying such a deal could leave Israel “indefensible.”

Even though Obama and his Administration did not expect any progress toward reviving peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the president’s speech yesterday basically slammed the door after the horse had left the barn.

The American Administration’s (not the people’s) position aligns with the Palestinian view that they should be given the half of Israel that lies in the West Bank and Gaza should largely be drawn along the same lines that existed before the 1967 war in which Israel captured those territories and East Jerusalem.

According to Netanyahu:

The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence.

Is it just me or did Bibi basically tell Scooter to “go jump”?

Back in the summer of 2002, President George W. Bush gave a speech on the same topic that President Obama gave yesterday:

…I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practising democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence. And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbours, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East.

In the work ahead, we all have responsibilities. The Palestinian people are gifted and capable, and I am confident they can achieve a new birth for their nation. A Palestinian state will never be created by terror – it will be built through reform. And reform must be more than cosmetic change, or veiled attempt to preserve the status quo. True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions, based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism.

Compare and contrast the excerpt from Bush’s speech to this excerpt from the speech our current president gave yesterday:

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.

For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That’s certainly true for the two parties involved.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders — must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them — not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows — a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Obama basically said nothing about the Palestinians electing new leaders.  he just told Hamas to behave themselves.

Obama’s naivete and/or willing dhimmitude (the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad) not only insults our strongest ally, it puts our nation at risk by projecting an image of weakness.

Then, there’s that little matter of Genesis 12: 1-3:

1 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

I guess they never studied that scripture at Trinity Church.