About Me

Name: Cary Wesberry
Email: carywesberry@sbcglobal.net Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Cartoons - A Reckoning from Bin Laden

A new audiotape, purportedly from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, informs the “intelligence ones’ in the European Union that republishing the “insulting drawings” was a greater crime than Western forces targeting Muslim villages and killing women and children. And “the reckoning for it will be more severe,” he says - in reference to the reprint in Danish papers of one of the controversial Danish cartoons showing the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

Released by al Qaeda’s publishing arm As-Sahab, bin Laden’s five-minute message is captioned “May Our Mothers Be Bereaved of Us If We Fail to Help Our Prophet.” He refers to a new crusade against Islam.

The audio track with English subtitles plays over a video image of bin Laden holding an AK-47 rifle. He has not been seen on video since October 2004.

 
 
Seeing cartoons as a greater threat than dying Muslims is exactly why al-Qaeda will lose the War Against Islamo-Fascism.  To be this retarded and still be able to correctly fire an AK-47 is beyond me.  You backwards Islamists just keep focusing on cartoons while the forces of good in the civilized world decimate the evil that is your existence. 
 
Zero focus, if they weren't so damn dangerous they'd be a laughing stock; and sometimes they still are regardless.  I say the more cartoons the better!  All countries need to publish Mohammed cartoons immediately.  Hell, even use my taxes to do it for crying out loud.  It should be official anyway.  We're dealing with murderous bafoons.  This is why I demand we kill all our enemies and simply let God deal with the judgement.  Sometimes it's truly easier to put it in His hands.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Easter Special! Is Sin Dead?

Is sin dead? No, not by a long shot. Yet as Easter approaches, some pastors and theologians worry: How can Christians celebrate Jesus' atonement for their sins and the promise of eternal life in his resurrection if they don't recognize themselves as sinners?

Take it from Pope Benedict XVI. He says the modern world "is losing the notion of sin." And not just personal sins such as greed, lust or the rest of the infamous Seven Deadlies, but social sins, too, such as polluting the planet or allowing injustice to flourish.
Take it from the Rev. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, who doesn't give a jelly bean for the modern version of Easter.

"All the Easter eggs and the Easter bunny are even more extraneous to the purpose of Easter than Santa is to Christmas," Mohler says. "At least Santa Claus was based on a saint. I wonder whether even some Christian churches are making the connection between Christ's death and resurrection and victory over sin — the linchpin doctrine of Christianity."
Take it from pollsters.

A new survey by Ellison Research in Phoenix finds 87% of U.S. adults believe in the existence of sin, which is defined as "something that is almost always considered wrong, particularly from a religious or moral perspective."

Topping the list are adultery (81%) and racism (74%).

But other sins no longer draw majority condemnation. Premarital sex? Only 45% call it sin. Gambling? Just 30% say it's sinful.

"A lot of this is relative. We tend to view sin not as God views it, but how we view it," says Ellison president Ron Sellers.

David Kinnaman, president of Barna Research, a company in Ventura, Calif., that tracks Christian trends, draws a similar conclusion: "People are quick to toe the line on traditional thinking" that there is sin "but interpret that reality in a very personal and self-congratulatory manner" — I have to do what's best for me; I am not as sinful as most.

Indeed, 65% of U.S. adults say they will go to heaven, and only 0.05% believe they'll go to hell, according to a 2003 Barna telephone survey of 1,024 adults.

"They give intellectual assent to the story about Jesus rising on Easter Sunday: 75% say they believe the biblical account of Jesus' death and resurrection is literally true, not a story meant to illustrate a principle. But they don't have any personal application of this Monday through Saturday," Kinnaman says.

Popular evangelist Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, never mentions sin in his TV sermons or best sellers such as Your Best Life Now.

"I never thought about (using the word 'sinners'), but I probably don't," Osteen told Larry King in an interview. "Most people already know what they're doing wrong. When I get them to church, I want to tell them that you can change."

The Rev. Michael Horton, professor of theology at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, Calif., calls this "moral therapy."

"It's changing your lifestyle to receive God's favor," Horton says. "It's not heaven in the hereafter but happiness here and now. But it is still up to you to make it happen."

He finds sad truth in an old newspaper headline he once saw: " 'To hell with sin when being good is enough.' That's the drift of American preaching today in a lot of churches. People know what sin is; they just don't believe in it anymore. We mix up happiness and holiness, and God is no longer the reference point."

In other words, he asks, if you can solve your problems or sins yourself, what difference does it make that Christ was crucified?

People have to see themselves as sinners — ultimately alienated from God and unable to save themselves — for Christ's sacrifice to be essential, Horton says. "(The apostle) Paul didn't see Easter as therapy."

Pope Benedict, in his prayers last week, said, "People who trust in themselves and in their own merits are, as it were, blinded by their own 'I,' and their hearts harden in sin. On the other hand, those who recognize themselves as weak and sinful entrust themselves to God, and from him obtain grace and forgiveness."

Even some people who say sin is real still steer by a compass of "moral pragmatics," not a bright line of absolute truth, Mohler says. "People say, 'I have high moral expectations of myself and others, but I know we are all human so I'm looking for a batting average.'

"We find a comfort zone of morality, a kind of middle-class middle level where we think we are doing well. We cut the grass. We don't double-park. But we ignore the larger issues of sin.

"Instead of violating the law of the Creator, it becomes more a matter of etiquette. … We want our kids to play well in the sandbox and know their place in line. We want people to do things decently and in order. But it's etiquette of morality without the ethics. The end result is that when we do things we wish people wouldn't do, there's no sense of guilt or shame."

Rules have changed

The rise of secular culture also is exerting an influence. More than one in five Americans (22%) say they never go to church, not even on Christmas or Easter. And 12.1% told a new Pew Forum survey they believe "nothing in particular."

They may be without a church, but "most people still have a notion of sin — like bringing cheap wine to parties," jokes Karsen Case, 34, of Reno. "Seriously, you know what sin is when you get a feeling in your gut that something's wrong."

He hasn't been to church in a decade, although he grew up within the conservative Lutheran Missouri Synod. "I would call myself an atheist now," he says. "But I think the Bible has a lot of good stories. And I do connect with the story of Easter, of redemption and rebirth. It tells me you are going to make mistakes, and you will get another chance to do right in the future."

Secular people still believe there's sin, judgment and punishment, says sociologist Barry Kosmin, a research professor in public policy and law and director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society & Culture at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

It's just a different list of sinners than religious traditions teach.

"What is unacceptable has changed," Kosmin observes. "Racism and sexual harassment, which were not sins in the past, are now. Adultery and addiction are just bad or sad behavior. And commercial sex is a no, but breaking the bonds of marriage is not.

"Secularism is situational without fundamental, universal rules. Explanations are kosher. Mitigating circumstances, too. But if people are held guilty, the punishment, of course, has to be in this world, not the next. Secular people don't burn in hell, they burn in the court of public opinion."

Self, not sin

Two pastors serving youthful congregations in big cities, long the statistical capitals of secular culture, say they must talk about sin to be true to their calling. They just have to use 21st-century lingo.

Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan is a modern-day variation of the circuit-riding preacher. He dashes across Central Park to three different leased locations to serve 5,000 worshipers at five services on Sundays.

When Keller, author of The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, speaks about "sin" to his audiences, which are 70% single and younger than 40, "I use it with lots and lots of explanation, because the word is essentially obsolete.

"They do get the idea of branding, of taking a word or term and filling it with your own content, so I have to rebrand the word 'sin,' " Keller says.

"Around here it means self-centeredness, the acorn from which it all grows. Individually, that means 'I live for myself, for my own glory and happiness, and I'll work for your happiness if it helps me.' Communally, self-centeredness is destroying peace and justice in the world, tearing the net of interwovenness, the fabric of humanity."

Mark Driscoll says a little talk of hellfire, so out of fashion these days, would do the world good.

Driscoll founded Mars Hill Church in Seattle, a non-denominational megachurch with 7,000 in Sunday attendance, chiefly singles in their 20s.

He defines sin as "anything contrary to God's will. People assume the way they are is normal, not that something has gone terribly wrong, and this world is abnormal."

Although his primary audience is newbie Christians, Driscoll is sharply clear: "Without an idea of sin, Easter is meaningless."

 
 
 
Joel Osteen doesn't use the word "sin" in his sermons.  One of the largest congregations in the entire country, and the good pastor doesn't use the word "sin".  Attending church allows you to feel the grace of Christ and the Holy Ghost because you face yourself while opening your heart and soul to God.  You face both the bad decisions you make and try to make the good even better.  Without sin there is no personal opposition.  Without opposition there is no way to understand good from evil, joy from sadness, laughter from tears of pain.  Without opposition given to you by God, you know nothing other than existence in and of itself; which we've proven time and time again is hardly worth living for.  Pastors like the one I mentioned above are there to make you feel good, to tell you everything will be okay if you simply believe, that guilt through sin has no place in your life; it only makes you sad.
 
The feel-good pastors do a great injustice to the Lord and His children.  They make opposition meaningless.  Jesus Christ did not face torture and then execution on the cross so you can do whatever you want free of sin.  He died for your sins; not to make you free of guilt.  Only through the Savior Jesus Christ will you make your way to God.  His crucifixion was like no other event in all of creation because He gave us all a direct and eternal path to our Heavenly Father.  If you take Him as your Savior, repent, and atone for your sins you will be granted the wonderous gift of everlasting life and peace.  The single greatest thing to happen on Earth and so many throw it all away because they refuse to acknowledge sin, face it, and take action to correct the wrongs of their lives.
 
This Easter Sunday day, think of sin.  Pray on sin.  Open your heart and soul to Jesus Christ.  Be touched by the Holy Spirit, repent, and atone.  Walking this path will make you a stronger child of God, and in doing so you will elevate those around you.  For the sake of Jesus Christ's sacrifice, do not ignore sin; take action against it and rise-up in the true power of God.  Only through opposition will you ultimately know peace.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Forget Rev. Wright, It's Hillary Clinton Who’s Racist" by Glenn Beck

I’ve always believed that the United States of America had passed the time when a major candidate for president could garner millions of votes with a campaign based solely on bigotry. 

I was wrong.

While Barack Obama has been spending hours defending his spiritual adviser, Rev. Wright, over his racially charged rhetoric, there is now overwhelming evidence that it is actually Hillary Clinton needs to explain her racist ties.

Consider the facts:

Bill Clinton claimed that Barack Obama’s campaign was based on a “fairy tale.” Is it possible that a former president believes a black man rising to a position of power based on his own hard work and intellect could only be a mythical fabrication? It’s not as far-fetched as you might think.

Remember, Hillary Clinton once insinuated that those of Indian descent, even those as accomplished and respected as Mahatma Gandhi, were capable only of running a “gas station down in St. Louis.”

If her language is that overtly racist in public, imagine the hate-filled vitriol she must spew behind closed doors.

Clinton has made universal healthcare a central part of her campaign, claiming her goal is to provide coverage for all. But this weak attempt at spin is made transparent by one very inconvenient truth: Hillary’s plan will benefit only one fourth the amount of African-Americans as other races — most notably (and least surprisingly) whites.

In fact, Hillarycare is nothing but a blatant attempt to funnel approximately $87 billion away from African-Americans. The country deserves better.

Hillary claims that pulling troops out of Iraq would be good for our soldiers. Really?

Or does she mean that it would be good for our white soldiers? After all, the facts are clear: Clinton’s Iraq policy benefits whites by an almost 3-1 ratio over African-Americans. Do we really want a president who will put racial bias ahead of our national security?

Clinton’s tax policy is no different. She wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and raise taxes on “the rich.” But who is she really targeting?

Well, look just at one of the major industries that, because of its preponderance of wealthy workers, would be affected: professional athletes. Of the top 10 highest paid athletes, seven are black and one is Hispanic. Minority players on the list would pay around $38 million extra in taxes, while whites would only pay an extra $8 million.

The highest paid positions in the NFL show similar and even more extreme examples of Clinton’s unfair targeting of minorities. Since the mid-1980s, close to 300 running backs have rushed for 1,000 yards, earning most of them huge paychecks that would be taxed severely by Clinton’s plan. Not one of those running backs was white.

Clinton has also outwardly criticized accomplished black leaders such as Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas.

That shouldn’t come as much of surprise considering that her husband, known as the first black president, still reports himself in demographic surveys as Caucasian, denying his heritage.

In addition, it’s a little suspicious that all of Bill Clinton's alleged affairs have been with white women (that we know of). One can’t help but wonder if she would have divorced him had any of those women looked different.

Hillary routinely criticizes inexpensive energy sources that make it easier for poor recipients — disproportionately minorities — to heat their homes and transport their children to school. These energy sources — coal and oil — are exclusively black. A coincidence? Doubtful, considering her track record.

The scariest part of this clear racism is that none of it is new.

Back in Arkansas, the Clintons were more than happy to be involved in a real estate deal known as “Whitewater.” Yet when it came time to comment on the private defense company used in Iraq, which had the misfortune to be called “Blackwater,” the Clintons were suspiciously critical. So let me get this straight: they support WHITEwater and oppose BLACKwater.

Could this be any clearer?

The indisputable fact is that, yes, it could be a lot clearer. In fact, it would be nice if anything in this column made any sense at all. What you’ve just read was a ridiculous collection of wild accusations, half-truths, unwarranted attacks, and unfair characterizations — none of which I believe.

One could even say that in effort to try to bring down an ideological enemy, I sold my soul for political expediency.

To put it another way, I have just shown you exactly what will happen to conservatives in the coming months.
 
 
 
Glenn makes a fun point; read it all at NewsMax by following the link above.  As well written and satirical as his examples are, if you don't know by now what the Democrats tactics are going to be once they stop eating their own then you most likely still don't get it after reading this column.  Oh my do I have a shocking newsflash for everyone: John McCain also sold his soul for political expediency!  The same cranky old fool that the pundits and radio hosts were once honest about is now their man of the hour, or election cycle as the case may be. 
 
Let's discuss political expediency for a bit.  It's been politically expedient for talk radio hosts and assorted idiot pundits to attack John McCain for well deserved reasons before he was the nominee because their audiences obviously distrusted and despised the man.  Now, because he's the nominee and we're stuck with him thanks to you and me and everyone else allowing the media to choose him for us, these same radio hosts and pundits are being politically expedient in selling their souls to convince you there's no choice but to throw in lock, stock, and barrell with the Straight Talk to Conservative Hell that is John McCain's campaign.  Is that not both political and expedient?  Of course it is!  And I'm disgusted by it to no end.  When I'm listening to talk radio or other news and I hear the name "John McCain" I usually turn on music instead... or hit myself over the head with a toaster repeatedly depending on the availability at the time.
 
In my arrogant opinion, there are two kinds of voters at this point in the game.  Honest voters who don't really care if we get McCain or Hillary, and downright retarded voters who've been brainwashed by B. Hussein Obama's special brand of Stalinist socialism.  The other group, people who've chosen between McCain and Hillary aren't so much voters as they are soul-sold politically expedient puddles of gruel.  So let's not include them in the comparison at all shall we?  This is by far the worst election of my lifetime and my parent's lifetime.  Calling all cave-people!  Calling all cave-people!  Does anyone have a hole to rent me for the next five years?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Throw Grandma Under the Bus" by Ann Coulter

Obama gave a nice speech, except for everything he said about race. He apparently believes we're not talking enough about race. This is like hearing Britney Spears say we're not talking enough about pop-tarts with substance-abuse problems.

By now, the country has spent more time talking about race than John Kerry has talked about Vietnam, John McCain has talked about being a POW, John Edwards has talked about his dead son, and Al Franken has talked about his USO tours.

But the "post-racial candidate" thinks we need to talk yet more about race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?
 
Discrimination has become so openly accepted that -- in a speech meant to tamp down his association with a black racist -- Obama felt perfectly comfortable throwing his white grandmother under the bus. He used her as the white racist counterpart to his black racist "old uncle," Rev. Wright.

First of all, Wright is not Obama's uncle. The only reason we indulge crazy uncles is that everyone understands that people don't choose their relatives the way they choose, for example, their pastors and mentors. No one quarrels with idea that you can't be expected to publicly denounce your blood relatives.

But Wright is not a relative of Obama's at all. Yet Obama cravenly compared Wright's racist invective to his actual grandmother, who "once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Rev. Wright accuses white people of inventing AIDS to kill black men, but Obama's grandmother -- who raised him, cooked his food, tucked him in at night, and paid for his clothes and books and private school -- has expressed the same feelings about passing black men on the street that Jesse Jackson has.

Unlike his "old uncle" -- who is not his uncle -- Obama had no excuses for his grandmother. Obama's grandmother never felt the lash of discrimination! Crazy grandma doesn't get the same pass as the crazy uncle; she's white. Denounce the racist!

Fine. Can we move on now?

No, of course, not. It never ends. To be fair, Obama hinted that we might have one way out: If we elect him president, then maybe, just maybe, we can stop talking about race.
 
 
 
Hit the link above to read all of Ann Coulter's column over at Human Events.  As Ann states; we cannot move on.  Perish the thought even!  It doesn't end, and it may very well not ever.  Especially as long as we have hateful racist liars like B. Hussein Obama and his off-the-rocker pastor rubbing American's (both black and white) faces in it on an hourly basis.  Throw Grandma Under the Bus; that's exactly what Obama did and it was shameful.  After you take the time to understand that Obama didn't choose his grandmother but did indeed choose Jeremiah Wright as his mentor and father-figure, it's even more shameful.  If elected will Obama throw America under the bus as well?  I certainly believe he will do so without a second thought.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Military Option Against Iran Back on the Table

“Iran has got to be very high on that list,” said a senior aide ahead of the talks US Vice President Dick Cheney will hold during his 10-day tour of the Middle East and Turkey, which began Monday, March 17 in Iraq.

Singling out Oman, the aide noted that the US and Oman are co-guardians of the strategic Strait of Hormuz. “The Omanis, like a lot of other people,” he said “are concerned by the escalating tensions between the rest of the world community and Iran and by some of Iran’s activities, particularly in the nuclear field, but outside its borders as well.”

According to DEBKAfile, the official was referring to Tehran’s meddling in Iraq, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

Our military, Washington and Gulf sources report that US Vice President Dick Cheney is again talking about possible US military action to shut down Iran’s covert nuclear program.

Cheney stopped over in Oman Wednesday, Wed. March 19, after two days in Iraq. He will travel next to Saudi Arabia, is due in Jerusalem next Saturday and will also visit Ramallah and Turkey.

Our sources report exclusively that his talks are focusing on two aspects of the Iranian nuclear threat:

1. The Bush administration’s decision to distance itself from the National Intelligence Estimate released last December. Its conclusion that Iran’s nuclear arms program was shelved in 2003, which rendered America’s military option superfluous, is now deemed a mistake.

2. The administration now buys British, German, French and Israeli intelligence estimates that Iran is indeed pressing forward with programs for building nuclear weapons, warheads and ballistic missiles for their delivery.

The vice president will listen closely to his hosts’ ideas about joint efforts for containing Iran’s aggressive expansionist thrusts across the Persian Gulf and Middle East and halting its progress towards nuclear armaments.

The vice president’s choice of capitals for his tour is a pointer to the fact that the military option, off since December, may be on again. American will need the cooperation of all four - Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey - to mount a military attack on Iran.

Oman hosts the big American air bases which are the core of the defense shield for the Strait of Hormuz and for the US Navy, Marine and Air Force units deployed in the Persian Gulf.

Saudi Arabia is the senior Gulf and Arabian trendsetter and the key to pan-Arab endorsement for a US offensive against Tehran. Riyadh has opposed military action until now.

Israel is the only regional nation willing to actively participate in an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites; its military has been putting together plans for going it alone.

Last week, our sources report, Jerusalem was notified by the White House that the Iranian issue had been added to Cheney’s regional agenda at the last minute; his hosts were requested to prepare themselves for exhaustive and lengthy discussions on Iran with the vice president and his aides.

Israel’s defense cabinet was accordingly convened last Wednesday – officially to scrutinize the armed forces’ forward planning and applications of the Lebanon war inquiry panel’s recommendations. But, our military sources report, the ministers were convened to decide which of Israel’s military plans of action were to be presented to Cheney.

 
 
It's nice to know that someone in the civilized world besides Israel is taking Iran seriously.  Since the Islamo-fascists of Iran are certainly not going to put up their toys and stop playing with nuclear weapon technology there is little but one option left; and that is using military power to set back their abilities for at least a couple of decades if not more. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Anti-Obama Preacher

Versus writing something that would surely get me into a great deal of trouble, I decided to let the Anti-Obama Preacher speak for himself:
 
"Obama's Bra 54 Double 'D'"                  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Obama the Ditherer" by Dean Barnett

From Dean Barnett at The Weekly Standard:
 
THE QUESTION of the day is how Obama fared with his major address. Many are hailing his call for racial reconciliation. Some analysts, including conservatives like Charles Murray, found it "flat-out brilliant" and thought it captured "a lot of nuance about race in American." For the twin purposes of brevity and avoiding arguing over meaningless topics, I'll stipulate that Obama gave a lovely statement on racial matters.

In doing so, Obama brilliantly answered a question that virtually no one is asking. With the country's attitude floating somewhere between grave concern and panic over the economy, Barack Obama has positioned himself as the candidate of racial reconciliation. With the body politic bitterly divided over the war in Iraq, Barack Obama has adopted racial reconciliation as his signature issue.
While answering a question that no one is asking, Obama dodged the question that everyone is asking, namely how exactly did a healing figure like Obama spend 20 years listening to the hateful ramblings of a man like Jeremiah Wright. In dodging that question, Obama showed an unbecoming slipperiness. At one point, Obama intoned:


It has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.


Note how the passage above suggests that Jeremiah Wright let loose his incendiary language during the past couple of weeks at the same time that Geraldine Ferraro was engaging in her unpleasant foolishness. Of course, Wright has been "incendiary" for the entire two decades that he and Barack Obama have enjoyed such a close relationship.

I know I said earlier that I would stipulate that Obama had delivered a brilliant albeit irrelevant address, but I have to offer one caveat--his delivery was oddly flat. There were virtually no applause lines. Obama spoke in an odd monotone for much of the speech. His normal cadences, which are so brilliant and inspiring to so many people, were absent. It seemed like Obama had no interest in standing before a crowd giving that particular speech.

Understandably enough. Barack Obama is an exceptionally intelligent man and an extremely gifted politician, but he seems to understand that his relationship with Jeremiah Wright is one circle that can't easily be squared. Jeremiah Wright is a man who less than a week after 9/11 gave a sermon that sadistically rejoiced how America's chickens had come home to roost. Five days earlier, Americans (of all colors, incidentally) had leapt from the World Trade Center to escape the flames. The fact is, Barack Obama opted to remain in this minister's company for more than six years after that sermon until partially distancing himself just last week in the heat of a presidential race. As gifted a speaker and writer as Obama is, there's still no way he can make such a circumstance palatable to most Americans.

What the analysts who are gushing over Obama's sentiments regarding race relations are missing is not only did Obama fail to accomplish the mission he needed to, he didn't even really try. He made no attempt to explain his relationship with Wright and why he hung around a man who habitually offered such hateful rhetoric. Obama instead offered a non-sequitur on race relations.

 
 
Follow the link above to read all of Dean's column published earlier today.  Brilliant analysis as usual Dean.  The burning question of his twenty-year-long relationship with an America-hating racist was not answered; the one reason for even giving the speech in the first place. 
 
I've heard it espoused from more than just Obama that Wright was a father-figure and that there are many people in our country and elsewhere who don't share the same views as their parents.  The difference however between all those people and B. Hussein Obama is that he chose Jeremiah Wright as a father-figure.  While there are indeed many people raised by parents they obviously didn't choose; Obama is not one of them.  His biological father was a dead-beat dad and little Barack was raised by his white mother and white grandmother.  A grandmother, by the way, which he completely threw under the bus in his lovely speech yesterday.  The point is that Obama could have chosen any number of people to replace what his real father did not give him.  He chose Jeremiah Wright above everyone else.
 
Now, Obama has every right to do just that and to choose whichever father-figure or join whatever church he wants.  He even has the right to lie about all of it if he wants.  What he should not get away with is living a racist America-hating life for two decades and not be answerable to American voters when he decides to run for President of the United  States.  I won't go through, yet again, the lengthy and hateful list of abominable words spewed from Obama's mentor for the past twenty years.  If you haven't read it or heard it by now then scroll back through the entries on this site and enlighten yourself.  Regardless, what you as a voter have duty in is to be a responsible American and not allow a racist, hateful, and brainwashed man to become the Leader of the Free World.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Lead Over Hillary Shrinking

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

The poll showed Obama had only a statistically insignificant lead of 47 percent to 44 percent over Clinton, down sharply from a 14 point edge he held over her in February when he was riding the tide of 10 straight victories.

Illinois Sen. Obama, who would be America's first black president, has been buffeted by attacks in recent weeks from New York Sen. Clinton over his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief and by a tempest over racially charged sermons given by his Chicago preacher.

The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.

McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.

That is a sharp turnaround from the Reuters/Zogby poll from last month, which showed in a head-to-head matchup that Obama would beat McCain 47 percent to 40 percent.

"The last couple of weeks have taken a toll on Obama and in a general election match-up, on both Democrats," said pollster John Zogby.

Matched up against Clinton, McCain leads 48 percent to 40 percent, narrower than his 50 to 38 percent advantage over her in February.

"It's not surprising to me that McCain's on top because there is disarray and confusion on the Democratic side," Zogby said

Obama gave a speech on Tuesday rebuking his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for sermons sometimes laced with inflammatory tirades but said he could not disown him and it was time for Americans to bind the country's racial wounds.

The poll showed Obama continues to have strong support from the African-American community but that he is experiencing some slippage among moderates and independents.

Among independents, McCain led for the first time in the poll, 46 percent to 36 percent over Obama.

He was behind McCain by 21 percent among white voters.

Zogby attributed this to a combination of the fallout from Clinton's victory in Ohio earlier this month and the controversy over Wright's sermons.

"And, just the closer he gets to the nomination, the tougher questions whites ask about an African-American candidate," Zogby said.

The March 13-14 poll surveyed 525 likely Democratic primary voters for the matchup between Clinton and Obama. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

For the matchup between McCain and his Democratic rivals, 1004 likely voters were surveyed. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

 
 
 
McCain's lead over Hillary has down-turned sharply.  She's closing the gap between both McCain and Obama.  Hillary's campaign is strengthening while Obama's gets weaker, and the more McCain opens his mouth only to spew idiocy and disdain towards conservatives the more the gap will close.  Don't let al-Reuters fool you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Demonic Murdering Mothers of Islam

Texas-born Patricia (“Tissie) Said, formerly of the Owens family, is the mother who lured her two teenage daughters, Sarah and Amina, to their deaths at the hands of their own father this past New Years Day in Dallas. How can a mother do such a thing? Even if her own life was threatened, even if her husband Yasser had literally held a gun to her head and told her to trick her daughters into returning, isn’t a mother supposed to sacrifice herself for her children? Or at least to protect them? What can explain such a perversion of maternal instinct and of the life force itself?

“Tissie” Said is not the first mother to have participated in an honor killing on American soil. In 1989, in St Louis, Missouri, Brazilian-born second wife, Maria Isa, held her daughter Palestina (“Tina”) Isa down for twenty minutes as her father, Zein Isa, a Palestinian Abu Nidal terrorist operative, viciously and repeatedly stabbed her to death. The entire murder had been taped by federal authorities who were tracking the Abu Nidal group. The jury got to hear the girl’s heartbreaking cries and found both parents guilty. (Unsurprisingly, Zein Isa had the same mind-set that Islam Said, the brother of the honor murdered Dallas girls has. Isa said that “he had stabbed his daughter in self-defense, that she had so shamed him, that he had to commit a crime to restore his honor.”)

Palestina tried very hard to please her parents. She was overworked, treated “like dirt,” chronically beaten and constantly abused, both verbally and psychologically. But, like Amina and Sarah Said, Palestina also had academic ambitions—and she had an African-American “boyfriend.” Such Americanized behavior doomed all these honor murdered girls.

Both research and anecdotal evidence document that women collaborate, both directly and indirectly, in honor killings. According to a study which I cite in my 2002 book, Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, Arab girls and women gossip about and slander others' girls and women in a way that demands that the men “do something” to restore their families’ honor. Palestina Isa’s three sisters kept pestering their father to “do something about the nig*er-loving whore.”

Sometimes, a mother might physically murder her own daughter on her own, by herself, directly, not indirectly. For example, in 2003, on the West Bank, Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud, brutally murdered her 13 year-old daughter Rofayda who had been raped and impregnated by her two brothers. Amira was quoted as saying that “I had to protect my children. This is the only way I could protect my family’s honor.”

 
 
 
 
Follow the link above and read the whole story, written in great detail by Phyllis Chesler at Front Page Magazine.  The interviews, reports, and descriptions in the article are extremely disturbing.  How a religion can spread this kind of abomination throughout its population of mothers is almost unbelievable; but it's true.  Mothers aid fathers, brothers, and uncles in the cold-blooded murdering of their daughters.  That is the nature of Islam.  Demonic.  The violent and hideous acts of Islamists are unforgiveable.  The parents, mothers and fathers, who commit these sort of blasphemies against God and the world should be quickly executed for the sake of protecting civilized society.  An innocent child should not be murdered by their own parents simply because they were born into Islam.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"West Bank History for Dummies" by Ruth S. King

There are now two generations of academics, talking head(less) pundits, negotiators and think tankers who are convinced, thanks to mis-education and a political culture where fiction often trumps historical fact, that the Arab/Israel conflict started as a reaction to a land grab by Israel in 1967. As a result, the disposition of the “grabbed” territory known as the “West Bank” has occasioned more print and commentary than that given to the entire rest of the world, without any mention of Israel’s stronger legitimate and historical claims to this territory.

Here are some “crib” notes for clarification.
 
 
 
An accurate description of the history leading up to the present-day Arab/Israeli conflict.  Read it all.  Ruth shatters the misconceptions proliferated around the world concerning what really happened between the Jews and Arabs in the West Bank.  Understanding the Middle-East required understanding of Israel and the ongoing war against the Palestinian terrorists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Front Page Interviews P. David Hornik

 
 
FP: How grave are the dangers facing Israel?

Hornik: Very grave. Recently Israel's chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenasi, warned in a speech to army officers that war may be imminent. Israel's intelligence community relates seriously to the genocidal saber-rattling issuing from Iran and Hezbollah particularly since the Mughniyeh assassination. According to not a few intelligence estimates, Iran will have the bomb sometime in 2008. The fact that, notwithstanding the endless analyses, articles, meetings, Security Council sessions, etc., things have come this far--imminent nuclearization, at most a couple of years away but probably a lot less--is of course appalling.

The freedom, tolerance, creativity, and high living standards of the Western democracies constitute a great blessing, but these countries' inability to cope with threats realistically, their tendency to let catastrophes happen that could have been avoided with just a little resolve and common sense, may be a fatal flaw. So far the Western democracies are failing the test of the Iranian threat and allowing the world to move toward another cataclysm.

In addition to the overarching Iranian threat, Israel is now surrounded by terror-havens in Gaza, the West Bank, and southern Lebanon with belligerent Syria and malign Egypt thrown into the bargain. The terror havens pose tactical and strategic threats in themselves while also being intimately related, of course, to the larger Iranian and other state threats. By "tactical" I mean relatively crude rockets, suicide bombings, and the like; by strategic I mean larger rockets and missiles, and the possibility of WMD infiltration.

Both the Iranian nuclear buildup in itself and the related buildup of Iranian-allied forces on Israel's doorstep pose ultimate dangers.
 
FP: How is Israel coping with these dangers, and how capable is it of coping with them? Is it still the tough, hardy country of the past?

Hornik: Israel--having called off its recent brief foray into Gaza under U.S. pressure--is essentially doing nothing about the Gaza threat; it's still letting the citizens of southwestern Israel be terrorized by daily rocket and mortar attacks while fighting back in ways that are clearly inadequate. It's also doing nothing about the always-growing Hezbollah threat in Lebanon apart from Olmert's occasional fatuous self-congratulatory pronouncements about what a great success the 2006 Second Lebanon War was. Israel is mostly containing the West Bank threat with constant military and intelligence activity but still tolerating a situation that in the pre-Oslo era would have been considered unthinkable--a West Bank infested with terrorists from various organizations, sometimes in conflict with each other but all sharing the goal of Israel's annihilation.

The recent massacre in a Jerusalem yeshiva by an Arab resident of Jerusalem also underlines the growing threat from radicalized Arabs who are citizens or residents of Israel. Israel has not begun to deal with this threat realistically and coherently and is not capable of doing so under the current government.

Israel's strike against the Syrian installation in September, however, reminds us of the fact that notwithstanding the Olmert government's irresponsibility in the face of the immediate terror threats, there is still seriousness about state-generated strategic threats in Israel's highest military, intelligence, and even political echelons. If Israel was responsible for the Mughniyeh assassination, it further reinforces that fact. The highly capable Ido Nehushtan is replacing the highly capable Eliezer Shkedi as Israel's air force chief. Israel also has a highly accomplished Mossad chief in Meir Dagan. Olmert's cabinet includes people who are capable of seriousness about security like Shaul Mofaz, Avi Dichter, and others. Even the defense minister, Ehud Barak, is capable of seriousness about security though he's basically an unprincipled political operator. I have even less good to say about Olmert, but at least we know from the Lebanon War and the strike on the Syrian facility that he hasn't become a pacifist -- despite some notorious words before he became prime minister that seemed to indicate that.

That the Israeli population, despite its higher standard of living and the corrosive effects of a Left-dominated media, academia, and Supreme Court, is overall as tough and hardy as ever was clearly evident during the Lebanon War--both in the military sphere, where the army showed high motivation despite poor management, and in the civilian sphere, where the population showed great resilience. The Israeli people just need better leadership.
 
FP: What are Israel's prospects?

Hornik: It depends primarily on what, if anything, will be done about Iranian nuclearization. Even if that threat is eliminated, there is still a worldwide jihadist movement possessing or seeking WMD capabilities that is capable of posing existential threats to Israel and others, with Pakistan a particularly perilous arena. But Iran is currently the primary, overarching threat to Israel, America, and the West. From Israel's geographic standpoint, take Iran out of the picture and Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Syria, and so on are orphaned children and seriously weakened. Clearly, the U.S. and Israel are the only two parties that might do something about Iranian nuclearization, probably Israel. The election of a pacifistic Democratic dove as U.S. president would not be an encouraging development.


FP: If you could advise the U.S. and Israeli leaderships on how Israel could best cope with the threats it now faces, and how the U.S. could help best, what would you recommend?

Hornik: America wants stability in the Israeli sphere; it doesn't want relatively small-scale clashes between Israel and Arab forces--let alone the larger wars into which such clashes could escalate--that are beamed all over the Middle East and aggravate anti-Israeli, anti-American, and anti-Western sentiments. America's obsession with pressuring Israel into territorial concessions, while strengthening the Fatah terror movement as a supposedly constructive force, directly contradicts the American goal of stability and reflects blindness at best and a cynical, acknowledged or unackowledged agenda of sacrificing Israel at worst. I won't go into the issue of America's oil dependency on Arab regimes and what to do about it, but so long as America pursues a relationship with these regimes, it's worth realizing that they're not motivated by idealism but by economic and possibly strategic considerations and are not in need of constant spectacles of American leaders, diplomats, and functionaries supplicating Fatah leaders, paying protection money to the PA, training PA terrorist forces, and so on. If America feels it has to show its concern for the "Palestinian cause" it can do so by supporting fair and empirically based proposals for a solution like MK Benny Elon's plan instead of in effect embracing the Islamist and Arab-nationalist program of whittling Israel down to indefensibility and destruction.

American can best promote stability in the Israeli sphere, while reaping the strategic, intelligence, and other benefits of having Israel as a strong ally, by helping Israel be militarily and territorially strong and helping it exercise deterrence. This includes, of course, Israel operating according to normal international principles such as exercising the obligation to protect its citizens and treating attacks on them as intolerable rather than as realities to be indefinitely endured.

As for Israel, it desperately needs leaders who are not marionettes of a U.S. policy of appeasing the Arab world at Israel's expense. Israel needs to emphasize the fact that it has already given up all of Sinai and, for the time being, Gaza, while giving up a substantial amount of control over the West Bank, and all it has received in return is intensified terrorism, weapons smuggling/buildups, peril, and hatred--the last not only in the Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim spheres but throughout the world. Having already more than fulfilled its obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 242 of "withdrawing from territories," Israel should make no further territorial withdrawals from the post-1967 lands it still has in the West Bank and the Golan Heights, and should work to destroy both the Hamas and the Fatah menace and reassert military control of both Gaza and the West Bank, while being ready to restore partial civilian control to Palestinian parties absolutely conditional on the security situation.

Apart from this Israel should continue the endeavor of revamping its armed forces and strategic approach that it began in the wake of the Second Lebanon War--a restoration of capability and deterrence that apparently already succeeded in 2007 to dissuade Syria from initiating hostilities with Israel on the Golan Heights.

On the Iranian front, it's clear by now that sanctions, while they could possibly have worked with enough international cooperation, will not work because sufficient international cooperation does not exist. America needs to pursue a military or regime-change solution to the Iranian threat, not mainly to protect Israel but to protect the West in general and itself. If America does not do so, Israel, which presumably does not have the capacity to effectuate an Iranian regime change, has to neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat militarily so as to ensure its own survival.

 
 
 
Hit the link above to read the whole interview and discover how it is that Mr. Hornik came to his conclusions.  His conclusions are dead-on by the way.  Israel faces extremely difficult decisions that must be made sooner rather than later.  I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Hornik's assertions of the actions that Israel must take.  It is indeed a fact that if the United States does not execute regime change inside Iran, Israel will be forced to use military force to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities.  For this reason, and other, my country ultimately has difficult decisions to make as well.
 
As I've stated before; Israel's leadership is criminally negligent verging on treason.  Their complete lack of action in defending Israel against Palestinian monsters who murder Jews with joy is indefensible.  We've seen over the last few days Jews rioting in the streets because of the cowardly decisions made by Israeli leaders.  Instead of fighting the terrorists, they literally aid and provide them a haven from which to cause even more destruction.  Refusal to send a strong message to the Palestinians is a deathwish and is rapidly becoming intolerable to the Jewish people of Israel.  It's my belief the Jews won't live with insanity for much longer.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"The Seven Deadly Sins" by K.T. McFarland

Whoever said religion was dead in America? Remember the Seven Deadly Sins? They’ve been around since the 7th Century, when Pope Gregory the Great made the list and they’ve grown a little stale. But last week they made a major comeback – the headlines were full of them.

First, we had Governor Spitzer and Deadly Sin #1 – Lust.

Then we had Senator Obama’s religious mentor, Reverend Wright, spewing black power/white hate sermons. He cornered the market on Deadly Sin #5 – Wrath, with a little dose of Envy/Pride (Deadly Sins #6 and #7, respectively) thrown in.

The week also featured former Vice-Presidential Candidate Geraldine Ferraro’s claim that Senator Obama wouldn’t be running for President if he were white. Sounds like she got a dose of Envy, Deadly Sin #6.

Of course there is the accusation that Senator Obama isn’t up to the job of being President. Let’s chalk that up to Sloth, Deadly Sin #4 – or at least the implication that, compared to Senator Clinton, Obama is a slacker.

And who can forget Mrs. Obama, saying she was never proud of America until it started carrying her husband around on its shoulders? That’s easy: Deadly sin #7 – Pride.

But what happened to Deadly Sin #2 – Gluttony, and Deadly Sin #3 – Greed? Are they passé?

Not in the least. It’s just that with all the flurry over Lust, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride, last week there wasn’t much room left in the headlines for Gluttony and Greed. Nonetheless, they were there, alive and well in the United States Senate. Since we didn’t hear much about it from the national media, let me fill you in.

Senator John McCain, who has for years been the nation’s most outspoken opponent of pork barrel spending, joined with a few of his colleagues to propose a one-year moratorium on earmarks. Last week, the Senate voted on it. Seventy-one Senators, most of them incumbent Democrats, voted against the ban. Only 29 voted in favor.

Why? Because of Deadly Sin #2 – Gluttony, and Deadly Sin #3– Greed. Because our Congressional leaders want to retain their “right” to reward lobbyists who contribute to their campaign coffers. Because pork barrel spending is a powerful tool of incumbency, a legal form of bribery, and Congressmen and Senators won’t give it up unless they have to.

What exactly are earmarks? They are one-time, individual line items Congressmen and Senators can add to spending bills that approve money for whatever projects they want without anyone objecting. Earmarks are inserted at the last minute, just before a bill goes up for a vote, anonymously, so no one knows which Senator or Congressman is responsible.

No doubt some of them are for worthwhile projects, or so the Congressman or Senator would argue. But far too many of them are rewards given to major fat cats and lobbyists who donate to the Congressman or Senator’s campaign. In short, they’re bribes. But they’re subtle.

Modern day campaigns are costly affairs – running in the millions. With campaign finance laws, lobbyists, corporations, and their Political Action Committees (PACs), can only donate a few thousand dollars to a campaign. Not much of a bribe. But when you add in donations from Political Action Committees (PACs), company officials and employees, friends, and family members, those dollars start adding up. Before you know it, they’re up to tens of thousands of dollars. But from the lobbyists’ point of view they’re a good investment – because he stands to get millions back in earmarks.

No wonder Legislators are loathe to give up earmarks – they get reelected, lobbyists get the favors they want for comparatively little cost and no one is any the wiser. The only losers in this equation are you and me – whose taxes go up to pay for the earmarks – to the dizzying total of $35 billion dollars a year.

Yup, Deadly Sins #2 and #3 are thriving. It’s just that they’re not as exciting as Lust or Wrath. And pictures of sexy call girls sell a lot more newspapers than pictures of fat, bald lobbyists.

P.S. In case you’ve forgotten, the Seven Deadly Sins are lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride.
 
 
 
 
Impressive commentary from K.T. McFarland on the Seven Deadly Sins.  What, no contributing to global warming or not recycling?  I'm saddened.  Impressive nonetheless.  Yes, all the greatest sins are sprinkled heavily throughout our government.  In fact, our government and leaders are the best examples of sin we have today.  The worst part is that we still hold the power to vote all these jerks out of office, however approximately 30% of our citizens are the only ones who actually vote.  Now that I think about it, I'm not sure what's worse; all those government officials ruining our country or the citizens of our country who are so apathetic they could care less about doing something about it on election day.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Power of Revenge" by Uri Elitzur

Should we see Jewish vendetta for yeshiva attack, it will be sign of State’s erosion

In his memoirs, late Israeli politician Yigal Allon recounted his first night of guard duty at a small agricultural community, when he was 12 years old. His father grabbed a rifle, and together they went out for the night. For long hours they hid in the darkness, and early in the morning they indeed saw two Arabs arrive with a donkey and start to load bags of grain.

To the child’s great surprise, his father handed over the rifle to him, and then left his hiding spot and charged at the thieves with his bare hands. A long battle ensued – two against one – and by the end of it the thieves fled, wounded and bruised, without the stolen grain. However, the father also returned to his son injured and bruised.

Allon was stunned and frightened and told his father: They are two and you are one. They could have killed you. Why didn’t you shoot them? After all, you have a gun. His father then proceeded to teach him about the Arab concept of vendetta. If I shoot them, their relatives would be obligated to avenge their death, and then we would have gone from a simple story about thieves to a cycle of death and revenge that cannot be stopped.

Allon presented the story as a model of moderation and responsibility that later showed him the way when he was an adult. But on second thought, this is in fact a story that praises revenge. After all, what did the father tell his son between the lines? You are right, kid. Had the Arabs not subscribed to this vendetta culture, I would shoot and kill them, but because of the prospect of revenge I refrained from doing so.

Survival instinct
A sense of revenge is one of the most basic human instincts, just like any other survival instinct. Civilization could blur and repress it, but you cannot completely uproot the urge for revenge from a man’s heart just like you cannot uproot the need for love or the sense of fear.

Darwinists would likely say that evolution implanted revenge within us, because for millions of years people who did not possess this gene simply did not survive. They became fewer and eventually became extinct. Anthropologists may say that this “hot blood” is in fact a sophisticated manipulation of a very level-headed mind. The elders of the tribe instill in generation after generation the moral obligation to avenge, thus creating a balance of terror that safeguards members of the tribe vis-à-vis other tribes and also amongst themselves.

What does a civilized society do when it faces this terrible thing, which at the same time is also necessary and may be required for survival? The State replaces the tribe, and its first order of business, before anything else, is to create a situation whereby law, order, and basic justice prevail and a person feels secure that someone protects him and punishes the bad guys. When this security turns into an existential situation and is deeply entrenched, this can lull the primal survival instinct that pushes people to commit acts of revenge.

Mourning tent a disgrace
Instincts may be dormant, but they do not die. It is a fact that a vendetta culture is very common among tribal populations and places where there is no orderly or reliable government in power, or among criminal groups that live outside the bounds of the legal system.

In recent years, the basic sense of security and the feeling that we have a State that safeguards us has been eroded around here. This sense of security completely crumbles when we see a mourning tent for a murdering terrorist being erected within sovereign Israeli territory along with Hamas flags, and people come to offer their congratulations and sympathy, as if there is no police and no government.

If, God forbid, we see a Jewish vendetta for the massacre at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, do not look for the inciters or the rabbi who said something that can be interpreted in one way or another. The responsible party is the one that created man and implanted the urge of revenge within him. The guilty parties also include the police chief or military major general, or whoever it may be that should have removed this mourning tent without thinking twice while confiscating and burning all the posters, thus behaving like a State and a kingdom, rather than a spineless entity.

Yes, they should have first distinguished between good and bad and only then coped with the High Court of Justice, and yes, they should have endangered their own career in order to prevent bloodshed.
 
 
 
 
When the state and elected government no longer protect and represent the people, the people are forced through the actions of their enemies to dispense justice themselves.  The people are then required by their very instinct for survival to exact revenge on those who brutalize and murder the innocent.  Cast your stones and judge evil!  Defend yourselves from chaos and torture!  Burn the "mourning tents" to the very dust from whence they came!  Behave like the righteous people of Israel that you are.  Protect civilization from animals and monsters who want nothing more than to tear it all down. 
 
The time is rapidly approaching when the Jews of Israel will have no choice in matters of justice and revenge.  They will do it to survive and they will do it to keep the right of their God-given nation.  Every righteous man and woman has a breaking point.  The Jews are nearly broken by the inaction of their own government and the acts of their enemies.  When that point is reached the Jews of Israel will take it upon themselves to define results and act on them.  I still have faith, I still believe that God won't allow Israel to fall.  His end of the Covenant with the Jews can never be broken.  Only through their absence of belief and faith can that happen.  The closer the Jews of Israel are to God, the less there is a possibility of their own destruction.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Jews of Israel Want No Part of a Cease-Fire With Hamas

 
A clear majority - 71 percent - said Israel should not accept Hamas's offer to stop the fire in return for Israel ceasing its attacks in Gaza and its pursuit of Hamas leaders.

Although the public did not overwhelmingly favor any one approach, the clear winner was a military operation. Whereas only 4% supported the ongoing policy of restraint and 17% favored negotiating a ceasefire with Hamas, about one-quarter (26%) called for reoccupying Gaza and staying there for an unlimited time, while one-third wanted a limited military operation in Gaza after which the IDF would depart.

Asked whether they favored establishing a national unity government or relying on the current government, a majority of 51% responded that a national unity government was preferable while 30% were prepared to rely on the current one. Compared to previous occasions when this question was posed over the years, the present rate of supporters of a national unity government is among the lowest.

Recently a persistent question has been whether Israel's response to the ongoing missile attacks is related to the fact that those on the receiving end are peripheral communities of the South.

It turns out that a majority - 56% - indeed thinks the government fails to assign supreme urgency to tending to these communities' security problems because of their remoteness from the central region, and would not practice restraint to the same extent if the center of the country was under attack. Only a minority of 37% disagreed.

However, the public also showed self-criticism on this issue: 51% assented that the citizenry was less interested in the southern residents' security problems because of their remoteness from the center while 42% dissented.

At the same time, only 38% thought that the residents of "the state of Tel Aviv" - a term some in the media use to describe those in the center of the country - do not identify with the southern residents' suffering and 64% rejected the claim that people in central Israel were less patriotic than those in other parts of the country.

A majority of 55% denied that the residents of the Center were not interested in the suffering of the South, while 38% said they were. An even larger majority, of 64% rejected the claim that those in "the state of Tel Aviv" were less patriotic than those in other parts of the country.

Finally, it appears that the ongoing missile fire on Israel has not affected the "national fortitude." A majority of 55% said the rocket attacks had not affected their desire to keep living in Israel, one-quarter said they only strengthened that desire, while for 18% the attacks increased their desire to live elsewhere.

The Peace Index Project was conducted at the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research and the Evens Program in Mediation and Conflict Resolution of Tel Aviv University, headed by Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann.

The telephone interviews were conducted by the B. I. Cohen Institute of Tel Aviv University on 3-4 March 2008 and included 590 interviewees who represent the adult Jewish and Arab population of Israel (including the Jewish population in the West Bank). The sampling error was 4.5%.

 
 
 
Just as anyone with an IQ higher than that of a barstool knew, the Jews of Israel want no part of a cease-fire with terrorists.  Palestinians demand concessions before every discussion of peace, they continue to murder Jews regardless of "peace" even when an agreement is reached, and the Islamists immediately throw any other aspects of such an agreement in the garbage as soon as they get a new shipment of weapons from Iran or Condi Rice.  There never has been a cease-fire and there never will be as long as Palestinians continue their lust for blood and death.  The war continues always, regardless of pieces of paper signed by feckless politicians not because the Jews don't want peace but because the Palestinians are liars.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Priority of an Expensive Haircut

On occasion, when nobody is looking, I go back to the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper from the eve of Yom Kippur, October 5, 1973.

Only one day before the outbreak of the difficult war that took the lives of almost 2,700 young people, only a few hours before two immense armies started moving with complete surprise towards the Golan Heights and the Sinai, what were we preoccupied with? What was the State of Israel dealing with at the time?

It hard to believe: Zaire severed its diplomatic ties with us, employees of the Israel Aircraft Industries elected a new secretary general, and Austria’s chancellor was reprimanded for failing to offer as much as a glass of water to Golda Meir during their meeting in Vienna.

What else? Italy defeated Israel 94-73 in a basketball game. And by the way, the newspaper also informed us that “there has been an improvement” in the stock market. Several hours later, the sky came tumbling down and the land shook.

So why am I recalling these sad days now? Because the preoccupation with Benjamin Netanyahu’s hotel room in London may be very important, but it would be good to realize that at this time the State of Israel is facing a genuine existential threat, perhaps for the first time since 1948.

Urgent matters should take precedence
We must draw on all the strength we have in order to get the world to act and prevent the continued nuclear development work in Iran. Yet what we see at the top of the agenda at this time is Sarah Netanyahu’s haircut?

I am not saying this is not important. It may even be very important. There will be some amongst us who would say that without values and ethical conduct, certainly on the part of our leaders, we will not be able to safeguard our existence and survive over time. This may be so. However, right now urgent matters take precedence over important matters - assuming the abovementioned issue is indeed important.

And just so you know: Almost all our distinguished leaders were and are great hedonists. The days where late Prime Minister Levi Eshkol left a surprising inheritance for his son-in-law – cuff links – are long gone.
 
 
 
 
Priorities must be put in order.  Not only for the Jews but for my own people as well.  While we all feast on Brittney Spears' latest soap opera, tinker with allowing a hateful racist to become the next Leader of the Free World, appease terrorist to not make us feel so sad about our own liberalism; the wide-world of Islamo-fascism is murdering and plotting against both the United States and Israel.
 
The problem is not so much that Iran will officially fire a nuclear missile at Israel, but that Iran will gladly "accidently" allow one to fall into the hands of Hezbollah, a well-known and obvious proxy, in order to burn Tel Aviv to the ground in a single strike.  That's just one frightening scenario the world faces with a nuclear armed Iran.  The leadership in Iran won't risk the United States invading their country like we did in Iraq, and that's exactly what would happen if Iran fired off a nuclear weapon.  Hezbollah and the Palestinian monsters don't care about such silliness because visions of burning Jews are dancing in their heads as I type this.
 
The author of the opinion excerpted above is quite correct.  Deliberating over an expensive haircut and a nice hotel room pale in comparison to what the leadership in Israel and the various political punditry should be focusing on today.  Even Germany, a nation once lead by the Nazis who murdered millions upon millions of Jews, recognizes the threat.  Chancellor Merkel sure as Hell wasn't delving into trivialities on her visit.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive