http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/bare-naked-islam-is-back-sort-of/
Friday, December 30, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
IN GOD WE TRUST
Really interesting, and I never knew this little bit of history, however it makes sense: (The three mistakes start around the 6th paragraph, the first five give the history.)
Tour boats ferry people out to the USS Arizona Memorial in Hawaii every thirty minutes. We just missed a ferry and had to wait thirty minutes.. I went into a small gift shop to kill time. In the gift shop, I purchased a small book entitled, "Reflections on Pearl Harbor " by Admiral Chester Nimitz.
Sunday, December 7th, 1941--Admiral Chester Nimitz was attending a concert in Washington D.C. He was paged and told there was a phone call for him. When he answered the phone, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the phone. He told Admiral Nimitz that he (Nimitz) would now be the Commander of the Pacific Fleet.
Admiral Nimitz flew to Hawaii to assume command of the Pacific Fleet. He landed at Pearl Harbor on Christmas Eve, 1941. There was such a spirit of despair, dejection and defeat--you would have thought the Japanese had already won the war. On Christmas Day, 1941, Adm. Nimitz was given a boat tour of the destruction wrought on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.. Big sunken battleships and navy vessels cluttered the waters every where you looked.
As the tour boat returned to dock, the young helmsman of the boat asked, "Well Admiral, what do you think after seeing all this destruction?" Admiral Nimitz's reply shocked everyone within the sound of his voice. Admiral Nimitz said, "The Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could ever make, or God was taking care of America . Which do you think it was?"
Shocked and surprised, the young helmsman asked, "What do mean by saying the Japanese made the three biggest mistakes an attack force ever made?" Nimitz explained:
Mistake number one : the Japanese attacked on Sunday morning. Nine out of every ten crewmen of those ships were ashore on leave. If those same ships had been lured to sea and been sunk--we would have lost 38,000 men instead of 3,800.
Mistake number two : when the Japanese saw all those battleships lined in a row, they got so carried away sinking those battleships, they never once bombed our dry docks opposite those ships. If they had destroyed our dry docks, we would have had to tow every one of those ships to America to be repaired. As it is now, the ships are in shallow water and can be raised. One tug can pull them over to the dry docks, and we can have them repaired and at sea by the time we could have towed them to America . And I already have crews ashore anxious to man those ships.
Mistake number three : every drop of fuel in the Pacific theater of war is in top of the ground storage tanks five miles away over that hill. One attack plane could have strafed those tanks and destroyed our fuel supply. That's why I say the Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could make or God was taking care of America .
I've never forgotten what I read in that little book. It is still an inspiration as I reflect upon it. In jest, I might suggest that because Admiral Nimitz was a Texan, born and raised in Fredricksburg , Texas --he was a born optimist. But anyway you look at it--Admiral Nimitz was able to see a silver lining in a situation and circumstance where everyone else saw only despair and defeatism.
President Roosevelt had chosen the right man for the right job. We desperately needed a leader that could see silver linings in the midst of the clouds of dejection, despair and defeat.
There is a reason that our national motto is, IN GOD WE TRUST
Tour boats ferry people out to the USS Arizona Memorial in Hawaii every thirty minutes. We just missed a ferry and had to wait thirty minutes.. I went into a small gift shop to kill time. In the gift shop, I purchased a small book entitled, "Reflections on Pearl Harbor " by Admiral Chester Nimitz.
Sunday, December 7th, 1941--Admiral Chester Nimitz was attending a concert in Washington D.C. He was paged and told there was a phone call for him. When he answered the phone, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the phone. He told Admiral Nimitz that he (Nimitz) would now be the Commander of the Pacific Fleet.
Admiral Nimitz flew to Hawaii to assume command of the Pacific Fleet. He landed at Pearl Harbor on Christmas Eve, 1941. There was such a spirit of despair, dejection and defeat--you would have thought the Japanese had already won the war. On Christmas Day, 1941, Adm. Nimitz was given a boat tour of the destruction wrought on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.. Big sunken battleships and navy vessels cluttered the waters every where you looked.
As the tour boat returned to dock, the young helmsman of the boat asked, "Well Admiral, what do you think after seeing all this destruction?" Admiral Nimitz's reply shocked everyone within the sound of his voice. Admiral Nimitz said, "The Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could ever make, or God was taking care of America . Which do you think it was?"
Shocked and surprised, the young helmsman asked, "What do mean by saying the Japanese made the three biggest mistakes an attack force ever made?" Nimitz explained:
Mistake number one : the Japanese attacked on Sunday morning. Nine out of every ten crewmen of those ships were ashore on leave. If those same ships had been lured to sea and been sunk--we would have lost 38,000 men instead of 3,800.
Mistake number two : when the Japanese saw all those battleships lined in a row, they got so carried away sinking those battleships, they never once bombed our dry docks opposite those ships. If they had destroyed our dry docks, we would have had to tow every one of those ships to America to be repaired. As it is now, the ships are in shallow water and can be raised. One tug can pull them over to the dry docks, and we can have them repaired and at sea by the time we could have towed them to America . And I already have crews ashore anxious to man those ships.
Mistake number three : every drop of fuel in the Pacific theater of war is in top of the ground storage tanks five miles away over that hill. One attack plane could have strafed those tanks and destroyed our fuel supply. That's why I say the Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could make or God was taking care of America .
I've never forgotten what I read in that little book. It is still an inspiration as I reflect upon it. In jest, I might suggest that because Admiral Nimitz was a Texan, born and raised in Fredricksburg , Texas --he was a born optimist. But anyway you look at it--Admiral Nimitz was able to see a silver lining in a situation and circumstance where everyone else saw only despair and defeatism.
President Roosevelt had chosen the right man for the right job. We desperately needed a leader that could see silver linings in the midst of the clouds of dejection, despair and defeat.
There is a reason that our national motto is, IN GOD WE TRUST
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
A Season of Miracles - Holy Land Moments
A Season of Miracles
December 19, 2011
“Your ways, God, are holy.
What god is as great as our God?
You are the God who performs miracles;
you display your power among the peoples.” — Psalm 77:13-14
This is a season of miracles and celebrations. My Christian friends celebrate the miracle of a birth at Christmas, and my Jewish brothers and sisters celebrate the miracle of a spiritual and military victory during the celebration of Hanukkah. And at the center of both these celebrations is our God of miracles.
As the psalm writer noted, “What god is as great as our God?” It’s certainly a theme echoed throughout the Scriptures. After the miraculous escape from Egypt and the daring dash across the Red Sea, Moses and the people of Israel erupt in song and praise God: “Who among the gods is like you, LORD? Who is like you — majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? You stretch out your right hand, and the earth swallows your enemies" (Exodus 15:11-12). In Psalm 86:8, David writes “Among the gods there is none like you, LORD; no deeds can compare with yours.”
Christmas and Hanukkah are a time to remember that we worship and serve a God who is totally unique. He alone is able to perform mighty deeds for those who love Him. He alone is powerful and worthy of our love and adoration. God alone is able to intervene in human history and work miracles on behalf of His people.
Remembering God’s miracles and faithfulness sustained the people of Israel through their many difficulties and enabled them to act when all avenues seemed closed to them. Hanukkah reminds us of the importance of bitachon, or “trust in God.” It was the Jews’ trust in a loving and caring God that prompted them, the few and weak, to rise up against the many and mighty. It was their faith in the God of miracles to light the temple menorah with the last remaining flask of pure oil. They acted because they knew that God was capable and trustworthy.
When we are faced with obstacles and overwhelming difficulties, we need to remember how God has acted on our behalf in the past and how good He has been to us. Then, we can step out and act in faith, knowing He will care for us.
During this season, in addition to our traditional greetings of “Merry Christmas,” or “Happy Hanukkah,” we should add this greeting as well: “May the God of Miracles bless you and keep you this season and throughout the year.”
With prayers for shalom, peace,
Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
President
December 19, 2011
“Your ways, God, are holy.
What god is as great as our God?
You are the God who performs miracles;
you display your power among the peoples.” — Psalm 77:13-14
This is a season of miracles and celebrations. My Christian friends celebrate the miracle of a birth at Christmas, and my Jewish brothers and sisters celebrate the miracle of a spiritual and military victory during the celebration of Hanukkah. And at the center of both these celebrations is our God of miracles.
As the psalm writer noted, “What god is as great as our God?” It’s certainly a theme echoed throughout the Scriptures. After the miraculous escape from Egypt and the daring dash across the Red Sea, Moses and the people of Israel erupt in song and praise God: “Who among the gods is like you, LORD? Who is like you — majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? You stretch out your right hand, and the earth swallows your enemies" (Exodus 15:11-12). In Psalm 86:8, David writes “Among the gods there is none like you, LORD; no deeds can compare with yours.”
Christmas and Hanukkah are a time to remember that we worship and serve a God who is totally unique. He alone is able to perform mighty deeds for those who love Him. He alone is powerful and worthy of our love and adoration. God alone is able to intervene in human history and work miracles on behalf of His people.
Remembering God’s miracles and faithfulness sustained the people of Israel through their many difficulties and enabled them to act when all avenues seemed closed to them. Hanukkah reminds us of the importance of bitachon, or “trust in God.” It was the Jews’ trust in a loving and caring God that prompted them, the few and weak, to rise up against the many and mighty. It was their faith in the God of miracles to light the temple menorah with the last remaining flask of pure oil. They acted because they knew that God was capable and trustworthy.
When we are faced with obstacles and overwhelming difficulties, we need to remember how God has acted on our behalf in the past and how good He has been to us. Then, we can step out and act in faith, knowing He will care for us.
During this season, in addition to our traditional greetings of “Merry Christmas,” or “Happy Hanukkah,” we should add this greeting as well: “May the God of Miracles bless you and keep you this season and throughout the year.”
With prayers for shalom, peace,
Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
President
Monday, December 19, 2011
A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give - By Dennis Prager
If every school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place.
To the students and faculty of our high school:
I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.
I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.
First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.
The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.
If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values -- e pluribus unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America's values.
This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.
Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.
Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English -- but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.
Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.
Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "Nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.
Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.
Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky -- to be alive and to be an American.
Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.
To the students and faculty of our high school:
I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.
I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.
First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.
The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.
If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values -- e pluribus unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America's values.
This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.
Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.
Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English -- but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.
Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.
Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "Nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.
Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.
Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky -- to be alive and to be an American.
Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
The Beginning of Wisdom - Days of Praise - Institute for Creation Research
The Beginning of Wisdom
December 17, 2011
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever." (Psalm 111:10)
This age has rightly been called the "age of information." With multitudes of books and periodicals in every field of study and practice, with billions of dollars devoted to all kinds of research, and now even the "information superhighway" of the Internet. It seems everyone and every organization is posting information of some sort on its own website and email. The world is almost drowning in information.
"But where shall wisdom be found and where is the place of understanding?" (Job 28:12). Job's urgent question can never be answered "online," but only in an ancient book. "Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding" (Job 28:28).
This spiritual truism is found often in that Book. King Solomon, to whom God had granted special wisdom (1 Kings 3:11-12), penned divinely inspired words when he wrote: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge," and then "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding" (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10).
If anything is missing in our information age, it is surely the fear of God, at least among most people--even most religious people. But, as our text says: "A good understanding have all they that do his commandments."
From our New Testament perspective, we now know that "in |Christ| are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment" (1 John 3:23). Herein is true knowledge and understanding and wisdom. HMM
December 17, 2011
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever." (Psalm 111:10)
This age has rightly been called the "age of information." With multitudes of books and periodicals in every field of study and practice, with billions of dollars devoted to all kinds of research, and now even the "information superhighway" of the Internet. It seems everyone and every organization is posting information of some sort on its own website and email. The world is almost drowning in information.
"But where shall wisdom be found and where is the place of understanding?" (Job 28:12). Job's urgent question can never be answered "online," but only in an ancient book. "Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding" (Job 28:28).
This spiritual truism is found often in that Book. King Solomon, to whom God had granted special wisdom (1 Kings 3:11-12), penned divinely inspired words when he wrote: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge," and then "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding" (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10).
If anything is missing in our information age, it is surely the fear of God, at least among most people--even most religious people. But, as our text says: "A good understanding have all they that do his commandments."
From our New Testament perspective, we now know that "in |Christ| are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment" (1 John 3:23). Herein is true knowledge and understanding and wisdom. HMM
Friday, December 16, 2011
The New York Times hates Israel
The brouhaha over a recent New York Times column by Thomas Friedman highlights the newspaper’s increasing hostility toward Israel. Today, it would not be an exaggeration to state that the editorial policy of the NYT toward the Jewish state is virtually indistinguishable from the blatant anti-Israeli hostility promoted by the U.K.-based Guardian or the BBC.
Fortunately, the broader American public opinion has never been more supportive of the Jewish state than today. The only exceptions are the liberals, some of whom have become increasingly disenchanted with Israel and now tend to identify with their European counterparts and their excessive bias against Israel. This manifests itself on U.S. campuses and to some extent in far-left sectors of the Democratic Party. It represents the source of the tensions that have evolved between Israel and the U.S. following the election of Barack Obama.
One of the principal long-term contributing factors to the erosion of liberal support can be attributed to increasing vitriolic hostility against Israel displayed in the pages of The New York Times. This trend climaxed with the election of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been subjected to a constant and unprecedented barrage of fierce personal and political condemnations from its editorials and leading columnists.
Despite Jewish ownership, throughout its history, The New York Times has rarely displayed affection or sensitivity toward Jewish issues. As far back as 1929, during the Arab riots in Palestine, the local Times correspondent, Joseph Levy, boasted that he was a committed anti-Zionist.
There is ample evidence that during the Holocaust, news of the slaughter of the Jews was relegated to the back pages allegedly out of cowardly concern that undue clamor about the plight of the Jews might reinforce the anti-Semitic claim that the war against the Nazis was a Jewish war.
Since the creation of Israel, the NYT could be said to be "fairly objective." But from 1967 onward, this evolved into sharp criticism. However, it seems to me that since the election of Netanyahu, the editors have embarked on a determined all-out campaign to undermine and demonize the Israeli government whilst invariably providing the Palestinians with a free pass.
A constant stream of unbalanced editorials have blasted Israel for the impasse and mercilessly attacked the government. It continuously "put the greater onus” for the failure of peace negotiations on Netanyahu "who is using any excuse to thwart peace efforts" and "refuses to make any serious compromises for peace."
Its columnists and Op-Ed contributors have done likewise. For a newspaper purporting to provide diverse opinions, I believe it rarely publishes dissenting viewpoints from its editorials and in-house columns, which only find fault with the Israeli government. One notable exception was Likud MK Danny Danon, to whom the NYT provided a column in which he expressed a viewpoint far to the Right of the government which simply amounted to a cheap effort to discredit the government by conveying a far more hardline position than the reality.
Its principal columnists Thomas Friedman, Roger Cohen (both Jews) and Nicolas Kristof have been leading the charge in castigating Israel and unabashedly praising the Arab Spring.
In a recent column, Kristof described a dinner with a PR savvy group of Muslim Brotherhood activists. Kristof approvingly quoted them, claiming that their support was strong "for the same reason the Germans support Christian Democrats or Southerners favor conservative Christians.” He also postulated that "conservative Muslims insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood is non-discriminatory and the perfect home for pious Christians – and a terrific partner for the West." Kristof concluded, "It's reasonable to worry. But let's not overdo it … Our fears often reflect our own mental hobgoblins.”
Kristof did not meet the Muslim Brotherhood chief cleric, Sheikh Yusuf al Kardawi, the organization’s most powerful religious leader, an evil anti-Semite who supports the murder of Jews.
Roger Cohen is another regular columnist whose undisguised hostility toward Israel has led him to condemn the Jewish state's "obsession with the [Iranian] nuclear bogeyman" and praise Turkey's anti-Semitic Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan while condemning Israel for not apologizing to the Turks over the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident.
Virtually every recent Op-Ed published on Israel has been hostile. Last month, the NYT published a piece which went to the lengths of challenging Israel’s position on gay rights. In May, PA President Mahmoud Abbas published an Op-Ed falsely accusing Israel of initiating the war in 1948 by expelling Palestinian Arabs and obligating Arab armies to intervene. Initially, the NYT refused to publish Goldstone’s withdrawal of apartheid and war crimes charges against Israel, only doing so some months later after it had appeared in the Washington Post.
But it is Thomas Friedman's most recent column that is the most outrageous.
In his uniquely arrogant manner, over the past few years Friedman has been consistently mirroring NYT editorials castigating Netanyahu, whom, in my opinion, he loathes, and alleging that Israel has become "the most diplomatically inept and outrageously incompetent government in Israel's history." He accused Netanyahu of choosing to protect the Pharaoh rather than support Obama who aided the “democratization” of Egypt. He went so far as to say that Netanyahu was "on the way to becoming the Hosni Mubarak of the peace process."
Last February, after being in Tahrir Square, Friedman exulted that the “people” had achieved "freedom" and were heading towards democracy. He dismissed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood would become a dominant party.
In his latest column he broadly condemned all aspects of Israeli society, even quoting Gideon Levy, the Ha'aretz correspondent, whom many Israelis regard as being more aligned with the Palestinian campaign against Israel than his own country. He described Levy as "a powerful liberal voice" and quoted him alleging that Israel is becoming a failed democratic state.
What provoked the greatest indignation was his remark. "I sure hope that Israel's Prime Minister understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby."
For a Jew, purporting to be a friend of Israel, to effectively endorse the distorted thesis relating to the Israeli lobby promoted by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is unconscionable. Friedman is effectively parroting a hoary anti-Semitic libel asserting that Congress has been "bought" by American Jews who represent 2 percent of the population and that the vast majority of the American public supporting Israel and Congress are simply stooges, manipulated or bribed by the Israeli lobby.
It places him on a par with the anti-Semitic attitudes promoted by Pat Buchanan and one may rest assured that Israel’s enemies will fully exploit his remarks as a means of discrediting American support for the Jewish state.
Friedman continued, suggesting that Netanyahu should test genuine American public opinion by speaking at a liberal campus like the University of Wisconsin, absurdly implying that far Left liberal campuses are more representative of American attitudes than the democratically elected Congress.
The New York Times editorials and columns like that of Thomas Friedman should not be treated lightly. They must be viewed in the context of the recent condemnations of Israel emanating from higher echelons of the Obama administration. Unless vigorously repudiated, these critiques will have a ripple effect with the potential of undermining the, up until now, prevailing bipartisan consensus over Israel.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com
Fortunately, the broader American public opinion has never been more supportive of the Jewish state than today. The only exceptions are the liberals, some of whom have become increasingly disenchanted with Israel and now tend to identify with their European counterparts and their excessive bias against Israel. This manifests itself on U.S. campuses and to some extent in far-left sectors of the Democratic Party. It represents the source of the tensions that have evolved between Israel and the U.S. following the election of Barack Obama.
One of the principal long-term contributing factors to the erosion of liberal support can be attributed to increasing vitriolic hostility against Israel displayed in the pages of The New York Times. This trend climaxed with the election of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been subjected to a constant and unprecedented barrage of fierce personal and political condemnations from its editorials and leading columnists.
Despite Jewish ownership, throughout its history, The New York Times has rarely displayed affection or sensitivity toward Jewish issues. As far back as 1929, during the Arab riots in Palestine, the local Times correspondent, Joseph Levy, boasted that he was a committed anti-Zionist.
There is ample evidence that during the Holocaust, news of the slaughter of the Jews was relegated to the back pages allegedly out of cowardly concern that undue clamor about the plight of the Jews might reinforce the anti-Semitic claim that the war against the Nazis was a Jewish war.
Since the creation of Israel, the NYT could be said to be "fairly objective." But from 1967 onward, this evolved into sharp criticism. However, it seems to me that since the election of Netanyahu, the editors have embarked on a determined all-out campaign to undermine and demonize the Israeli government whilst invariably providing the Palestinians with a free pass.
A constant stream of unbalanced editorials have blasted Israel for the impasse and mercilessly attacked the government. It continuously "put the greater onus” for the failure of peace negotiations on Netanyahu "who is using any excuse to thwart peace efforts" and "refuses to make any serious compromises for peace."
Its columnists and Op-Ed contributors have done likewise. For a newspaper purporting to provide diverse opinions, I believe it rarely publishes dissenting viewpoints from its editorials and in-house columns, which only find fault with the Israeli government. One notable exception was Likud MK Danny Danon, to whom the NYT provided a column in which he expressed a viewpoint far to the Right of the government which simply amounted to a cheap effort to discredit the government by conveying a far more hardline position than the reality.
Its principal columnists Thomas Friedman, Roger Cohen (both Jews) and Nicolas Kristof have been leading the charge in castigating Israel and unabashedly praising the Arab Spring.
In a recent column, Kristof described a dinner with a PR savvy group of Muslim Brotherhood activists. Kristof approvingly quoted them, claiming that their support was strong "for the same reason the Germans support Christian Democrats or Southerners favor conservative Christians.” He also postulated that "conservative Muslims insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood is non-discriminatory and the perfect home for pious Christians – and a terrific partner for the West." Kristof concluded, "It's reasonable to worry. But let's not overdo it … Our fears often reflect our own mental hobgoblins.”
Kristof did not meet the Muslim Brotherhood chief cleric, Sheikh Yusuf al Kardawi, the organization’s most powerful religious leader, an evil anti-Semite who supports the murder of Jews.
Roger Cohen is another regular columnist whose undisguised hostility toward Israel has led him to condemn the Jewish state's "obsession with the [Iranian] nuclear bogeyman" and praise Turkey's anti-Semitic Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan while condemning Israel for not apologizing to the Turks over the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident.
Virtually every recent Op-Ed published on Israel has been hostile. Last month, the NYT published a piece which went to the lengths of challenging Israel’s position on gay rights. In May, PA President Mahmoud Abbas published an Op-Ed falsely accusing Israel of initiating the war in 1948 by expelling Palestinian Arabs and obligating Arab armies to intervene. Initially, the NYT refused to publish Goldstone’s withdrawal of apartheid and war crimes charges against Israel, only doing so some months later after it had appeared in the Washington Post.
But it is Thomas Friedman's most recent column that is the most outrageous.
In his uniquely arrogant manner, over the past few years Friedman has been consistently mirroring NYT editorials castigating Netanyahu, whom, in my opinion, he loathes, and alleging that Israel has become "the most diplomatically inept and outrageously incompetent government in Israel's history." He accused Netanyahu of choosing to protect the Pharaoh rather than support Obama who aided the “democratization” of Egypt. He went so far as to say that Netanyahu was "on the way to becoming the Hosni Mubarak of the peace process."
Last February, after being in Tahrir Square, Friedman exulted that the “people” had achieved "freedom" and were heading towards democracy. He dismissed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood would become a dominant party.
In his latest column he broadly condemned all aspects of Israeli society, even quoting Gideon Levy, the Ha'aretz correspondent, whom many Israelis regard as being more aligned with the Palestinian campaign against Israel than his own country. He described Levy as "a powerful liberal voice" and quoted him alleging that Israel is becoming a failed democratic state.
What provoked the greatest indignation was his remark. "I sure hope that Israel's Prime Minister understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby."
For a Jew, purporting to be a friend of Israel, to effectively endorse the distorted thesis relating to the Israeli lobby promoted by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is unconscionable. Friedman is effectively parroting a hoary anti-Semitic libel asserting that Congress has been "bought" by American Jews who represent 2 percent of the population and that the vast majority of the American public supporting Israel and Congress are simply stooges, manipulated or bribed by the Israeli lobby.
It places him on a par with the anti-Semitic attitudes promoted by Pat Buchanan and one may rest assured that Israel’s enemies will fully exploit his remarks as a means of discrediting American support for the Jewish state.
Friedman continued, suggesting that Netanyahu should test genuine American public opinion by speaking at a liberal campus like the University of Wisconsin, absurdly implying that far Left liberal campuses are more representative of American attitudes than the democratically elected Congress.
The New York Times editorials and columns like that of Thomas Friedman should not be treated lightly. They must be viewed in the context of the recent condemnations of Israel emanating from higher echelons of the Obama administration. Unless vigorously repudiated, these critiques will have a ripple effect with the potential of undermining the, up until now, prevailing bipartisan consensus over Israel.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Santa Claus and Grandma
Thank you Vincie for this wonderful story!!!
I remember my first Christmas adventure with Grandma. I was just a kid.
I remember tearing across town on my bike to visit her on the day my big
sister dropped the bomb: "There is no Santa Claus," she jeered. "Even
dummies know that!"
My Grandma was not the gushy kind, never had been. I fled to her that day
because I knew she would be straight with me. I knew Grandma always told
the truth, and I knew that the truth always went down a whole lot easier
when swallowed with one of her "world-famous" cinnamon buns. I knew they
were world-famous, because Grandma said so. It had to be true.
Grandma was home, and the buns were still warm. Between bites, I told her
everything. She was ready for me." No Santa Claus?" she snorted.
"Ridiculous! Don't believe it. That rumor has been going around for years,
and it makes me mad, plain mad!! Now, put on your coat, and let's go."
"Go? Go where, Grandma?" I asked. I hadn't even finished my second
world-famous cinnamon bun. "Where" turned out to be Kerby's General Store,
the one store in town that had a little bit of just about everything. As we
walked through its doors, Grandma handed me ten dollars. That was a bundle
in those days. "Take this money," she said, "and buy something for someone
who needs it. I'll wait for you in the car." Then she turned and walked out
of Kerby's.
I was only eight years old. I'd often gone shopping with my mother, but
never had I shopped for anything all by myself. The store seemed big and
crowded, full of people scrambling to finish their Christmas shopping.
For a few moments I just stood there, confused, clutching that ten-dollar
bill, wondering what to buy, and who on earth to buy it for. I thought of
everybody I knew: my family, my friends, my neighbors, the kids at school,
the people who went to my church.
I was just about thought out, when I suddenly thought of Bobby Decker. He
was a kid with bad breath and messy hair, and he sat right behind me in
Mrs. Pollock's grade-two class. Bobby Decker didn't have a coat. I knew
that because he never went out to recess during the winter. His mother
always wrote a note, telling the teacher that he had a cough, but all we
kids knew that Bobby Decker didn't have a cough; he didn't have a good
coat. I fingered the ten-dollar bill with growing excitement. I would buy
Bobby Decker a coat!
I settled on a red corduroy one that had a hood to it. It looked real warm,
and he would like that.
"Is this a Christmas present for someone?" the lady behind the counter
asked kindly, as I laid my ten dollars down." Yes, ma'am," I replied shyly.
"It's for Bobby."
The nice lady smiled at me, as I told her about how Bobby really needed a
good winter coat. I didn't get any change, but she put the coat in a bag,
smiled again, and wished me a Merry Christmas.
That evening, Grandma helped me wrap the coat (a little tag fell out of the
coat, and Grandma tucked it in her Bible) in Christmas paper and ribbons
and wrote, "To Bobby, From Santa Claus" on it.
Grandma said that Santa always insisted on secrecy. Then she drove me over
to Bobby Decker's house, explaining as we went that I was now and forever
officially, one of Santa's helpers.
Grandma parked down the street from Bobby's house, and she and I crept
noiselessly and hid in the bushes by his front walk. Then Grandma gave me a
nudge. "All right, Santa Claus," she whispered, "get going."
I took a deep breath, dashed for his front door, threw the present down on
his step, pounded his door and flew back to the safety of the bushes and
Grandma.
Together we waited breathlessly in the darkness for the front door to open.
Finally it did, and there stood Bobby.
Fifty years haven't dimmed the thrill of those moments spent shivering
beside my Grandma in Bobby Decker's bushes. That night, I realized that
those awful rumors about Santa Claus were just what Grandma said they ere
-- ridiculous. Santa was alive and well, and we were on his team.
I still have the Bible, with the coat tag tucked inside: $19.95.
May you always have LOVE to share, HEALTH to spare, and FRIENDS that care.
And may you always believe in the magic of Santa Claus!
I remember my first Christmas adventure with Grandma. I was just a kid.
I remember tearing across town on my bike to visit her on the day my big
sister dropped the bomb: "There is no Santa Claus," she jeered. "Even
dummies know that!"
My Grandma was not the gushy kind, never had been. I fled to her that day
because I knew she would be straight with me. I knew Grandma always told
the truth, and I knew that the truth always went down a whole lot easier
when swallowed with one of her "world-famous" cinnamon buns. I knew they
were world-famous, because Grandma said so. It had to be true.
Grandma was home, and the buns were still warm. Between bites, I told her
everything. She was ready for me." No Santa Claus?" she snorted.
"Ridiculous! Don't believe it. That rumor has been going around for years,
and it makes me mad, plain mad!! Now, put on your coat, and let's go."
"Go? Go where, Grandma?" I asked. I hadn't even finished my second
world-famous cinnamon bun. "Where" turned out to be Kerby's General Store,
the one store in town that had a little bit of just about everything. As we
walked through its doors, Grandma handed me ten dollars. That was a bundle
in those days. "Take this money," she said, "and buy something for someone
who needs it. I'll wait for you in the car." Then she turned and walked out
of Kerby's.
I was only eight years old. I'd often gone shopping with my mother, but
never had I shopped for anything all by myself. The store seemed big and
crowded, full of people scrambling to finish their Christmas shopping.
For a few moments I just stood there, confused, clutching that ten-dollar
bill, wondering what to buy, and who on earth to buy it for. I thought of
everybody I knew: my family, my friends, my neighbors, the kids at school,
the people who went to my church.
I was just about thought out, when I suddenly thought of Bobby Decker. He
was a kid with bad breath and messy hair, and he sat right behind me in
Mrs. Pollock's grade-two class. Bobby Decker didn't have a coat. I knew
that because he never went out to recess during the winter. His mother
always wrote a note, telling the teacher that he had a cough, but all we
kids knew that Bobby Decker didn't have a cough; he didn't have a good
coat. I fingered the ten-dollar bill with growing excitement. I would buy
Bobby Decker a coat!
I settled on a red corduroy one that had a hood to it. It looked real warm,
and he would like that.
"Is this a Christmas present for someone?" the lady behind the counter
asked kindly, as I laid my ten dollars down." Yes, ma'am," I replied shyly.
"It's for Bobby."
The nice lady smiled at me, as I told her about how Bobby really needed a
good winter coat. I didn't get any change, but she put the coat in a bag,
smiled again, and wished me a Merry Christmas.
That evening, Grandma helped me wrap the coat (a little tag fell out of the
coat, and Grandma tucked it in her Bible) in Christmas paper and ribbons
and wrote, "To Bobby, From Santa Claus" on it.
Grandma said that Santa always insisted on secrecy. Then she drove me over
to Bobby Decker's house, explaining as we went that I was now and forever
officially, one of Santa's helpers.
Grandma parked down the street from Bobby's house, and she and I crept
noiselessly and hid in the bushes by his front walk. Then Grandma gave me a
nudge. "All right, Santa Claus," she whispered, "get going."
I took a deep breath, dashed for his front door, threw the present down on
his step, pounded his door and flew back to the safety of the bushes and
Grandma.
Together we waited breathlessly in the darkness for the front door to open.
Finally it did, and there stood Bobby.
Fifty years haven't dimmed the thrill of those moments spent shivering
beside my Grandma in Bobby Decker's bushes. That night, I realized that
those awful rumors about Santa Claus were just what Grandma said they ere
-- ridiculous. Santa was alive and well, and we were on his team.
I still have the Bible, with the coat tag tucked inside: $19.95.
May you always have LOVE to share, HEALTH to spare, and FRIENDS that care.
And may you always believe in the magic of Santa Claus!
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
You Gotta Be...
Have you ever wondered who first uttered the phrase "You Gotta Be Shittin Me?"
Well, it just so happens to have originated through the Father of Our country, way back when George Washington was crossing the Delaware river with his troops.
There were 33 (remember this number) in Washington 's boat. It was extremely dark and storming furiously and the water was tossing them about.
Finally, Washington grabbed Corporal Peters (remember this name) and stationed him at the front of the boat with a lantern. He ordered him to keep swinging it, so they could see where they were heading.
Corporal Peters, through driving rain and cold, continued swinging the lantern back and forth, back and forth.
Then a big gust of wind and a wave hit and threw Corporal Peters and his lantern into the Delaware . Washington and his troops searched for nearly an hour trying to find Corporal Peters, but to no avail. All of them felt terrible, for the Corporal had been one of their favorites.
Sometime later, Washington and his troops landed on the other side, wet and totally exhausted. He rallied the troops and told them that they must go on.
Another hour later, one of his men said, 'General, I see lights ahead.' They trudged toward the lights and came upon a huge house.
What they didn't know was that this was a house of ill repute, hidden in the forest to serve all who came.
General Washington pounded on the door, his men crowding around him.
The door swung open, and much to his surprise stood a beautiful woman.
A huge smile came across her face, to see so many men standing there.
Washington was the first to speak, 'Madam, I am General George Washington and these are my men. We are tired, wet, exhausted, and desperately need warmth and comfort.'
Again, the Madam looked at all the men standing there, and with a broad smile on her face, said, 'Well, General, you have come to the right place. We can surely give you warmth and comfort. How many men do you have?'
Washington replied, 'Well, Madam, there are 32 of us without Peters .'
And the Madam said, "You gotta be shittin me."
Well, it just so happens to have originated through the Father of Our country, way back when George Washington was crossing the Delaware river with his troops.
There were 33 (remember this number) in Washington 's boat. It was extremely dark and storming furiously and the water was tossing them about.
Finally, Washington grabbed Corporal Peters (remember this name) and stationed him at the front of the boat with a lantern. He ordered him to keep swinging it, so they could see where they were heading.
Corporal Peters, through driving rain and cold, continued swinging the lantern back and forth, back and forth.
Then a big gust of wind and a wave hit and threw Corporal Peters and his lantern into the Delaware . Washington and his troops searched for nearly an hour trying to find Corporal Peters, but to no avail. All of them felt terrible, for the Corporal had been one of their favorites.
Sometime later, Washington and his troops landed on the other side, wet and totally exhausted. He rallied the troops and told them that they must go on.
Another hour later, one of his men said, 'General, I see lights ahead.' They trudged toward the lights and came upon a huge house.
What they didn't know was that this was a house of ill repute, hidden in the forest to serve all who came.
General Washington pounded on the door, his men crowding around him.
The door swung open, and much to his surprise stood a beautiful woman.
A huge smile came across her face, to see so many men standing there.
Washington was the first to speak, 'Madam, I am General George Washington and these are my men. We are tired, wet, exhausted, and desperately need warmth and comfort.'
Again, the Madam looked at all the men standing there, and with a broad smile on her face, said, 'Well, General, you have come to the right place. We can surely give you warmth and comfort. How many men do you have?'
Washington replied, 'Well, Madam, there are 32 of us without Peters .'
And the Madam said, "You gotta be shittin me."
Monday, December 12, 2011
Obama Should Tell Us How He Killed Bin Laden
Obama Should Tell Us How He Killed Bin Laden
John Ransom
As Barack Obama resurrects his Osama-Bin-Laden-is-Still-Dead reelection tour, he might want to sit down and tell the American people exactly how he got Bin Laden.
Seriously: I’d love to hear the story of how he put together the operation that killed the world’s most dangerous man.
He must have trained for a long time to pull it off.
Because one of the reasons Obama is using to argue for his reelection to the post of president of these here United 57 States of America is that he killed Bin Laden.
Yeah. That’s right. And all this time you thought he was golfing?
Forget about the economy and jobs.
According to Obama, the economy is the fault of George Bush and the Republicans who won’t raise taxes.
The budget?
Oh, that’s the fault of the greedy economy that won’t allow him to raise taxes.
The debt?
That’s the fault of greedy bankers and investors who expect to get paid back by the United States of America- and thus won’t allow, him, Barack Obama, president of the United 57 States of America, to raise taxes.
See the pattern here?
But Bin Laden: That’s all, one-hundred percent Barack Obama.
Buy that man a Dos Equis…and another one.
This is verging on a reality that could put Obama up there with The Most Interesting Man in the World. Or at least make a great story for the J. Peterman catalogue.
Never mind that Afghanistan is coming apart. Never mind that Obama’s strategy to fire off missiles in Pakistan has damaged the relationship with our most important ally in fighting terrorists.
Never mind that Obama’s unilateral decision to get American troops out of Iraq has ceded the area to Iran. Never mind that we have a better idea what we are doing on the budget than we do on foreign policy.
Blah, blah, blah.
Forget too about the breakup of Europe. Or that on Obama’s watch we have entered a dangerous new age with weakened allies, the US isolated from the community of nations in a way incomprehensible to any president since the Great Depression.
Forget all this, because we are going to hear tell how he, Barack Obama, president of the United 57 States of America, made like Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans and took Bin Laden off the field.
And you know, now that Osama bin Laden is dead by the hand of Barack Obama, my life just keeps getting better and better.
For a long time it was really messing with my mojo having Bin Laden hiding out in that mud-walled house, with the crooked roof lines and the broken toys outside. Who did he think he was living there with all those women and that little, portable color TV, menacing the United States like that?
Sure, yeah, I liked it when people could buy houses in the US, and I wasn’t solely dependent on a Social Security Ponzi scheme to retire in 25 years. I admit that I loved getting 401K statements where the value of my investments kept going up.
But maybe Obama and Occupy Wall Street have a point.
Maybe living in a house and being self-sufficient money-wise isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
It certainly didn’t work out for Osama.
Thanks, Obama.
John Ransom
John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.
John Ransom
As Barack Obama resurrects his Osama-Bin-Laden-is-Still-Dead reelection tour, he might want to sit down and tell the American people exactly how he got Bin Laden.
Seriously: I’d love to hear the story of how he put together the operation that killed the world’s most dangerous man.
He must have trained for a long time to pull it off.
Because one of the reasons Obama is using to argue for his reelection to the post of president of these here United 57 States of America is that he killed Bin Laden.
Yeah. That’s right. And all this time you thought he was golfing?
Forget about the economy and jobs.
According to Obama, the economy is the fault of George Bush and the Republicans who won’t raise taxes.
The budget?
Oh, that’s the fault of the greedy economy that won’t allow him to raise taxes.
The debt?
That’s the fault of greedy bankers and investors who expect to get paid back by the United States of America- and thus won’t allow, him, Barack Obama, president of the United 57 States of America, to raise taxes.
See the pattern here?
But Bin Laden: That’s all, one-hundred percent Barack Obama.
Buy that man a Dos Equis…and another one.
This is verging on a reality that could put Obama up there with The Most Interesting Man in the World. Or at least make a great story for the J. Peterman catalogue.
Never mind that Afghanistan is coming apart. Never mind that Obama’s strategy to fire off missiles in Pakistan has damaged the relationship with our most important ally in fighting terrorists.
Never mind that Obama’s unilateral decision to get American troops out of Iraq has ceded the area to Iran. Never mind that we have a better idea what we are doing on the budget than we do on foreign policy.
Blah, blah, blah.
Forget too about the breakup of Europe. Or that on Obama’s watch we have entered a dangerous new age with weakened allies, the US isolated from the community of nations in a way incomprehensible to any president since the Great Depression.
Forget all this, because we are going to hear tell how he, Barack Obama, president of the United 57 States of America, made like Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans and took Bin Laden off the field.
And you know, now that Osama bin Laden is dead by the hand of Barack Obama, my life just keeps getting better and better.
For a long time it was really messing with my mojo having Bin Laden hiding out in that mud-walled house, with the crooked roof lines and the broken toys outside. Who did he think he was living there with all those women and that little, portable color TV, menacing the United States like that?
Sure, yeah, I liked it when people could buy houses in the US, and I wasn’t solely dependent on a Social Security Ponzi scheme to retire in 25 years. I admit that I loved getting 401K statements where the value of my investments kept going up.
But maybe Obama and Occupy Wall Street have a point.
Maybe living in a house and being self-sufficient money-wise isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
It certainly didn’t work out for Osama.
Thanks, Obama.
John Ransom
John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Whitewashing History, Obama Style
Whitewashing History, Obama Style
If U.S. history is a painting on giant canvas, President Barack Obama's speech this week in Osawatomie,Kansas, is a thick coat of whitewash layered all over it, and the failure of the last three years lies underneath. The President's pretense is that,no, it's not Obamanomics that has caused persistent unemployment, stunted growth and record deficits--it's supply side economics!
Talk about audacity.
The President's speech was a naked portrayal of his vision of America--one where inequality runs rampant, where the American dream is nearly dead,where the rich oppress the poor, where education is undervalued. As Charles Krauthammer observes this morning in The Washington Post, "That's the kind of damning observationthe opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years."
Indeed, what was glaringly absent from the President's portrait was the fact that his economic policies have failed to put Americans back to work andhis absolute inability to lead Washington toward combating rampant government spending. His solution, moreover, was more of the same stuff that hasfailed spectacularly for him: government as the great savior.
But in President Obama's mind, it is others who offer ideas that don't work, not him. He points to "a certain crowd in Washington" that argues for taxcuts and reduced regulations, calling it "a simple theory" that "fits well on a bumper sticker" but "has never worked."
Correction, Mr. President. It has worked--time and time again throughout history. The trouble is, Mr. Obama has never tried it, and the Keynesianeconomic policies he enacted fell flat on their face, just as they havethroughout history.
It started with a massive $787 billion stimulus bill that White House economists predicted would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by2010. It was Keynesian economics at its finest, based on the premise that government spending would spark demand and put Americans back to work.
It didn't. Some 13.3 million Americans remain out of work, the unemployment rate has hovered between 8 and 10 percent throughout Obama's presidency,and economic growth has been stuck on slow. In fact, today America is witnessing the longest stretch of such high unemployment in the postwar era.Meanwhile, job creation has hit a record low, as Heritage's James Sherk explains:
Fewer existing businesses are expanding, while fewer entrepreneurs are starting new businesses. In the first quarter of 2011, the numberof workers hired in new business establishments fell to just 660,000, 27 percent fewer than when the recession began. This is the lowest number ofworkers hired at new businesses that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever recorded--lower even than the worst points of therecession.
Yet despite these numbers -- and the fact that President Obama had near-free rein to enact the Keynesian economic policies he saw fit -- the Presidentis now demagoguing the one economic policy he hasn't tried -- supply-side economics -- while calling for more government spending all as America'sdebt is deepening. He would do better to study history and get a grasp of how cutting taxes and freeing the market has worked when employed by bothDemocrats and Republicans.
Lowering tax rates, thereby allowing people to keep and invest more of the money that is rightfully theirs, has proven good for the economy time andtime again. In the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s, tax rate reductions resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. And despite thePresident's claim that cutting taxes only helps the rich, when tax rates were lowered in those decades, higher-income Americans paid an even greatershare of the tax burden because they had fewer reasons to hide, shelter, and under-report income. But if taxes are increased -- as President Obamacontinues to threaten -- the price of working, saving, investing, and taking risks goes up, too.
History bears this out. Daniel Mitchell writes that in the 1920s,under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the top tax rate was reduced from 73 percent to 25 percent. The result? The economy expanded,growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929, with annual economic growth averaging more than 6 percent. Under President Kennedy, the top rate droppedfrom 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by 1965. The result? Between 1961 and 1968, the economy expanded by more than 42 percent, with average annualgrowth of more than 5 percent. Under President Reagan, the top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent by 1988, leading to incredibleeconomic expansion and average growth of nearly 4 percent. Finally, in the six quarters following the 2003 tax cuts, the GDP's growth rate shot up to 4.1 percent from 1.7 percent before.
But the President doesn't have to take The Heritage Foundation's word for it. He can heed the words of President Kennedy in his 1962 speech to theEconomic Club of New York:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It isincreasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive taxrates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
Unfortunately, President Obama does not appear open to advice, nor does he seem cognizant of history--be it that of 10, 20, 40, or 90 years ago, oreven his experience of the last three years. Instead, he is damning the torpedoes and continuing to pursue a liberal, progressive agenda that hasproven to be a failure. As they have for the past three years, Americans will pay the price.
If U.S. history is a painting on giant canvas, President Barack Obama's speech this week in Osawatomie,Kansas, is a thick coat of whitewash layered all over it, and the failure of the last three years lies underneath. The President's pretense is that,no, it's not Obamanomics that has caused persistent unemployment, stunted growth and record deficits--it's supply side economics!
Talk about audacity.
The President's speech was a naked portrayal of his vision of America--one where inequality runs rampant, where the American dream is nearly dead,where the rich oppress the poor, where education is undervalued. As Charles Krauthammer observes this morning in The Washington Post, "That's the kind of damning observationthe opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years."
Indeed, what was glaringly absent from the President's portrait was the fact that his economic policies have failed to put Americans back to work andhis absolute inability to lead Washington toward combating rampant government spending. His solution, moreover, was more of the same stuff that hasfailed spectacularly for him: government as the great savior.
But in President Obama's mind, it is others who offer ideas that don't work, not him. He points to "a certain crowd in Washington" that argues for taxcuts and reduced regulations, calling it "a simple theory" that "fits well on a bumper sticker" but "has never worked."
Correction, Mr. President. It has worked--time and time again throughout history. The trouble is, Mr. Obama has never tried it, and the Keynesianeconomic policies he enacted fell flat on their face, just as they havethroughout history.
It started with a massive $787 billion stimulus bill that White House economists predicted would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by2010. It was Keynesian economics at its finest, based on the premise that government spending would spark demand and put Americans back to work.
It didn't. Some 13.3 million Americans remain out of work, the unemployment rate has hovered between 8 and 10 percent throughout Obama's presidency,and economic growth has been stuck on slow. In fact, today America is witnessing the longest stretch of such high unemployment in the postwar era.Meanwhile, job creation has hit a record low, as Heritage's James Sherk explains:
Fewer existing businesses are expanding, while fewer entrepreneurs are starting new businesses. In the first quarter of 2011, the numberof workers hired in new business establishments fell to just 660,000, 27 percent fewer than when the recession began. This is the lowest number ofworkers hired at new businesses that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever recorded--lower even than the worst points of therecession.
Yet despite these numbers -- and the fact that President Obama had near-free rein to enact the Keynesian economic policies he saw fit -- the Presidentis now demagoguing the one economic policy he hasn't tried -- supply-side economics -- while calling for more government spending all as America'sdebt is deepening. He would do better to study history and get a grasp of how cutting taxes and freeing the market has worked when employed by bothDemocrats and Republicans.
Lowering tax rates, thereby allowing people to keep and invest more of the money that is rightfully theirs, has proven good for the economy time andtime again. In the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s, tax rate reductions resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. And despite thePresident's claim that cutting taxes only helps the rich, when tax rates were lowered in those decades, higher-income Americans paid an even greatershare of the tax burden because they had fewer reasons to hide, shelter, and under-report income. But if taxes are increased -- as President Obamacontinues to threaten -- the price of working, saving, investing, and taking risks goes up, too.
History bears this out. Daniel Mitchell writes that in the 1920s,under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the top tax rate was reduced from 73 percent to 25 percent. The result? The economy expanded,growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929, with annual economic growth averaging more than 6 percent. Under President Kennedy, the top rate droppedfrom 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by 1965. The result? Between 1961 and 1968, the economy expanded by more than 42 percent, with average annualgrowth of more than 5 percent. Under President Reagan, the top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent by 1988, leading to incredibleeconomic expansion and average growth of nearly 4 percent. Finally, in the six quarters following the 2003 tax cuts, the GDP's growth rate shot up to 4.1 percent from 1.7 percent before.
But the President doesn't have to take The Heritage Foundation's word for it. He can heed the words of President Kennedy in his 1962 speech to theEconomic Club of New York:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It isincreasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive taxrates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
Unfortunately, President Obama does not appear open to advice, nor does he seem cognizant of history--be it that of 10, 20, 40, or 90 years ago, oreven his experience of the last three years. Instead, he is damning the torpedoes and continuing to pursue a liberal, progressive agenda that hasproven to be a failure. As they have for the past three years, Americans will pay the price.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Naming Names - Days of Praise - Institute for Creation Research
Naming Names
December 8, 2011
"Their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17-18)
Many Christians decry the citing of actual names of those Christian leaders who teach heretical doctrines, saying that such an act is "unloving." Paul, however, considered it an important evidence of true love to warn against those who would "overthrow the faith of some," realizing that generalities would be useless.
Not only did Hymenaeus and Philetus make Paul's list, but so did Demas (2 Timothy 4:10), Alexander the coppersmith (2 Timothy 4:14), the Cretians (Titus 1:12), another Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20), and even Peter (Galatians 2:11-14) when he began to teach legalism. Likewise, the apostle John warned against Diotrephes (3 John 9) and the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:6).
On the other hand, Paul was much more generous with name recognition when he was giving out commendations (e.g., Romans 16:1-15; Colossians 4:7-17). We undoubtedly need to follow his example in appreciating by name those who are faithful in teaching and living the truth.
Likewise, we need to be ready and willing to name those individuals, churches, schools, and other organizations that are denying biblical inerrant authority, compromising the doctrine of special creation, requiring humanistic works for salvation, or bringing in other heretical doctrines. We obviously need to be sure of our facts when we do this and also to bring such charges only if motivated by genuine concern for those apt to be led astray if we don't speak out. But then we must, indeed, "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16:17). HMM
Institute for Creation Research | 1806 Royal Lane | Dallas | TX | 75229
December 8, 2011
"Their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17-18)
Many Christians decry the citing of actual names of those Christian leaders who teach heretical doctrines, saying that such an act is "unloving." Paul, however, considered it an important evidence of true love to warn against those who would "overthrow the faith of some," realizing that generalities would be useless.
Not only did Hymenaeus and Philetus make Paul's list, but so did Demas (2 Timothy 4:10), Alexander the coppersmith (2 Timothy 4:14), the Cretians (Titus 1:12), another Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20), and even Peter (Galatians 2:11-14) when he began to teach legalism. Likewise, the apostle John warned against Diotrephes (3 John 9) and the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:6).
On the other hand, Paul was much more generous with name recognition when he was giving out commendations (e.g., Romans 16:1-15; Colossians 4:7-17). We undoubtedly need to follow his example in appreciating by name those who are faithful in teaching and living the truth.
Likewise, we need to be ready and willing to name those individuals, churches, schools, and other organizations that are denying biblical inerrant authority, compromising the doctrine of special creation, requiring humanistic works for salvation, or bringing in other heretical doctrines. We obviously need to be sure of our facts when we do this and also to bring such charges only if motivated by genuine concern for those apt to be led astray if we don't speak out. But then we must, indeed, "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16:17). HMM
Institute for Creation Research | 1806 Royal Lane | Dallas | TX | 75229
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
We Cannot Blame the White People any Longer - By Dr. William Henry 'Bill' Cosby, Jr., Ed.D.
We Cannot Blame the White People any Longer
By Dr. William Henry 'Bill' Cosby, Jr., Ed.D.
They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English.
I can't even talk the way these people talk:
"Why you ain't,
Where you is,
What he drive,
Where he stay,
Where he work,
Who you be...".
And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk.
And then I heard the father talk.
Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.
In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living.
People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an Education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around.
The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal.
These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids.
$500 sneakers for what?
And they won't spend $200 for "Hooked on Phonics."
I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit.
Where were you when he was 2?
Where were you when he was 12?
Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol?
And where is the father? Or who is his father?
People putting their clothes on backward. Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong?
People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something?
Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all type of needles (piercings) going through her body?
What part of Africa did this come from?
We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa.
I say this all of the time — it would be like white people saying they are European-American — that is totally stupid.
I was born here, and so were my parents and grand parents and, very likely my great grandparents. I don't have any connection to Africa, no more than white Americans have to Germany, Scotland, England, Ireland, or the Netherlands.
The same applies to 99 percent of all the black Americans as regards to Africa — so stop, already!
With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap...and all of them are in jail.
Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem.
We have got to take the neighborhood back.
People used to be ashamed.
Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands' — or men or whatever you call them now.
We have millionaire football players who cannot read.
We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs. We, as black folks, have to do a better job.
Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us.
We have to start holding each other to a higher standard....
+++++++
WELL SAID, BILL!
It's NOT about color...It's about behavior!
By Dr. William Henry 'Bill' Cosby, Jr., Ed.D.
They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English.
I can't even talk the way these people talk:
"Why you ain't,
Where you is,
What he drive,
Where he stay,
Where he work,
Who you be...".
And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk.
And then I heard the father talk.
Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.
In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living.
People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an Education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around.
The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal.
These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids.
$500 sneakers for what?
And they won't spend $200 for "Hooked on Phonics."
I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit.
Where were you when he was 2?
Where were you when he was 12?
Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol?
And where is the father? Or who is his father?
People putting their clothes on backward. Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong?
People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something?
Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all type of needles (piercings) going through her body?
What part of Africa did this come from?
We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa.
I say this all of the time — it would be like white people saying they are European-American — that is totally stupid.
I was born here, and so were my parents and grand parents and, very likely my great grandparents. I don't have any connection to Africa, no more than white Americans have to Germany, Scotland, England, Ireland, or the Netherlands.
The same applies to 99 percent of all the black Americans as regards to Africa — so stop, already!
With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap...and all of them are in jail.
Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem.
We have got to take the neighborhood back.
People used to be ashamed.
Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands' — or men or whatever you call them now.
We have millionaire football players who cannot read.
We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs. We, as black folks, have to do a better job.
Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us.
We have to start holding each other to a higher standard....
+++++++
WELL SAID, BILL!
It's NOT about color...It's about behavior!
Sunday, December 4, 2011
ISLAM IN A NUTSHELL
Islam in a Nutshell
Please read every word of this. It will open your eyes to what might be ahead. Take it seriously as it's growing by leaps and bounds. And don't think it can't happen here 'cause it already is!!!
IN GOD WE TRUST!
This, not the Chinese or the Russians, represent the greatest threat to the world.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat...
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be, for the most part, regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of
all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus , Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?
Doesn't this make you feel safer already??
That should make the US homeland much safer, huh!!
Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 10 years ago?
Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?
Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:
Theologically - no . . .. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression... Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic .
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation. ... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
Can a Muslim be a good soldier???
Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.
SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.
Please read every word of this. It will open your eyes to what might be ahead. Take it seriously as it's growing by leaps and bounds. And don't think it can't happen here 'cause it already is!!!
IN GOD WE TRUST!
This, not the Chinese or the Russians, represent the greatest threat to the world.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat...
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be, for the most part, regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of
all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus , Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?
Doesn't this make you feel safer already??
That should make the US homeland much safer, huh!!
Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 10 years ago?
Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?
Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:
Theologically - no . . .. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression... Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic .
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation. ... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
Can a Muslim be a good soldier???
Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.
SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)