Tuesday, October 30, 2012

The Ephod-and other issues

Libya fiasco

Apparently, Obama refused the requests of our embattled embassy staff military assistance during the terrorist attack of 9-11-12. One of the heroes was former SEAL Tyrone Woods. He made three requests for assistance that were denied. It seems like Obama watched him die. If King David murdered Uriah the Hittite with the sword of the Ammonites-by denying Uriah back up and leaving him to die in combat-then Obama murdered Tyrone Woods with the "sword" of the Libyan terrorists. Worse yet-he tries to exploit the incident to use it as an occasion to restrict free speech-that is the questioning of the so-called Prophet Mohammed. Then Obama lied to the American people and said it was a spontaneous demonstration of outrage due to the anti-Islam video clip.

After learning that Obama watched his son die-and refused to send in military assistance, the father of Tyrone Woods spoke out. Every American needs to listen to what the father of this hero has to say. He is a great Christian man.

So, why did Obama ignore these heroes' pleas for help and let them die? I think its because he wants to make nice with the terrorists. Obama says in his book-that were there ever a conflict between Muslims and America-he would "stand with" the Muslims against the people of America. It seems his opportunity to do so came in Libya. I guess he is a man of his word. (From the "Audacity of Hope" pages 260-262.)

Justice program http://video.foxnews.com/v/1927267151001/charles-woods-wh-officials-murdered-my-son

Megyn Kelley

Bill O'Reilly

The family speaks out:

Sean Hannity:

Liberal media bias

Islam and animal sacrifice

Animal sacrifice gone wrong-cow kills Muslim trying to sacrifice her to Allah! I am so glad Jesus abolished animal sacrifice. (Yes-Muslims do still practice animal sacrifice.)

A spooked cow killed a Palestinian man who was trying to slaughter the beast on Saturday during the Muslim celebration of Eid al-Adha, a Gaza health official said. Muslims around the world slaughter sheep, cows and goats, during the four-day holiday that began Friday, giving away much of the meat to the poor. The Muslim holiday commemorates the sacrifice by the Prophet Ibrahim, known to Christians and Jews as Abraham. But accidents are common as people frequently buy animals to slaughter themselves instead of paying professional butchers. The festive atmosphere at the site of the slaughtering also tends to make the animals fidgety. The 52-year-old man who died was trampled to death, and another three people were seriously injured when the cow ran wild in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah, said health official Ashraf al-Kidra. In all, he said some 150 people were hospitalized in the Palestinian territory with knife wounds or other injuries caused by animals trying to break away. Two similar incidents occurred in Pakistan on Saturday. In the northwestern city of Peshawar, a bull escaped from untrained butchers and injured three people, including a 12-year-old boy. Police official Abdul Waheed said dozens of people chased to the bull and it was recaptured an hour later. In southern city of Karachi, a young boy also was lightly wounded by a runaway bull. Owner Abdul Quddoos said it took two hours to reclaim the animal. In Gaza, where over a third of the territory's 1.6 million residents live in poverty and nearly 80 percent rely on food aid, few people ever eat fresh meat regularly, making the holiday an even bigger treat. During the holiday's first day in particular, Gaza's sandy alleyways and main streets are drenched in blood and entrails. Curious, war-hardened children stick their hands in the blood and watch in fascinated crowds as their elders butcher the livestock. Impoverished families save all year to pay for an animal to slaughter, with many families often pooling their resources. A kilogram (2.2 pounds) of fresh beef or lamb costs about $12 in Gaza — more than a day's wage for a worker, said Ibrahim al-Kidra, an agriculture ministry official. He is related to the health official. He said some 3,700 cows and sheep are imported for consumption on a regular day, while 42,000 are brought in for the holidays. Most of Gaza's livestock comes through Israel's commercial crossing with the territory, he added, although female breeding sheep are still smuggled in. This represents a change from years past, when Palestinians hauled most of their sheep, goats and cows through smuggling tunnels linking Gaza to Egypt, a move they resorted to because of Israel's blockade on the territory imposed when militant group Hamas seized power in 2007. That blockade has since loosened. During the festivities, residents distribute at least a third of their meat to the poor, and another third to neighbors, giving the celebration a sense of communal solidarity. Public slaughtering is common in Gaza, where professional butcher shops are pricey. "It's neither healthy nor good. But it's a tradition," al-Kidra said. "Most Gazans can't believe they've finally managed to get an animal. They ask themselves: why should I pay for a butcher when I can slaughter it myself?" Commentators also were disapproving. "Killing an animal has standards," Sami Abu Ajwa pleaded on Gaza's al-Quds radio Saturday. He said under Islamic law animals shouldn't see each other being killed, they should be soothed, fed water and slaughtered quickly with a sharp knife to make the suffering minimal. Those regulations are widely ignored through the Arab world however.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/27/panicking-cow-kills-palestinian-trying-to-slaughter-it-for-muslim-feast/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Aaz8piyR

I wrote about the issue of animal sacrifice-and its abolishment in my book "Christ the Man" and "The Second Adam and the Restoration of All Things."

Islam Verses Jesus Christ

Jesus taught that God is our Father. Mohammed attacks the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God in the Koran. Koran 9:30, " And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!"

Jesus abolished the animal sacrifice system by A. liberating all the animals in the temple during the "Cleansing of the Temple" incident and B. Atoning for sins upon the cross. Muslims still practice animal sacrifice.

Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies-and to do good to those who seek them harm. But the Koran says, "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are harsh to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29

The Ephod

The Bible speaks of a religious object, apparently a vestment, called the "Ephod." What was an Ephod and what it its significance? An Ephod seems to have been a pectoral (a breastplate). (Or the breastplate was a component of the Ephod.) Pectorals worn by priests, similar to the breastplate described in the Bible have been found by archeologists in Egypt. While Egyptian pectorals resembled the Israelite High Priest's breastplate, there were some differences. Egyptian pectorals were square and embedded with jewels but they didn't have twelve stones in rows in the same manner as the Israelites priestly pectoral. The Ephod is described in the Bible, at Exodus 28:6-14: "The Breastplate" seems to be described separately from the Ephod but if you read the entire chapter together, it seems that the breastplate is part of the Ephod. (At a brief glance, artistic recreations of the High Priest's vestments look the same. But on a closer examination, I haven't found two renditions that look the same. The Jewels on Aaron's Breastplate are

  1. Red Jasper (Sardius)
  2. Citrine Quartz (Topaz)
  3. Emerald
  4. Ruby (Carbuncle)
  5. Lapiz Lazuli (Sapphire)
  6. Rock Crystal (Diamond)
  7. Gold Sapphire (Ligure)
  8. Blue Sapphire (Agate)
  9. Amethyst
  10. Yellow Jasper (Chrysolite)
  11. Golden Beryl (Onyx)
  12. Chrysoprase (Jasper)

A more simplified description of the Ephod is found in Exodus 29:4-6, "And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water. And thou shalt take the garments, and put upon Aaron the tunic, and the robe of the ephod, and the ephod, and the breastplate, and gird him with the decorated girdle of the ephod: And thou shalt put the turban upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the turban." 1 Samuel 2:27 the Lord says he chose Aaron, "to wear" or "to carry" the "Ephod before me." According to Leviticus 8:7, the Urim and Thummim, were placed within the breastplate. The Urim and Thummim were apparently lots that were cast to get a "yes" or "no" answer from God. (The practice of casting lots for divination is called Cleromancy.) As we shall see, the Ephod was an oracle. It may be through the Urim and Thummim, that were kept in the breastplate of the Ephod that the answer from God came. Urim and Thummim has traditionally been translated as "lights and perfection." The singular forms - ur and tumm - have been connected by some early scholars with the Babylonian terms urtu and tamitu, meaning oracle and command, respectively. Many scholars now believe that Urim simply derives from the Hebrew term Arrim, meaning curses, and thus that Urim and Thummim essentially means cursed or faultless, in reference to the deity's view of an accused—in other words Urim and Thummim were used to answer the question innocent or guilty. According to Islamic sources, there was a similar form of divination among the Arabs prior to the beginning of Islam. There, two arrow shafts (without heads or feathers), on one of which was written command and the other prohibition or similar, were kept in a container, and stored in the Kaaba at Mecca; whenever someone wished to know whether to get married, go on a journey, or to make some other similar decision, one of the Kaaba's guardians would randomly pull one of the arrow shafts out of the container, and the word written upon it was said to indicate the will of the god concerning the matter in question. Sometimes a third, blank, arrow shaft would be used, to represent the refusal of the deity to give an answer. This practice is called rhabdomancy, after the Greek roots rhabd- "rod" and -mancy ("divination"). A passage of the Books of Samuel mentions three methods of divine communication - dreams, prophets, and the Urim and Thummim; the first two of these are also mentioned copiously in Assyrian and Babylonian literature, and such literature also mentions Tablets of Destiny, which are similar in some ways to the Urim and Thummim. The Tablets of Destiny had to rest on the breast of deities mediating between the other gods and mankind in order to function, while the Urim and Thummim had to rest within the breastplate of the priest mediating between God and mankind. Marduk was said to have put his seal on the Tablets of Destiny, while the Israelite breastplate had a jewelled stone upon it for each of the Israelite tribes, which may derive from the same principle. Like the Urim and Thummim, the Tablets of Destiny came into use when the fate of king and nation was concerned. According to a minority of archaeologists, the Israelites emerged as a subculture from within Canaanite society, and not as an invading force from outside, and therefore it would be natural for them to have used similar religious practices to other Semitic nations, and these scholars suspect that the concept of Urim and Thummim was originally derived from the Tablets of Destiny. It is interesting that the Jewish High Priest did not wear the Ephod or the priestly vestments when he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). Instead he wore a plane linen robe with a linen sash and a linen turban (Leviticus 16:4). He would wear the Ephod with the breastplate and all the sacred vestments when he officiated in the Holy Place but apparently not when he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. Although Josephus argues that the Urim and Thummim continued to be used until the era of the Maccabees, Talmudic sources are unanimous in agreeing that the Urim and Thummim were lost much earlier, when Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonians. In a passage from the part of the Book of Ezra which overlaps with the Book of Nehemiah, it is mentioned that individuals who were unable to prove, after the Babylonian captivity had ended, that they were descended from the priesthood before the captivity began, were required to wait until priests in possession of Urim and Thummim were discovered; this would appear to confirm the Talmudic view that the Urim and Thummim had by then been lost. Ezra 2:63 states that certain priests had no genealogical records so they were excluded from the priesthood "until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim." This means that there wasn't such a priest at that time, most likely because the Urim and Thummim were lost. The appearance of the Urim and Thummim isn't described in the Bible. In the Richard Gere movie "King David," they are portrayed as smooth stones, one of which glows when it gives an answer. According to classical rabbinical literature, in order for the Urim and Thummim to give an answer, it was first necessary for the individual to stand facing the fully dressed high priest, and vocalise the question briefly and in a simple way, though it wasn't necessary for it to be loud enough for anyone else to hear it. The Talmudic rabbis argued that Urim and Thummim were words written on the sacred breastplate. Most of the Talmudic rabbis, and Josephus, following the belief that Urim meant lights, argued that divination by Urim and Thummim involved questions being answered by great rays of light shining out of certain jewels on the breastplate; each jewel was taken to represent different letters, and the sequence of lighting thus would spell out an answer (though there were 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, and only 12 jewels on the breastplate); two Talmudic rabbis, however, argued that the jewels themselves moved in a way that made them stand out from the rest, or even moved themselves into groups to form words. These rabbinic traditions are very late and contradict how the Bible describes how the Urim and Thummim were used. The Urim and Thummim gave a "yes" or "no" answer. It seems that the Ephod/Urim and Thummim were used to identify Achan in Joshua 7:16-19 and it is clearly referenced regarding Jonathan in 1 Samuel 14:41 regarding their transgressions. An interesting reference to the Ephod is in Hosea 3:4, "The Israelites shall remain many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim." It is interesting here that the Ephod is mentioned in connection with a teraphim. The meaning of teraphim is unclear, but most scholars believe it refers to idols or household gods. Perhaps they were also tools of divination. Rachel stole her father Laban's teraphim and Michal used a teraphim as a dummy to fool the guards into thinking it was David while he escaped (1 Samuel 19). Some scholars have argued that the inheritance was symbolized by who received the teraphim from their father. By stealing the teraphim, perhaps Rachel was stealing the inheritance in a similar manner to how Jacob had stolen the inheritance from his brother Esau. (The teraphim were portrayed in the Matthew Modine movie "Jacob.") Doeg the Edomite slaughtered 85 priests who wore an Ephod (1 Samuel 22:18). This is interesting because it shows that the high priest was not the only person who wore an Ephod. In 1 Samuel 2:18, the child Samuel is described as "a boy wearing a linen ephod." David wore an ephod when he danced before the Ark of the Covenant. This is interesting because Michal accused him of being immodest while dancing before the Lord so attired (2 Samuel 16:4). 1 Chronicles 15:27 says that David was wearing a "linen ephod." It may have been like an apron or a short skirt. Perhaps when David danced he wore the Ephod as a tunic/apron without the robe that the Ephod was usually worn over. An interesting passage is found in 1 Samuel 21:9, where the Sword of Goliath is described as being "wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod." So, where was the Ephod for the Sword to be behind it? Was it hung up on display like a trophy or on a some type of hanger? Was it in storage? Was the Ephod at Nob a type of box or chest like the Ark of the Covenant? Abiathar the son of Ahimelek, escaped Saul's massacre of the priest of Nob and brought with him a/the Ephod. David consults the Ephod in 1 Samuel 23:9 and gets an answer-the men of Keilah were preparing to surrender David to King Saul. With this news he escaped. In the Book of Revelation we see the stones of the Breastplate of the Ephod as building stones in the new heavenly Jerusalem. (Revelations 21:16-21). An Ephod is also described as an idolatrous image in the Bible.Gideon the judge had a Ephod made seemingly as a trophy to celebrate his victories over Israel's enemies (Judges 8:22-28). This ephod is described as "prostitution" and a "snare." Perhaps in this instance the Ephod was worn by an idol. In the story of Micah and the Levite (Jonathan the grandson of Moses), Micah made a shrine, and an ephod and teraphim, and installed one of his sons as his priest-until he met Jonathan (Judges 17:5). The Danites forcibly took Jonathan and made him their priest when they migrated to Tel Dan. When they kidnapped him, they took Micah's idol, the ephod and the teraphim along with him (Judges 18:17). Some scholars think the word "Ephod" may refer to a container that held oracular devices. The use of "casting lots" is found in several places in the Bible. Lots were used to chose the Scapegoat in Leviticus 16:8 (this is probably a reference to the Urim and Thummim). Joshua used lots to apportion the land of Canaan to the Israelites according to Joshua 18:6. Sailors used lots to identify Jonah according to Jonah 1:7. The Bible also describes the use of lots to assign guard duty according to 1 Chronicles 26:13. Book of Proverbs 16:33: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from Yahweh and 18:18: The lot settles disputes, and keeps strong ones apart. But the use of lots for divination (excepting the Urim and Thummim used by the High Priest) is condemned in Leviticus 19:26 and Deuteronomy18:10. Hamman used lots to choose the day of Purim (on which he planned to exterminate the Jews) according to the Book of Esther. An example in the New Testament occurs in the Acts of the Apostles 1:23-26 where the eleven remaining apostles cast lots to determine whether Matthias or Barsabbas (surnamed Justus) would be chosen to replace Judas. (Roman soldiers also used lots to gamble over Christ's garments at the crucifixion.) In the Eastern Orthodox Church this method of selection occasionally still used. In the Taoism religion of China, lots are still used for divination in a process called "I Ching." The stones of the breastplate are also mentioned in Ezekiel 28 in the prophecy against the king of Tyre. We should remember that this prophecy is directed against the King of Tyre. This passage is often interpreted to refer to the Fall of Lucifer. Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee [or "worked in gold were your setting and your engravings] in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: [Or-with an anointed cherub I placed you] thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. [-or-and the guardian cherub drove you out from among the stones of fire] The nine stones listed her match nine of the twelve stones of the Priest's breastplate. The Septuagint has all twelve. What probably happened was a scribal error-in the Hebrew text, a scribe accidently skipped a line. If this is referring to Satan, it should be remembered that in this passage God gives him the pectoral before his fall. The breastplate isn't satanic.

On the on-line edition of this newsletter (the blog) there is more information-and article on cowardice and another on Science and politics. See www.aramaicherald.blogspot.com

Election Day:

Obama called future President Romney a "bull-sh***er" in an interview with the leftist "Rolling Stone" magazine. That is very un-presidential and shows no class and is unpresidential. You have to have some dignity when you are president and show respect to your opponents-especially when they represent millions of Americans-who are part of the country the president should stand for. Maybe Romney can bring us away from this partisanship and divisiveness Obama represents. A president should never publically use profanity-especially not in an interview. I think we need some national healing and need to come together to find unity in being Americans-instead of this pitting groups against each other that Obama does. Obama has GOT to go. I am tired of Obama's class warfare, racial conflict and hatred of the "other" (those who dare to disagree with his policies).

I think that General Petraeus was in on the "Innocence of Islam" scam. His "Counter-insurgency Strategy" is the surrender and appeasement to terrorists strategy. If the man was a freedom loving American-he wouldn't be working for Obama-the same could be said about that traitor Robert Gates. Al-Qaida in Iraq killed tens of thousands of Iraqis-so the Iraqis finally stood up with the American forces against the terrorists. General Petraeus is given way too much credit. He just happened to be there. He didn't have anything to do with the surge strategy either. I think Petraeus-like Obama-wants to help the Muslims out-so he and Obama concocted the scheme of blaming the anti-Muslim movie-also so they can introduce Sharia anti-Blasphemy laws in America.


There is one Messiah-Jesus Christ (Yeshua Meshikha in his Aramaic language), and not this false messiah the liberal news media foisted upon us back in 2008.

I was against the stimulus-but I may favor another one-if the money is used to send all the freedom hating Obama-zombies to the atheistic-communist country of their choice-Cuba, Belarus, North Korea once they renounce their citizenship-which shouldn't be a problem for them since they hate America anyway. Besides a communist country, perhaps we can allow these kool-aide drinkers to build Obamatown on the ruins of Jamestown in Guyana. There they can establish a new "People's Temple" where they can worship Obama as their god to their hearts delight.

Video of children singing Obama's praises. This is disgusting! Democrats exploiting children! And the kids are reciting leftwing inflammatory rhetoric! Sickening-the Democrats teaching children to hate their parents and love Obama. The reality is-if their parents re-elect Obama-the kids SHOULD be mad at their parents-they will inherit America as a third world country from them. Over 16 trillion dollars in debt is the Obama gift to these little girls and boys.

I predict that soon Obama will admit he is a Muslim-and it will be a big shocker-like when American Idol Clay Aiken and the actor that plays Shelton on "Big Bang Theory" came out as being homosexuals.

I used to try to look at various sources for my news. But I just can't take the "mainstream media" anymore-the blatant bias-the complete disregard for any appearance of neutrality-the contempt for the conservative opinion-the vitriol against republicans-so, now, I just go to fox news for the news. CNN, ABC News, NBC News, MSNBC, CBS News-have all become the propaganda wing of the Democratic party and the Obama re-election campaign.


For God did not give us a spirit of timidity [fear/cowardice], but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline. (2 Timothy 1:7)

A book recently came out entitled "No Higher Power" which chronicles Obama's four year war against religious freedom-primarily directed against the Roman Catholic Church.

Our friend Albert, went to a conference about religious freedom at the Catholic church-but when he got there they talked about fund-raising instead.

Why? Because the Bishops shut it down.

But why? Because they are cowards.

Lack of leadership-people look to them expecting them to lead-but they won't.

One of the revelations in the book was that in his early days as a communist agitator-"community organizer" Obama was given a $33,000 gift from the Catholic Church by liberal Catholics.

This is how Catholic leadership use the tithes and offerings giving by devout Catholics.

There is controversy about the Catholic Church during World War II. Some people accuse the Catholic Church of collaborating with the Nazis. I don't believe this. But I do believe there was a moral failure. The Catholic Church decided to remain neutral-probably uncertain about the outcome. What if Hitler was triumphant? After all, he was from a Catholic background. Perhaps they thought they could oppose him or offer criticism after all the dust settled-if he was triumphant.

Now, looking back, it is obvious that Hitler was evil. Where was the moral authority of the church?

Some individual Catholics did defy Hitler. Some Catholics were martyred for doing so. Some individual Catholics collaborated with the Nazis. I have even read reports of nuns assisting in forced abortions of undesirables. But the institution failed to take a stand. Why?

Because they were cowards.

I want to recommend to you a movie "For Greater Glory." It is about Mexico in the late 1920s. A leftist regime came into power and began persecuting the Roman Catholic Church.

It feel to individual Catholics-to stand alone-and to risk martyrdom-to take up arms and fight to restore religious freedom. Many were martyred. It wasn't the institution of the Catholic church that took a stand-but independent Catholics-many of whom paid with their lives.

This isn't just a problem with the Catholic Church-it is also a problem with the Southern Baptist Convention.

Richard Land was fired-under the false pretense of comments about the Trayvon martin case-but really because he pledged to take a stand with Roman Catholics and the Battle for religious freedom.

I think many people have the false idea of Jesus as a wimp.

Jesus was no wimp! By Johnnie Moore, Liberty University President, Foxnews.com

[A common misconception that many people have is that Jesus was a weakling, a wimp, someone who was so passive that he enabled evil. This notion is most popular with liberals who seem to think that Jesus was a wimp and that being wimpy is somehow godly. Jesus called people to repent and live a life of virtue-but liberals think social evils, such as sodomy, abortion, prostitution, ect., are virtues. Now, for his day and time, Jesus would have been considered "liberal" and "anti-establishment." However, modern liberalism is immoral and debauched and its system of immorality is something that is opposed to the spirit of Christ. And, today Liberalism is the establishment. I recently read through a disturbing book entitled "The New Leviathan" by David Horowitz. It is about the vast financial resources of the radical left. They have billions-and they pretty much control all the purse-strings in America. Opposing them seems really hopeless, but the Bible says, "Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world." Horowitz shows that the idea that the democrats are the common people opposed to the wealthy Republican establishment isn't true-actually the opposite is true. However, I don't like the RINO Republican establishment either. Glenn Beck-in his book "Cowards" discusses important issues in the world today-and the lack of resolve in confronting them. ]

Of course, as a Bible-believing evangelical, I do not believe that Christians should treat people maliciously, take revenge or fight with others arbitrarily. I believe we should show extraordinary restraint. But, when someone asked me if I thought God would "get even" with people, I decided to make a nuanced, theological point: "God would, and he did, get even." In the end, God won. They must have expected me to react the way some liberal reporters responded in the aftermath of Mr. Trump's speech. The liberal press, which obviously couldn't bear the thought of Jerry Falwell, Jr., and Donald Trump working together to halt the current assault on the American free enterprise system, immediately took to the Bible to try to drive a wedge between these patriotic allies. They wanted us evangelicals to go ahead and stay put (and quiet) in our nice little box. After all, it's much easier to take advantage of us that way. Yet, I believe, it's high time that Christians toughen up a bit. Christians shouldn't be malicious, but they also shouldn't let people run all over them. Is it heretical to believe God is, and God wants us to be, tough? Hardly. Read the Bible. It's filled with God pursuing justice, settling scores with folks who messed with him, or who messed with his people, and – believe it or not - Jesus is "Exhibit A." The prevailing view of Jesus, mainly among liberal Christians, might be that he was a blond-haired, blue-eyed, fluffy little self-help teacher who spent lots of time tip-toeing through the lilies, doling out softly worded pieces of advice to children, and saying things like, "can't we all get along." However, Jesus was no "patsy," (as Trump might say) and being around him wasn't always like being cuddled up in a nice, warm Snuggie ®. Jesus was a tough character. The same Jesus who preached compassion is the same Jesus who publicly embarrassed his nemeses (the Pharisees) by calling them "a bunch of snakes" in front of a large crowd of people. The same Jesus who said, in a particular and oft-misunderstood context, that we ought to "turn the other cheek" is the same Jesus who made a royal mess out of the temple by taking a whip to a bunch of moneychangers. Does that sound like a cuddly Jesus who lets people run all over him? Jesus didn't float on down to planet earth like a deflating balloon. He dropped down like an atom bomb, and his very presence was a provocation. Christians believe Jesus was perfect, and sinless, yet it seems like two images of Jesus emerge in the Bible. One wonders if the real Jesus is the lover of lepers, or is it the tough-as-nails, Judean prophet with dirt under his fingernails "cleansing the temple?" Equally contradictory is the advice King Solomon once gave in the Old Testament, "do NOT answer a fool lest you become like him" to which he immediately followed by saying, "DO answer a fool lest he take advantage of you." (Proverbs 26:4-5). What was Solomon's point, and what can we learn from Jesus' example? We must be wise about "when" and "how" we react when someone has treated us unjustly, but we mustn't be fearful of standing up for ourselves. Of course, Christians shouldn't treat people maliciously and they shouldn't fight arbitrarily, but Christians – like Jesus – should pursue justice, and they should – like Jesus – not let people take advantage of them. Jesus might have been meek, but he sure wasn't weak. He had a steel spine; he spoke boldly and strongly. In the end he had lots of enemies who nailed him to a tree to shut him up. Then, Christians believe, Jesus just raised himself from the dead – showing that he was in control of everything, anyhow. I might just call that more than "getting even."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/07/donald-trump-right-christians-should-be-tough-like-jesus/#ixzz28eMSfNo9

Some people believe it is "godly" to let evil prevail.

Jesus said, "Be ye wise as serpents and gentle as doves."

Jesus wants us to be wise-gentle as doves-not brainless and mindless as doves.

We shouldn't be timid-and let evil people walk all over us-like Paul Ryan did in his debate with Joe Biden

"The Future Must not belong to those who would malign the prophet of Islam" –President Obama, September 2012

Why is this statement so dangerous? Does this mean that there is no future for the first amendment?

The Arab Christian who made the "Innocence of Islam" was arrested for questioning Islam. We are losing our freedom of speech.


So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

[Note: Fighting against "negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear" is not the responsibility of the President of the United States-in fact it is against his constitutional duty to do so. His primary job is to protect the freedoms enumerated in the constitution. So when he fights against "negative stereotypes" he is violating freedom of speech. Also, giving Islam a privilege position is a violation of the "establishment clause." By not fighting against negative stereotypes of Christians, Jews, or Buddhists, apparently not "part of his responsibility," he is establishing Islam as a de facto official religion of the United States of America.]

Obama seems to be trying to shield Islam from criticism.

Now, with our interconnected world, criticism or questioning of Islam here-is a threat to Islam anywhere.

Questions must not be asked! They try to silence people by calling them names such as "Islamaphobe" and trying to intimidate and silence them.

  1. If Mohammed represents the ideal human being-why did he have sex with a nine year old girl?
  2. The Koran says that a husband may beat his wife. Did God really say that?
  3. The Koran and Sharia law says that a thief must have his hand cut off? Is that really a just and effective way to fight against crime?

YOU CAN BE KILLED FOR ASKING SUCH QUESTIONS-and the left will not stand up to protect you.

I have had people frighten me before-mostly homosexuals. It is amazing how homosexuals have become the biggest bullies anywhere. Especially cyber-bullying. Cyber-bullies are cowards-because they are able to bully people with a degree of anonymity.

Michael Berry and "bed wetters"

His revelation that conservatives are cowards-and its our fault America is in the shape its in.

Greg Gutfield

He infuriates the communist leader Bob Beckel-how-by stating the fact-that our universities-in fact our entire educational system is anti-American.

Why? Because people don't know what is going on. If they did they would be outraged.

Revelations 21:8

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

If Obama is relected-here in the USA-Catholics and protestants-will be arrested for opposing the abortion mandate.

Do we fear God-or man?


"They lied to me with science"

All of my life I have been told that there is a population explosion and that it will bring about the end of the world. Millions will die as the earth is not able to sustain the population of mankind.

Discover Magazine October 2012-says "Oops! We got it all wrong-there isn't a population explosion-we are in a population decline!

Some women-yes, perhaps stupid women, decided to not have kids because of overpopulation. We find that the population decline is not only an Industrial world problem-it is a global problem. So-we look to the world greatest scientific minds-and they come out wrong!

Perhaps the population explosion hoax wasn't about "science." Perhaps it was about societal "evolution." Perhaps, people with political agenda's used the hoax to spread birth control, abortion and so-called "family planning." Obviously, the population explosion shows that scientists don't have all of the answers. This was apocalyptism. The man carrying the "End is Near" sign-was a scientist.

Now, they have another scare tactic. This time its global warming. Once again, we are all going to die and the end of the world will come-so say the scientists-unless we pass laws that curtail our freedoms and give political and global agencies more power. When I was in Iraq-in 2009 and 2010-the global climate science headquarters had their emails hacked. It turns out that they are falsifying data and global warming is a fraud. They try to frighten people and use the pretence of science to deceive people and gain power and control over them.

Science has taken over the role of religion for many. Science is considered infallible and scientists claim that they have all of the answers.

I saw a book that promoted the merger of science and philosophy. I believe that science, religion, philosophy and politics are all ascpects of the same thing. All of these institutions are dealing with the ultimate questions. The book used Aristotles approach as an ideal path. But in the book-the author declared that belief in God is superstition and absurd. Now, Aristotle was not an atheist-he was more like a deist. He believed that there is a God. But to Aristotle, God is a prime mover-he began the process of creation-but isn't involved with it-he is wholly other. This means, to Aristotle, God exists, but God's existence has no meaningful effect upon us. Aristotle did not believe in the afterlife.

But what is science? The word "science" merely means knowledge. Perhaps science could refer to established facts regarding life and physics. Of course you also have the scientific process-testing hypothesis.

If you look at "Discover" magazine, you will see that what they do isn't pure science. They have a lot of political beliefs. For instance, they are opposed to a psychologist attempting to cure people of homosexual tendencies. They say that homosexuality isn't something that can be cured. But why not? There are people who have dallied in lesbianism and homosexuality but didn't like it and found fulfillment in a heterosexual lifestyle. (Such as some people in jail-who engage in homosexuality during their period of incarceration.) What about people who are confused about their sexual identity due to a homosexual sexual assault? It seems that the homosexual community is like a prison that you are not allowed to escape.

If this was really science-there would be unbiased research into the issue. Now, it is illegal in California to help someone who wants to leave the homosexual lifestyle.

So, we see science isn't always about science-it is about a political agenda. A lot of what we see in "Science Magazine" is political and not scientific.

Recently Bill Nye the Science guy came out and said he is against "Intelligent Design." Well, who is Bill Nye the Science Guy? He was a stand up comedian who had taken a few classes on science but didn't complete his degree. He did a comic routine as a mad scientist . A television producer saw his skit and thought he would be a good children's educator. His tirade against "creationism" is a deperate attempt for attention-because he is a has-been.

People were shocked that Steven Hawkings was an atheist-but he made clear in his book "Big Bangs and Black Holes" that he is an atheist 20 years ago. He isn't really a great scientist-he, like Bill Nye, is a celebrity more than a scientist. The fact is-science doesn't have all the answers.

Richard Dawkins claims that he can prove biologically that God doesn't exist-which is absurd.

Science should bring these people humility-but instead they are arrogant-and wrong.

Pontius Pilate looked at Jesus and said to him "What is "truth"?" Jesus had been speaking of the truth-found in his message about knowing God. Pilate seems to have been speaking contemptuously. He had decided that Jesus was a harmless-and perhaps misdirected- mystic who didn't deserve to be crucified.

Psalm 19 declared, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." And again Paul says in Romans 1:19-20, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

The left tries to attack Christianity saying its "not scientific." Well, a lot of what they do and say isn't scientific either. One thing that obviously isn't about science is their attempts to stop people from looking into scientific evidence about "Intelligent Design." People should be about to ask questions freely-if it cannot withstand critical examination should be the test-instead people are persecuted because they believe God exists. Athiesm isn't scientific and what they do and say isn't about science-its political. They have been able to implement their agenda in Russia, Cambodia and Viet Nam and has led to the deaths of millions.

These "scientists" have perpetuated the hoax of the population explosion and atheism is another one of their hoaxes. They want to control people and they have an anti-freedom agenda. Sam Harris advocates the government persecuting Christians. The real reason that they attack Christians is because Christians believe in a system of morality which represents a threat to their agenda-not because Christianity is "un-scientific."




Thursday, October 25, 2012

The Christian Exodus From Egypt For Copts, a persecuting dictator was preferable to the Islamist mob. By SAMUEL TADROS

Visit any Coptic church in the United States and you immediately recognize the newcomers. You see it in their eyes, hear it in their broken English, sense it in how they cling to the church in search of the familiar. They have come here escaping a place they used to call home, where their ancestors had lived for centuries. Waves of Copts have come here from Egypt before, to escape Gamal Abdel Nasser's nationalizations or the growing Islamist tide. Their country's transformation wasn't sudden, but every year brought more public Islamization. As the veil spread, Coptic women felt increasingly different, alien and marked. Verbal abuse came from schoolteachers, bystanders in the bus station who noticed the cross on a wrist, or commentators on state television. But life was generally bearable. Hosni Mubarak crushed the Islamist insurgency of the 1980s and '90s. He was no friend to the Copts, but neither was he foe. His police often turned a blind eye when Coptic homes and shops were attacked by mobs, and the courts never punished the perpetrators—but the president wasn't an Islamist. He even interfered sometimes to give permission to build a church, or to make Christmas a national holiday. To be sure, Copts were excluded from high government positions. There were no Coptic governors, intelligence officers, deans of schools, or CEOs of government companies. Until 2005, Copts needed presidential approval to build a new church or even build a bathroom in an existing one. Even with approval, state security often blocked construction, citing security concerns. Those concerns were often real. Mobs could mobilize against Copts with the slightest incitement—rumor of a romantic relationship between a Christian man and a Muslim woman, a church being built, reports of a Christian having insulted Islam. The details varied but the results didn't: homes burned, shops destroyed, Christians leaving villages, sometimes dead bodies. The police would arrive late and force a reconciliation session between perpetrators and victims during which everything would be forgiven and no one punished. What pained the Copts most was that the attackers were neighbors, co-workers and childhood friends. Then came last year's revolution. Copts were never enthusiastic about it, perhaps because centuries of persecution taught that the persecuting dictator was preferable to the mob. He could be bought off, persuaded to hold back or pressured by outside forces. With the mob you stood no chance. Some younger Copts were lured by the promise of a liberal Egypt, but the older generation knew better. The collapse of the police liberated the Islamists, who quickly dominated national politics but were even more powerful in the streets and villages. This is where the "Islamization of life" (as Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat Al Shater called for) was becoming a reality. The Muslim Brotherhood aimed to assuage Coptic fears while speaking in English to American audiences. The reality was different. When Coptic homes and shops were looted in a village near Alexandria in January, Brotherhood parliamentarians and Salafis organized a reconciliation session that didn't punish the attackers but ordered the Copts to evacuate the village. Soon after, the Brotherhood's Sayed Askar denied that Copts face any problems in building churches, saying they have more churches than they need. Elections featured accusations that Copts backed the old regime. When attempts to build a non-Islamist coalition were led by businessman Naguib Sawiris, a Copt, the Brotherhood's website accused him and his co-religionists of treason. Westerners may debate how moderate Egypt's Islamists are, but for Copts the questioning is futile. Their options are limited. While Copts are the largest Christian community in the Middle East, they're too small to play a role in deciding the fate of the country. They are not geographically concentrated in one area that could become a safe zone. The only option is to leave, putting an end to 2,000 years of Christianity in Egypt. The sad truth is that not all will be able to flee. Those with money, English skills and the like will get out. Their poorer brethren will be left behind. What can be done to save them? Egypt receives $1.5 billion in U.S. aid each year, and Washington has various means to make Egypt's new leaders listen. Islamist attempts to enshrine second-class status for Copts in Egypt's new constitution should be stopped. Outsiders should also keep an eye on Muslim Brotherhood politicians who are planning to take control of Coptic Church finances. At a minimum, donors should demand that attacks on Copts be met with punishment as well as condemnation. Yet looking at the faces of the new immigrants in my Fairfax, Va., church, I cannot escape the feeling that it is too late. Perhaps the fate of the Copts was sealed long ago, in the middle of the last century, when the Jews were kicked out of Egypt. In the late 1940s, Brotherhood demonstrators chanted, in reference to the sabbath days of Jews and others: "Today is Saturday, tomorrow will be Sunday, oh Christians." And so it is. Mr. Tadros is a research fellow at the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom. He is currently writing a book about the Copts for the Hoover Institution. A version of this article appeared October 12, 2012, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Christian Exodus From Egypt.


E-mails prove Obama lied about "Innocence of Muslims" anti-Mohammed film provoking Benghazi attack

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show. The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks. The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers. Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

Former General Petreus is now the head of the CIA. He is a terrorist appeaser. It is possible that he and Obama met and concocted this scheme to deflect the blame for the attack away from Islamic extremists and onto Middle Eastern Christians. As is discussed below, Hillary Clinton may have also been on it. She has literally sponsored a UN prospective law making questioning Islam an international crime. The goal is to create international laws that criminalize questioning Islam and shield Islam from honest debate and inquiry. It seems that Muslims know that Islam cannot survive critical examination. In my view-truth can stand on its own and will ultimately prevail. Americans have a habit-going back to George Washington, of hero-worshiping the general in command when our soldiers win a victory. The reason we won in Iraq was not due to Petreus's "counter-insurgency" plan-it was for two reasons-a. the Iraqis turned against the insurgeants because of their excessive brutality and their killing about 30,000 Iraqis, led the Iraqis to cooperate with America to defeat the insurgents and b. the surge. I was outraged when I read in Petreus's "Counter-Insurgency Manuel" recommended against using Assyrian Christians as interpreters since Muslims feel more comfortable with fellow Muslims as interpreters. Having been in Iraq-and have personally worked with them-I can say that our Assyrian translators were the best-and they were also more loyal. Many Muslim interpreters have had terrorist sympathies and have been security threats. The Counter-insurgency strategy is the terrorist appeasement strategy.


This is a great Bible study resource. It contains many resources including the Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta and the transliteration of the Aramaic portions of the Old Testament (as well as a transliteration of all the Hebrew and Greek in the Bible as well). Also, this on-line resource contains many translations-including translations from the Aramaic versions of the Bible.


Obama's terror policy is real problem

By K. T. McFarland

One of the most telling questions of the second town hall presidential debate was on Libya. An audience member said he and his buddies had gotten together and wanted to know, "Who was it who denied enhanced security in Libya, and why?" The president dodged the question with lots of references about how no one wants the answer to that question, or cares more than he does, but in the end he didn't answer the question. Now you have to ask WHY?
Okay, it's a cover up. But thanks to Secretary of State Clinton's willingness to take the blame, it's a coverup that's succeeded….so far. And for the Obama administration, that's good enough, as long as the "so far" extends to Election Day. The mainstream media, like an overindulgent parent, believes the Obama administration's excuses, and most people don't care what happens half a world away when they don't have jobs at home. Plus, as Secretary Clinton says, there is such a "fog of war" that we're not sure what happened, never mind that the fog was deliberately created by the Obama administration's own fog machine. Looks like the Obama administration has gotten away with it. But the real problem isn't the intelligence failures, or security lapses or even the cover up. It's the policy. Al Qaeda is NOT "on its heels," as President Obama claimed at the Democratic Convention just five days before the Benghazi attack. Al Qaeda is larger and stronger than ever, and has moved into whole new regions in North Africa and the Middle East. The Benghazi attack was only the beginning. Al Qaeda's trademark is to have an escalating series of attacks until they are stopped in their tracks. They watch to see our reaction after each attack and, if we fail to retaliate, they do something even bolder the next time. The Benghazi attack on September 11 was preceded by car bombs and assaults against British and American facilities in Benghazi throughout the summer. The September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers in New York City was preceded by attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen, and US embassies in Africa the year before, and failed attack on the Twin Towers a decade before. Compare that to Ronald Reagan's reaction when Col. Qaddafi bombed a Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen in 1986. American soldiers were died and injured as a result. Reagan's reaction? He bombed Qaddafi's compound a week later. Qaddafi escaped injury, but he got the point. Don't mess with America. If you're Al Qaeda how are you looking at the Benghazi attack? From your point of view it was an unqualified success – the Americans are now fighting amongst themselves, they've set up a commission to study what happened, and while they're rattling a few sabers, they have yet to retaliate. If you're Al Qaeda you keep going. And what could be bigger and better than a dead American ambassador? Read more:

The Debate by Judith Miller (excerpt) Here are the facts. After the four Americans were killed in twin attacks four hours apart in Benghazi on Sept. 11, a grim anniversary on which American officials abroad should have been ordered to exercise vigilance and bolster security, Obama made a statement for the press and took no questions. Speaking of the attacks and the murders, he said that "we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts." That sounds as if he, too, was blaming their killings on the anti-Muslim videotape that had ignited violent protests in neighboring Egypt. Then he went on to praise the Libyans for helping save others under attack and lauded the victim, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Three paragraphs later, he said he had been to a memorial to commemorate 9/11 and paid tribute to those who had died in Iraq and Afghanistan. And a paragraph later, he added: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." Was Obama's use of the term "acts of terror" referring to 9/11 and the other militant Islamic attacks that have plagued America for so long? Or was he referring to the murders in Benghazi as "acts of terror?" Fair-minded readers may disagree. Even CNN's own John King said that Obama's statement struck him as a "generic" comment about terror, and not specifically a decision to label the Libya attack a terrorist act. But Crowley, who covers politics, incidentally, not foreign policy or national security, had no doubt. The nanny moderator was sure that the president had called the Benghazi murders "acts of terror" -- journalism's equivalent of a replacement referee's worst call. Did Crowley understand that her intervention 70 minutes into a 100 minute debate was not only possibly inaccurate but also partisan in that it helped Obama? In a breathless interview with CNN about what can most charitably be called her gaffe, she claimed to have been even-handed, though she tried walking back her intervention by saying, after the damage was done, that Romney had been right "in the main." But, she added, she had not only told Romney that he was wrong about "act of terror," she then told him that he was right in having claimed that "it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out." In other words, it took the president 14 days to say that Benghazi was, well, an act of terror and not the result of a spontaneous riot over a videotape. At this point the audience might understandably have been thoroughly confused. But the president's supporters got the message: they clapped and cheered after Obama asked her to "say that a little louder." As a result, rather than hone in on the Obama administration's intelligence and/or policy failures in Libya and the Middle East, Romney looked rattled. He seemed halting and uncertain throughout the rest of the debate. He did not even ask the most obvious question: If Obama thought that the attack in Libya was an act of terror, why did he permit his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to say on multiple Sunday talk shows four days later and his press spokesman to say on numerous occasions that the video, not terrorism, was to blame? The instant polls reflected the results of Crowley's intervention: 37 percent of those polled by CBS said Obama had won; 30 percent called the debate for Romney, and 33 percent felt it had ended in a tie. Most of the media have praised Crowley's performance. But her bias was patently obvious to conservatives. William Bigelow, writing for Breitbart.TV, noted that she had interrupted Obama 9 times. She interrupted Romney 28 times. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/17/crowley-intervention-as-moderator-in-chief-swung-debate-in-obama-favor/?intcmp=trending#ixzz29jt3Unvg

Why Team Obama used 'blame- the-video' tactic after Libya attack by Bill Siegel, foxnews, 21 October 2012

Perhaps the most under-examined aspect of the blame-the-video story spun by President Obama's administration following the Benghazi terror attacks is how easy the White House presumed it would be to sell. An acquiescent mainstream media has for years encouraged an arrogant administration to expect its full support, even it has been forced to acknowledge that the administration has erred, if not lied when it comes to the deadly attack in Libya. It is equally critical, however, that we the people begin to understand our contribution to this tragedy and how suggestible and easily exploitable we are. It is clear that the White House did not want to tell us the truth about the Benghazi assassinations -- that Al Qaeda is far from dead or "mission accomplished," that there were no protests before the attack, and that the State Department and intelligence agencies had quickly concluded it was a highly coordinated terrorist attack. Is the administration so incompetent that any peek inside would spell immediate disaster for Obama's reelection campaign? Could some analysts' suspicions that Ambassador Christopher Stevens had been assigned with originally arming the Libyan rebels and was on a doomed mission to retrieve such weapons be the underlying revelation that must be covered up at all costs -- "Fast and Furious" Libyan Style? These issues will hopefully soon be investigated. But of all the substitute explanations available, why the one which cites a barely viewed video? Certainly there are political objectives underlying the choice. The Muslim Brotherhood has allies situated into virtually all US government functions that involve Islam and the Islamic world, from Muslim "outreach" to law enforcement to policy development. I believe that much of Obama's domestic and Middle East policy can be characterized as aligned with the Brotherhood and its now institutionalized objectives. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Blame-the-Video tactic would be fully Brotherhood compliant. The Brotherhood, along with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (the largest Islamic body in the world), has for years sought to bring about a change in US free speech laws so as to criminalize speech that is blasphemous or otherwise critical of Islam or the Prophet Muhammad. Part of the strategy involves demonstrating that such speech is uniquely inciting to Muslims and certain to result in violence: the narrative of the "Fragile Muslim" requiring special treatment for Muslims and Islam. Incremental acceptance of the notion that insults to Islam "cause" violence will "evolve" into banning such speech on the theory that violence becomes, a priori, "imminent." Furthermore, UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 sets out to enforce a ban on such speech by treaty rather than through our traditional domestic legislative process. That Hillary Clinton co-sponsored this resolution speaks volumes as to where the Obama administration sits. Nonetheless, the blame-the-video tactic would not exist without our willing collusion. It is natural, of course, for us to try to minimize escalation following an unprovoked violent attack. Yet more insidious, there is the tendency of much of the modern Western mindset to accept responsibility for the hatred and anger practiced throughout much of the Islamic world. Whether illegally occupying Muslim lands, supporting un-Islamic leaders in Muslim territories, violating Shariah laws in our own land, or insulting the Prophet in cartoons, films, and novels, the critical maneuver is to place the West as the "cause" of Muslim behavior. At core, there is a profound relationship between the West and the Islamic world that, albeit oversimplified, resembles that between an addict and its enablers. For the addict, the goal is to continue unacceptable behavior without end or restriction and much of his world view is centered upon victimhood; others cause him to be outraged and consequently violent. The addict will rant and rave for so long as he is allowed to get away with it rather than take responsibility for and change his behavior. The corollary to the addict's anger is the enabler's extreme fear -- fear of what the enraged addict might do if left unaddressed. With respect to our modern Islamic enemy, the threat posed is so terrifying that the Western mind does all it can to change its perceptions so as to blind itself to the true reality it faces. The most ubiquitous enabler technique to keep stability is to accept the narrative that he is responsible for the addict's behavior. The dirty secret is that if one is the cause, he can find a way to change the outcome. The dirty reality, however, is that the only way to change this threat is to eliminate it in total; something that even today remains politically unacceptable to much of the West. Obama must be fully familiar with this relationship as those he surrounds himself with are fully identified with it. The overwhelming tendency for the American mind to accept itself as cause for Islamic rage and violence is easily exploited. When the White House needed a true channel changer, it went right to what it knew best. Hopefully, the American mind is beginning to tire of the enabler role and is beginning to seek more accurate perceptions of what is truly going on.

Bill Siegel is the author of "The Control Factor -- Our Struggle to See the True Threat" published by Hamilton Books.

Willful blindness, today's refusal to come to grips with the Islamist threat to the West, is America's most profound national security vulnerability. Supremacist Islam's campaign has targeted the United States by violent jihad, a softer and more insidious march through our institutions, and lawfare salvos fired in American courts and international tribunals. Desperate to avoid offense to Islamist activists and their allies, we surrender to the politically correct narrative that the vital measures taken in our own defense are the cause of our peril. The Control Factor powerfully unfolds this process of self-delusion and the struggle to remove the scales we've placed over our eyes. Survival of the West's freedom culture — our commitment to critical inquiry based ordered liberty and human reason — hangs in the balance. America needs an "inner jihad," Siegel proposes, that permits us to come to terms with the three levels of jihad against us: Violent Jihad, Civilization Jihad and International Institutional Jihad. Think Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of Islamic Conference, respectively.The first part of the "inner jihad" is to admit that "we do not yet know how to fight this war within the context of our own values, morals and laws." This is the toughest step to take because it leads to more insecurity and therefore enhances the attractiveness of ideas that reassure us that we're in control. This step requires an admission of the disadvantages that the West has in this conflict.Americans need to learn about the enemy. Ignorance contributes to insecurity. The ability to cope with the reality increases as we feel less ignorant. As America becomes more educated on the topic, the better it can handle the Control Factor that leads to the misunderstandings and denials. Once the enemy is understood, the burden of responsibility must be placed on the aggressor, not the victim. Siegel suggests that "mirroring" should be used as part of this struggle. This entails responding to the enemy's behavior in somewhat similar fashion. Basically, Siegel is proposing a tit-for-tat strategy. If Iran and Pakistan support the Taliban, we should support their own internal enemies. If they cross Afghanistan's borders to kill U.S. soldiers, we should cross Afghanistan's borders to destroy their terrorist training camps and bomb factories. He also offers a good example over rhetoric. The Islamists lash out over cartoons depicting Mohammed and criticisms of their beliefs while assembling "Death to America" rallies and publishing anti-American cartoons. Our reaction is to ignore the rallies and vocally share the outrage over the Mohammed cartoons and desecration of Korans. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/21/why-team-obama-used-blame-video-tactic-after-libya-attack/#ixzz29zVqoDYw

Charles Krauthammer: Obama contradicting himself.

After lying to the American people in the townhall style debate, Obama approached the questioner and told him why he lied about the nature of the terrorist attack. He told Romney that he called it a "terrorist attack" and then went over to the questioner quietly after the debate and admitted he didn't. After the debate, Candy Crowley also admitted that she was wrong about Obama describing the incident as a terrorist attack.




Obama says that the Fort Hood Terrorist attack was "workplace violence" and not terrorism. At first I thought that was another example of political correctness run amuck-but that designation is being used to hurt the soldiers-to deny them benefits and honor that is due them. Unlike Joe Biden, I believe that this is no laughing matter. As long as Obama is in office-Major Hassan will not see his day in court. I firmly believe that Obama is protected Major Hassan. Please watch this video and take action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXq6lOXjkP8

On November 5, 2009, after consultation with, and inspired by, al Qaeda terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki, Army Major Nidal Hasan attacked soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood, Texas. Hasan's attack, the most lethal terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, left 14 Americans dead, more than 30 wounded by gunshots, and many more injured.
The U.S. government knew Hasan was a serious security risk who sought religious sanction from Awlaki for suicide attacks that killed innocents, yet the government was concerned more with protecting Hasan's career than with protecting the men and women who served with him. Evidence from a bipartisan Congressional investigation and an independent report commissioned by the FBI demonstrates that Hasan's attack was terrorism by any reasonable definition, including the one used by the Department of Defense (DoD). Yet DoD stubbornly maintains that the attack was merely 'workplace violence' to avoid responsibility for the government's role in enabling Hasan's attack and to protect the officials who closed their eyes to the threat. As a result, the victims continue to be denied the recognition and benefits they are rightfully due. Support the brave men and women of Fort Hood, and add your voice to this petition, to ask the Administration to stop the charade and recognize the shooting as the act of terrorism it was, to hold accountable the high level officials responsible for the policies that caused this attack to prevent future failures, and to provide the soldiers, victims and their families with appropriate recognition, including Purple
Hearts, and fair compensation for all of their injuries. The Fort Hood Heroes deserve justice, respect and dignity.

But, Pentagon announces that it will not label the Fort Hood attack an Act of Terrorism

Why? Supposedly because it will "jeopardize" the court marshal. This is baloney. Remember, Obama is the commander and chief and sets DOD policy. He put his people in command when he took office. The Pentagon also said that they have "medical and health benefits"-they do-but not the honor and benefits they are do as victims of a terrorist attack. Make no mistake-these decisions of the Pentagon are a grave insult to our brave heroes.

Election observations

When Obama is voted out of office he is likely going to congratulate Romney for running a good (or effective) campaign. But it isn't that Romney has run a good campaign. He hasn't. It's that Obama has run a bad presidency.

With Obama not having to face an electorate again, it is likely that he is going to come out/admit that he is a Muslim-or "convert" to Islam.

One of my predictions is that Obama will leave America once he is voted out of office-because he hates this country. There are rumors that Obama is looking to buy a home in Hawaii. Obama has said in a speech that he doesn't consider Hawaii to be legitimately a part of the United States of America.

I am afraid that after he is voted out of office, Obama is going to go and form alliances with Hugo Chavez, the Castros, Putin. Ahmadinijad, and stand with other enemies of America against the United States-after all, he did it before and during the time he was president. He may become a national security threat.

D o Democrats see Republicans/Conservatives as the enemy? Rush Limbaugh often says that Democrats don't see Al Qaida, Russia or any other foreign threat as the enemy-to them the enemy is conservative Americans. Now, I don't agree with liberals but it is difficult for me to view fellow Americans as the "enemy." But after much thought and observation, I think that unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh is correct-the left hate those who disagree with them-and do view American Republicans/Conservatives/Evangelical Christians as the "enemy."

Newsweek Magazine goes out of print Now, it is going completely on-line. It is true that print is dying, but, part of the reason that they went out of business is that Newsweek is a totally leftist publication. They would rather go out of print than moderate. Which brings us to the next issue…

Presidential debates blatantly favor democrats Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan had to debate two people at the same time-the democratic moderator and the democratic candidate. The Commission on Presidential Debates is going to have to do something about this problem-it is unacceptable. In the vice-presidential and second presidential debates, the democrat got about five more minutes more than the republican-and it was noticeable and blatant.

Polarization The "culture war" is waged against the right by liberals as much as vice-versa. We need some moderation and a movement to the center, mostly by the left, so our country can come together and heal.

Countz Cheerleaders fight for freedom of speech and religion

A judge stopped an East Texas school district on Thursday from barring cheerleaders from quoting Bible verses on banners at high school football games, saying the policy appears to violate their free speech rights. District Judge Steve Thomas granted an injunction requested by the Kountze High School cheerleaders allowing them to continue displaying religious-themed banners pending the outcome of a lawsuit set to go to trial next June 24, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said. Thomas previously granted a temporary restraining order allowing the practice to continue. School officials barred the cheerleaders from displaying banners with religious messages such as, "If God is for us, who can be against us," and "I can do all things through God who strengthens me" after the Freedom From Religion Foundation complained. The advocacy group says the messages violate the First Amendment clause barring the government -- or a publicly funded school district, in this case -- from establishing or endorsing a religion. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/18/judge-expected-to-rule-in-texas-cheerleader-bible-verse-banner-suit/#ixzz2AE6yzDQR

These girls are modern day Judas Maccabees-heroes in the Battle for religious freedom and freedom of speech. (Maccabee-Aramaic for "the hammer." See my book series on "The Hammer of God.")

Friday, October 12, 2012

Yahweh-(and the Embassy Attack)

I was also very interested to read two similar king's names Yehimilk from 10th Century BCE and Yehaumilk from 5th century BCE. Both appear to be non-Israelite Kings, yet have a Yahwistic theophoric element in their names, which I find VERY interesting. Their names seem to mean "Yahweh is king." Yehaumilk's stele is depicted in Glenn E. Markoe's "Phoenicians" on page 117, figure 34, with the following description: 'Stele depicting King Yehaumilk before the enthroned figure of Baalat Gubal. From Byblos, Lebanon, fifth century BC. The accompanying inscription commemorates Yehaumilk's building activity in Baalat's sanctuary complex.' Note the winged sundisk above the figures of Yehaumilk bringing an offering to Baalat Gubal, the Lady of Byblos. People imagine that YHWH was only an Israelite deity, but archaeological evidence shows otherwise because of the inclusion of Yahwistic names elsewhere, certainly between biblical first and second temple periods around Phoenician/Canaanitic Byblos. The inclusion of Canaanitic Psalms (Psalm 29, 82) also demonstrated how easily worship material was shared among the various cults. There is also another King, a Syrian, with a Yahwistic name-Yahau-bidhi of Hammath. His name means "Servant of Yahweh."

State Department denies concluding film sparked consulate attack in Libya

Read more:

The State Department denied Tuesday it ever concluded that the deadly consulate attack Sept. 11 in Libya was an unplanned outburst prompted by an anti-Islam movie, despite public statements early on by some in the Obama administration suggesting that was the case. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., reacting Wednesday to the latest claims, said he's just "at a loss" for why administration officials ever tried to connect the attack to the film in the first place. "From the very beginning, everyone knew this was a terrorist attack. I mean, there's no question, and that's why this has been totally bizarre," said Corker, who recently returned from Libya. The Obama administration used the film explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans. Most notably, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said in several TV interviews five days after the attack that it appeared to be "spontaneous" violence spinning out of protests of the film. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland backed up Rice's statements in a press briefing a day later: "I would simply say that ... the comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government's initial assessment." And White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, as late as a week after the attack, said that based on initial information, "we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack." Carney then went on to suggest again the violence was related to the film: "Based on the information that we have now, it was -- there was a reaction to the video -- there was protests in Cairo, then followed by protests elsewhere, including Benghazi, and that was what led to the original unrest." The new comments from the State Department further highlight the disconnect in the attack's aftermath between what administration officials were saying publicly and what intelligence officials suspected early on -- that the attack was an act of terrorism, more coordinated than a protest that got out of hand. New documents further suggest internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S. Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile. But asked about the administration's initial -- and since retracted -- explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far. The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney's latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Obama's weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists." The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Ambassador Rice gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons "hijacked" the protest and turned it into an outright attack. She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists." Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place. According to an email obtained Tuesday by Fox News and other news organizations, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote.

Read more:

The question is-why did Obama lie to the American people? Why did he say that the terror attack was a "spontaneous" event that occurred during a protest about an anti-Mohammed movie created by a Middle Eastern Christian? The answer is found in his Cairo speech.



So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

[Note: Fighting against "negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear" is not the responsibility of the President of the United States-in fact it is against his constitutional duty to do so. His primary job is to protect the freedoms enumerated in the constitution. So when he fights against "negative stereotypes" he is violating freedom of speech. Also, giving Islam a privilege position is a violation of the "establishment clause." By not fighting against negative stereotypes of Christians, Jews, or Buddhists, apparently not "part of his responsibility," he is establishing Islam as a de facto official religion of the United States of America.]

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. [Note how he blames "colonialism." This supports Dinesh D'Souza's theory explained in "The Roots of Obama's Rage" and "Obama's America." That Obama is an anti-Colonialist.]Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam… I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart… As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library… So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity… In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The future does not belong to those who would malign the prophet of Islam

From President Obama's speech at the U.N. September 25, 2012:

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

And on the video:

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

American Imprisoned in America for criticizing the prophet Mohammed

LOS ANGELES – A federal judge on Thursday ordered a California man behind a crudely produced anti-Islamic video that inflamed parts of the Middle East to be detained because he is a flight risk. U.S. Central District Chief Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal said Nakoula Basseley Nakoula should be held after officials said he violated his probation term for a 2010 check fraud conviction. A federal prosecutor said Nakoula had eight probation violations, including lying to his probation officers and using aliases. After his 2010 conviction, Nakoula was sentenced to 21 months in prison and was barred from using computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer. A 14-minute trailer for the film "Innocence of Muslims" was posted on YouTube in July, leading to protests around the Middle East. The trailer depicts Muhammad as a womanizer, religious fraud and child molester. The violence broke out Sept. 11 and has spread since, killing dozens. Nakoula, a Christian originally from Egypt, went into hiding after he was identified as the man behind the trailer. In court Thursday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Dugdale said Nakoula was flight risk based on a "lengthy pattern of deception." "He has every incentive to disappear," Dugdale said. Nakoula, 55, was handcuffed and shackled in court. The full story about Nakoula and the video still isn't known. The movie was made last year by a man who called himself Sam Bacile. After the violence erupted, a man who identified himself as Bacile called media outlets including The Associated Press, took credit for the film and said it was meant to portray the truth about Muhammad and Islam, which he called a cancer. The next day, the AP determined there was no Bacile and linked the identity to Nakoula, a former gas station owner with a drug conviction and a history of using aliases. Federal authorities later confirmed there was no Bacile and that Nakoula was behind the movie. Before going into hiding, Nakoula acknowledged to the AP he was involved with the film, but said he only worked on logistics and management. A film permit listed Media for Christ, a Los Angeles-area charity run by other Egyptian Christians, as the production company. Most of the film was made at the charity's headquarters. Steve Klein, an insurance agent in Hemet and outspoken Muslim critic, has said he was a consultant and promoter for the film. The trailer still can be found on YouTube. The Obama administration asked Google, YouTube's parent, to take down the video. But the company has refused, saying it did not violate its content standards. Meanwhile, a number of actors and workers on the film have come forward to say they were tricked. They say they were hired for a film titled "Desert Warrior" and there was no mention of Islam or Muhammad in the script. Those references were dubbed in after filming was completed. Actress Cindy Lee Garcia has sued to get the trailer taken down, saying she was duped. [He should never have been arrested-and needs to be released now-especially since it is now known that the video had nothing to do with the video.]

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/27/man-behind-anti-islam-film-arrested-authorities-say/#ixzz27oTScYut

Obama lies to the American people about the Bengazi attack in order to protect Islamic interests

It turns out that the Cairo attack on our embassy and the rape and murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens were not "spontaneous attacks" and had nothing to do with the "Innocence of Muslims" movie. Obama decided to deflect the blame for the violence away from Muslims and upon America. It's not their fault, it's America's fault for defaming Mohammed.

Inflaming Muslims

When I was in Syria, I watched "Al Jazeera," a terrorist Arabic "news" channel. During the entire war on terror-Al Jazeera has been inflaming Arabs against the United States. Apparently, neither the Cairo embassy attack nor the Benghazi terrorist attack had anything to do with the anti-Mohammed movie. It seems that Obama was the one who was "creating awareness" about the video. By discussing a movie no one had heard of before and tracking down its Coptic producer- Mark Basseley Youssef.Obama was inciting Muslims against Coptic Christians-and was endangering Copts. By publicizing information about the movie-Obama inflamed tensions and sparks riots that led to the death of many. Personally, I don't care about what inflames Muslims. If they get offended-that is their problem. These people need to stop acting like savages and children. Note that the Obama administration asked You Tube to remove the video-they supposedly declined-but I couldn't find the video on You Tube. (I found it uploaded somewhere else-so I downloaded it.) Also, the Coptic Christian who created the movie is now in jail. It is obvious that Obama wanted him arrested-otherwise, why would the police waste their time with him? He hadn't committed any read crime-they trumped up bogus charges against him. Equally disturbing is the way he was paraded in front of the news media when he was arrested-a warning for those who would dare question Islam-and a sign to the Muslims that we are weak and will fold to them at the slightest reason.

OBAMA sees it as his duty to protect the public image of Islam-to him that is more important than his duty to uphold the laws of the United States and to protect the people of the United States. He is obviously a Muslim-and I firmly believe that he will admit to such-or "convert"-within six months from election day.

Protestants supposedly now a minority in the United States

A new study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that Protestants now make up 48% of Americans, compared with nearly two-thirds in the 1970s. The decline, concentrated among white members of both mainline and evangelical denominations, is amplified by an absence of Protestants on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republican presidential ticket for the first time. "It's a slow decline but a noticeable one," said Cary Funk, a Pew senior researcher. Funk said a major factor driving the decline is an increase in religiously unaffiliated Americans to 20%, up from 15% five years ago. Two-thirds of the religiously unaffiliated still say they believe in God. But they overwhelmingly expressed disenchantment with religious organizations for being too concerned with money, power, rules and politics. The study did not give reasons fewer Americans now identify with any religion. But it presented theories that included political backlash against the religious right, delays in marriage, broad social disengagement and secularization related to economic development. [Liberals like to blame everything upon the so-called "Religious Right." This is a pejorative term for Evangelical Christians and an attempt by the left to incite hatred against Christians.] Some analysts said a softening of American religiosity could affect such areas as charitable giving and volunteerism, which traditionally have been driven by churches. Others, however, said that ideals originally identified as Protestant and Puritan have become firmly entrenched as secular American virtues. The idea of America as a "city set on a hill" — a biblical phrase — with a special destiny to lead the world to freedom and democracy remains a bedrock civic value, said Richard Land of the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination. "America is a nation with the soul of a church, and that soul is Puritan-Protestant," said Land, president of the convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "But in terms of defining the purpose of the nation, it's been secularized long ago." The study was based on a national survey of 2,973 adults conducted between June 28 and July 9 using land lines and cellphones. An additional 511 interviews were conducted with religiously unaffiliated adults. In a counterweight to evangelical Christians who tend to back Republicans, the vast majority of religiously unaffiliated Americans — who number 46 million — vote Democratic and are politically liberal, the study found. Two-thirds support President Obama, compared with 27% for Republican nominee Mitt Romney. A majority of the unaffiliated support legal abortion and same-sex marriage. The trend toward dropping away from organized religion was evident across gender, income and educational levels. But it was most apparent in the Northeast and West and among the young, the study showed. A third of adults under 30 have no religious affiliation, compared with just 9% among those 65 and older. Mark Chaves, a Duke University sociologist of religion, said some young people turn to churches when they marry and have children. --Teresa Watanabe Another view: (Associated Press) For the first time in its history, the United States does not have a Protestant majority, according to a new study. One reason: The number of Americans with no religious affiliation is on the rise. The percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. has reached a low of 48 percent, the first time that Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has reported with certainty that the number has fallen below 50 percent. The drop has long been anticipated and comes at a time when no Protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republicans have their first presidential ticket with no Protestant nominees. Among the reasons for the change are the growth in nondenominational Christians who can no longer be categorized as Protestant, and a spike in the number of American adults who say they have no religion. The Pew study, released Tuesday, found that about 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years. [This means that this is bogus-"non-denominational" are Protestant.] Scholars have long debated whether people who say they no longer belong to a religious group should be considered secular. While the category as defined by Pew researchers includes atheists, it also encompasses majorities of people who say they believe in God, and a notable minority who pray daily or consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious." Still, Pew found overall that most of the unaffiliated aren't actively seeking another religious home, indicating that their ties with organized religion are permanently broken. Growth among those with no religion has been a major preoccupation of American faith leaders who worry that the United States, a highly religious country, would go the way of Western Europe, where church attendance has plummeted. Pope Benedict XVI has partly dedicated his pontificate to combating secularism in the West. This week in Rome, he is convening a three-week synod, or assembly, of bishops from around the world aimed at bringing back Roman Catholics who have left the church. The trend also has political implications. American voters who describe themselves as having no religion vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Pew found Americans with no religion support abortion rights and gay marriage at a much higher-rate than the U.S. public at large. These "nones" are an increasing segment of voters who are registered as Democrats or lean toward the party, growing from 17 percent to 24 percent over the last five years. The religiously unaffiliated are becoming as important a constituency to Democrats as evangelicals are to Republicans, Pew said. The Pew analysis, conducted with PBS' "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly," is based on several surveys, including a poll of nearly 3,000 adults conducted June 28-July 9, 2012. The finding on the Protestant majority is based on responses from a larger group of more than 17,000 people and has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.9 percentage points, Pew researchers said. Pew said it had also previously calculated a drop slightly below 50 percent among U.S. Protestants, but those findings had fallen within the margin of error; the General Social Survey, which is conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, reported for 2010 that the percentage of U.S. Protestants was around 46.7 percent. Researchers have been struggling for decades to find a definitive reason for the steady rise in those with no religion.' The spread of secularism in Western Europe was often viewed as a byproduct of growing wealth in the region. Yet among industrialized nations, the United States stood out for its deep religiosity in the face of increasing wealth. Now, religion scholars say the decreased religiosity in the United States could reflect a change in how Americans describe their religious lives. In 2007, 60 percent of people who said they seldom or never attend religious services still identified themselves as part of a particular religious tradition. In 2012, that statistic fell to 50 percent, according to the Pew report. "Part of what's going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined," said John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who advised Pew on the survey. "In some parts of the country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it's not the way it used to be." The Pew study has found the growth in unaffiliated Americans spans a broad range of groups: men and women, college graduates and those without a college degree, people earning less than $30,000 annually and those earning $75,000 or more. However, along ethnic lines, the largest jump in "nones" has been among whites. One-fifth of whites describe themselves as having no religion. More growth in "nones" is expected. One-third of adults under age 30 have no religious affiliation, compared to 9 percent of people 65 and older. Pew researchers wrote that "young adults today are much more likely to be unaffiliated than previous generations were at a similar stage in their lives," and aren't expected to become more religiously active as they age.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/09/protestants-no-longer-majority-in-us-study-says/#ixzz28xHJ6OXP

[The real reason for the decline of Protestantism is the left's engaging in a cultural war against Christianity in general. The Liberal Establishment controls the Educational establishment, the News Media, Hollywood and television entertainment industries, publishing, and the Democratic Party-they are unrelenting in creating negative stereotypes of Christians, Christianity, and Christian history. Especially in the historical revisionism-they portray Christianity in a negative way. When kids go to school, when they come home and watch TV, when they are exposed to the News-and when they go off to college-they learn that Christianity (and America) are BAD, BAD, BAD. This has had an effect.]

LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS THREATENS AMERICA: This is an excellent article that every reasonable person needs to read-and it is written by a liberal democrat.
Read more:

Another interesting article: Is Islam's prophet Muhammad to have more screen time?

A prohibition on depicting him has long been sacrosanct, but then came 'Innocence of the Muslims.' And two ex-Muslim filmmakers are seeking to develop biopics.-by Ken Bensinger-


For more information-see my blog www.aramaicherald.blogspot.com


Is Islam's prophet Muhammad to have more screen time?

A prohibition on depicting him has long been sacrosanct, but then came 'Innocence of the Muslims.' And two ex-Muslim filmmakers are seeking to develop biopics. By Ken Bensinger and Harriet Ryan, Los Angeles Times September 25, 2012, 7:15 p.m.

In the past century, the life stories of Moses, the Buddha and even Mormon founder Joseph Smith have been told in film. Jesus Christ is such a prolific thespian that there are top-10 lists of his movies. But a prophet of one of the world's largest religions, a man with a fascinating life story and 1.5 billion adoring followers, has never had his star turn. Until now. "Innocence of Muslims," the film that fueled violence and anti-American sentiment around the world, is notorious for bad acting, leaden dialogue and ham-handed production values overseen by a two-time felon from Cerritos. But in the annals of cinematic history, it marked an exceptionally rare portrayal of Muhammad by an actor on film. Overshadowed in the debate over the film and its controversial producers is an ancient prohibition on the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, one that has been sacrosanct for centuries but now is likely to be increasingly challenged. Undaunted by the outcry over a YouTube trailer for "Innocence of Muslims," two ex-Muslim filmmakers are trying to develop separate feature-length biopics that would offer critical takes on Muhammad's life. Experts predict that those projects will trigger further anger and violence, as has accompanied nearly every attempt to portray the prophet in any media in recent decades. But some believe that the faith will inevitably embrace showing Muhammad on film as the best and most effective way to get his message to the masses. "Multimedia is the language of the day," said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It might be another 100 years, another 50 years. At this point, I would rather we do not do it in a way that shocks people." Although depicting Muhammad is not specifically prohibited by the Koran, Islamic law bars the practice. The prohibition, scholars say, is an extension of the idea that the faithful should worship only God and not an idol. That ban even covers the prophet's grave in Medina, Saudi Arabia, where pilgrims are not allowed to kiss the ground at the site. [Note: This is a Saudi/Wahibi Tradition-not a universal Muslim teaching.] Under that paradigm, an actor playing the role of Muhammad — even in the most flattering of lights — would be unacceptable to most Muslims, experts said. "The Message," an Arab-financed 1977 film about Muhammad's life, worked around this prohibition by stationing his character off camera or behind the lens, and was preceded by a disclaimer explaining that the prophet would not appear. Experts on film history and Islam said "Innocence of Muslims" marked the first time they could recall of an actor's actually playing Muhammad, though it was impossible to verify if it had ever happened before. Born in Mecca, Muhammad received his first revelation at about age 40, and in just two decades unified the Arabian peninsula behind his new religion before he died in Medina. Mosab Hassan Yousef, a Palestinian who moved to Los Angeles several years ago, said he sees a compelling narrative film in that story and has already cast a "prominent Hollywood actor" in the title role of his film "Muhammad," which has a proposed budget of $30 million.

The film will tell the story of the prophet from age 12 to his death, and will have the look and feel of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," Yousef said. "My goal is to create this big mirror to show the Muslim world the true image of its leader," Yousef said. While Gibson used the film to glorify his subject, Yousef's project is likely to have a different take. His book, "Son of Hamas," tells the tale of his progression from terrorist to Israeli spy to born-again Christian. And though he says he is not anti-Muslim — and notes that his mother still practices the religion — he acknowledges that his religious awakening was sparked by the preaching of Father Zakaria Botros Henein, a radical Egyptian Christian who has for years critiqued Muhammad as a pedophile and buffoon. Botros is closely associated with several of the individuals behind "Innocence of Muslims," and the filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is a devout follower. A second film in preproduction is the work of Ali Sina, an atheist raised Muslim in Iran. A prominent critic of Islam, he maintains websites that promote what he calls "the truth" about the religion. To date he says he has raised $2 million from Southern California investors for the film, which does not yet have a title but will portray the prophet as a cult leader in the vein of David Koresh or Jim Jones. He hopes to raise a total of $10 million, he said, and begin filming next year. Now a resident of Canada, Sina began contemplating a biopic about Muhammad a decade ago, but stepped up his effort in the last two years as technological advances made it feasible to circumvent government censors and wary exhibitors. "We can bypass theaters completely and sell the movie online with a profit to a large number of people, especially Muslims," Sina said. "They can download it and watch it even if they are living in Karachi or Mecca or Medina." Among anti-Muslim activists, these two projects are fairly well known and the two filmmakers at one time discussed collaborating. But Muslim scholars and activists said they were not aware of either movie and dubious about their prospects of shaking the faith of believers. [I think this is an excellent idea-create an accurate movie about Mohammed-and put it up on the internet-like the "Innocence of Muslims" trailer was. It will be shocking an offensive-I think that subtitles should be used that cite the Koran and other Islamic sources to show that what is being shown in the movie is true-or at least according to the Koran and Islamic teachings.] "That strategy has been tried and hasn't worked," said Ebrahim Moosa, a professor of Islamic studies at Duke University, noting centuries of Christian missionizing in the Muslim world. "It's certainly not going to persuade people who believe in Muhammad as a religious figure because these issues have to do with something that transcends reason or rationality. It has to do with questions of faith and salvation."

[This comment about "Christian missionizing in the Muslim world" is untrue. I don't know of any massive missionary work-where masses of Muslims were directly confronted with the Christian gospel has EVER taken place. I mean-when and where? I need an example. If the person carrying out this interview was a good journalist-he would have asked these questions. Most confrontations between Islam and the non-Islamic world have been violent. This is because Islam has been spread with violence and the consequence of converting from Islam is according to Sharia law-death.]

Reactions to the films, if they are ever finished, are likely to be severe. "This is crossing a line," said Akbar Ahmed, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United Kingdom and now professor of Islamic studies at American University. "If there is an actor physically portraying Muhammad, there will be a violent reaction." He said that would likely be true even if a devout Muslim made a movie about the prophet, because most people in the religion are just not ready to see Muhammad on screen. But it's doubly the case for works that aim to provide unflattering views of the religion. After a Danish newspaper published cartoons ridiculing Muhammad in 2005, three Muslims hatched an ultimately foiled plot to murder the artist. In 2006, Comedy Central refused to air an episode of "South Park" because it depicted Muhammad, and four years later New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledged that it had removed all paintings and sculptures with images of the prophet — some centuries old — from public display for fear of inciting protest. Both filmmakers are closely guarding details of their productions due to security concerns. They decry "Innocence of Muslims" as historically inaccurate, offensive and of poor quality. In the wake of its release, Yousef has been scrambling to meet with his investors — whom he describes as a mix of Egyptians and Americans — and ensure that they're still on board. Sina, for his part, said he had been exploring ways to hide the identities of the producers and actors in his movie and said he would not reveal the planned location for the movie shoot. He described his investors as a handful of Persian atheists who live in Los Angeles. "I've become more secretive," said Sina, who insists that his goal is not to incite Muslims but to persuade them. Some Muslim activists said anti-Islam depictions of Muhammad might lead, ironically, to an eventual relaxation of the prohibition. However offensive, "Innocence of Muslims" showed the long reach and emotional punch of videos in the Internet age and suggested a highly effective way for religious leaders to conquer barriers of language, literacy and youth apathy. "There's a whole industry that is intent on defaming and misrepresenting the prophet and his teachings. It becomes difficult to counter that campaign with books, stories and sayings," said CAIR's Ayloush. "To compete and remain relevant, eventually some of these religious opinions will have to be revisited," he said. "I think it's going to happen."

NOTE: On balance, a good article giving a rare view of ex-Muslim film producers like Yousef and Sina. They are brave souls, more in the tradition of pioneering Islam critic Salman Rushdie than the vapid amateurs who did "Innocence of Muslims". ***But I take issue with the overly simplistic portrayal of Zakaria Botros as a "radical" who "critiques Muhammad as a pedophile and buffoon". Even devout Muslims openly acknowledge that their prophet married a 6-year-old named Aisha, who to this day is revered throughout Islam. Though some might quibble over the well-known fact that he didnt have sex with Aisha until she was 9, that still clearly falls within the bounds of pedophilia in modern civilization, an unquestioned standard in most of the non-Islamic world. *** Botros is most notable for posing legitimate criticisms of Islamic doctrine and is well-versed in both the Quran and Hadiths:** http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2008/05/02/father-zakaria-botros/?vm=r&s=1 "Zakaria Botros is a conservative television star with a huge audience, who is hated by his political enemies. There are plenty of good critiques of Islam written in English and other languages, but very little in Arabic. Zakaria, very well read in the Qur'an and the Hadiths (oral traditions), regularly goes on public television where he poses hard questions to the imams who visibly struggle to provide answers." ***

LOW BUDGET MOVIES by Rebecca Keegan

Desperate for work and hungry for fame, local actors and technicians find themselves with fewer opportunities as the economy has slowed, studios have begun producing fewer films and TV shows, and more production work has fled California for states with better tax breaks. That has meant a rise, though, in the number of movies produced under the Screen Actors Guild's "ultra low budget" category for films under $200,000. Production for such movies has jumped 43%, to 645 in 2011 from 451 in 2009 and is expected to continue growing, according to Hollywood's largest talent union. And many more low-budget movies, like "Desert Warrior," are made outside the jurisdiction of the industry's labor unions and cast not through Beverly Hills talent agencies but via online services such as Craigslist and Backstage.com. "This is one of the textbook examples of why it's important to work under a union contract,'' said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, chief administrative officer and general counsel for SAG-AFTRA, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. "Actors are not lawyers. They don't necessarily think about every possible way in which someone may misuse a performance. That's one of the benefits of working under a union contract, because it prevents that sort of abuse." The proliferation of cheaply made features has been accelerated in part by the increasing availability of digital equipment, which makes it possible for producers to shoot their own movies with small crews. In 2005, in response to growing demand from their members, the guild created the ultra low-budget category. According to SAG rules, producers must pay actors on such a film $100 a day, provide meal breaks and adhere to standard union agreements about issues such as nudity and access to a full script. Two people who worked on "Desert Warrior" have said that they were given a few script pages at a time and that they thought they were making a harmless historical drama. "It was supposed to be about ancient warriors," said Dax, who has also appeared in an episode of "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," music videos and adult films. Dax worked for a week and half, at a rate of $75 a day on an amateurish low-budget set tucked into a Monrovia strip mall, on what was described as a desert adventure film. "I was just happy to be involved with anything that has to do with acting, even though it was horrible." "A lot of actors are taking these jobs because they need the job,'' said Monika Mikkelsen, a casting director in Los Angeles who mostly works on low-budget features. "If it's a student film or a low-budget feature, they can get footage for their reels that gets them more work. It's also a great way for them to meet up-and-coming directors who are making their own calling cards in their low budget films." Gary Marsh, president of Breakdown Services, a Los Angeles-based company that operates Actors Access, a website where actors can post photos, resumes and demo reels and view casting notices, said his site gets as many as 25 casting notices a week for low-budget projects. (Two actors on "Desert Warrior" said they saw a casting notice for the project on Actors Access, among other sites, but Marsh says his company has no record of such a listing.) "Digital technology has made it more accessible for more people to create their own films,'' Marsh said. "Everybody is trying to get work to prove they have the ability to either act, direct or write a story."

Mainstream media is threatening our country's future The following text is from a speech delivered by Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Patrick Caddell on September 21. It was delivered at Accuracy in Media's Conference: Obamanation: A Day of Truth. The title of the speech was "The Audacity of Corruption." For more on Accuracy in Media, click here.I think we're at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not. You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody. Which is exactly what they should be. They were unrelenting. Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people. That changed in 1980. There are a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of "He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts"—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy. Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that's been pointed out to me. Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they're married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever. But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press. That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances. We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances. The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth. That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time. It is now creating the danger that I spoke to. This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust [the American people have in the press] —when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and [the level of their distrust] it's the highest in history. For the first time, 60% of the people said they had "Not very much" or "None at all." Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, independents were 31%. So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well. I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying. A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called "The Audacity of Cronyism" in Breitbart, and my talk today is "The Audacity of Corruption." What I pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service detail. A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why. That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to ask why. The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe. David Plouffe, who is the White House's Senior Adviser—and was Obama's campaign manager last time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out, Axelrod going back to Chicago for the campaign—and just after it was announced that he was coming, an Iranian front group in Nigeria gave him $100,000 to give two speeches in Nigeria. Now, let me tell you: There's nobody that hands—no stranger gives you $100,000 and doesn't expect something in return, unless you live in a world that I don't. And no one has raised this in the mainstream media. He was on with George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they were going through all these questions. No one asked him whatsoever about that. He was not inquired. George Stephanopoulos, a former advisor to Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff, had his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of them have been doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist. He has two platforms. I mean, he's a political hack masquerading as a journalist. But when you don't ask the questions you need to ask of someone like David Plouffe, who's going in the White House—when we're talking about Iran. I just finishedsurveys, some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now, and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, what's happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense spending. This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as the American people identify, in the polling we've done over the last year, Iran as the single greatest danger to the United States. And here's a man who's being paid by an already named front group for that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked about it, or queried about it! The third thing I would say is that—then there's of course [National Security Advisor] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who I caused a little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he was the "leaker-in-chief." I mean this ridiculous running around—"How did these secrets get out?"—when it is clear he has no credentials for foreign policy; who has been in the White House; who was a political operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and others; who was known to have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person I know in politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security. In Mr. [David] Sanger's book [Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times] said, "The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon"—but let me just make a point. Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—"You know, all the Republicans have to do"—you know, I talk often about the "Corrupt Party" and the "Stupid Party," but the Stupid Party couldn't be stupider when it comes to things like this. They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked. Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice Department since John Mitchell—only in John Mitchell's administration did we have Justice Departments that were so politicized and so corrupted by politics—and he appoints someone who gave two people to do a study on the leaks, sometime in the next century will come out, and one of them is a, was a contributor to Barack Obama when he was a state Senator. That's a really unbiased source! And the press, of course, won't look into this. It will not ask the question. But the Republicans could have called them down. Yes, the president could have extended Executive Privilege, but let him say "I will not answer that question, sir" on the question of "Did you leak these secrets that Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman, the Democratic Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee said were endangering national security and American lives?" As she said when she read Sanger's book, "My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don't know!" I mean, these are serious matters but in Washington they're playful, and the press does not pursue any of them. Peter Schweizer has done a study talking about corruption. Sixty percent or 80%—it's closer to 80% I think, now—of the money given under the stimulus to green energy projects—the president and this administration's great project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors to Barack Obama. But nobody says a word. Of course Republicans don't raise it because in Washington, they simply want to do it when they get back in power. And, of course, the press doesn't because they basically have taken themselves out of doing their job. When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was more frightened than I've ever been, this is true, because I think it's one thing that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the mainstream media and all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and made it a moral commitment on their part to help him get elected in a way that has never happened, whatever the biases in the past. To give you an example of the difference, I'll just shortly tell you this: In 1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even though 80% of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for Carter over [Ronald] Reagan, or 70% percent of them, a very high percentage—they believed, so much, that the Carter campaign and the Carter White House had abused the Rose Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that they made a commitment, as they discussed, that they would not serve as the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White House because they thought it was unfair and they weren't to be manipulated. I totally disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a press corps. Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments that were, "We're not going to be manipulated." This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and president, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories together. The problem here is that no one will name names. But I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some lines here. It's not about politics. First of all we've had nine day of lies over what happened because they can't dare say it's a terrorist attack, and the press won't push this. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, were under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers. If a president of either party—I don't care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified! It would have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush's "flying over Katrina" moment. But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said. It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view. It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this is—if I had more time I'd do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [Bob Schieffer's "Face the Nation"] and said, on Sunday, while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn't out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying "This is a premeditated attack." Nobody has asked that question. This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it's a minor reference. Oh, now we've decided that it was a terrorist incident. But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics. This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general's inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don't do it. But I want to go through two other quick points. [Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his whole agenda has been getting the "Blind Sheikh" [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who's responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, out of jail. Prison. I've been told specifically, by a member of the intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating that now. They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he's the head of the Muslim Brotherhood! The American people know what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he's the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United States. He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do this, attack our embassy. The president—after the incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off. On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big demonstration. We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared, because Morsi called it off. But no press person has investigated this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories. They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing. Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to me about. Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it. But the bias, the polling, it's very complicated. Some of it is error, some of it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to pump up the numbers using the 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the Obama campaign. When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats over Republicans higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak Democratic year, I know I am dealing with a poll that shouldn't be reported. And yet they are being done, and they are being done with that knowledge and with that basis for some people, and the answer, as I said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is they just don't know, really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on purpose, and it's purposeful. But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as JournoList was—Mr. Klein's JournoList—but as I said there is no pushback. We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don't. The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason. Despite organizations like Accuracy In Media and others who are pointing this out, and the fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean, they're no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the candidates of the press refuse to call them out. If I were the Romney campaign I would've been doing this for months! I'd have been looking at individual reporters! I would be telling the American people, "They're not trying to stop me; they're trying to stop you! And they are here to do this!" And I would have made the press themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not doing that. Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican Party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press. This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press. You know, people have their own agendas, and often it's not winning. But this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don't do it. And, you know what this is a different era: The old argument of "You don't attack someone in the press"—or "You don't get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the barrel"—doesn't apply anymore. There are too many outlets, too many ways to do it, and the country doesn't have the confidence in the press that they once had. But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment. The press's job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if we allow this stuff to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.

Delivered by Patrick Caddell on September 21 at Accuracy in Media's Conference --Obamanation: A Day of Truth.

Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. He served as pollster for President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others. He is a Fox News political analyst and co-host of "Campaign Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on "FoxNews.com Live." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstream-media-threatening-our-country-future/#ixzz27uu5jTNG

Light of the world –from "Daily Bulletin" Chick Publications founder produces film meant to be a worldwide evangelical tool By La Rue V. Baber Staff Writer Many stories can be entertaining. But only a few can evoke strong enough emotions to change lives. Such is the story of "The Light of the World," an 80-minute film without live action featuring 360 detailed paintings chronicling biblical events. Set to stirring original music with dramatic narration, "The Light of the World" is a labor of love for Jack Chick of Chick Publications, the Inland Valley company that produces a number of comic-strip gospel tracts distributed around the world. When Chick, 79, who became a Christian in 1948 while honeymooning in Canada, began writing, producing and selling illustrated tracts in 1960 to tell Bible stories, it fueled his passion for reaching others. He founded Chick Publications and established it in Rancho Cucamonga in 1970. His fundamentalist gospel tracts grew in popularity in Christian circles and in the past three decades have been translated into more than 100 languages from Burmese to Zulu. But he wanted to do more. Fifteen years ago he had a vision to make a film that could reach millions. With the help of fellow artist Fred Carter of Pomona and Michael Helms, who founded the nonprofit Light of the World Project in Rancho Cucamonga to help fund the translation of the film into 1,000 languages, that vision is becoming a reality. The first public screening of the film will take place at Gardiner Springs Auditorium on Oct. 11. "I would hope (the film) causes people to see the reality of what it was really like," Carter, 65, said. "Not see the fairy tale, but the truth." After watching a compelling program about the Civil War produced by PBS that consisted mostly of still-life pictures and was narrated, Chick decided that was the way to go with "The Light of the World." Not only was it more cost effective, but with Carter's handiwork, much more vivid and dramatic. "I was impressed with the visual impact of the film and the use of oral format," said Dan Kricorian, 80, a retired minister who pastored Calvary Church in Ontario for 24 years before founding the Dan Kricorian Ministries International. "I'm convinced it will be a powerful tool for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ." Some scenes, especially those of Jesus Christ's crucifixion, are graphic to the point of being gruesome. They show exactly how Jesus must have looked after being beaten, bloodied and broken, his beard plucked and his flesh hanging in ribbons from being whipped. There is even a medical explanation of what happened to him -- how pain seared through his body every time he breathed and how millions of cells died slowly -- as he hung on the cross. It is this dramatic depiction that Chick and others hope will stir people's emotions and ignite their passion to spread the gospel. "The entire film is intended to portray exactly what the Bible says, not to take artistic license to embellish and show things that aren't true," said Helms, a resident of Rancho Cucamonga. "I believe that this is the most graphic portrayal of the beating and crucifixion of Jesus to date." While Chick sketched the foundation for each painting, Carter brought each to life with colored markers, acrylics and a touch of oil. Carter, who pastors a small community church just north of Victorville, completed about 95 percent of the paintings himself over 15 years, with the other 5 percent produced by artists Eric Hollander and Keith Goodson. "There was one (painting) near the end that showed the Lord's eyes," Carter said when asked if any of the pieces made him emotional. "That one got to me the most." For the original music, Chick contacted John Campbell of Upland, who has won several awards for music he's composed including an Emmy for the cartoon "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?" Campbell, 42, also has written music for Focus on the Family's children's radio show, "Adventures in Odyssey," for the past 20 years. Campbell said writing music for still-life paintings presented some challenges at first. He found himself stopping and staring at the pictures because they were so beautiful, he said. That was inspiration enough to write the music. Campbell recommended his lifelong friend, David Jeremiah of Glendora, to do the narration. Jeremiah, who said he does voiceovers for about 50 commercials a week, was also the promo announcer for NBC's coverage of the Olympic Games last winter. He said he's able to do about 150 different voices. In "The Light of the World," Jeremiah quotes many passages of scripture while telling the stories of creation, the fall of man, Moses and the Israelites' liberation from Egypt, the crucifixion and the promise of Christ's return. "Jack (Chick) is a sweet guy," Jeremiah, 43, said. "I hope the film does exactly what Jack intended it to do." The music and other sound effects such as crashing thunder and angry crowds make the film even more compelling. "Everything was done first rate," said Helms, who is acting as spokesman on the film project for Chick. Helms said Chick prefers not to talk to the press or draw attention to himself. Some stories of the Bible such as the great flood have been left out of the film because there are 25 supplemental illustrated tracts to go with it. These too, will be published in different languages and distributed worldwide with the film. "In some countries, these tracts will be training material for new pastors," Helms said. The Spanish version of "The Light of the World" will be completed by Nov. 15 and the Portuguese version by Dec. 1, Helms said. Some people have expressed concerns that Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion," slated to open before Easter 2004, might steal the wind from "The Light of the World's" sails. But Helms said it's quite the contrary. "Are you kidding? This is the greatest thing that could happen," Helms said. "This will only bring more publicity to "The Light of the World.' " Helms said he is contacting several missionary organizations and various church denominations that would want to purchase the film on DVD or VHS, show it and send it to their missionaries. "The Light of the World" is intended to be an evangelical tool to tell the world about Jesus. "This (film) is going to clearly define the greatness of God, the sinfulness of man and that the only solution to man's sinful nature is through the blood of Christ," Helms said.

1955: Einstein on God "...The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this," wrote Einstein, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921. "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," the letter continues. "And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them." The letter ends, "With friendly thanks and best wishes, Yours, A. Einstein." Einstein experts say the letter supports the argument that the physicist held complex, agnostic views on religion. He rejected organized faith but often spoke of a spiritual force at work in the universe.
Read more:
[I don't know why people think Einstein was right about everything-his accomplishments are exaggerated and his "theory of relativity" is flawed.]

The first presidential debate

James Carville says Obama looked like he didn't want to be there (at the debate). Of course he didn't. Nobody wants to be at their own butt-whipping especially when its televised live internationally! He got spanked! My friend says the media was mad because he embarrassed them. They sold America a bill of goods that Obama was the Christ-and Romney made him look like a fool.