Saturday, July 29, 2006

Some views from Londonistan

Here's some Pic's from a religion of peace lovefest in Londonistan lately, enjoy!

Food for thought.

This is some food for thought, from Hal Lindsey, of late great planet earth fame, and illustrates the obvious modern day anti-semitism.

Oracle Commentaries 7/28/2006
So, What Would They Do?

I was listening with interest when a British reporter was called in by Fox News to give her 'analysis' of the current Middle East conflict between Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel. The context of the interview was in relation to Hezbollah's upping the ante by firing a new, longer range rocket into Afula, some ten miles south of Haifa.

The interviewer pointed out President Bush's statement that the root cause of the violence was Hezbollah and Hamas.

The British reporter, Hillary McKenzie, immediately took exception to Bush's statement, saying that 'in Europe's view' (which obviously was shared by McKenzie) the root of the problem was really Israel's refusal to grant the Palestinians a state of their own.

The fact that every 'occupied' territory vacated by Israel was immediately used to stage new attacks against Israel aside, what would, say, the British do? Let's just suppose that a group of Irishmen living in Ireland wanted an independent Irish state in place of the British mandate in Northern Ireland?

Let's sweeten the pot by pretending that the Irishmen wanting an Irish state on Irish soil in place of the British-ruled state set up by the British after conquering its inhabitants won't take 'no' for an answer?

To make it even more interesting, let's pretend that these Irishmen set up an anti-British terrorist group and gave it a nationalist-sounding name, like, maybe the "Irish Republican Army" with a cool acronym like the Palestinians have in the Palestinian Liberation Organization's acronym, PLO?

So, supposing there was an entity called the IRA that used bombs and terrorist attacks aimed at driving the British off Irish land and setting up an Irish state under Irish rule?

What would the British do?

Would they conduct ground wars against the IRA? Would they imprison the Irish 'freedom fighters' who were fighting with the only weapon they had -- terrorism -- against a ruling external nation much too powerful for the IRA to fight by conventional means?

Or would they, as McKenzie says Europe sees it, immediately turn Northern Ireland over to the Irish 'rebels?'

Indeed, would ethnic Irishmen seeking to free themselves from foreign rule even qualify as 'rebels'? Wouldn't they be 'freedom fighters' like the Palestinians?

What IS the difference between British rule in Northern Ireland and Israeli rule over the West Bank and Gaza? Is there one? You bet there is. Before there WAS a Britain, there was an Israel. And before the British ever discovered there was an island across the Irish sea, the 'Palestinian territories' were part of ethnic Israel. Northern Ireland was never composed of ethnic Britons.

And Britain did not come into possession of Northern Ireland as a consequence of repelling Irish invaders whose goal was the extermination of the British race.

While we're on the subject, China voiced its opposition to Israel's incursion into Lebanon at the Security Council, demanding Israel be condemned for its actions against Hezbollah.

What if there were an island composed of ethnic Chinese that had NEVER been part of the People's Republic of China? What if that island declared itself an independent nation? What would China do if Tawan resisted forcible unification with the Red Chinese? According to Beijing, it would use all the weapons at its disposal to bring Taiwan back under its rule.

What if Chechnya were to declare it did not want to be part of the new Russian Federation after the Soviet Union collapsed? What would Moscow do? Would it grant Chechnya the independence its population demanded? Or would it conduct a decade-long war, killing thousands of civilians in the process, to force Chechnya into the Russian Federation against the will of the majority of Chechen citizens?

What would the French do if the Vietnamese, after decades of colonial rule, declared its independence? Would it wish the Vietnamese rebels 'bon chance' and give the country back to its people? Or would it fight a ten-year war to keep Vietnam inside the sphere of French colonial influence?

Of course, none of these are exactly in parallel with the Israeli-Arab war. The Irish Republican Army poses no existential threat to the continued viability of Great Britain. The IRA has not sworn to annihilate every living Englishman and then seize Britain's assets for itself.

The Taiwanese have not attacked Beijing, or threatened the annihilation of the Red Chinese state and every living Chinaman on the mainland.

The Chechens have not banded together with the express purpose of destroying Russia and setting up a Chechen state in its place.

And the Vietnamese defeated the French, after which, it left them alone.

What would the United Nations do if New Zealand attacked Australia with the express purpose of annihilating Australia as a nation and exterminating every Australian it could find, simply because they were Australians? Would they urge Australia to show 'restraint'?

We already know what the British would do. They would increase their troop presence in Northern Ireland, and capture or kill every Irishman that lifted a hand against them. And they would NOT call the IRA 'freedom fighters'. They'd call them terrorists.

China has threatened to launch an all-out invasion of Tawian and overthrow any Taiwanese government that dared to formally declare independence from the Red Chinese government Taiwan was never part of.

And Moscow has been conducting an all-out war against Chechen 'rebels' whom Moscow calls 'terrorists' and not 'freedom fighters'.

But Israel, a sovereign member state of the United Nations, has fought five wars for its existence against the combined forces of the Arab world. In each case, the provocation for the Arab attacks was the mere existence of a Jewish state called Israel.

In each case, Brits, Chinese, Russians and UN have demanded Israel withdraw to indefensible borders, insisted on a cease-fire in order to give Israel's enemies a chance to rest and regroup before launching a new war. And in each case, it blamed Israel for causing the war BY ITS EXISTENCE, demanding it surrender parts of itself to the aggressors in exchange for a 'peace' that never came.

History tells us what THEY would do. But, of course, their situation is different.

They aren't Jews.

Hal Lindsey


Friday, July 28, 2006

A celabration of life, and a celabration of death

July 28, 2006


Nancy Beggs - Idyllwild, California

First hand account from her father-in-law:
Last week I was in Atlanta, Georgia attending a conference. While I was in the airport, returning home, I heard several people behind me beginning to clap and cheer. I immediately turned around and witnessed one of the greatest act's of patriotism I have ever seen.

Moving thru the terminal was a group of soldiers in their camo's, as they began heading to their gate everyone (well almost everyone) was abruptly to their feet with their hands waving and cheering. When I saw the soldiers, probably 30-40 of them, being applauded and cheered for it hit me. I'm not alone. I'm not the only red blooded American who still loves this country and supports our troops and their families.

Of course I immediately stopped and began clapping for these young unsung heroes who are putting their
lives on the line everyday for us so we can go to school, work and home without fear or reprisal. Just when I thought I could not be more proud of my country or of our service men and women a young girl, not more than 6 or 7 years old, ran up to one of the male soldiers. He kneeled down and said "hi," the little girl then she asked him if he would give something to her daddy for her. The young soldier, he didn't look any older than maybe 22 himself, said he would try and what did she want to give to her daddy. Then suddenly the little girl grabbed the neck of this soldier, gave him the biggest hug she could muster and then kissed him on the cheek.

The mother of the little girl, who said her daughters name was Courtney, told the young soldier that her husband was a Marine and had been in Iraq for 11 months now. As the mom was explaining how much her daughter, Courtney, missed her father, the young soldier began to tear up. When this temporarily single mom was done explaining her situation, all of the soldiers huddled together for a brief second. Then one of the other servicemen pulled out a military looking walkie-talkie. They started playing with the device and talking back and forth on it.

After about 10-15 seconds of this, the young soldier walked back over to Courtney, bent down and said this to her, "I spoke to your daddy and he told me to give this to you." He then hugged this little girl that he had just met and gave her a kiss on the cheek. He finished by saying "your daddy told me to tell you that he loves you more than anything and he is coming home very soon."

The mom at this point was crying almost uncontrollably and as the young soldier stood to his feet he saluted Courtney and her mom. I was standing no more than 6 feet away from this entire event unfolded. As the soldiers began to leave, heading towards their gate, people resumed their applause. As I stood there applauding and looked around, their were very few dry eyes, including my own. That young soldier in one
last act of selflessness, turned around and blew a kiss to Courtney with a tear rolling down his cheek.

We need to remember everyday all of our soldiers and their families and thank God for them and their sacrifices. At the end of the day, it's good to be an American.

from Pasadena pundit

Consider the above story with the following one, many people these days insist there's a moral equivelance between our military, or Israel's military and terrorist organizations engaged in this activity, random bombing of civilian locales, random rocket launchings into towns and villages, intentional use of civilians as shields, etc. ad nausium.

Personally, I think such people are bugshit f**kin crazy.

Turning a blind eye to child suicide bombers
Where's the outrage over the Palestinians' mistreatment of children?
By Dan Abrams

Updated: 10:37 a.m. CT March 26, 2004

It has happened again, still with no ensuing outrage from the human rights groups. Another Palestinian child was narrowly prevented from becoming a human bomb. This one, a 16-year-old (although some have reported that he is only 14 years old), was wrapped in explosives vests under his clothing and was stopped by Israeli forces at a West Bank checkpoint. His family is saying he has the intelligence of a 12-year-old and yet still the human rights groups continue to turn a blind eye.

When an 11-year-old was stopped with a bag filled with explosives on March 15, I asked in my “Closing Argument” the next day, Where is the outrage? Why aren’t the human rights groups chastising the Palestinians as they do others who misuse or mistreat children? Amnesty International told us they “condemn these attacks, regardless of the age of individual.” But they never felt the need to specifically condemn the use of children as suicide bombers because there had been “no previous incidents.”

I offered numerous examples of other incidents. But really, that’s just the beginning of the problem. They still don’t get it. When children are involved, they are being used and manipulated by adults who have indoctrinated them. Just condemning suicide bombing says nothing about the abuse of children. This is not just about Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians. It’s about Palestinians targeting Palestinian children. But when it came to the Sierra Leone conflict, for example, Amnesty International singled out the recruitment or use of children by parties to the conflict as a war crime.

Why are they so reluctant to do it here? Interestingly, Amnesty has long condemned targeted assassinations or what they call “extra judicial executions” by the Israelis. But when Israel killed the leader of the terror group Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, earlier this week, Amnesty still felt it necessary to issue a specific press release condemning that attack. It seems general comments about suicide bombing suffice when it comes to the Palestinians’ efforts to use children to target civilians and yet, when Israel kills a terror leader, it makes for headlines on the Amnesty Web site. What a shame that such a well respected and veritable organization that has done so much to protect so many just can’t be an honest broker when it comes to the Mideast conflict.

'Closing Argument' is a regular segment of 'The Abrams Report.' 'The Abrams Report' airs weeknights, 6 p.m. ET on MSNBC.


Thursday, July 27, 2006

The positive news from Iraq

News and polls you will never see on cnn. Here's an few facts from the war zone.

Psych war

I find myself quoting this Lady a lot, what can I say? she's got me beat in the IQ dept. (see link below)

Dr. Sanity is right about the jihadi's effective use of Psyops against us, using human shields, mosque's and such as they do, making sport of our values in the process, we need to turn this around, and i have an idea that will not only help make our troops job's more safe, but help your local farmer too!

PIGS! we need to use pig warfare against these jihadi's, pig blood covered bullets, pigfat loaded artillary shells, pig suicide bombers, and lots of those cute little vietnamese pot belly pigs for our troops to have as pets, to accompany them on patrol.

what do ya think?

Europe well on it's way to accepting dhimmi status

Europe subjects itself to not offending the jihadi's, only Europeans could come up with a plan like this (read link)

Everbody knows what they need to do!

The definative answer! all problems solved! Mark Fiore has the answer

bummed this off of sandmonkey

Monday, July 24, 2006

The NEW axis

Russia, Iran, Syria.

Read this

Michelle Malkin reminds us about the '80s, and hezbollah

A vid on Hezbollah being our problem too.

Cry me a handful

Palestinian leaders call for a general strike? from what? these are the world's welfare babies, I thought you had to have a JOB to strike from one!

the violence is easily fixed, whenever they quit being violent, peace will ensue.

(I thought about sayin f**k them, and the camel they rode in on, but i thought better of it)

Expectations of war

What is this idea floating around that there is such a thing as a war where only the combatants get hurt, and, if any others do, somebody's not following the rules? this does not make any sense whatsoever, not by common sense, not by the history of war, not by any commander of any army, or any wartime leader.

where did this notion come from? all the new precition munitions made nowadays? that makes for some more control, but cirtainly cannot garantee that NO civilians will feel the effects.

I don't get the idea.

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill

Saturday, July 22, 2006

A brilliant post on pacifism

Once again, Dr. Sanity is Worthy of note, with an insightful piece on pacifism, see link below

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

What's worth fighting for?

There seems to be a gulf between two camps in this country on this subject.

Is living free from the fear of when the next suicide bomber is going to attack worth fighting for?

Is liberating millions from a tyrannical dictator or semi-organized terrorist group worth fighting for?

Is your children's future worth fighting for? How about your Grandchildren?

Is free speech worth fighting for?

Is freedom of assembly worth fighting for?

Is representative government worth fighting for?

Is freedom of (yes OF, not from) religion worth fighting for?

let me know.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

No words necessary

But I'm gonna add some anyway, If, like me, you believe in good and evil, a quick study of the differences in fighting styles should make plain to you who's who in this conflict, yes warfare involves collateral damage, but the differences are obvious, in spite of the leanings of the press, and this drawing summarizes it fairly well.

(image borrowed from wild thing)

It's the victim's fault, stupid!

That's the opinion of Richard Cohen, that's right, COHEN! Who holds Israel responsible for all the violence of the last hundred years in the mideast, self-loathing Jew extraordinaire! (see link below)

Monday, July 17, 2006

A story in cartoons

that require no explanation, the rediculous thing about this is the people who come up with these silly ideas about fighting a WAR.

How stupid can people get? I'm afraid the honest answer to that question would scare the shit out of me. (I'm not the President, so I can say shit without the media commenting on my crass behavior)

'toons borrowed from Dr. Sanity

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Israel, Hezbollah, and Idiocy

It's not that I think there's not enough written about the goings on in Lebanon, I just thought I'd lay out my idea's on the subject.

First and foremost people need to remember that Israel Had pulled out of the Gaza strip and west bank, dismantling their settlements . what did they recieve for these efforts from the Arabs? rocket attacks.

were fencing off the same area's (remember, it was the Arabs who demanded a partition plan, and the UN has spent 50 years in NOT providing one)and what did they recieve for this? more rockets and kidnapped troops.

Israel has every right to defend itself, and, after 50 years, they should realize they will recieve no cooperation whatsoever from the Palestinians, or their Arab neighbors, or Europe, for that matter.

I hope the US will not forget this friend and ally, but I'm wondering if there is any such thing as an Intelligent, Moral Politician in this country.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Monday, July 10, 2006

Hitlers Children-Walt Disney cartoon (Banned)

Fascism, now and then

What's the difference?

You tell me, What's the difference between fascism now and then....

Print this document
Print this Transcript Email a Friend
Email a friend Close this window
Close this window
The Middle East Media Research Institute
6/21/2006 Clip No. 1184
Egyptian Cleric Sheik Muhammad Sharaf Al-Din on a Children Show: The Jews Are the People of Treachery, Betrayal, and Vileness

Following are excerpts from a children's program hosted by Egyptian cleric, Sheik Muhammad Sharaf Al-Din, which aired on Al-Nas TV, on June 21, 2006:

Muhammad Sharaf Al-Din: A Jewish woman invited the Prophet Muhammad to a meal. Why? Because she was clever. She said that if he was truly a prophet, he would know (the food was poisoned), and we would know he is a prophet. But if his claim to be a prophet was false, he would die, and we would be rid of him. She knew the Prophet liked the right leg of a lamb. The Prophet liked the right leg from the front. She put poison inside. After the lamb had been slaughtered, skinned, cut, and cooked, she put poison in the meat of the leg she knew the Prophet liked.

Muhammad likes to eat from the leg, someone else may like to eat from the liver, another may like to eat from the head, and another may like to eat from the tongue of the slaughtered animal. People like to eat different kinds of meat. The Jewish woman was told that the Prophet liked to eat the right leg, so she brought one and put poison in it.
After the lamb was slaughtered, skinned, cut, and cooked, it was served to the Prophet Muhammad. When the Prophet Muhammad said "In the name of Allah"... A Muslim must say "In the name of Allah" before eating. When the Prophet said: "In the name of Allah," and cut off a piece of meat, and was about to eat it, our Lord resurrected the lamb, and made it say: "Don't eat me, I'm poisoned, oh messenger of Allah."


Ruqaya, what did you learn from today's show?

Voice of Ruqaya: I learned that the Jews are the people of treachery and betrayal...

Muhammad Sharaf Al-Din: Allah Akbar! Say Allah Akbar! What did Ruqiya say? The Jews are the people of treachery and betrayal. May Allah give you success. We want mothers who teach their sons Jihad, the love of Allah and His messenger, sacrifice for the sake of Islam, and love for the countries of the Muslims. Loving the country of the Muslims. May Allah bless you, Ruqaya. That is the most beautiful thing I have heard - that the Jews are the people of treachery, betrayal, and vileness.
Print this document
Print this Transcript Email a Friend
Email a friend Close this window
Close this window

Print this document
Print this Transcript Email a Friend
Email a friend Close this window
Close this window
The Middle East Media Research Institute
6/15/2006 Clip No. 1185
Egyptian Cleric Sheik Muhammad Nassar Tells a Group of Children about Child Martyrdom in the Early Days of Islam

Following are excerpts from a children's program hosted by Egyptian cleric, Sheik Muhammad Nassar, which aired on Al-Nas TV on June 15, 2006. Sheik Nassar is identified by Al-Nas TV as a preacher at the Egyptian ministry of religious endowment:

Sheik Muhammad Nassar: Let's listen to a very beautiful story to learn about the courage of a child, and how, when a child is brought up in a good home, and receives proper education in faith, he loves martyrdom, which becomes like an instinct for him. He can never give it up.

This story, my friends, is a beautiful story. Abu Qudama was the commander of the army of the Muslims, when they fought the Byzantines. The Byzantines had a very, very large army, whereas the Muslims did not have many fighters. So Abu Qudama walked down the alleys and streets, among the poor, calling: "Come join the Jihad," "Come join the Jihad."


A woman said to him: "Abu Qudama, I have a boy. I will give him to you. Take him with you to war." He asked: "Is he still a boy?" She said: "He is 15 years old, and his father was martyred in the previous war. Since his father's martyrdom, he sits day and night, praying that Allah grant him martyrdom."

Abu Qudama was amazed: What is this? Is it conceivable that a boy, ever since the death of his father, instead of being sad about losing his father, is happy about his father's martyrdom, and moreover, he wants to be martyred like his father? Allah be praised.

He said to her: "Bring me the boy." When the boy came, and asked him: "What's your name?" and the boy answered: "Sa'id." He said: "Son, your mother said that you want to join me in war. Tell me, son, did your mother make you come here, or do you really want to be martyred?" He said: "By Allah, the only thing I have wished for, since my father's martyrdom, is to become a martyr."


They began to strike them, and the battle grew stronger. Abu Qudama looked around and saw little Sa'id. Sa'id called Abu Qudama, who said: "This is not the time, Sa'id." He said: "Abu Qudama, listen to me." Abu Qudama said: "Sa'id, we are in the middle of a war." He said: "Abu Qudama, give me a few arrows. I have used up all my arrows to kill infidels. Give me a few arrows, Abu Qudama." Abu Qudama was very pleased with Sa'id's courage, with his Jihad, his perseverance, and his defiance of death. So he gave him three arrows.

Sa'id shot the first arrow, killing one [infidel]. With the second arrow, he killed another infidel, and with the third, he killed a third. Then he was hit by an arrow, and fell to the ground as a martyr. He achieved the martyrdom for which he yearned.


A little later, he drew his last breath. Sa'id, the 15-year-old child, was martyred for the sake of Allah. He died happy.

My friends, when a martyr dies, his clothes serve as his shrouds. They shroud him in his clothes, and they do not wash him, because he is washed by the angels.

So they brought Sa'id, all wrapped in his clothes, dripping with the blood of martyrdom. Blood was flowing from his wounds. They dug a small ditch in the ground like a grave, and they put Sa'id in it, and covered it with earth. Then they began to walk away.

All of a sudden, the grave shuddered, and they were frightened. What happened? The grave shuddered and ejected Sa'id. They said: "Allah be praised, what's going on?" The corpse got out of the grave all by itself. They were amazed, and said: "Allah be praised." Abu Qudama said to them: "Wait just a moment. Let's try again. How can we possibly leave this corpse like this?" So they put him into the ground once again, and covered him with earth.

After they covered him and began to walk away, the ground shuddered, and threw out the corpse again. They were all frightened, they began to shiver. Allah be praised. Allah Akbar. Then they all stood there in amazement. Abu Qudama said: "We cannot leave him like this. This is my beloved Sa'id. He instructed me to bury him when he dies, and to stay with him, and not tell his mother anything. I must do it. I must bury Sa'id. I cannot leave him. Bury him again."

So he dug the grave himself, and said: "My Lord, reveal this thing to us, my Lord. We want to bury him, my Lord." They put him into the grave again, and began to walk away. Then the earth shuddered once again, and the corpse got out. So they said: "Allah Akbar. This is Allah's doing."
Print this document
Print this Transcript Email a Friend
Email a friend Close this window
Close this window

That was two transcripts from a recent Egyptian children's television show, compare this to the cartoon following in the next post, and tell me what you think.

Dr. Sanity has a related post

video's of this in link below

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Paradox Indeed

One should judge a tree by the fruit it bears.

Look at Islam.

Look at Christianity.


read this, and think about it.

[The Omega Letter] Omega Letter Christian Intelligence Digest [PRINT THIS PAGE]

[Jack Kinsella] The Christian Hate-Literature Paradox

In Defense of the Faith
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

Paradox: "A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true;" e.g., the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.

Two thousand years ago, becoming a Christian meant becoming an enemy of the state. The simple act of believing meant, under Roman law, being guilty of a 'hate crime'.

It wasn't because the Romans were anti-religious. Ancient Rome was one of the most religious empires of antiquity. The Romans had dozens of their own gods and were willing to embrace pretty much anybody's else's god, as well.

The only 'god' rejected by Rome was the God of the Jews and Christians. To be accepted by the God of the Jews required converting to Judaism and forsaking all other gods. To be accepted by the God of the Christians required converting to Christianity and forsaking all other gods.

Your average Roman had room to worship his own gods, (and anybody else's) but he drew the line at worshipping one God exclusively. And the doctrine that only worshippers of the One True God could go to heaven left out all the pagans.

That's why Christianity qualified as a hate crime in AD 55.

Christians were persecuted in revenge for what the pagans perceived as Christian persecution of pagans in the afterlife.

Sounds a bit simpleminded, no?

No. The reason for modern persecution is the same reason given by the Emperor Nero's forces. It violated the Roman socio-religious principle of 'vive et vivas' [live and let live].

That same principle is at the heart of secular humanism, and its variations are found throughout pagan religious systems, from Buddha's karma to Wicca's 'Do no harm'.

The Christian doctrine specifically consigned followers of all other religions and gods to an eternal hell.

As such, Christianity is exclusive, intolerant, and therefore, hateful.

The concept of Christianity as a 'hate crime' seems so foreign to believers that they can't really believe that anybody really thinks that.

Christianity's Golden Rule dictates that Christians love God with all their heart, soul and mind, and we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Jesus also said that, on those two commandments, "hangs all the law and all the prophets." In other words, it is the distilled essence of what it means to be a Christian. Love.

This is where the world gets hung up. "If Christians are so loving, why can't they leave the rest of us alone?" A loving God, they argue, would not exclude good people just because of a religious tag.

Imagine for a second that you are an honest, law-abiding atheist. You are driving down the freeway at the speed limit when some bozo comes screaming by you at 30 mph over the limit and sporting a bumper sticker proclaiming, "Honk if you love Jesus."

You think, "And that hypocrite thinks you aren't good enough for heaven, but he is? Grrrr."

Christianity is, of course, a religious worldview singularly devoted to the causes of peace and love. We've noted in the past that where the spiritual dimension makes contact with this dimension, it creates a paradox.

The Temple Mount is claimed by all three world religions, but the weakest claim is, paradoxically, Israel's, whose claim is both the oldest and best attested to.

Israel's land grant comes directly from God, as recorded in the Old Testament.

Both Christians and Muslims claim the Old Testament as one of their Holy Books and Abraham as their spiritual kin. Yet Israel's claim is the weakest.

It is a paradox.

When the spiritual dimension meets this physical dimension, things get topsy turvy. Christians obtain victory by surrender, for example. Islam can claim a reputation of peace and love based on its history of violence and repression, and nobody blinks.

The Koran has become so sacred that our military forces take sensitivity training on how to handle it without desecrating it, but the Bible is forbidden in public.

No American politician or mainstream media outlet would dare refer to "Jesus the Savior" but show no hesitation at using the designation, the "Prophet" Mohammed.

America is a culturally-Christian secular republic populated almost entirely by Christians, either cultural or born again believers. And Islam is a theocratic religion with almost no presence in either American society or American history. But officially in America, the Bible is hate literature. The Koran is sacred.

It is a paradox.

We know Christianity to be rooted in the greatest of love. Christianity defines love itself as being God Himself. "Love is of God, for God is love" (1st John 4:7-8)

But at the same time, Christianity IS intolerant of other religions. It IS exclusive:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me," (John 14:6) is both intolerant and exclusive.

Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven, so by definition, all other faiths are condemned, along with their adherents.

Jesus said of Himself, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-36)

Christians know their faith to be rooted in peace and love. But the Founder of Christianity says He is come to 'bring a sword' rather than peace, and to bring 'variance' instead of love.

The Bible explains this paradox in a manner that makes perfect sense to indwelt believers to whom it was given to understand it. And that explanation infuriates the world even more.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)

To the natural man, Christianity is a hateful, exclusive and intolerant faith. To the Christian, it is the exact opposite.

Christians know, in their living spirit, a definition of love that escapes the natural man.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36)

The most loving thing a Christian can do is lead someone to Christ and eternal salvation. The most hateful thing a Christian can do is stand idly by and let someone die in their sins. To the world, it is a paradox.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1st Corinthians 1:18)

To the world, the Bible is hate literature and Christianity is a hateful religion. We know it to be the exact opposite.

That paradox is by itself, clear evidence of the power of God -- but discernible only to we who are saved.

Ever have doubts? Remember the paradox. If it all makes sense to you, put your doubts away.

Excerpted from the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume 57, Issue 30


You got that right Hal

Just why do people want to deny the Greatness of this Country? What Country has stood for freedom more or Donated more food to the needy or spent more on medical research, or donated more medical care than the US? Why does everyone in the World want to move here? It's not to hear you Whine Natalie. Get a clue!

'Lil Kim Jong Il, Bugshit friggin crazy

Somebody tell me how anybody could have an Intelligent conversation, much less any kind of agreement, with this wobblehead? The only person who claims to have done so is Madeline Allbright, and we know how THAT turned out, don't we? She's the clown who gave 'Lil Kim nuclear material in excange for a promise not to make weapons out of it. (I guess we know who is the smarter of the two now, huh?)
Who thinks we should let him have his way again?

Ask an expert about this kook's mental and emotional state

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Free Speech?

The recent Vote on an amendment to protect the Flag of our nation has me thinking not about the flag, but why a person needs to desecrate our proud banner to make a point.

Articulate people have no need of such antics, any species capable of reason and possessing language skills can either talk, or print their thoughts on any number of forums.

The best analogy I can think of for this apparent need in some are Chimpanzees, who, when angry, threatened or otherwise upset often throw things, their favorite ammunition of choice? Usually their own feces.

While I would like our Flag protected from such abuse, I worry about going to the extreme of a consitiutional amendment, not because I don't think our Flag is worth it, but because I'd hate to set the precident of amending the consititution every time some silly judge rules by his own whims.

I'm afraid the constant changing would devalue somewhat that great document our country rests on. we need to go about this issue in a different way, congress can pass a law offering our flag some protection without going to this extreme.

The public can do it's part in this too, next time you see the chimps going about this activity, distract them with a banana.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Saturday, July 01, 2006

NOW's concern for women's rights, where is it?

Dr. Sanity, a former feminist, has touched on something that I've often wondered about, why does that organization completely ignore the plight of women in muslim country's? usually siding with the opressors of women there. that puzzles me, ya gotta wonder....

My worth is based on the Islamic Laws of Retribution, 24th edition, December 1982, as half of a man. It doesn't matter who I am, how educated I am, and what earning potential I may have in my life. My worth is half of a man, any man.

I am a Moslem woman. I have no face. I have no identity.

Meanwhile the "women's movent"--which claims to be about "bringing equality for all women" keeps sinking to new levels of complete irrelevancy and idiocy by squawking in its usual hysterical manner about ridiculous issues like these; while they chant silly slogans : "Condi, Condi, Condi Rice—your policies suck but your shoes are nice!"

NOW, whose policies suck?

Read all about it.