Archive for October 13th, 2006

The Great Commission

Friday, October 13th, 2006

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Matthew 28:16-20 (New International Version)

Jesus commanded His disciples to go out and preach His Word to the people of the world. Through His disciples, He passed this “Great Commission” to all Christians. It is not only our pleasure to share His words with the lost, but our duty, a duty that all Christians should take very seriously.
In this age of instant communication, is there any reason why the sharing of the Gospels should not be at the forefront of our daily walk with Jesus?
During the days of the early church, the disciples had to travel thousands of miles to spread Jesus’ message of salvation. Today, it can be done with the click of a mouse.
Take time to spread Jesus’ Word. Be a true disciple for Jesus. Obey His “Great Commission”.

“What if the Liberals Win in November?” by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor

Friday, October 13th, 2006

(CNSNews.com) – A conservative advocacy group is not only asking the “what if” question, it’s answering it – in an email message that urges conservatives to get out and vote in November.

The midterm elections are “very important,” the American Family Association says. “As bad as things are, they will be infinitely worse if the liberals win.”

The AFA offers the following list (verbatim) of what conservatives can expect if Democrats regain control of Congress:

— Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.

— A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.

— Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.

— Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.

— Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.

— A return to the “Fairness Doctrine” in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows.

— An increase in taxes to push new social programs.

— Passing a new “hate crimes” law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.

— Liberals will give terrorists from other countries who try to kill Americans the same rights American citizens enjoy under our constitution.

–We will withdraw from Iraq, sending the message to the terrorists that if they will just be patient they can win and bring their terrorist acts to the U.S.

The American Family Association is warning conservatives that the liberals’ strategy is to disgust and discourage Values Voters (about the Mark Foley scandal, for example) to the point where conservatives will stay home rather than vote.

“If that happens, the liberals will have achieved their goal and they will be running our country,” AFA Founder and Chairman Don Wildmon said.

In an effort to get more conservatives registered to vote, the American Family Association has set up a ValuesVoters website that offers state-by-state information on the voter registration process, voting dates, absentee ballots and deadlines.

Conservative voters were the largest single largest factor in the 2004 elections, Wildmon said. “Now is no time to let up,” he warned.

Original Link.

Networks Biased in Reporting Sex Scandals, Report Says

Friday, October 13th, 2006

What?? You mean that the Main Stream Media is biased against Republicans, Conservatives and Christians?
As if there is any doubt.

(CNSNews.com) – The establishment media has a double standard when reporting the sexual proclivities of Republicans versus Democrats, a media watchdog group found in a report on the Mark Foley scandal.

Over the past 12 days, more than 150 stories on Foley aired on morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, the Media Research Center, parent company of Cybercast News Service, found. Compare that to 19 stories over one year in the scandal involving Mel Reynolds – a Democratic congressman from Illinois convicted in 1995 of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker.

“The numbers are clear and shocking: 152 stories on Mark Foley over 12 days, yet only 19 stories on Mel Reynolds over an entire year. This double standard reeks of political partisanship and proves how far the liberal media will go to downplay the sexual degeneracy of a liberal Democrat and trumpet the sexual degeneracy of a Republican,” said MRC President Brent Bozell in a statement.

Reynolds also conspired to have sex with the teen’s 15-year-old friend, solicited child porn, and was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault and obstruction of justice.

CBS did two stories on Reynolds’ 1994 indictment (two anchor briefs), while NBC did one evening story and ABC didn’t touch on the indictment at all, the MRC found.

And when Reynolds was convicted in 1995 on all 12 counts, NBC did 10 stories (seven anchor briefs, a morning story and two morning interview segments), CBS did five (four anchor briefs and a full morning story) and ABC reported on it once.

Foley resigned recently amid reports that he traded sexually inappropriate messages with an underage male participant in the congressional page program.

NBC did a total of 56 stories on the Foley scandal (20 on the evening news and 36 in the morning), compared to 50 on ABC (20 in the evening and 30 in the morning) and 46 on CBS (15 in the evening and 31 in the morning).

“The Republican is accused of repugnant behavior, via e-mail primarily, toward minors. The Democrat was charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison for very real sexual assault toward a minor along with obstruction of justice,” noted Bozell.

“The same networks that gave absolute minimal coverage to the Democrat are now flooding the airwaves with stories about the Republican, on the eve of the elections. If this isn’t evidence of a liberal media agenda, nothing ever will be,” Bozell added.

The MRC looked at stories on the Foley scandal from Sept. 29 when the story broke to Oct. 11. A fraction of the stories were brief anchor updates.

Emphasis mine. -ed.

Original Link.

Attorney Commends Efforts by ‘Roe’ and ‘Doe’ to Overturn Abortion-on-Demand

Friday, October 13th, 2006

How interesting that the plaintiffs in the two cases that established abortion on demand as a “right” in this country, have both come forward and tried to get their cases vacated.
Sandra Cano of Doe v. Bolton, claims she was “browbeaten into saying that she wanted an abortion when she, in fact, did not.”
Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, now claims she was never raped, as she originally testified.
The very essence of the cases that have led to the deaths of millions of babies, were lies from the very beginning!
It’s time to make this situation right. It’s time to abolish abortion on demand.

(AgapePress) – The United States Supreme Court has rejected the appeals of two plaintiffs attempting to have the companion rulings in their landmark abortion cases — rulings that helped to establish the “right” of abortion on demand 33 years ago — set aside. But, even though the high court refused to consider the appeal, one pro-life attorney says the symbolism of their effort is still significant.

Brian Fahling is senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (AFA Law Center). He says although the U.S. Supreme Court this week turned away the appeal of Sandra Cano — who was the anonymous “Doe” of Doe v. Bolton — the high court made this decision based on the technical requirements for the merits of such an appeal, not due to pro-abortion prejudice.

Fahling says the court has to be able to provide a proper remedy or relief in order to apply Rule 60(b), a civil procedure regulation that relates to the reversal of a court order or judgment. In the case of Doe v. Bolton, he explains, as far as any kind of relief that the court could have afforded to the woman on whose behalf the appeal was filed, “there really was none.”

Cano’s case shares the fate of a previous appeal attempted by Roe v. Wade plaintiff Norma McCorvey. Both women were attempting to have their landmark court decisions vacated on the grounds that each woman was coerced and their original cases were based on falsehoods. The AFA Law Center’s senior trial attorney sees these facts as important reinforcement for the pro-life movement in its fight to end abortion-on-demand in America.

It is helpful, Fahling asserts, for pro-lifers to be reminded of the truth to which Cano and McCorvey are now attesting, about the deception and strong-arm tactics by abortion proponents that went into securing the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton abortion rulings.

“I think it is helpful for us to be reminded of that,” the attorney says, “to see that and to see that those decisions are not only legally abhorrent and wrong but factually as well.” What this reminder does, he contends, is it “brings back into the public consciousness, really, that this culture of death that was inaugurated with Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton was predicated on a lie.”

The underlying falsehood of the abortion rulings is apparent in the first instance with Nora McCorvey, “who said she was raped and was not,” Fahling says, “and now [with] Sandra Cano, who said she was essentially browbeaten into saying that she wanted an abortion when she, in fact, did not.”

Millions of innocent unborn babies have been killed as a result of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Fahling observes — companion rulings that created a “right” to abortion based on falsehoods. However, he believes Cano and McCorvey’s efforts have not been in vain and says just the ladies’ presentation of the truth to the court has great significance.

Original Link.

“God’s Own Party?” by Jack Kinsella

Friday, October 13th, 2006

The perception of the GOP as being “God’s Own Party” is one cultivated mainly by the Left, and is wielded like a two-edged sword. The GOP’s position on moral issues comes under fire as ‘religious bigotry’ — unless a Republican lawmaker has a public moral failing, in which case, the charge shifts from ‘bigotry’ to ‘hypocrisy’.

When one ties his public life to his personal faith, one is judged against the other. The same applies to a political party.

Take the Mark Foley scandal as an example. If he were a Democrat, it would be a case of the Religious Right hounding a politician out of office because he is gay.

Democratic politicians have done far worse than send emails to White House pages, and not only retained their seats, but have risen to prominence in the years since.

Barney Frank got away with having a former page run a male bordello out of his apartment BECAUSE he was gay. Seventeen years later, he remains in Congress.

Mark Foley was run out of Congress BECAUSE he was gay — and a Republican. And because the Republicans didn’t take action against Foley (for being gay) the GOP leadership is in danger of being forced to resign.

On the other hand, the perception of the GOP as ‘God’s Own Party’ means the GOP can’t use such Democratic tactics as accusing the other side of ‘gay-bashing’ or ‘hypocrisy’.

Nancy Pelosi marched in San Franscisco’s Gay Rights Parade behind the Grand Marshal of the Parade, who was also a director of NAMBLA (The North America Man-Boy Love Association) that advocates gay pedophilia as its raison d’etre.

Nobody expects Pelosi to have moral standards, so she needn’t worry about publicly being accused of compromising them.

Original Link.

“The Underestimated Communicator” by David Limbaugh

Friday, October 13th, 2006

In addition to addressing the issues directly, and starkly contrasting his positions with those of Democrats, President Bush made three other points that have been a long time coming.

First, he said he would not be intimidated from using the Democrats’ words against them by their false charge that he was questioning their patriotism. He will continue to call their position on Iraq “cut and run,” because it’s an accurate descriptor. He noted that Sen. Kerry had advocated a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq, which amounts to “cutting and running” before the mission — enabling Iraq to “defend itself, sustain itself and govern itself” — is complete.

In the turning-their-words-against-them department, President Bush also cited House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s laughable assertion that she “loves tax cuts.” President Bush allowed as how he found this quite curious, given Pelosi’s record of always voting for tax increases. Boy is the truth painful to its strangers!

Second, the president not only refused — “for about the fifth time” — to acknowledge that invading Iraq was a mistake. He got right back in their faces and affirmed, defiantly, that it was the right thing to do — and said he couldn’t wait until we could have an actual debate on this subject. He was daring Democrats to defend the Saddam regime, what with its use of WMD, its systematic torture and its burying alive of its own people — not to mention its support of terrorists.

Third, Bush squarely debunked the Democratic slander that he is a unilateralist. He said the claim was not only bogus — he did assemble a large coalition to attack Iraq and also begged the other recalcitrant nations to join — but noted that Democrats are completely hypocritical and inconsistent on the matter. He had been consistent in his approach to Iraq, Iran and North Korea — employing a multilateral approach to all three. Democrats — redundantly, since it was already being implemented — insisted on a multilateral approach to Iraq, but have castigated Bush for not meeting with each of the twin dictators, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, alone.

On the issues, President Bush welcomes a debate on the state of the robust economy ushered in by his tax cuts. We’ve created 6.6 million jobs since August 2003, unemployment is down to 4.6 percent, wages are up, the stock market is at an all time high, oil prices are dramatically down, and the deficit has been cut in half three years earlier than he predicted. Any takers?

Then he explained that Democrats were obstructing his prosecution of the war, including opposing his efforts to prevent terrorist attacks through the NSA terrorist tracking program and the legislation authorizing tough interrogation techniques. And he emphasized that remaining in Iraq until the mission is complete is essential to winning the war on terror. Our defeat there would embolden global jihadists — and he does not intend to allow that to happen.

Original Link.