Archive for April 26th, 2007

Party of Perpetual Surrender (Democrats) Pass Iraqi Surrender Bill

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

True to form, the Democrats are pushing for defeat and surrender in Iraq, They have threatened to override the presidents promised veto of the bill.

WASHINGTON — A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president’s threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

“The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq,” said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He later added: “It’s time to bring our troops home from Iraq.”

The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

Across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told reporters the war effort likely will “get harder before it gets easier.”

Republicans said the vote amounted to little more than political theater because the bill would be dead on arrival after reaching the White House. Bush said he will veto the bill so long as it contains a timetable on Iraq, as well as $20 billion in spending added by Democrats.

“The solution is simple: Take out the surrender date, take out the pork, and get the funds to our troops,” said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., sided with Republicans in opposing the bill.

“We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between Al Qaeda terrorism or sectarian violence. Or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving,” Lieberman said.

Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president’s desk by Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush’s announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on,” Bush said on May 1, 2003, in front of a huge “Mission Accomplished” banner.

Bush since has acknowledged that the war has not progressed as he had hoped. After the November elections in which Democrats swept up enough seats to take the majority, he announced a new strategy that involved sending additional forces to Iraq.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that if Democratic lawmakers timed the sending of the bill to the anniversary of Bush’s speech, it would be “a ridiculous P.R. stunt.”

“That is the height of cynicism, and absolutely so unfortunate for the men and women in uniform and their families who are watching the debate,” she said Thursday morning.

As Democrats pushed through the bill, Petraeus depicted the situation in Iraq as “exceedingly complex and very tough.” He said there have been some improvements in the two months since Bush’s troop buildup began, but “there is vastly more work to be done across the board. … We are just getting started with the new effort.”

Asked at a Pentagon news conference Thursday about the impact on the effort in Iraq if that legislation passed, Petraeus said, “I have tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals.”

In the House, two Republicans — Reps. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina — joined 216 Democrats in passing the bill. Voting no were 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

Original Link.

FCC Moves To Restrict Violence on TV

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

I think that most everyone would agree that there is too much violence on television today. The violence that children see on TV (let’s face it – many parents do not care what their children watch) has to affect children in a negative way. It has been proven that children who watch violent programming become much more aggressive. I hope the FCC is sincere and successful in their efforts to curb this nonsense that we see even in commercials.

WASHINGTON, April 25 — Concerned about an increase in violence on television, the Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday urged lawmakers to consider regulations that would restrict violent programs to late evening, when most children would not be watching.

The commission, in a long-awaited report, concluded that the program ratings system and technology intended to help parents block offensive programs — like the V-chip — had failed to protect children from being regularly exposed to violence.

As a result, the commission recommended that Congress move to limit violence on entertainment programs by giving the agency the authority to define such content and restrict it to late evening television.

It also suggested that Congress adopt legislation that would give consumers the option to buy cable channels “à la carte” — individually or in smaller bundles — so that they would be able to reject channels they did not want.

“Clearly, steps should be taken to protect children from excessively violent programming,” said Kevin J. Martin, the agency’s chairman and a longtime proponent of à la carte programming. “Some might say such action is long overdue. Parents need more tools to protect children from excessively violent programming.”

The commission report, which was requested by Congress three years ago, was sharply criticized by civil liberties advocates and by the cable television industry for proposing steps that both said would be too intrusive.

“These F.C.C. recommendations are political pandering,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The government should not replace parents as decision makers in America’s living rooms. There are some things that the government does well. But deciding what is aired and when on television is not one of them.”

She added: “Government should not parent the parents.”

A spokesman at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Brian Dietz, said consumers “are the best judge of which content is appropriate for their household.”

“Simple-sounding solutions, such as à la carte regulation of cable TV packages, are misguided and would endanger cable’s high-quality family-friendly programming, leaving parents and children with fewer viewing options,” he said.

Executives at the major networks said that they wanted to study the report, which was released Wednesday evening, before commenting.

Original Link

“How Long Can We Surrender Before the War is Lost?” by Tony Beam

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

The Left in this country is in full retreat mode. I wish I was speaking about the fact they are retreating from their “let’s give Iraq over to the terrorist” strategy but alas, I am talking about their constant drum beat for a complete pull out of American forces. Listening to the rhetoric coming out of Washington these days is a surreal experience. We are a nation at war with Islamic Fascists who would like nothing better than to end our existence. In the middle of this life or death struggle we are witnessing another war between the democratically controlled congress and the White House. President Bush, love him or hate him, is the Commander in Chief of America’s armed forces. I didn’t’t give him that title….the United States Constitution gave him that title. In the wake of the unprecedented 911 attacks, President Bush was authorized by Congress to wage war against the terrorists. He has done so aggressively first by invading and liberating Afghanistan and then by invading and liberating Iraq. By taking the battle to the terrorists he has prevented them from bringing the battle to us. We should all remember this as we close in on the six year anniversary of 911 without another attack on U.S. soil.

Last week Senator Reid joined the growing number of Democrats who slip up every now and then and tell us what they really think. Senator Reid first said emphatically that the war in Iraq was lost. He then pretended to be some kind of mind reader by suggesting that “the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense also know the war is lost.” When his comments created an immediate firestorm of criticism from both sides of the aisle he backpedaled faster than a cyclist in a 200 mile-an-hour headwind saying that he meant to say something like if we continue to follow the President’s policy the war is lost.

This should remind us of John Kerry, who blew his chance to be a viable candidate for president in 08’ with his supposed joke about American soldiers being “stuck in Iraq” if they don’t get a good education. It should remind us of Joe Biden who had to backpedal after describing Barak Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” The spin-misters and damage control experts leaped into action after each one of these gaffes which were actually not gaffes at all but true insights into the mindset of the left.

A few days after his “the war is lost” speech, (what an inspiration….for our enemies) Senator Reid said President Bush was in “a state of denial.” He went on to say Bush, “is the only person who fails to face this war’s reality – and that failure is devastating not just for Iraq’s future, but for ours.”

Since Senator Reid brought up the subject of reality let’s conduct a little reality check. The reality in Iraq is slow and steady progress in the face of a determined enemy who knows what it takes to create mayhem and grab a depressing headline in this country. Our enemy knows we don’t have the stomach for a protracted war so all he has to do is cause enough death and destruction for us to cry uncle. Just like in the Vietnam conflict, it will be politicians and their media counterparts and not the men and women of the U.S. military who run for the high grass.

The reality is last month the Iraqi southern province of Maysan became the fourth province to come under full Iraqi security. Speaking about the peaceful transfer of power, Gen. David Pertraeus said the handover “demonstrates another step toward a stable and secure Iraq.” I don’t know about you but that sounds like real progress to me. I wonder why it wasn’t the lead story on CNN or on page one in The New York Times.

Another reality Senator Reid might want to consider is the report of his fellow Senator Lindsay Graham who just returned from Iraq. Senator Graham appeared on my radio show (Christian Worldview Today on Christian Talk 660, M-F from 7 to 9am) last week and said the surge is already showing dividends. He said the security situation in An bar Province is much better with the leading Sheiks actually calling for people to join the police force. Many Sunni leaders are beginning to openly reject Al Qaeda and recently the Iraqi justice system brought a Shea police official to trial for torturing a Sunni. Senator Graham concluded by saying, “We must not allow car and suicide bombers to dictate our foreign policy.”

That is exactly what the terrorists hope will happen. They hope their headline grabbing suicide attacks will finish off our already weakened resolve forcing us to leave Iraq so that it can become little more than a platform from which they can export their terrorist tactics. The American Left has hitched their political wagon to failure in Iraq. If the war were to turn around with demonstrable progress giving the Iraqi people a chance at democracy it would greatly reduce their chances of winning the White House and maintaining their congressional majority.

America cannot afford to lose Iraq to the control of Islamic extremist. It would fast become a puppet nation with its strings pulled by Iran and Syria. This would completely destabilize the region giving a huge victory to our enemies. It would embolden Al Qaeda, proving that Osama Ben Laden was right to label us a paper tiger. We must find the resolve to stop the surrender and find a clear path to victory

Original Link.

Christians In Bull’s-Eye In New ‘Hate Crimes’ Plan

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

Here is more information concerning a bill in congress that will make homosexuals a special protected group of people and then levy punishment against ANYONE who speaks against them. This would include pastors quoting from the Bible in regards to the sin of homosexuality.
Christians, if you have not contacted your congressperson, now is the time to do so. There is no more time to wait. This bill will do exactly what Christians have feared for so many years…it will make it a crime to profess a belief in the Bible.

A fast-tracked congressional plan to add special protections for homosexuals to federal law would turn “thoughts, feelings, and beliefs” into criminal offenses and put Christians in the bull’s-eye, according to opponents.

“H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech,” according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund.

“As James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter observed in Hate Crimes, Criminal Law, and Identity Politics, ‘It would appear that the only additional purpose [for enhancing punishment of bias crimes] is to provide extra punishment based on the offender’s politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints,'” said Lavy.

The proposal has been endorsed by majority Democrats on the committee, and already has 137 sponsors in the full House, making it possible it could be voted on in a matter of days or weeks.

“This is a terrible thing, to criminalize thought or emotion or even speech,” Lavy told WND, referring to H.R. 1592, now pending at the committee level in the U.S. House. Democrats there have been turning back amendments that would strip it of its worst provisions, according to an observer.

Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, said the plan, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act of 2007, is no more than “a surreptitious attempt by some in Congress to strip the nation of religious freedom and the ability to preach the gospel from our church pulpits.”

“It will stamp all over our doctrine and practice of our faith,” he said. “We believe what the Bible says. If you start there we’ve got a major problem.”

Secondly, it unfairly restricts the expression of fair opinion by Christians, he told WND. “If anything, gays are getting undue deference awarded to them by the courts. That’s why we have the same-sex marriage fight and that kind of thing.”

Rev. Louis Sheldon, director of the Traditional Values Coalition, which represents 43,000 churches across the nation, told WND that the Democrats sponsoring and supporting the issue “have sold out to the homosexual agenda.”

He said churches need to awaken to the dangers of having pastors, lay leaders, or even those sitting in the pews sent to jail for their biblical views. “When they [realize they] could go to jail for preaching the Word of God, they’ll be concerned,” he told WND.

———-

Bishop Jackson cited well-known cases of the application of such a law in other nations: “In Australia, two evangelical pastors were charged with violating the State of Victoria’s ‘hate crimes’ laws last year for criticizing Islam. In Canada, a Catholic city councilor was fined $1,000 for publicly stating that a gay couple’s lifestyle was ‘not normal and not natural,'” he said.

“As an African American, I have long questioned the attempts of the homosexual community to piggy back on the legislative breakthroughs blacks have achieved in civil rights. This legislation will not just over-protect homosexuals, it will bring the threat of invasive, governmental interference with the doctrines and practice of the Church. As some homosexual activists chant, ‘Stay out of our bedrooms,’ we are here to say, ‘Stay out of our pulpits!’” said Bishop Jackson.

Lavy’s white paper, delivered to Congress just a few days ago, pointed out some of the results if the law is adopted. “It provides a federal remedy for a person who is attacked for promoting homosexual relationships, but not for a person who is attacked for encouraging people to stop engaging in homosexual behavior because it is physically and psychologically harmful,” he said. “Worse yet, it provides for federal prosecution of a murderer who spews racial epithets at the victim, but not for a cold-blooded killer that is paid to commit the crime.”

“There is no justification for this disparate treatment. Violent crimes should be punished regardless of the characteristics of the victim,” he said.

“The emotion of hate is an unfortunate reality of the human experience. But it is not a crime unless accompanied by a criminal action – and even then it is the action that is within the police power of the government, not the emotion.” he said. “The reality is that ‘hate’ crime laws are designed to punish people for what they think, feel, or believe.”

And even more problematic, he said, is the inclusion of a definition of ‘hate crime’ from section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. “There is legitimate concern that once Congress makes any ‘hate’ crime a federal offense, the categories of crime will expand to include speech that causes someone to ‘feel’ intimidated, just as they have in other places such as Australia, Canada, and Sweden,” he said.

Lavy’s analysis noted that in New Jersey already it is a “hate crime” to communicate in a manner likely to cause “annoyance or alarm.”

“One would not expect a reasonable person to feel threatened or feel fear of harm as the result of an innocuous communication. Nevertheless, the entire faculty at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus apparently agreed that university librarian Scott Savage was guilty of threatening behavior for a simple statement in 2006. His ‘threat’? Recommending four books for freshman reading… The four books were “The Marketing of Evil,” by [WND Managing Editor] David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’or, and It Takes a Family by Sen. Rick Santorum.”

The recommendation made three professors feel “unsafe” on campus and the entire faculty voted to file charges of sex discrimination and harassment against Mr. Savage for “anti-gay hate mongering,” Lavy wrote. The charges were dismissed later, and Savage now has responded with a lawsuit against several university professors.

But under the proposal, such a recommended list for reading “could be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney General.”

Lavy’s evaluation also noted that San Francisco already has stated in a resolution that organizations seeking to minister to those engaged in homosexual behavior “were responsible” for homosexual student Matthew Shepard’s death in Wyoming, even though his killers have said they did it for drugs and money.

Under such a new law, advertising its “Love Won Out” conferences, addressing homosexuality, would subject Focus on the Family to federal prosecution, he said.

At William Patterson University in Jew Jersey, a student-employee was formally reprimanded for saying he didn’t want to receive promotional e-mails advocating for the lesbian lifestyle, because that sent a message of a “threat,” Lavy said.

Furthermore, statistics show that during 2004 there were only 774 actual “hate crimes” recorded, five murders, four rape and the rest assaults – all of which can be prosecuted without special federal laws, he said.

Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, has been especially active in warning Christians of the approaching danger.

“Most persons who are concerned about imminent passage of the federal ‘anti-hate’ bill don’t realize that S. 1105 in the Senate and H.R. 1592 in the House are actually amendments to a federal hate law passed in 1969. During the height of the civil rights movement, ‘Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 245’ stipulated that no one could verbally ‘…attempt to…intimidate’ another person (chiefly black) away from enjoyment of their federally protected right to equal employment, public services, housing, voting rights, jury privileges, etc. If the government finds such verbal ‘intimidation’ in a state and state officials are not enforcing these guarantees, the federal government can invade states’ rights in local law enforcement, upholding Title 18,” he said.

Now, in 2007, he said, “the present hate bill grants [special rights] to homosexuals, transvestites, and transsexuals.”

The proposal would make it “federally indictable to ‘…attempt to…intimidate’ a homosexual from believing that he (even if he has AIDS or hepatitis) has the right to work in a restaurant, be employed as a police officer or summer camp counselor, or has equal rights to housing and employment anywhere he wishes,” he said.

“A pastor, Christian broadcaster or publisher who verbally attempts to ‘intimidate’ homosexuals by describing homosexuality as an abomination (Lev. 18:22) are thus high-profile targets for indictment under this legislation,” he said.

He noted that it also would be illegal for a Christian church to discriminate against an applicant as pastor because of his homosexuality or her lesbianism.

He said the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has been leading the charge for such crime bills for years, and has explained on its website how its campaign already has installed laws at the state level.

Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America, Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, Brad Dacus, of Pacific Justice Institute, and others already have expressed their alarm.

Original Link.

Egypt Threatens Relations With Hamas Unless Rocket Attacks Stop

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

This would be quite something if it comes to culmination, but quite frankly, I doubt it will. Words are abundant but cheap in the Arab world. Actions, well, that’s an altogether different subject. Actions, like what Egypt are threatening, are unheard of. Guess we’ll have to wait and see, because I guarantee you this: the pali terrorist are NOT going to stop shooting at Israel.

Egypt has threatened to cut off its relations with Hamas unless the movement halts its rocket attacks on Israel, Palestinian Authority officials said Wednesday.

The officials said Egyptian Intelligence Chief Gen. Omar Suleiman sent a “tough” message to Hamas leaders, warning them against the continued rocket attacks. The message was delivered to PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas by Burhan Hammad, a senior Egyptian intelligence officer based in the Gaza Strip, the officials added.

They said that Suleiman also warned that Egypt would not side with the Palestinians if Israel launched a military operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

“We hope that the Hamas leaders will listen carefully to what the Egyptians are telling them,” said one official here. “Hamas must return to the period of calm so as not to give Israel an excuse to invade the Gaza Strip.”

Original Link.

Giuliani: “No Israeli Concessions Until Arabs Stop Terrorism”

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

Wow, now it is refreshing to hear a pol take a position on the Middle East “peace process” that makes sense. It’s not like the Israelis have not already made concession after concession after concession, while the pali terrorist have yet to live up to even one of the promises they have made.
I’ve said for some time now that there should be no more concessions from Israel until the palis have done ALL the things they promised to do.

Rudy Giuliani doesn’t care whether the Palestinian government is run by Hamas, which is recognized by the US as a terrorist organization, or Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of Fatah who is regarded by the Bush administration as a moderate.

“Hamas or Abbas, it makes no difference. The ball is in their court, and we just have to show patience and not push any peace process until they do what they have to do,” said Mr. Giuliani.

What they have to do, he said, is, at the very minimum, to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to renounce terrorism. Then, he said, Israel and the US should sit back and see if they mean it.

“They don’t just have to say the words. Anyone can say the words. They have to show that they are ending terrorism; they have to show that they are doing what they have to do to end terrorism. I’m a strong proponent of the philosophy that we can trust, but we have to verify,” he said. “If all that happens, then it will lead naturally to a peace process, but we have to wait patiently until they are ready to make it happen. And no one should make any concessions to the Palestinians until they take those steps.”

Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor who is now an all-but-declared Republican candidate for President, made his remarks on March 27 at a fundraiser organized by his exploratory committee in New Jersey in cooperation with NORPAC at the Englewood home of Rabbi and Mrs. Shmuley Boteach.

Understanding Terrorism

Mr. Giuliani told his supporters he was running for President because he believes he understands terrorism better than any other candidate currently running to hold the office.

He pointed out that, as far as he is concerned, Islamist terrorism against the West began in 1972 at the Munich Olympics when Palestinian terrorists kidnapped and murdered 11 Israeli athletes.

He said he remembered being appalled when the German authorities, who had arrested some of the terrorists, quickly released them. “They let them go because they were afraid if they did not, there would be more terrorist attacks in Germany,” he said, pointing out that many European countries followed Germany’s example.

Leon Klinghoffer

He found it especially galling, he said, when Italian authorities released the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, the 69-year-old disabled New Yorker who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists who had hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship in 1985.

“The Italians captured the terrorists and then released them two hours later, because they were afraid,” said Mr. Giuliani.

As a US Attorney in the Reagan administration, Mr. Giuliani investigated the Klinghoffer case, and, he said, he became convinced that Yasir Arafat personally was responsible for the murder.

Ten years later, as mayor of New York, Mr. Giuliani threw Mr. Arafat out of a concert he was hosting at Lincoln Center for world leaders who were in Manhattan to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the UN. “I didn’t forget what he had done to Leon Klinghoffer,” said Mr. Giuliani.

Oslo Mistakes

He called the concessions Israel was forced to make as part of the Oslo process before the Palestinians fulfilled any of their requirements, “mistakes.”

“The US pushed Israel to make concessions, and it didn’t matter that the Palestinians did nothing to live up to their end of the bargain. This was wrong and we should never do it again,” he said.

He maintained that, since 9-11, the vast majority of Americans feel an increased kinship with Israel.

“We must never be on the defense against terrorism. Never again. We must always be on the offense, never acquiescing, always doing what we have to do to keep our country safe and strong,” he said.

Original Link.