Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog

This is a very interesting article and even though it is long, it is written so that most people will be able to understand it. It is an interview of Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades and Gregory Murphy of Executive Intelligence Review.
This from NewsBusters:

If you listen to the global warming alarmists working for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, sea levels across the globe are rising at a rate that will eventually doom us all.

According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their point.

Mörner was recently interviewed by Gregory Murphy of Executive Intelligence Review, and began by making it clear that the sea level claims made by the IPCC are a lot of nonsense.

The bottom line is this:
Ocean levels do not back up the claim that global warming is meting the ice caps.
There are many good statement in this article, but I like this one the best:

EIR: These scare stories are being used for political purposes.

Mörner: Yes. Again, this is for me, the line of demarcation between the meteorological community and us: They work with computers; we geologists work with observations, and the observations do not fit with these scenarios. So what should you change? We cannot change observations, so we have to change the scenarios!
Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money to the side which agrees with the IPCC. The European Community, which has gone far in this thing: If you want a grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global warming. All the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we are not fulfilling the basic obligations. That is really bad, because then you start asking for the answer you want to get. That’s what dictatorships did, autocracies. They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted.

Read the whole article here (pdf).

The Pakistani Minister of Religious Affairs, Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, voiced his disapproval of Queen Elizabeth’s decision to confer knighthood on Salman Rushdie, saying:

“The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism,” ul-Haq said, as if it were a completely unfounded charge, before going on to say;

“(But) If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the “Sir” title.”

Salman Rushdie is the author of a book published in the 1980’s entitled, “The Satanic Verses.” The book so inflamed tender Islamic sensibilities that Iran’s Ayathollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a 1989 fatwa ordering Rushdie’s murder.

The fatwa resulted in Rushdie’s spending the next decade in hiding under a kind of ‘witness protection program’ — complete with a British security team charged with keeping the guy alive.

In the eastern city of Multan, Muslim students burned effigies of the Queen and Rushdie. About 100 students carrying banners condemning the author also chanted, “Kill him! Kill him!”

Legislators in Pakistan’s lower house of parliament on Monday passed a resolution proposed by Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, the minister for parliamentary affairs. Now Rushdie is, by official resolution of the Pakistani parliament, a ‘blasphemer’.

Niazi told the Pak National Assembly, “The ‘Sir’ title from Britain for blasphemer Salman Rushdie has hurt the sentiments of the Muslims across the world.”

He then went on to say that Rushdie should be stripped of the title, on the grounds that, “Every religion should be respected.”

To demand respect for a religion whose adherents chant “Kill him,” because they feel insulted is nothing short of comical.

Advocates of murder don’t deserve respect. Neither does a worldview that could countenance such barbarism.

Contrast “Kill Him” with Romans 12:20: “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.”

Islam makes insulting Christianity and Christians an article of faith under the doctrine of ‘dhimmitude.”

“Dhimmi” is the Arabic term that refers to its non-Islamic embracing population that has suffered the dishonor of living in Islamic conquered lands.

A ‘dhimmi’ is a distinctly subjugated second class non-citizen almost slave who is subjected to dictatorial deprivation of any legal and human rights since he is a non-Muslim permanent resident in a Muslim state.

Throughout earliest Islamic history, the conquered peoples by advancing Muslim armies were given the choice of either converting, being killed, or living as a conquered people, a dhimmi.

These subjugated people were suspended in time and space, for dhimmitude meant being barely tolerated in your dispossessed land.

Rules are formulated to deny the dhimmi due process of the law. Discriminatory and restrictive dress and behavior codes are severely enforced to reduce the dhimmi into a state of despair and poverty.

Dehumanization of the dhimmi is generally the rule. Various forms of physical abuse were common.

Merely passing a Muslim on the wrong side can justify a beating that could leave a dhimmi mortally wounded. Since dhimmis are denied the ability to testify against a Muslim, there can be absolutely no recourse.

Islam doesn’t demand ‘respect’. It demands fear.

What is fascinating is the reaction from the West to Islamic anger at Rushdie’s knighthood.

Personally, I am not particularly impressed with knighthood. Elton John, Paul McCartney and Bono are all Knights of the British Empire, making knighthood the British equivalent to a Grammy Award.

But while most of the Western world doesn’t take knighthood very seriously, they definitely take Islamic anger seriously. There were more than 800 newspaper articles worldwide this morning lamenting the Queen’s ‘regrettable’ decision.

Let’s revisit ‘dhimmitude’ once more. A ‘dhimmi’ is one who subjects himself to Islamic rule and accepts the limitations placed on non-Muslims when it comes to Islam.

A ‘dhimmi’ may not defend himself against Islamic attacks, however, Muslims may attack dhimmis on a whim. Death threats, under Western law, are a crime.

If I were to threaten a person with death, I would go to jail, and rightly so. In a civilized world, a person has the right to live his life free of fear. That is the very definition of ‘civilized.’ Pakistan is allegedly ‘civilized’.

So when a Pakistani lawmaker advocates suicide bombing as a justifiable response to Salman Rushdie’s knighthood, one would expect the rest of the civilized world to say something like, “Hey, wait just a doggone minute! That ain’t right!”

Or something. Anything. But silence?

What kind of reaction is silence? It is the reaction Islam expects of dhimmis.

The British government’s reaction was not ENTIRELY silent. A lone article in the South Asia News reported that, “The British government has expressed its ‘deep concern’.”

What would the British government’s reaction be if the US Senate passed a resolution calling for the death of, say, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t INSULT Americans. He KILLED them. More than three THOUSAND of them. But the British government is on record opposing his execution. The Brits call such a sentence ‘barbaric’ — even if ordered after a legal trial and conviction.

What makes Islamic reaction to an INSULT less egregious than America’s reaction to mass murder?

If Britain’s assessment of America as barbaric were rooted in moral principles, then one would expect a considerably stronger reaction to Pakistan than ‘deep concern.’ What is the difference?

Dhimmitude.

What did the US State Department have to say about the Paki government’s resolution that Salman Rushdie is a ‘blasphemer’ worthy of death?

I don’t know. Can’t find it anywhere.

Now that Hamas has placed the Gaza Strip under Islamic law, Christians in Gaza who engage in “missionary activity” will be “dealt with harshly.”

“I expect our Christian neighbors to understand the new Hamas rule means real changes. They must be ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza,” said Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya, as quoted in Worldnetdaily.

What is the price for ‘peace’? Dhimmitude.

“Jihadia Salafiya and other Islamic movements will ensure Christian schools and institutions show publicly what they are teaching to be sure they are not carrying out missionary activity. No more alcohol on the streets. All women, including non-Muslims, need to understand they must be covered at all times while in public,” Abu Asqer told WND.

“Also the activities of Internet cafes, pool halls and bars must be stopped,” he said. “If it goes on, we’ll attack these things very harshly.”

What is the ‘civilized’ world’s reaction? I don’t know. There aren’t many Western news organizations who will even mention it, let alone express a reaction to it. Apart from WND, (and the Omega Letter), I’ve not been able to find a single story on the subject.

Just silence. Dhimmitude.

ABC News reported this week that an Islamic training camp in Pakistan has graduated a 300-strong class of suicide bombers with orders to infiltrate and launch attacks against the US, Canada, Great Britain and Germany.

No action, diplomatic or otherwise, is either advocated or contemplated against Pakistan. After all, it isn’t Islam that’s responsible.

It’s global warming.

Original Link.

Sometimes I feel like asking some of my brethren in Christ, “Which Bible are YOU reading?” Such was the case last night when I read the following headline: “World Council of Churches denies Israeli claim to God-given land.”

According to the article attached to that headline, the World Council of Churches is representative of over 560 million Christians in more than 110 countries. Let the record reflect that it does NOT represent this Christian! Why? Because the article indicates that it is going to “launch a global initiative to have churches worldwide rally for an end to Israel’s occupation of Arab lands seized in the 1967 Mideast war.”

Christian churches rallying against the apple of God’s eye in favor of the Arab world which hopes to wipe Israel from the face of the earth? Unthinkable and yet it’s going to happen. God help us! Which Bible are these people reading? Seriously!

The descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, according to the Word of God, are not ‘occupying’ one inch of land that isn’t theirs. Quite the contrary!

Genesis 15:18: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

There are a number of possibilities concerning what is referred to in the above passage as “the river of Egypt.” Some believe this is a reference to a branch of the Nile river while others believe it is a reference to the Wadi El-Arish, which is near Al’ Arish.

The Euphrates river? Well, most everyone knows where that is at this point.

At any rate, as we look at the biblical text, there is no cause whatsoever for the World Council of Churches to state that Israel is ‘occupying’ anyone else’s lands! None whatsoever and yet it is doing so, in spite of the clear teachings of God’s Word.

The Bible states in Genesis 17:8 and Genesis 48:4 that the lands Israel presently exists in (and far more) are given to the children of Israel as an everlasting possession! The diaspora of the Jewish people having been over since 1948, the Jewish people are back in possession of their ‘everlasting possession’ and this time, although a period of unprecedented darkness lies ahead as evidenced in part by the content of this commentary, they’re going to keep it this time!
In the Bible we’re told there will be a falling away from the faith in the days leading up to Christ’s return. Surely we are living in those days when ‘Christians’ (and I use that term loosely in this instance) from all over the world are gathering in one accord to pressure the nation of Israel into giving up its covenant lands, especially to those whose allegiance lies with a god whose goals directly oppose those of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the God of the Bible!

Which Bible are these people reading?

Original Link.

Some very grim statistics from the CDC in regards to sexual behavior and drug use.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 96 percent of Americans over the age of 20 have had sex.

This is just one of the findings in a report issued Friday by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics about American’s sexual behavior and drug use.

The report uses data collected from 1999 to 2002 from 6,237 people aged 20 to 59. Participants submitted computer-assisted self-interviews about the use of cocaine, crack, freebase, and other street drugs, but marijuana was not included. Sexual behavior was defined as vaginal, oral or anal sex.

In previous federal surveys on these topics, participants were asked questions in face-to-face interviews; the CDC believes that caused underreporting of behaviors that might be viewed negatively.

“This is the first time we’ve used this technique,” said Dr. Kathryn Porter, who served as medical officer for the survey. “The participants have a headset on, they hear questions, they touch the screen with responses. There’s no one else in the room and they can take as long as they want.”

Porter said the findings would provide grist for further studies, notably on the prevalence and patterns of sexually transmitted diseases.

Highlights from the report include:

• Twenty-nine percent of men reported 15 or more female sexual partners in a lifetime compared with 9 percent of women who reported having 15 or more male sexual partners in a lifetime.

• Of all race or ethnic groups, Mexican Americans had the highest percentage of persons never having sex at almost 12 percent.

• Sixteen percent of adults first had sex before the age of 15.

• Only 6 percent of non-Hispanic black persons abstained from sex until age 21 years and older compared with 17 percent for Mexican Americans and 15 percent for non-Hispanic white persons.

• The proportion of adults who first had sex before the age of 15 was highest for persons with less than a high school education

• The median number of lifetime female sexual partners for men was seven and the median number of lifetime male sexual partners for women was four.

• One out of every five adults between 20 and 59 has tried cocaine or street drugs sometime in their life.

• Non-Hispanic white persons had a higher percentage of ever using cocaine or other street drugs while non-Hispanic black persons had a higher percentage of past year use.

• Married adults were less likely to have used cocaine or other street drugs in their lifetime or in the past year.

Original Link.

Today I am joining blogs Gateway Pundit, Ali Eteraz, and Iran Focus in reprinting the latest batch of Iranian repression photos being distributed by the regime’s state-run FARS News agency and ISNA. The innocent young men in the photos were beaten, humiliated, and arrested for wearing Western clothing and hairstyles. It is in the public interest to spread these photos far and wide. The images should be seared onto the global conscience…

Question: Will these photos be blared across the front pages of the international media with as much disgust and condemnation as the photos of Abu Ghraib or the manufactured Gitmo Koran-flushing riots?

Answer: Fat chance.

Question: What do leftist apologists for the Iranian regime have to say about the brutal, appalling, and escalating crackdown on human rights? Yeah, you, Rosie.

Answer: Nothing.

Question: Will the same moral cowards who sat silently while Mohammad Khatami, former President of Iran, advocated executing gays during a Harvard lecture stand up now against this barbarism?

Answer: Of course not.

So what does Amnesty International USA have to say about the Iranian human rights debacle on its homepage today? Nothing. Instead, the site promotes two campaigns for Darfur and a lead story about the campaign to secure habeas corpus rights for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay…

A challenge to Rosie and Amnesty International USA members and America’s progressive left (I know there are a few on the story, but they are far between): How about taking a day off from Bush-bashing and America-blaming to raise your voices against the mullahcracy’s brutal human rights abuses?

How about posting the FARS/ISNA photos on your blogs and calling attention to the innocent Iranian men being bloodied to a pulp for the crime of embracing Western dress?

Or how about spreading the word about the work of Nazanin Afshin Jam on behalf of Iranian minors sentenced by sharia courts to death for defending themselves against rape or for crimes against “chastity?”

Or how about joining the campaign to stop public stonings?

Or how about embedding these videos so that the cries of Iranian women and girls don’t go unheard…

Go to Michelle’s blog to see images of the human rights abuses Iran is currently engaged in (warning some images are graphic).

A British court is considering a case in which a Christian student was told that her purity ring, symbolizing her commitment to premarital chastity, was against the dress code. Her suit against the school maintains that Sikh and Muslim pupils were permitted distinctive dress to show their religious identity, but in her case she was prohibited from showing her religion.
It will be interesting to see how the British court rules.

LONDON, June 22 — At a time of passionate debate over religious clothing and emblems, a 16-year-old member of an evangelical Christian movement protested in court on Friday because her school has refused to allow her to wear a so-called purity ring, symbolizing her commitment to premarital chastity.

The case offered a counterpoint to a broader discussion concerning Muslim women who wear the full-face veil known as the niqab. But it also revealed stirrings of resentment among some members of Britain’s Christian majority, who say they are the victims of discrimination over how they display their faith.

The young woman, Lydia Playfoot, said her school, at Horsham, south of London, had told her that the ring broke the school’s rules on uniforms and jewelry.

But Ms. Playfoot argued that the prohibition breached her right to express a religious belief. Not only that, she said in a statement to the court, Sikh and Muslim pupils were permitted distinctive dress to show their religious identity.

Ms. Playfoot belongs to a British branch of an American-based evangelical movement known as Silver Ring Thing. Both her parents work for the branch, according to its Web site, www.silverringthing.com.

“The real reason for the extreme hostility to the wearing of the S.R.T. purity ring is the dislike of the message of sexual restraint, which is ‘countercultural’ and contrary to societal and governmental policy,” Ms. Playfoot said in a written statement to Britain’s High Court.

“It is this message from the Judeo-Christian position that is suppressed: exemptions are allowed or permitted for other messages,” she said, arguing that her school “doesn’t offer equal rights to Christians.”

Her remarks showed another aspect of a tangled debate here that has largely centered on concern among British leaders that the Muslim full-face veil has become what Prime Minister Tony Blair called a “mark of separation.” That led some Muslims to say they were the object of discrimination.

But Ms. Playfoot’s remarks suggested that Christians like her see themselves as being treated unfairly.

Much of the debate hinges on whether the purity ring is a religious requirement.

In a statement to the court, Leon Nettley, principal of the school, Millais, said, “It is not a Christian symbol, and is not required to be worn by any branch within Christianity.”

“It is never simple to draw boundaries,” he continued. “If we allow one set of pupils to wear rings symbolizing one particular message, when that item of jewelry is not required by their religion, then doubtless other pupils will then demand to be able to wear jewelry symbolizing other messages.”

Mr. Nettley acknowledged that Ms. Playfoot had been punished for wearing the ring in May 2005 by being separated from other students for an afternoon. And, he said, he had permitted students of other faiths to wear items like a Muslim head scarf, known as a hijab, and kara bangles, worn by Sikhs.

But, he said, he believed that such items were a religious requirement, while Ms. Playfoot’s ring was “just one of several methods of publicizing a specific view within the Christian faith.”

In an interview with BBC Television before the court hearing, Ms. Playfoot said the ring “says that I’m not going to have sex until I’m married and I’m going to stay sexually pure until I’m married.”

“In the Bible it says you should remain sexually pure,” she said, “and I think this is a way I want to express my faith.”

The ring is engraved with a reference to a biblical verse enjoining believers to “keep clear of sexual sin.”

Original Link.

OK, does anyone else have a problem with this? You should. Let me explain:
Last week we posted about weapons, purchased with aid money to the so-call “moderate” Fatah organization, falling to the hands of the radical “kill all Israelis” group, Hamas.
This week, as things continue to get crazier and crazier in the region of the world, we have Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, agreeing to release more aid funds to Fatah. At the same time, we have Mahmoud Zahar, a founder of Hamas, thanking the U.S. for cost of bullets, down from 3.50 Euros, to 35 cents per bullet.
Is there any doubt that anything given to the terrorist of Fatah will eventually end up in the hands of the even worse terrorist of Hamas? Not in my mind.
Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs had this to say:

It doesn’t matter how many times the strategy of arming Fatah to fight Hamas has failed. It doesn’t matter that Mahmoud Abbas openly stated, many times, that he would never act against Hamas. It doesn’t matter that Fatah “security” men turned tail and ran when Hamas staged their coup. And it doesn’t matter that Hamas is openly bragging that any aid money that goes to Fatah will end up in their hands.

It apparently doesn’t even matter that Fatah is still, on this very day, trying to murder random Israeli civilians: Fatah faction, Islamic Jihad claim Kassam attack.

A Fatah faction and the Islamic Jihad both claimed responsibility for Sunday morning’s Kassam rocket attack on Sderot, which damaged a home and left three people lightly wounded.

Ehud Olmert is going to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars to the terrorists: Israel agrees to release funds to Abbas.

It doesn’t take a genus to figure out what is going to happen here. It defies logic why Israel is putting themselves in an indefensible position. I understand why they are doing it, from a prophesy standpoint, but it still makes me sad for them.

Israel agrees to release funds to Abbas

JERUSALEM - Israel agreed Sunday to begin releasing hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen tax funds to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a gesture to bolster the moderate Palestinian leader in his standoff against the Islamic militant group Hamas.

The decision came a day before Prime Minister Ehud Olmert heads to Egypt for a high-profile summit with Abbas, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Jordanian King Abdullah II.

The gathering is meant to give Abbas a high-profile display of support against Hamas, which violently seized control of the Gaza Strip in a bloody rout of Abbas’ Fatah movement earlier this month.

But Olmert cautioned against high expectations for the summit.

“We have an interest in having this meeting, but I don’t want anyone to think we’re on the brink of a dramatic breakthrough,” Olmert told his Cabinet, according to a meeting participant.

Abbas, however, said he received U.S. and Israeli assurances that Israel was ready to make progress at the summit. The Palestinian president, who met with King Abdullah II in Jordan, said he would ask Israel to free Palestinian prisoners, in addition to easing restrictions at crossing points and releasing the tax money, the official Jordanian news agency Petra reported.

Ismail Haniyeh, the deposed Palestinian prime minister, dismissed the summit as a “mirage,” saying resistance was the only hope for Palestinians.

“The Americans won’t give anything. Israel won’t give us anything. Our land, our nation will not come back to us except with steadfastness and resistance,” a code word for attacks against Israel, he said in Gaza.

The Palestinian infighting has left the Palestinians with two governments — Abbas’ new Cabinet in the West Bank, and the Hamas rulers in Gaza. Israel and moderate Arab leaders have joined to support Abbas and isolate Hamas, a radical group pledged to Israel’s destruction.

‘We Will Try to Form an Islamic Society’

Mahmoud Zahar — a founder of Hamas, and one of its most militant hardliners — has called for an Islamic state in the Gaza Strip. After the Hamas takeover of the territory last week, he’s also threatened Fatah with more violence in the West Bank.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Last week there were street battles in the West Bank between Fatah and Hamas militias. Fatah maintained the upper hand. How will Hamas loyalists defend themselves in the event of any new fighting?

Zahar: Let me ask you: How have we defended ourselves so far against the Israeli occupation?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: With bombs and attacks?

Zahar: Exactly. But you said that, not me.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The split between Hamas and Fatah has never been wider. Are you still in contact with one another?

Zahar: Yes, we speak to each other. But we’re looking for the true Fatah so its members can take part in our new organization and plans for the future. The true, pure Fatah is the real loser (in this conflict) because its party in the West Bank is collaborating with Israel. In Gaza we have beaten those elements that collaborate with Israel. We have beaten everyone who represented an obstacle — the ones who wanted to keep us from defending ourselves.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The militant wings of Fatah and Hamas have been fully armed over the last few months. Are these weapons still in circulation?

Zahar: There are naturally very many weapons around now. Two years ago, one bullet in Gaza cost around €3.50 — now it would cost 35 cents. The American aid money has been translated into weapons. Thank you, America!

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Isn’t such a large number of weapons in the hands of militias — some controllable, some not — a huge security risk? What would happen if splinter groups started to shoot at each other?

Zahar: So far we haven’t confiscated any weapons. If there are problems with splinter groups, we will disarm them and take the weapons for ourselves.