Archive for December 26th, 2007

Russia Selling Iran Sophisticated New Air Defense System

Wednesday, December 26th, 2007

If there way any doubt that Iran and Russia are allies, recent events should alleviate that doubt. Russia and Iran play heavily in end times events.

TEHRAN, Iran — Russia is selling Iran a new and sophisticated air defense system that experts say is capable of dealing a serious blow against would-be attackers.

The new S-300 air defense system signals growing miitary cooperation between Moscow and Tehran, Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said Wednesday.

“The S-300 air defense system will be delivered to Iran on the basis of a contract signed with Russia in the past,” state television quoted Najjar as saying.

Najjar didn’t say when or how many of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense systems would be shipped to Iran.

Earlier this year, Russia delivered 29 Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran under a $700 million contract signed in December 2005.

Russian officials wouldn’t comment on the Iranian statement, but the Interfax news agency quoted an unidentified source in the Russian military-industrial complex as saying that a contract for the missiles delivery had been signed several years ago and envisaged the delivery of several dozen S-300 missile systems.

The S-300 is much more powerful and versatile weapon than the Tor-M1 missile systems supplied earlier, which were capable of hitting airborne targets flying at up to 20,000 feet.

The S-300 is capable of shooting down aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missile warheads at ranges of up to 95 miles and at altitudes of up to 90,000 feet. Russian military officials boast that it excels the U.S.-built Patriot missiles currently being deployed in Israel.

Rumors about the sale of S-300 missile systems to Iran have circulated for a long time, but Russian officials consistently denied it.

Original Link.

Canadian Homosexual Advocates Claim Bible Teaching Hurt Feelings, Demand Penalties

Wednesday, December 26th, 2007

I fear we are not very far behind here in the U.S. All too soon, we Christians, who hold to a Biblical view, will be under attack in much the same manner.

Biblical standards are under attack by the “bastardized courts” of Canada, where activists who claim they have “hurt feelings” are demanding – and getting – penalties imposed against those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle, according to a family organization.

The description of the courts, also known as the provincial and national Human Rights Commissions, comes from the Canada Family Action Coalition, which has addressed the problem in an alert to its constituents, and warns the United States is not that far from having similar assaults on traditional family values.

“It has become apparent in the past month how badly the acts are written and how they are being misused to violate the rights of Canadians,” the organization said.

“We today have a major national magazine, a federal political party leader and a registered political party, a major Catholic newspaper (Catholic Insight) and an internationally renowned journalist all of whom are being investigated by appointed ‘hate speech therapists’ from the commissions,” the group said.

The journalist is Mark Steyn, according to CFAC spokesman Brian Rushfeldt, and the newest case involves Canada’s national Catholic magazine of news, opinion and analysis.

The publication has been told it is being targeted by a complaint from Edmonton resident Rob Wells, who alleges the publication has offended homosexuals.

The magazine’s editor, Father Alphonse de Valk, dismissed the complaint as unfounded, and said his publication follows the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.

In a typically democratic form of government, basic rights such as freedom of speech, opinion and the press would answer for such concerns, but in Canada, under the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commissions, the result is anyone’s guess, Rushfeldt told WND.

The first problem is that the laws setting up the commissions note that if something “indicates discrimination” and “is likely to expose to hatred or contempt” there is a basis for action. But that leaves the determination on what “indicates discrimination” or “is likely to expose to hatred” up to the officials appointed to the commission panels, he said.

The laws also often are interpreted by those who have no training in the law, and the commissions are not bound by the rules of law when they make their decisions, he added.

Catholic Insight reported that Wells’ attack on the publication is not his first. In 2006 he tried to close down several websites including because of their Christian content, and he targeted Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage party because the political entity posted articles “motivated by hate” of homosexuals.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, the Knights of Columbus in Vancouver, Maclean’s magazine and its editor and Steyn also have been targeted, mostly for their writings regarding homosexuality, or the influence of Islam.

Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, told the magazine he never imagined human rights commissions would ultimately be used against freedom of speech, because they were launched in an effort to eliminate discrimination in pay and housing.

But after “sexual orientation” was added as a protected class, the tribunals have been exploited in pursuit of a ban on anything or anyone with less than a full endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle choice.

“The majority of the complaints have been related to homosexuals claiming that they’ve been offended, that hate is being propagated against them. The majority being targeted are religious sectors of society,” Rushfeldt said.

Original Link.

UK Muslim Leader: Christianity is Regressive, Blair Should Be a Muslim

Wednesday, December 26th, 2007

I found this over at Little Green Footballs.

Tony Blair’s conversion to Catholicism does not come as a surprise to anyone but I would have liked him to turn to Islam instead. Blair has claimed on many occasions that he has read the Quran and has said he found its teachings “progressive”. He is right that the Quran is progressive and as a revealed book of God, it is the latest testament. Why would Blair turn to the older versions of God’s testament when there is the Quran? His conversion sounds rather regressive to me.

Different denominational churches within Christianity are part of the same house. If the Church of England was not providing our former prime minister with spiritual fulfilment changing to another denomination within the same house surely will not make substantial difference. If he is looking for reform and spirituality, he should come to Islam. Blair has said the Quran strikes him as a reforming book “trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later”. If he so admires the Quran for its reformist outlook, why turn to Christianity and particularly Catholic Church, which has been plagued with centuries of baggage?

In an article published by Foreign Affairs early this year, Blair spoke of the Quran as being inclusive. His new Church has been the most exclusive and in the name of its own version of Christianity has murdered and destroyed the lives and properties of many fellow Christians over the years. In his role as a Middle East envoy he would have won the hearts and minds of the Muslim world if he had come to Islam. He might have found redemption for his crimes against Iraq and its innocent people. His conversion to Catholicism would no doubt remind the Muslim world, especially the Arab world of the history of the Crusades. The blood of millions of people still stain the cobblestones of the Holy Land from the cold-blooded murders committed in the name of Christianity and was blessed by the then Papacy in Rome.

I think this point that Charles Johnson makes is valid:
“Imagine, if you will, the reaction from Muslims if a Christian priest or minister said similar things about Islam. Actually, you don’t have to imagine; just recall any of the riots or murders that followed Pope Benedict’s indirect quotation of a relatively mild criticism of Islam by a Byzantine emperor.”

Original Link.

“Refusing to Rape=Racism if you are an Israeli Soldier” by

Wednesday, December 26th, 2007

Hebrew University has just awarded a research prize to a graduate student’s essay in which she claims that Israeli soldiers are “racists for not raping Arab women.”(See )

This is no joke—anyway, who could make this up? The graduate student is a woman named Tal Nitzan. Her anthropological essay has been published by the Hebrew University’s “Shaine Center.”

Nitzan writes that the “lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose.” Since Israel fears the Palestinians demographically, IDF soldiers have been trained not to rape the women in order to avoid creating new Palestinians and little intifaders. (Has Nitzan never heard about Palestinian honor killings in which pregnant-out-of-wedlock or adulterous women are murdered by their families who love them too much?) Nitzan alleges that the “lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences—just as organized military rape would have done.”

Thus, Israeli racism, which “de-humanizes” Palestinian women, suppresses Jewish male lust—which proves that Israeli soldiers are racist oppressors. As the only army that does not, apparently, rape, Nitzan fails to grapple with other reasons for this, including the possibility that Israeli soldiers are acting in an ethical and civilized manner.

According to Israeli Professor Steven Plaut who called this to my attention: ” So essentially Nitzan is saying that the proof that Israeli soldiers are brutal oppressive stormtroopers is the fact that they do NOT mistreat and sexually abuse Palestinian women, not even the Palestinian terrorist women apprehended after trying to murder Jews.”

Plaut bitterly wonders whether if Nitzan “herself were to be raped by Hamas terrorists, I guess this would pretty much prove that they are egalitarian and progressive seekers of peace and justice.”

He suggests that people let the heads of Hebrew University know what they think about awarding a prize to such an essay. He provides the following contact information.

Hebrew University:

President of the University Menachem Magidor
Primary Email address:
Second Email address (extra):
Fax. 02-5811023

Rector of the University: Professor Chaim Rabinowitch
Primary Email address:
Second Email address (extra):

Hebrew University “Friends of” Offices:


Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the well known author of classic works, including the bestseller Women and Madness (1972) and The New Anti-Semitism (2003). She has just published The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of Women and Madness. She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women’s studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women’s Health Network (1974). She is currently on the Board of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and lives in New York City. Her website is
We are delighted to have Dr. Chesler as a contributor to the Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog.

Original Link.

“For Whom The Bell Tolls: Ehrenfeld vs Bin Mahfouz” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler

Wednesday, December 26th, 2007

“The Saudis are Coming, the Saudis are Coming”—and this time they mean to tax and silence us via lawsuit not via military action. Paul Revere’s pre-Revolutionary alarm about “The British are Coming” might still apply since British Law is now actively aiding and abetting the Saudi Crusade against Freedom of Speech in the West.

Where are all the First Ammendment fanatics when we need them? Actually—they are all here. (See below for the incredible line-up of organizations that submitted an Amicus Curiae brief).

First, for our hero. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote a book “Funding Evil. How Terrorism Is Financed—and How to Stop It.” One of the funders whom she named is Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz—who sued Ehrenfeld in London because, although Ehrenfeld does not live, work, or publish in England, 23 people based in the UK bought her book on the Internet.

This means that if anyone writes a book in America or in Europe which tells the truth about Islamic terrorism, that both author and publisher can be sued in London for “libel” where libel laws favor the accuser. However, if an author is not a multi-millionnaire and cannot afford to defend herself or to risk being ordered to pay for both her own and for the plaintiff’s barrister—she is royally screwed. She might as well give up telling the truth about Islam and publishers might restrict their titles to gardening and the occult. (See a short film about Ehrenfeld’s struggle with Libel Tourism produced by Rob Pfaltzgraff. HERE: )

The brave and determined Ehrenfeld, whom no philanthropist, corporation, government entity or defense fund supported, chose not to defend herself in London. It was too expensive, and also too dangerous, given how often the London courts find for plaintiffs in such matters. Thus, Bin Mahfouz won in London but only by default; however, the interest continues to accrue. Ehrenfeld instead sued for a declaratory judgement in New York State. She and her lawyer, Daniel J. Kornstein, wanted the Court to determine that the London-based default judgement against her is un-enforceable in New York—just in case Mahfouz decided to come after her here to enforce the London judgement.

Every major publisher and bookseller, including Amazon. Com, signed onto Ehrenfeld’s lawsuit in an Amicus Brief. The signatories include Advance Publications, The American Society of Newspaper Editors, The Association of American Publishers, The Author’s Guild, The European Publisher’s Council, Forbes, Gannett Co., The Newspaper Association of America, The Online News Association, The Radio-Television News Directors Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The World Press Freedom Committee.

On December 20, 2007,Judge Carmen Ciparik, writing for a unanimous Court, determined that “there is no personal jurisdiction yet over Mahfouz in New York State.”The court’s decision may be read HERE Lawyers assure me that the ruling is along technical, jurisdictional grounds and responds narrowly to the question put to it by the Second Circuit of whether New York State has jurisdiction over Mahfouz.

We do not know how the New York Courts would rule if Mahfouz actually came here and tried to enforce his London judgement. Also, the Federal Appeals Court, Second Circuit, did not ask the New York State Court of Appeals to “opine upon the propriety of English libel law or its differences from United States and particularly New York State counterparts.” Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld said: “This is a sad day for all Americans. Failing to protect my rights for freedom of speech under the Constitution’s First Ammendment laws, the New York Court of Appeals opened the door to those wishing to curtail the U.S. press and media willingness and ability to freely investigate and report on matters important to our survival as a free nation.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld’s lawyer, Daniel Kornstein of Manhattan, said: “The chill continues. That’s the danger and the risk and the problem that we tried to stress. It creates a sword of Damocles that inhibits authors and publishers, and readers can’t read about it.”

Ehrenfeld, (Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, the David Project) yesterday, Mark Steyn today; which author will be sued tommorrow?

Paradoxically, the same internet which allows for more freedom of speech is now also responsible for chilling that very speech. We have got to put our money where our principles are. The West will have to start funding authors like Ehrenfeld just as if she were a prize fighter or football player—or a national resource. Until or unless this happens, ever fewer authors and publishers will be willing to take the enormous risk of speaking truth to power.

Dr. Ehrenfeld may be contacted at , through Audrey Mullen at Tel: 703-548-1160, or through her website:


Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the well known author of classic works, including the bestseller Women and Madness (1972) and The New Anti-Semitism (2003). She has just published The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of Women and Madness. She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women’s studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women’s Health Network (1974). She is currently on the Board of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and lives in New York City. Her website is
We are delighted to have Dr. Chesler as a contributor to the Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog.

Original Link.