Archive for March 24th, 2008

Egypt to Sign Nuclear Pact With Russia

Monday, March 24th, 2008

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak heads for Russia on Monday where he is expected to get assurances of Russian assistance to build a nuclear facility.

A bilateral nuclear power deal was outlined last week and is expected to be signed during the visit.

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu Al-Gheit said the pact would enable Egypt to tap into Russia’s extensive experience in the field of nuclear energy.

The deal could allow Russia to participate in a tender to build nuclear reactors in Egypt.

The pact coincides with international efforts to pressure Iran into abandoning its nuclear program. Iran insists its program is for civilian purposes of manufacturing energy, but Western countries are concerned Teheran is covertly making an atomic bomb.

The technologies for creating nuclear energy and nuclear bombs are similar and involve many dual-usage elements and substances.

Egypt is one of several Middle Eastern countries seeking a nuclear program. Cairo wants to revive its atomic energy program, which was aborted in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, when the dangers of such a program became apparent.

Other countries in the Middle East and North Africa region seeking nuclear programs include Jordan, Yemen, Morocco, Algeria, the Gulf countries and possibly Syria.

Original Link

Is Obama Anti-Israel?

Monday, March 24th, 2008

The Bible tells us that those who curse Israel with be cursed. I am not saying that Obama hates Israel, but there is a question of his loyalty to Israel. Do we really want a president that will not back Israel?

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is currently hiding his anti-Israel views in order to get elected, according to a well-known anti-Israel activist. The activist, Ali Abunimah, claimed to know Obama well and to have met him on numerous occasions at pro-Palestinian events in Chicago.

In an article he penned for the anti-Israeli website Electronic Intifada, Abunimah wrote:

“The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

“As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, ‘Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race.
I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.’ He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy [and said:] ‘Keep up the good work!'”

Original Link

Jewish Man Attacked in Brooklyn By Muslims Yelling ‘Allah-hu Akbar,’ Media Silent

Monday, March 24th, 2008

More duplicity from the media and government. Their take on it? I imagine it’s something like this:
“It’s only a Jew, who cares anyway?”
Pathetic!!

On March 19th, I found a story on The Jerusalem Post detailing an attack by muslim youths on a rabbinical assistant that occurred at a Brooklyn, New York subway station. The youths grabbed Uria Ohana’s yarmulke off his head then ran off yelling “Allah-hu Akbar,” which is Arab for “God is great.” I have waited four days to report this story myself to see what other news outlets decide to cover the incident and how they would cover it. So far, the only U.S. news outlet that covered it was the New York Post. It has been nearly ignored by the rest of the media.

The dearth of coverage is curious because it seems a natural story for the left to get their “hate crimes” dander worked up over. After all, we have a Muslim gang attacking a lone Jew right in the middle of Brooklyn! Yet, the news gives us zip for coverage.

And this story is no mere he-said story as an arrest was made of an Arab man who was one of the attackers.

Of course, many in the media are cowled by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that claims that anti-Muslim hate crimes are on a wild tilt upward. CAIR claimed that the number of reported cases from 2005 to 2006 increased at a rate of 25.1 percent from 1,972 cases to 2,467. CAIR also claimed that true “hate crimes” rose from 153 cases in 2005 to 167 incidents in 2006.

But these claims by CAIR neither comport to the FBI’s statistics, nor do they come close to the anti-Jewish statistics in this country.

The FBI, for instance, reports that in 2006 there were 1,750 documented cases of anti-religious hate crimes. Of that number nearly 66 percent was anti-Jewish with only just under 12 percent being anti-Muslim. The FBI’s reported numbers do not match CAIR’s claims at all.

Anti-Jewish crime is up all across the world these days, yet the media stay silent. Of course, the media is all agog when ABC claimed they “discovered” anti-Muslim sentiment even though they had created it themselves, but where are the MSM stories about this real incident of anti-Jewish sentiment?

So, why has the media ignored this story? Isn’t a hate crime a hate crime? Isn’t news of a gang of Muslim youths attacking an innocent man in the middle of one of our largest cities the sort of news that people should know?

Can anyone doubt that the media would be all over this story if it had been a Muslim youth attacked on the streets of Brooklyn?

Original Link.

Iraq War Protesters Disrupt Chicago Mass

Monday, March 24th, 2008

It amazes me how militant “peace” protesters can be.

CHICAGO – Six Iraq war protesters disrupted an Easter Mass on Sunday, shouting and squirting fake blood on themselves and parishioners in a packed auditorium.

Three men and three women startled the crowd during Cardinal Francis George’s homily, yelling “Even the Pope calls for peace” as they were removed from the Mass by security guards and ushers.

One Mass attendee, Mike Wainscott of Chicago, yelled at the anti-war protesters.

“Are you happy with yourselves?” he said. “There were kids in there. You scared little kids with your selfish act. Are you happy now?”

The group, which calls itself Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War, said in a statement after the arrests that they targeted the Holy Name Cathedral on Easter to reach a large audience, including Chicago’s most prominent Catholic citizens and the press, which usually covers the services.

Kevin Clark of International Solidarity Movement told the Chicago Tribune that he attended the Mass to serve as a witness for the protesters.

“If Cardinal George is a man of peace and is walking the walk and talking the talk, he should have confronted George Bush and demanded an immediate end to the war,” Clark said.

Speaking after the service, George said, “We should all work for peace, but not by interrupting the worship of God.”

Police charged each of the six protesters with one count of felony criminal damage to property and two counts each of misdemeanor simple battery.

The six were scheduled to appear in bond court on Monday to face the felony charge, police said. They have court date set for March 31 on the misdemeanors.

Original Link.

Saudi Anti-“Islamophobia” Plan Misfires

Monday, March 24th, 2008

Our “friends”, the Saudis, have been trying, for the last several months, to get the U.N. to sign on to their “say nothing bad against Islam or else” campaign. Last week, it hit a little snag.

(CNSNews.com) – An Islamic initiative to establish an international convention against the “defamation” of religions ran into an unexpected hurdle this week in Saudi Arabia, where members of a government advisory body argued that the move could force Muslims to recognize pagan beliefs.

The drive to outlaw offenses against religions and religious figures is being spearheaded by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as a response to Western depictions of Islam and Mohammed in ways that Muslims consider insulting.

Although protecting Islam is the goal, in order to win support at the United Nations, the OIC is pushing for a convention against insulting all faiths. Last December, an OIC-led resolution on the “defamation of religions” passed in the U.N. General Assembly by a 108-51 vote, with almost half of the support coming from non-Muslim states.

As a key player in the OIC, Saudi Arabia has a leading role in the campaign.

Saudi Arabia’s Shoura Council — an appointed body that advises the kingdom’s unelected government — this week considered a recommendation that the foreign ministry should coordinate with various groups at the U.N. “to adopt an international convention that prohibits offending religions and religious figures in any way.”

The proposal sparked some dissent. Members of the council argued that a convention protecting all religions from defamation would oblige Muslims to tolerate other religious beliefs.

Council member Khaleel al-Khaleel was quoted by the Saudi Gazette as warning against a “trap,” and saying that religious concepts differ from country to country and from civilization to civilization.

“Should Muslims be committed to respect and not criticize any deviant creed that some people consider a religion?” he asked.

Another member, Talal Bakri, said a convention against “offending religions” could lead to calls for Muslim countries to allow temples of pagan religions.

Saudi Arabia, which is listed by the State Department as one the world’s most egregious violators of religious freedom, does not permit non-Muslim places of worship, including churches and synagogues.

The member of the council who introduced the resolution, Mohammed al-Qowaihis, agreed to replace the words “religious figures” with “prophets and God’s Messengers.” (In Islam, the term refer to a series of biblical figures from Adam to Jesus — all of whom are considered prophets of Islam — as well as Mohammed, the “final prophet.”)

Original Link.

“On the Testimony of Eyewitnesses. . .” by Jack Kinsella

Monday, March 24th, 2008

Each Easter season, TIME or Newsweek trots out their Jesus Seminar talking points from last year and dutifully report the following conclusions that the Jesus Seminar says are based on scientific, historical analysis: the resurrection didn’t happen; the miracles are myths; there is no authentic prophecy in the Bible; the Gospels were written long after the events took place; they were not written by eyewitnesses; the testimony of the early church Fathers can’t be trusted.

However, the Jesus Seminar doesn’t ARRIVE at those conclusions; that is their starting point. When one begins at with a predetermined conclusion, the conclusion arrived at in the end is meaningless.

There is no “new evidence” supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of an evolution of myth over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the content of the Gospels themselves.

Recent finds in archaeology, for example, show us that funerals were conducted differently in Galilee than in Jerusalem, consistent with the details in the Gospels. A person concocting a story generations after the fact wouldn’t know this because of the Roman decimation of Galillee in AD 70.

As far as Jesus being ‘reconstructed as the Son of God generations after His death;

We know Paul was executed by Nero in AD 64. But Acts concludes before Paul’s death, and Acts is a continuation of the Gospel of Luke. And even the Jesus Seminar agrees that the Gospel of Mark predates the Gospel of Luke.

So Mark’s Gospel was already in circulation in Jerusalem only 20 years or so after the crucifixion and Resurrection.

The Jesus Seminar concludes Jesus MUST have been transformed from a humble carpenter into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century.

But the epistles were already in circulation 20 years after the fact, when plenty of disputing eyewitnesses would still be available, and there is no record of early disputes over their accuracy. So, how can this be?

Even the members of the Jesus Seminar admit that Jesus was crucified on a Cross. But why was He killed? And if He were merely a carpenter not yet elevated to mythical or legendary status, why would anyone follow Him? Or even CARE if He was crucified?

According to Robert Funk, the REAL Jesus wasn’t resurrected, but rather was buried in a shallow grave and then later dug up and eaten by dogs. That’s why there was no body, concludes the Jesus Seminar.

But they say it doesn’t matter that the Resurrection story is a lie, because, in their view, religious significance does not hinge on the historical record.”

Paul told the Church at Corinth, dealing with this exact heresy, “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” (1st Corinithians 15:17)

In the criminal court system, the most powerful evidence that can be offered is that of direct, eyewitness testimony. Consider cases in which the perpetrator pulls out a gun, and, in front of a dozen credible, respectable witnesses, shoots somebody to death.

Clever lawyers are capable of clever defenses, but the one defense that no lawyer would ever offer would be that his client didn’ t do it.

Absent evidence of an identitical twin somewhere, the lawyer is more likely to offer some mitigating defense, such as diminished capacity or insanity.

Carried a bit further, consider a conspiracy in which a gang leader has a dozen followers that he instructs to give false eyewitness testimony for him to the authorities. But in this case, if they comply, they themselves will face the death penalty as a consequence of that lie, even though they weren’t guilty and their leader was.

How many of that dozen will lie for their leader and take his death penalty for him?

Now we take the historical record of the 12 Apostles. If Jesus wasn’t Who He claimed to be, why would they have followed Him for three years? Supposing that He was not God, but instead a brilliant con man who had mesmerized his companions, we are still left with the dilemma that would have existed after that hypnosis was shattered by His death.

The Apostles, by continuing to preach what they claimed to have eyewitnessed, that Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and was the Messiah and the incarnate Son of God, marked themselves as outcasts from the Jewish community.

What they preached, if it were not true, was blasphemy, and to the Jews, blasphemy was more than a crime. The Apostles, by persisting, would have been disowned by their families, shunned by their friends, and lost all status in their community.

Traveling abroad, they were outside their element, preaching of an unknown God to peoples no more interested in hearing it than the Jews had been. They were arrested, beaten, harassed, persecuted, prosecuted, chronically unemployed and unemployable, and generally ostracized for what they preached.

Ultimately, each of them was given a choice between renouncing what they claimed to have witnessed, or face a horrible execution.

So, here’s the general choice offered them: “Deny your eyewitness testimony and you will live. Stick to your story and you will not only die, but in an excruciatingly painful manner.”

Every single one of them chose death. Willingly. Even cheerfully. Had one of them recanted, Christianity as a viable faith, would have died at that moment.

Now, if you had witnessed what they had; the miracles of Jesus — healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, stilling the wind — and His brutal death on the Cross, then met with the Resurrected Jesus after He had been killed, and watched His ascension into Heaven, what effect would the threat of death have on your decision?

I mean, think it through.

We aren’t talking about the subsequent Christian martyrs who put their faith in Jesus through the Holy Spirit — we are talking about the actual, living, breathing eyewitnesses!

We put our faith in Jesus based on their testimony and our faith. The Apostles would KNOW — through first hand experience — whether they were following the risen Son of God or whether they were propagating a myth for which they were about to give their lives.

They would either know it was all true, or they would KNOW that they were choosing death for a lie. Faith is only a secondary consideration, from their perspective. They had faith BECAUSE of what they saw.

If they had not seen what they reported, then they would KNOW their faith was in vain. And we have faith because of what they saw, and recorded as first-person eyewitnesses.

If the Jesus Seminar is right, then the Apostles were either liars who died to maintain a myth that, for all they knew, would have died with them, or they were all certifiably insane.

As the Apostle Peter explained, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” (2nd Peter 1:16)

“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the Word.” (Luke 1:1-2)

The testimony of first-person eyewitnesses vs. the scholarly rantings of predetermined skeptics living two thousand years after the fact.

Hmmm.

What was the question, again?

Original Link.