Archive for August, 2008

Hallmark Embraces Homosexual ‘Marriage’

Friday, August 22nd, 2008

I suspect that if Mr. Hall was still alive, this wouldn’t be happening. As it is, the corporate types see only dollars to be earned in any way possible.

PORTLAND, Ore. – Most states don’t recognize same-sex “marriage” — but now Hallmark does. The nation’s largest greeting card company is rolling out homosexual wedding cards — featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. “Two hearts. One promise,” one says.

Hallmark added the cards after California joined Massachusetts as the only U.S. states with legal homosexual marriage. A handful of other states have recognized same-sex civil unions. The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony. Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure. “It’s our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can,” Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.

Hallmark started offering “coming out” cards last year, and the four designs of same-sex marriage cards are being gradually released this summer and will be widely available by next year. No sales figures were available yet.

Original Link.

Liberal Media Up in Arms Over TX School Gun Policy

Friday, August 22nd, 2008

I don’t see the problem with this. There is more than enough evidence to show that in the case of every school shooting, even one armed teacher or administrator could have ended the situation before large number of lives were lost.

On August 15, the Harold Independent School District, located 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth, Texas, voted to allow teachers who are qualified to bring guns with them to class. The plan was overwhelmingly approved by parents, who understand the need for children to be protected in the isolated small town – located 30 miles from the sheriff’s office. Already there has been an outcry from anti-gun advocates and the mainstream media.

Devvy Kidd is an investigative journalist, author, and commentator. She argues that when the federal government started designating schools as”gun-free zones,” the increased incidence of school shootings began. Kidd adds that the predominately anti-gun media has been in a frenzy. She cites one example of such media reaction when, on August 16, the Fox News Channel’s Alisyn Camerotta expressed her concern about young children attending a school with armed teachers.

“Well, I guess in her small mind she thinks that these teachers are going to be wearing .357s on their hips, and they’re going to accidentally shoot the students – because that did come up during the ignoramus exchange that she had. But that has nothing to do with whether they’re kindergartners or whether they’re 10 or 12 years old,” Kidd contends. “That particular school district is in a very, very rural area, and news anchors and commentators like her on television display their absolute ignorance of what it’s like to live out in the real world. They ride around in limousines. They have no idea.”

Kidd says the liberal mantra of “call 9-1-1” does not do much for a school under fire from a madman, when they are at least 30 minutes away from any law enforcement help.

Original Link.

Dems Hope to be Seen as “Faith-Friendly” in Denver

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

Apparently Obama and his cronies think the American people are completely stupid. We know his stand on Christianity, we know his stand on abortion and gay marriage, we know that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing…….why does he continue to try to make everyone believe that he is “faith-friendly”? We know the truth, he might as well go ahead and show his true colors instead of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public.

An evangelical pastor from Florida who calls himself a “conservative Republican” will be delivering the opening and closing prayer at the Democratic National Convention next Thursday in Denver.

The Democratic National Convention (DNC) will kick off Sunday with what organizers call an “interfaith gathering” of Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Jewish leaders and a representative of Denver’s Buddhist community. A Convention spokeswoman says the event will show that Democrats are “faith-friendly” and more “religiously diverse” than Republicans.

According to news reports, “religious leaders” will open and close each day’s session. On Thursday, Orlando mega-church pastor Joel Hunter will be opening and closing the DNC with prayer.
Former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer argues that the only way the Democratic Party can get evangelical votes is if they use the “language of faith” and get the cooperation of people like Pastor Hunter, who has indicated he may vote for Barack Obama.

“I don’t know how you can do that if you’re a serious evangelical pastor and are pro-life, given what Barack Obama has said publicly about his extreme views on abortion,” he responds.

Nevertheless, Bauer says he wishes Hunter well. “I’m glad somebody’s going to be praying at the Democratic National Convention,” states Bauer, “but I certainly hope that Pastor Hunter [when speaking in Denver] prays for the unborn children…who have been destroyed because the Democratic Party supports and has supported for decades abortion on demand.”

Featured speakers scheduled for earlier in the week at the DNC include the leaders of two of the nation’s largest abortion advocacy groups in America — Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America (Monday), and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood of America (Tuesday).

Original Link

Study: ABC, NBC, CBS Strongly Support Obama

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

It would take someone who is just completely out of touch with current events for them to fail to notice how “in love” the press is with Obama. This statement says it all:
‘Coverage bordered on giddy celebration of political rock star’

A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has “bordered on giddy celebration of a political ‘rock star’ rather than objective newsgathering.”

The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization’s website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama’s relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.

Rich Noyes, the research director for the MRC, told WND Obama has “always received very positive press from the national media,” and that was a “huge boost to anyone seeking a national political career.”

That’s contrary to the normal “default position” for reporters of being slightly cynical and a little skeptical, he said. It is “not the normal professional approach you see in journalists,” he said.

Noyes said the results imply that the Democratic National Convention in Denver next week, where Obama is expected to be nominated and has scheduled an acceptance speech in the city’s 75,000-seat football stadium, will generate much media praise for the candidate.

If Obama is described by the media repeatedly as the historic first black to carry a political party’s nomination for president while presumptive GOP candidate Sen. John McCain is just a Republican, that would give Obama an advantage, he said.

The MRC said it located every story referencing Obama on ABC’s World News, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News “from the time Obama emerged on the national stage.”

“The three evening news broadcasts may not be able to tout the high ratings of a generation ago, but together averaged more than 23 million combined viewers from January through early June of this year, far more than their cable news competitors,” the MRC said.

A total of 1,365 news stories and interviews offered “at least some discussion” of Obama, and 40 percent focused exclusively on Obama.

NBC aired 490 stories, ABC 464 and CBS had 411.

Brent Bozell, president of the MRC, said in a news release accompanying the report the bottom line issue for journalism is that the Big Three networks, “had a horse in this year’s Democratic primary race.”

He also credited the three networks with providing Obama’s “margin of victory” over fellow Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton.

“The press fixated their infatuated gazes on Sen. Obama, and afforded him the crucial coverage and support he needed to win,” Bozell said.

The study noted Obama’s victory over Clinton was by 41,622 votes out of 35 million, one-tenth of a percentage point.

But it said the networks provided Obama with 462 positive stories during the studied time frame, to just 70 that were critical, and Obama got “his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene.

All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in 2007, the study said.

As important as the positive spin the MRC found, “the networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations.”

Even when the networks were giving Obama his worst publicity, they still offered two positive stories about him for every critical report, the MRC said.

Tellingly, they referred to Obama as “rock star, “rising star,” or “superstar” 29 times in four years, describing him as “liberal” only 14 times.

“Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party’s nomination. But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value,” the report said.

“The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier,” the report said.

The report said the bias the MRC uncovered also has not been lost on Americans.

“The Pew Research Center surveyed about 1,000 adults in late May and reported that ‘far more Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than think it has favored Hillary Clinton,’ even with 35 percent of Democrats seeing ‘a pro-Obama bias,'” the report said.

A Rasmussen survey in July found nearly half of voters believe most reporters try to help Obama with their reporting.

The report cited instances such as when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said when he was listening to Obama, “I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”

During the 2004 DNC, then-NBC anchor Tom Brokaw said of Obama: “His national debut is getting rave reviews … This blessed young father of two is the son of a Kenyan working-class man and a white Midwestern mother. Both his parents are gone, but the lessons of their love are not.”

Conversely, Brokaw said the Republican keynoter that year, Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, was “torching his party and its ticket.”

“Obama in 2007 had the luxury of launching his presidential campaign having never once been the subject of a negative evening news story,” the report said.

Significantly, when Obama claimed his parents “got together” because of “what happened in Selma,” ABC and NBC ignored the fact that Obama was born in August 1961 and Selma’s civil rights march happened three months later.

Later when a Clinton campaign surrogate suggested Obama’s admissions of using cocaine could be exploited in a general election, the networks called out the Clinton campaign for its “dirty trick.” That contrasted to eight years earlier, when candidate George W. Bush was pushed aggressively to reveal whether he might have used cocaine.

“If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made his road to the White House a whole lot smoother,” the report concluded.

Original Link.

Will Every Crime Become a Federal Case?

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

The federal government continues to grow, and as a result, it finds more ways to intervene in our lives. I am a complete supporter of government being made smaller. Much smaller.

Is Washington making a federal case out of everything?

Researchers have discovered a major trend toward federalization of crimes since the nation was founded in 1776, Accuracy in Media reports. A study has recorded a major boost in the quantity of federal crimes within U.S. law.

“When the country started, there were basically three crimes: piracy, counterfeiting and treason,” former Attorney General Edwin Meese told the publication. “At the time of our [1998] report, there were some 4,000 crimes.”

Meese is currently chairman of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. He said most federal crimes became such in the last 30 years.

A Heritage Foundation panel on June 17 discussed substantial expansion of federal crime laws and power shifts from state to federal governments, according to the report. Meese, John Baker and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert attended.

Baker and Gohmert told Accuracy in Media the federal government has created too many laws that focus on state issues, and it has been consistently removing powers from states.

Baker, a member of the American Bar Association’s Task Force on the Federalization of Crime, is not new to the study of federal crime counts. He said current information stems from studies done 25 years ago.

“As of early 1983, the Justice Department put the number at 3,000 crimes and we’ve worked off that figure,” Baker told the publication. “[They] did a hand count of 27,000 pages in the US Code. No one since then has [undertaken such a tally].”

Researchers took that number and updated it to include new federal crimes that have been added since the original report.

“The conclusion we come to, as of this date at least, [is that] we have roughly 4,450 crimes,” he said.

Baker said researchers often run into problems when counting crimes because federal statutes often encompass multiple crimes within a text.

“One statute in particular in the last eight years was enacted right after [September 11] It contains 60 crimes,” Baker said.

He said a team of researchers searched documents for the keywords “fine” and “imprison” to reach a more precise figure of federal crimes created since the 25-year-old report.

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert said lawmakers don’t always scan federal laws inside bills and acts to make sure they don’t strip state governments of power.

According to the Accuracy in Media report, Gohmert, a former judge on the Judiciary Committee, said he encountered a similar problem with a fellow House member about a penalty within a bill. He spoke with the legislator and expressed his concern:

“I went to him and I said, ‘Look, I don’t think this is doing what you really want it to do, and he said, ‘You read the bill?’ and I said, ‘Yeah, and as a former judge I’d have a real problem interpreting the bill, and I don’t think this is what you want.'”

Gohmert told Accuracy in Media many lawmakers pass bills that transfer authority to the federal government so they do not appear “soft on crime.” Members of Congress often pass legislation granting federal government authority over issues previously handled at the state level to appear proactive and get re-elected.

“The power in Washington is like Tolkien’s ring,” Gohmert said. “Really good, wonderful people get the ring, and it changes them and they can’t put it down, they can’t let it go, they gotta fight and do whatever it takes.”

Baker and Gohmert told the publication the federal usurpation of power will continue to worsen if left unchecked.

“The more that the American people come to accept that any federal agency with power is somehow a police power, we are, piece by piece, building the police state that the left worries about,” Baker said. “Both left and right ought to be worried about the expansion of federal criminal law if we value our liberty which the Founders understood meant leaving general police powers at the local level.”

Original Link.

“The Devil’s Delight: Deceiving the Church” by Jan Markell

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

I received an interesting e-mail today from a pastor and would like to build on it. The e-mail reads, “Your ministry has been a wealth of information during my sermon series preparation on the ‘death of discernment.’ There is so much to cover. I liken it to our recent trip to New York. We saw 50 major landmarks and we only scratched the surface.”

The pastor continues, “There is no way I can cover all the deception issues in a sermon series in less than three years. What would you consider to be the top ten issues on this topic?”

It will take him three years! Is it really that bad? It may be. And I’m glad I can add to a good pastor’s sermon material!

The Bible prophesies that the church of the last days will be characterized by apostasy. Paul said that the Antichrist will not be revealed until “the apostasy comes first” (II Thess. 2:3). Jesus prophesied that “many will fall away” and “most people’s love will grow cold” (Matthew 24:10, 12).

Dr. David Reagan, one of our “Understanding the Times 2008” speakers, asks, “How have we reached this crisis point in the church? It is rooted in the German School of Higher Criticism which invaded this country big-time in the 1920s. According to the ‘scientific approach’ of this school of skeptics, the Bible is not the revealed Word of God. Rather, it is man’s search for God, and therefore it is filled with myth, legend, and superstition.

“Today this viewpoint dominates the seminaries in America. The Bible is studied not to be believed and obeyed but to be analyzed, dissected, and criticized. The result is that the Scriptures have lost their authority.”

The pastor who e-mailed me asked for the top ten areas of deception. The possibilities are legion. When we have voices out there like Brian McLaren stating that “everything must change” — in his book by that title — the old ways of doing church are mocked along with sound theology. The invasion of these post-moderns is alarming.

Writer and researcher Berit Kjos says, “Infiltration and deception have been tools of conspirators through the ages, and the church has been a primary target! After all, God warns us that ‘the whole world is under the sway of the evil one’ (I John 5:19). One of his most effective schemes is to redefine God’s Word and divert Christians from His unchanging truth to man’s shifting ideals.”

The world and church have let Oprah Winfrey shape the culture with her me-centered gospel. Her “New Age” terminology is viewed by many believers as “Christian.” Throw in Emergent theology and its post-modern message that emphasizes feelings over doctrine. Add to the mix the push for unity today and we have a freight train on the move and out of control. The conclusion is that “felt needs” trump everything. Oh, and don’t forget the “seeker movement” message of “gospel lite” so that Christians today can hardly find the true gospel anywhere.

Biblical Christianity never became outdated even if Emergent leader Brian McLaren implies that it has. Biblical truth will continue to be scorned by those who consider themselves to be intellectual (I Cor. 1:20), and it will likely be rejected by those who seek the praise of man over the praise of God (John 12:42,43). But the Spirit of God is always at work in the hearts of men, giving life to human spirits by the same power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead (Ephesians 1:19).

Will you contend for the faith today as we are asked to do in Jude 3? It will cost you something. You will lose loved ones. You will be tempted to cave in and keep quiet. You will feel very alone. I know these things because endless e-mails from the four corners of the earth come into our office stating this is the case. If everyone who felt alone would get together, I promise you we wouldn’t feel alone! We would fill many football stadiums.

The pastor mentioned above closed off with a good word: “Don’t spend too much time focusing on the deception but rather, on the truth.” May I add, don’t stop being a “watchman” or “contender for the faith?”

So don’t despair and do plan on a great reward for standing up for truth rather than the razzle-dazzle gimmicks that tell us we can get closer to God if we walk the labyrinth or practice centering prayer. He’s living inside of us. How much closer can He be to us than living within us?

Awaiting His return,
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries

Original Link.

“Reviving Jim Crow: Racism and Reparations” by Jack Kinsella

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

Which is worse? The America of the past, the America of the present or the America of the future?

Ok, it’s a trick question. If you are Barack Obama then it is a tossup between the past and present.

If you are Al Gore, the tossup is between the present and the future, if you are Harry Reid, the answer is all three.

And if you are Nancy Pelosi . . . oh look! A squirrel . . . !

Congress just passed a meaningless resolution apologizing once again for the behavior of a generation whose members are all long-dead.

The nonbinding resolution, which passed on a voice vote, was introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen, a white lawmaker who represents a majority black district in Memphis, Tennessee and is facing a tough campaign against a black challenger.

“Jim Crow,” or Jim Crow laws, were state and local laws enacted mostly in the Southern and border states of the United States between the 1870s and 1965, when African-Americans were denied the right to vote and other civil liberties and were legally segregated from whites. The resolution states that “the vestiges of Jim Crow continue to this day.”

Really? There are LAWS that legally segregate blacks from whites in America? Which states? If Congress would only name them, those state capitals would be ringed with protestors ten deep demanding the repeal of any vestiges of Jim Crow. I personally would join the protestors demanding its repeal.

“African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow — long after both systems were formally abolished — through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity,” the resolution states.

The resolution says American blacks CONTINUE to suffer from Jim Crow and slavery. It is extremely politically incorrect to question such an assessment, but I still have to ask . . . WHERE?

One of the many positions that Obama seems to be on both sides of is the issue of paying reparations to the descendants of former slaves as a way of saying “mea culpa” for American institutionalized slavery.

In his debate with Alan Keyes in 2006, Obama said he was against it, favoring instead greater enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and job training. In a speech he gave the other day after Congress passed a resolution apologizing [again] for America’s past sins, the ‘other’ Obama surfaced.

“I personally would want our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged.” said Obama. “I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it’s Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”

Deeds? What about the Emancipation Proclamation? What about the Thirteenth Amendment? Desegregation? Affirmative Action?
What about the 360,000 [mostly white] Union soldiers who gave their lives to put an end to slavery? Are these words? Or deeds?

Keep in mind, Obama is referencing the Congressional apology issued by the House for the “injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow.”

Excuse me for asking, but isn’t the current front-runner for the Presidency of the United States er . . . black?

If you aren’t sure, wait a couple of minutes and he’ll remind you that he can’t get elected because he’s black. Wait a couple more minutes and he’ll tell you that he is going to be elected — also because he’s black.

And if he is the front-runner, doesn’t that mean that his candidacy has more support (at least for now) than the white guy he’s running against?

Both the current and former US Secretaries of State were black. There is an African-American justice seated at the bench of the US Supreme Court. (It is worth noting that all these color-barriers were shattered by Republicans, not Democrats.)
“Deeds” is a code-word for the real word, which Obama accidentally allowed to slip from his lips, “reparations.” What it means in this context is, “money for nothing.”

The concept of ‘reparations’ (championed by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright) holds that modern white America should pay modern black America for 88 years of institutionalized slavery that was abolished by war, Presidential decree and Constitutional Amendment 144 years ago.

How would that work? Do I owe Oprah Winfrey, one of the wealthiest women on Planet Earth, reparations for bringing her ancestors to America? How much will I have to pay Bill Cosby? Michael Jordan? Barack Obama?

I have this mental image of some white family on food stamps trying to come up with the money to ‘apologize’ to Oprah Winfrey for depriving her of the chance to grow up penniless in Mogadishu or the Congo or the Ivory Coast.

Or Bill Cosby cashing his reparations check. Or that Jeremiah Wright really prefers that his ancestors had been left alone so he could retire to a grass hut rather than his $10 million Tinley Park home.

But most outrageous of all is the mental image of some impoverished sharecropper living on the Ivory Coast getting a reparations bill to compensate some black doctor in Manhattan whose ancestors sold the doctor’s ancestors to white slavers 200 years ago.

(As for the Congress including Native Americans in the apology, I doubt many of them would shut down their casinos in exchange for a tent, a pony and a rifle, either).

It would seem that if modern American blacks have suffered financially as a result of their ancestors being brought to America, rather than paying them to continue to live here, wouldn’t it make more sense to pay for those who are unhappy about how they got here to return to the land of their ancestry?

If not, then does the idea of reparations make any sense at all?
To my knowledge, none of my ancestors played any role in the slave trade. Until the end of the 19th century, they lived in Ireland. Should I be exempted?

Or should I have to pay strictly because of my color? What about American blacks whose ancestors emigrated to the US after 1865?
Do they get reparations checks based entirely on their color? What does racism mean, again?

It is a matter of documented American history that the Irish were also discriminated against when they arrived in America. Should the Irish be entitled to a Congressional apology?
What about reparations for financial losses suffered by those Irish-American immigrants confronted with the signs, “No Irish Need Apply”?

If not, then it is about color, not past injustices, is it not? If the apology and reparations are based in race, then aren’t the Irish being discriminated against — again?

I know the whole Irish thing is stupid, but that’s the point. So is the Congressional apology and the concept of paying reparations to 21st-century blacks for 19th-century injustices.

It perpetuates the myth that America is somehow a worse country than some others because it once permitted institutionalized slavery. So did Great Britain. And France.

And all the rest of the European colonial powers, at one time or another. But no living American has ever either owned a slave or been enslaved by another American.

Slavery, however, is alive and well among Islamic nations and is permitted under Sharia Law. (Particularly in Africa, where Sudanese Christians are routinely enslaved by the Islamic janjaweed.)

The same liberals who demand that I write Oprah Winfrey a check to ‘apologize’ for the fact she lives in a fifty million dollar home instead of a mud hut cover their ears and run away screaming when confronted with the problem of the ongoing Islamic Sudanese slave trade.

Sure, many of those taken as slaves are black, but they were enslaved for being Christians, not black, so who cares? It isn’t racial.

It’s religious, and what business to Americans have interfering with someone’s religion?

Does THIS sound like the post-racial America that the liberals and Barack Obama claim his candidacy is all about?

What is ‘post-racial’ about all white people paying slavery reparations to all black people, whether either the white people or black people were ever directly affected by the slave trade or not?

I’ve lived through the majority of the Civil Rights era. When I was born, Harry Truman was in the White House. I’ve followed every presidential election since the Ford-Carter election in 1976.

I recall clearly the candidacy of Jesse Jackson for the Democratic nomination in 1988, as well as the more recent candidacy of Al Sharpton. It wasn’t their race that cost them the job. It was their character.

Americans have been ready for a black president for decades — just not a black racist like Jackson, Sharpton, or, one hopes, Barack Obama.

No presidential campaign in my memory has been as racist as the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama, the post-racial candidate for post-racial America. And it isn’t whites that keep bringing up race as an issue.

THEY wouldn’t dare.

Original Link.

Barack Obama Admits He Supported Infanticide

Wednesday, August 20th, 2008

If elected, Obama promises to be the most liberal president we have had in a long time. Look for increases in abortion on demand, higher taxes and more entitlements.

Anyone who really wants to get a coherent view of Obama’s support for abortion and infanticide should flip open David Freddoso’s new book “The Case Against Barack Obama” to page 198 and begin reading.

If that is too much for you, I will boil it down succinctly. Obama’s support of infanticide has been covered exhaustively on the front page of RedState lately.

In 2001, the Illinois Attorney General determined doctors were under “no ethical or legal obligation” to give life sustaining treatment to prematurely born infants who were intended to be aborted. The Illinois General Assembly then took up the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, modeled on a federal law of the same name.

Barack Obama voted against the law. The Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. . . . The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.”

What the Chicago Tribune did not report was that Obama’s statement was a bold-faced lie. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) discovered the federal and state legislative texts and proved conclusively that the state version tracked the federal version’s protection of Roe vs. Wade.

After Barack Obama’s dismal failure at Saddleback Community Church this past Saturday, CBN’s David Brody interviewed Obama. Brody asked about the NRLC’s findings. Obama’s response was, “Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say –that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.”

First, as stated above, the Illinois Attorney General noted that Illinois’s law that, in Obama’s words, “insured life saving treatment was given to infants” did not apply when the infant was intended to be aborted.

Second, twenty-four hours after accusing the NRLC of lying about his record, Obama now admits the NRLC told the truth. According to the New York Sun, “His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.”

Obama told the Chicago Tribune the law did not have language tracking the federal version that would have guaranteed protections for Roe v. Wade. The NRLC proves conclusively that the legislation did have those protections. Obama declares the NRLC is lying. Yesterday, the Obama campaign changed its story. The NRLC was not lying, it’s just that “even as worded the legislation could have undermined Illinois abortion law.”

Barack Obama would rather see infants thrown, quite literally, into trash cans than dare encroach on the right to an abortion. At least his campaign is now willing to admit it.

Original Link.

“Our Itching Ears” Opinion by Jack Kelley

Wednesday, August 20th, 2008

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Tim. 4:3)

Usually this verse is quoted in connection with some New Age or Emerging Church teaching. But I think it can apply to students of prophecy as well. We’re so anxious for the Rapture that we periodically go off half cocked and wind up embarrassing ourselves in front of the nay sayers and scoffers.

This is not a new thing. There was a great Messianic fervor in the time leading up to the Lord’s first coming as well. And even after Israel rejected Him, the expectation of a coming Messiah was still a strong part of Jewish life when Simon bar Kochba led a revolt against the Romans in 135AD. He had been confirmed as the Messiah by a leading rabbi, and actually defeated the notorious Roman 10th Legion before being captured and killed, putting an end to both the revolt and the Nation of Israel.

Another Messianic expectation led to the Crusades and the belief that Jerusalem had to be conquered in the name of the Church so the Lord could return. This was the earliest form of dominion theology and was birthed out of an interpretation of prophecy that was originally meant to placate the Romans. In the Church’s earliest days the Romans had rejected Christianity because the Bible taught that Jesus would return to be King of the World. This was a position that the Roman Emperors occupied, and they were understandably reluctant to step aside. Church theologians convinced them that the Millennium was taking place in Heaven so the Lord wouldn’t be returning for 1000 years. It cleared the way for Roman acceptance of Christianity but led to the belief 700 years later that Jerusalem had to be made a Christian city to facilitate the Lord’s return. Untold thousands, many of them Jews, died because of this incorrect interpretation of Scripture. Many still hold this post-millennial view.

In the time leading up to WW2 many scholars believed Hitler to be the anti-Christ and saw WW2 as the final Battle between good and evil. A small minority of scholars pointed out that since Israel was not in the Land it couldn’t be the End of the Age, but lots of believers thought it was upon us.

In the 1970’s the Jesus movement brought thousands of young people into the Church, and the Messianic fever broke out again. One of the movement’s well known teachers began hinting that the Rapture would take place in 1981, based on the incorrect belief that the 2nd Coming would happen in 1988, and the excitement level rose even higher. When it didn’t happen those who were just along for the ride fell away, and even among true believers the pre-trib Rapture view took a real beating as disillusioned believers looked for a way to justify their now dashed hopes. Many resorted to an allegorical view and stopped taking prophecy literally.

Again in the late 80’s an incorrect view of Matt. 24:34 led to a book outlining 88 reasons why the Rapture had to happen in 1988. It was a best seller but it was wrong, and the 100 thousand plus who had bought the book had their faith needlessly shaken.

Both these last examples were based on the incorrect belief that the Lord had promised to return within the span of one generation after Israel was re-born as a nation. What He really said in effect was that the generation being born when the first of the End Times signs materialized would still be alive at the 2nd Coming. Although most agree that the re-birth of Israel was the starting point, it’s the lifetime of those being born then that determines the time span, not the length of a generation. But when the rapture didn’t come in 1988, some of these teachers simply switched their starting point to June, 1967, the reunification of Jerusalem, and added 40 years to that, never realizing that it wasn’t the starting point that was wrong, it was the interpretation of the verse. June 2007 also came and went with out a Rapture.

Today there’s yet another case of Messianic fever upon us, and it has to do with what I call the Blood Moon Scenario. In the year 2015 there will be back to back full lunar eclipses on Passover and Tabernacles. Each will be preceded by a Solar Eclipse, the only such heavenly display in the 21st Century. These tandem eclipses also occurred as Israel was being born in 1948 and as Jerusalem was being captured in 1967.

Some are teaching that this points to a return of the Lord in September of 2015, based again on an incorrect interpretation of Scripture. They’re claiming that Ezekiel 40:1 says that the Lord will return on the 10th day of the first month, and are using Israel’s civil calendar to call that day September 23, 2015, 5 days before the day of the final lunar eclipse, as the day to which Ezekiel was pointing.

I think these teachers are disregarding several facts. To start with, Ezekiel was trained as a priest and always used the religious calendar which begins in the spiring. God Himself ordained this change from a fall New Year to a Spring one in Exodus 12. The first month is March, not September.

The biggest problem might be that although Matt. 24:29 says that a darkened sun and moon will mark the end of the Great Tribulation, the Lord clearly said that believers on Earth at the time will not know the day or hour of the 2nd Coming. (Matt. 24:42, 44, 25:13) Once in a century back to back solar and lunar eclipses would seem to dispute those statements. More likely the sun and moon will appear to be darkened because of the smoke and particulates in the air from all the destruction.

And in order for the Lord to return in 2015, Daniel’s 70th Week will have to commence in September of 2008. That means Israel will have to experience a national conversion and place themselves back into the Old Covenant relationship they enjoyed in the Old Testament. (Today only about one in four Israelis admits to being a religious Jew.) Then they’ll have to make an official decision to build a Temple in Israel, knowing that it will most assuredly spark an unprecedented level of outrage among their Moslem neighbors in the Middle East, and in much of the world in general. Then a leader with sufficient clout in the world community will have to come to their rescue and enforce a 7 year contract that permits this.

I think the Temple can actually be built anytime in the first half of Daniel’s 70th Week. But in order for the 2015 Blood Moon Prophecy to come true we’ll need to see a major shift in Israel’s attitude toward God immediately for the 70th Week to begin. At this writing, that leaves less than two months for 5 million Israeli Jews to suddenly become religious and agree to put themselves under the Law.

What would it take for that to happen? Something truly miraculous, for sure. I believe Ezekiel 39:22 tells us that God’s victory over Israel’s enemies will accomplish just that. But forget about the false peace and unwalled villages. Can Ezekiel’s battle be mobilized, fought and won in less than 30 days?

In conclusion, I don’t believe these teachers have done their home work, and are causing more harm than good. “Scholarship” like this would never be tolerated in the secular community and those who proposed it would be laughed to scorn. But Christians are so anxious for the Messiah that we’ll accept anything that helps us believe he’s coming soon. And most of us don’t know enough about the Bible to exercise discernment.

Please believe me when I say I believe He’s coming soon too and I hope with all my heart that I’m right. But I’m not going to let that hope cloud my judgment or cause me to ignore what the Bible teaches. Advocates of this hypothesis are very popular right now and they’ve got a lot of people excited. But it’s only because they’re saying what our itching ears want to hear, not because they’re right. Who knows how many will have their faith in the accuracy of God’s word shaken this time?. 08-18-2008

Original Link.

“Russia Practices Its Southern Attack” by Todd Strandberg

Wednesday, August 20th, 2008

Russia’s invasion of the nation of Georgia caused a big stir in the end-time community. Whenever Russian tanks move in the general direction of Israel, you can be sure the ears of prophecy watcher will perk up.

Last week, thousands of new people poured into the site looking for information on the Georgia conflict. Our message board set two new records for traffic. One thread on the subject has been read more than 110,000 times.

This event is obviously a false alarm, and is not the Gog/Magog invasion spoken of in Ezekiel 38 and 39. I do believe we are one giant step closer to seeing this prophecy being fulfilled.

We learned two things from the Russian invasion: 1) Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is still in charge of the country; and 2) he has a desire to bolster Russia ’s international dominance through military force.

After Georgia opened fire on the Russian-backed separatist region of South Ossetia, Putin was the first to speak to the nation on television. He also was the first to confer with world leaders and visit the Russian troops in the field. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the guy who supposedly replaced Putin, was left to handle the smaller details.

I’m still trying to find a valid justification for Russia ’s blitzkrieg through Georgia. Its military was incredibly prepared for what it called a defensive move. If the goal was to just protect South Ossetia, there is no racial reason for Russia to invade nearly half of Georgia. There obviously is no justification to be found here. Russia’s bullying of its southern neighbor is meant to test the West’s resolve.

It’s not just Georgia that has come under threat. A top Russian general said that Poland’s agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported. “Poland, by deploying (the system), is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent,” said Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff.

One of the most disturbing factors at work here is the realization that America has limited options in dealing with Russia. With U.S. forces heavily committed to peace-keeping actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the European theater is left open to threats from Moscow.

This situation is no surprise to me. After Putin rigged last year’s elections, making a sham out of the term “Russian democracy,” it seemed obvious that we were headed for trouble with this man. I made the following prediction in my December 3 update:

“In the near future, I expect Bush to greatly regret not being more forceful with Putin. Whenever someone heads down the path towards dictatorship, it always ends badly for that person and for the nation seized. Like the old saying goes, ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’

Autocratic leaders don’t like to be static. Once they achieve victory, they are always looking for new conquests. History would warn that Eastern Europe is in danger, but I think this time around, Israel is the one that needs to be watchful.”

I personally find Vladimir Putin to be a very spooky character. You never see this man smiling in any news footage. It is like a dark, demonic cloud of gloom constantly hovers over him. The Russian people and the western liberal media may see this as an indication of assertiveness, but I see it as a manifestation of evil.

It is becoming hard to ignore the possibility that Putin may be the person who leads the Gog attack against Israel. Russia has strong ties to several of Israel’s Arab foes. Of course, we are all waiting for Israel to launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The recent chain of events makes it all the more easier to envision Putin’s reaction if the reactor his nation is building for Iran were suddenly destroyed by an Israeli air raid.

“And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army: And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel , as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes” (Ezek. 38:15-16).

— Todd

Original Link.

Floridians to Vote on Bathroom Issue

Wednesday, August 20th, 2008

This whole misguided situation is sad.
In their attempt to appease the homosexuals, a Florida community has opened the door, literally, for any person of any sex to use any public restroom or locker room, just because they claim to be “confused” about their gender identity.
The possibilities open to sexual predators now are endless.

Gainesville, Florida, residents will have a say over a recently enacted transgender ordinance. The ordinance would permit a man to use the women’s restroom if he feels like a woman.

Cane Davis of Citizens for Good Public Policy believes permitting such an option puts women and children at risk. The organization recently conducted a successful petition drive, and the issue will be on the ballot next spring. But that might not be the only thing on the ballot.

“We do have two city commissioners who should be up for election when this issue will be on the ballot,” Davis contends. “Now, the city of Gainesville commissioners have the right to say, ‘We don’t want them on that ballot. We want to do a special election.’ And they may choose to do that.”

Original Link.

Media Refuses to Link “Honor Killings” to Islam

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

With so-called “honor killings” on the rise, it still amazes me that the new media refuses to acknowledge the direct correlation between the killings and the religion of the killers – Islam.

A media analyst says CNN consistently chooses to downplay the connection between acts of violence committed in the name of Islam and Islam itself.

CNN recently aired a news report featuring a woman in the United Kingdom who was kidnapped, tortured, raped, and murdered at the order of her Muslim father. Although the CNN segment documented the rise of what are called “honor killings” in the U.K., reporter Paula Newton not once used the words “Muslim” or “Islam” in the story.

“Clearly the fundamental element in this story is the person who did this honor killing,” states [Seton Motley, director of communications for the Media Research Center (MRC)]. “How can you talk about honor killings without mentioning Islam?” he asks, “because that’s where it happens.”

Original Link.

Obama Dodges Question on When Life Begins

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

Our very liberal presidential hopeful is going to do everything he can do to advance abortions if he is elected.

The moderator of Saturday night’s presidential forum on faith — Pastor Rick Warren — says Barack Obama failed to adequately address the question of when life begins.

Senator Obama (D-Illinois) told Pastor Warren that it was “above [his] pay grade” to determine at what point a baby should be given human rights.

Following the forum, Pastor Warren criticized Obama’s decision to dodge the question. In an interview with, Warren said “to just say ‘I don’t know’ on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.”

Original Link.

Judge Rules in Favor of English-Only Rule

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

As I’ve said on this blog many times, I don’t have any problems with anyone coming to this country to make a better life for themselves. With that said, my only demands are that they come here legally and that they don’t expect me to change to conform to their lifestyle. They are the guest in my country, not the other way around. This is why I don’t have any problems with American English being this country’s official language and that demands be made that everyone who comes to live and work here be required to learn it.

An English-language advocate is pleased — although surprised — that a federal judge ruled against three Hispanic families who had sued a Catholic school for making their children speak English.

The three families in question claimed that the principal of St. Anne Catholic School and the Wichita diocese discriminated against their children. But the school argued that the English-only rule was due to behavior problems by a few middle school students, and was not discriminatory.

Jim Boulet of English First says he understands what the school was trying to do. “If you break out into a foreign language, if you don’t think people understand you, they tend to think you’re talking about them, even if you are not,” he contends. “And sometimes they were — and the school is required to keep an atmosphere where students aren’t insulted and harassed by other students.”

Original Link.

Israel to Release Terrorist Prisoners Who Murdered Jews

Monday, August 18th, 2008

Israel continues to give and give while the Pali terrorist do nothing toward the peace process.

JAFFA, Israel – Drawing the ire of politicians across the political spectrum here, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert today announced that as a gesture to the Palestinian Authority he will release 200 Palestinian security prisoners, including terrorists directly involved in killing Jews.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said today the Israeli government security cabinet voted to release the prisoners as a way to bolster Israeli-Palestinian negotiations started at last November’s U.S.-backed Annapolis Summit, which seeks to create a Palestinian state before President Bush leaves office in January.

The exact names of prisoners approved for release was not yet made public, but diplomatic sources said it included one terrorist who directly murdered a Jew and another senior terrorist who led a cell that staged attacks in which Israeli civilians were killed. Most of the terrorists slated for release have been in prison for the past 15 years.

Israeli sources said the PA worked with Israel in deciding which prisoners to free. Palestinian officials said Abbas requested the release of Said Atabeh, a member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine who has been in prison since 1977.

Opposition Leader Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the prisoner release as a victory for terror.

“The cabinet decision is additional proof that the Kadima-Labor government is subverting ethical and security norms,” Netanyahu said.

“Instead of taking a position of attacking terror, the government is freeing terrorists with blood on their hands, in exchange for nothing, while Gilad Shalit continues to rot in jail. The inevitable result is that terror organizations will understand that they can send more terrorists to carry out more attacks in Israel – and they’ll know that one day, they too will be freed,” stated Netanyahu.

National Union Knesset Member Arieh Eldad said the Olmert government would be responsible if any of the freed prisoners go on to kill more Jews.

“The blood of the innocent victims who will be killed by the released terrorists will be on the head of this government,” Eldad said.

“A government that frees terrorists as a gesture, and not even as part of an exchange, is a government that has no regard for the justice system that convicted them, nor for human life, and has blood on its own hands,” he said.

Statistically, previous large prisoner releases resulted in freed terrorists returning to violence and killing more Israelis.

Original Link.

Pakistani President Musharraf Resigns Amid Impeachment Threats

Monday, August 18th, 2008

I don’t know this is going to play out. Guess we’ll have to see.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation Monday, ending an eight-year tenure that opponents said was hampering the country’s labored return to democracy.

An emotional Musharraf said he wanted to spare the nation from a perilous impeachment battle and that he was satisfied that all he had done “was for the people and for the country.”

“I hope the nation and the people will forgive my mistakes,” Musharraf said in a televised address, much of which was devoted to defending his record and refuting criticisms.

Musharraf said he will turn in his resignation to the National Assembly speaker on Monday but it was not immediately clear whether it would become effective the same day. The chairman of Pakistan’s Senate, Mohammedmian Soomro, will take over as acting president when Musharraf steps down, Law Minister Farooq Naek said.

It also was not clear whether Musharraf, a stalwart U.S. ally, would stay in Pakistan.

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said leaders of the ruling coalition would discuss later Monday whether to prosecute Musharraf in court on charges that that were being planned for the impeachment process.

Musharraf’s political foes celebrated.

Original Link.

Liberal Intimidation Tactic May be Illegal

Monday, August 18th, 2008

Liberals tend to use underhanded techniques to get their way. Intimidation and the liberal courts are the only way they can advance their agenda.

A public-interest law firm wants the Department of Justice to investigate a new liberal political group that is allegedly threatening donors to conservative advocacy organizations.

The official-looking document comes on the letterhead of “Accountable America” and begins with the large, ominous word “WARNING” in all capital letters. The document goes on to promise public exposure and criminal investigations of those who financially support conservative political action committees, even though their anonymity is protected by federal law.

“[That law] essentially prohibits anyone from conspiring to intimidate any citizen who is lawfully entitled to participate in our elections from working to support or advocate anyone who is running for federal office,” [Tom Fitton, president of the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch] explains. “And we believe these letters are designed to intimidate those who may want to participate in this year’s election or support conservative groups otherwise.”

Original Link.

Pro-lifers, Planned Parenthood at war in So. Dakota

Monday, August 18th, 2008

Continue to pray for this situation.

Planned Parenthood is launching a major campaign to defeat a November ballot proposal in South Dakota that would ban most forms of abortion.

Leslie Unruh, who chairs the Vote Yes for Life project, is familiar with Planned Parenthood (PP). Much of PP’s money will come from out-of-state sources, she says.

“I believe they’re going to raise probably $5,000,000 is what they’re saying. They’re going to try to run an air war and that is a huge concern for us because we, so far, have about [perhaps] $50,000 in debt in the campaign,” Unruh explains.

She is hopeful contributions will come in from other states. “We have something they don’t have and that’s grassroots — and we believe that grassroots trumps money any day of the week,” Unruh adds.

Original Link.


Monday, August 18th, 2008

The offices of the prestigious and internationally renowned law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, LLP in midtown Manhattan was the setting for a special session convened by the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists on Sunday, August 10th. The session, billed as several lectures on “Preventing Genocide; “Legal Responses to Ahmadinejad” drew about 30 Jewish lawyers and jurists from all over the country and explored the “jurisdictional, procedural and substantial legal issues involved in bringing Ahmadinejad to account and to justice” and warned that as “Iran moves closer to acquiring nuclear weapons it is vital that every means, including legal actions, be used to deal with the threat of genocide.”

The featured speaker was constitutional legal expert, the Honorable Irwin Cotler, Esq., member of the Canadian Parliament, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Mr. Cotler is also a leading international human rights lawyer and advocate and is a professor of law (on leave) at McGill University in Montreal.

Accusing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of engaging in “state sanctioned incitement to genocide”, Mr. Cotler asserted that even in such constitutional democracies as the United States and Canada, the free speech rights of Ahmadinejad would not be protected because “there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech”. Citing articles from the the United Nations ratified “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” he said that even heads of state are not “immune to prosecution” and suggested that Ahmadinejad be brought before the International Criminal Court.

He called upon those assembled to galvanize the legal community to seek legal remedial redress for Ahmadinejad’s incitement under the Genocide Convention and to attempt to take legal measures to prevent Ahmadinejad from entering the US and Canada. He said that there were a “panoply of remedies” readily available in the text of the Genocide Convention and in the charter of the International Criminal Court. Saying that despite the fact that the United Nations General Assembly has the right to invite Ahmadinejad to address the world body, because the Iranian president uses the international stage to incite genocide, the United States has the right to override the UN obligation to host him. He stated that in his native country he was involved in preparing “a criminal indictment against Ahmadinejad if he steps foot in Canada.”

No stranger to legally challenging governments who perpetrate genocide, Mr. Cotler mentioned the recent horrific massacres in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Darfur and stated that, “the enduring lesson of these tragedies is that they occurred not simply because of the machinery of death, but because of the state-sanctioned incitement to hatred. This teaching of contempt – this demonizing of the other – this is where it all begins.” He also pointed to the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada that said, “The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers; it began with words.”

Mr. Cotler intoned that “for quite some time” the world has been witnessing a state sanctioned incitement to genocide whose epicenter is Ahmadinejad’s Iran and qualified his remarks by saying that the incendiary rhetoric that is being spewed forth on a regular basis from the Iranian regime is a “toxic convergence of the advocacy of the most horrific of crimes, namely genocide, embedded in the most virulent of hatreds, namely anti-Semitism. It is dramatized by the parading in the streets of Tehran of a Shihab-3 missile draped in the words “Wipe Israel off the map”. He also stated that the utilization of such chilling epidemiological metaphors reminiscent of Nazi incitement such as Ahmadinejad’s characterization of Israel as “filthy bacteria,” “a stinking corpse” and “a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised,” while referring to Jews as “evil incarnate,” “blood-thirsty barbarians” and the “defilers of Islam” is the prologue to, and justification for, a Mid-East genocide, while at the same time denying the Nazi one.

Citing the fact that Iranian proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah also engage in state sanctioned terror, he reminded the audience that during the Lebanon war of 2006, Hanan Nasrallah of Hezbollah launched into a tirade against the Jews to provide ideological justification for launching a military attack on Israel. He also stated that non-Israeli Jews were not immune to Iranian terrorism and cited evidence that the heads of state in Iran were also responsible for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina in which 85 Jews were murdered and over 300 were seriously wounded. He told this reporter that the “Argentinian government has asked for arrest warrants for those in Iran who are responsible for the 1994 bombing of the JCC, yet no governments have come forth to show support for such a venture.”

He concluded his address by urging an “indifferent world” to extricate themselves from their self-imposed morass of political myopia and to work assiduously for the tightening of legal sanctions against Iran for their continuation of their uranium enrichment programs. “The time to act is now” Mr. Cotler declared. “We must stop international genocide by bringing Ahmadinejad to account”.

Following Mr. Cotler was Gil Limon, an adviser to the Israeli Mission to the United Nations who said that Article I of the Genocide Convention required that the International Court of Justice bear the responsibility for preventing genocide. Despite the fact that such UN Security Council member nations as “China, Libya and South Africa” don’t feel that the Iranian nuclear program presents any real danger, he cited UN Security Council resolution 713 that called for an arms embargo against Serbia while genocidal tactics were being employed there. He also chided the UN for maintaining a double standard on the application of the Genocide Convention, but stated emphatically that the International Criminal Court could bring a solid legal case against Ahmadinejad to the International Court of Justice for the crime of incitement to genocide. He urged the International Association of Jewish lawyers and Jurists to prepare a model application and model indictment to bring before the ICC and urged the circulation of such drafts of this indictment to international NGOs of the United Nations.


Fern Sidman holds a B.A, in political science from Brooklyn College. She was the educational coordinator for the Betar Youth Movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s. She was national director of the Jewish Defense League from 1983-1985. She was a researcher for several books written by Rabbi Meir Kahane, ZTK”L. She was the managing editor of the publication entitled, The Voice of Judea, and is a regular contributor to its web site. She is currently a writer and journalist living in New York City. Her articles have appeared in The Jewish Press, The Jewish Advocate, The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, and numerous Jewish and general web sites including, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Pipes and Michael Freund.
We are delighted to have Ms. Sidman as a regular contributor to the Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog.

Libya to Receive Reparations for Reagan Air Strike

Friday, August 15th, 2008

First we consider paying slave reparations to people who were never slaves. Then we agree to pay reparations to a terrorist regime for an air strike that prevented them from supporting terrorist quite as much. Gee, is there anyone else in the world we haven’t fallen all over ourselves to pay reparations?
Who’s next?

Despite 189 American lives lost in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, the U.S. settled all lawsuits against Libya for terrorist killings and restored diplomatic relations with the country today – with reparations to be paid to Libya.

President Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Tripoli and Benghazi on April 15, 1986, after Libyan terrorists planted 6 pounds of plastic explosives packed with shrapnel on the dance floor of La Belle discotheque in Berlin, killing three people – including two U.S. soldiers – and maiming 200 others.

Two years later, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded in a terrorist attack by a Libyan intelligence agent. The blast killed 268 people from 21 countries, including 189 Americans. U.S. families filed 26 lawsuits against Libya for the 1988 bombing of the plane en route to New York from London.

The Bush administration began to consider restoring a relationship with the country in 2003 after Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi promised to end production of weapons of mass destruction, halt terrorist activities and reimburse U.S. families of victims of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and other terrorist bombings. Following its pledge, U.N., U.S. and European sanctions were lifted, Libya was taken off the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country was granted membership in the U.N. Security Council.

An agreement required Libya to complete $2.7 billion in payments it had said it would provide to the families of victims. According to Associated Press reports, a senior Libyan government official claims there were also three lawsuits filed on behalf of Libyan citizens in response to Reagan’s air strikes – attacks that Libya says killed 41 of its people and Gadhafi’s adopted daughter.

Susan Cohen, mother of a 20-year-old woman killed in the Pan Am Flight 103, expressed outrage upon hearing news of the U.S.-Libya settlement.

“Gadhafi is an absolute horror,” Cohen told WND. “He has done many, many terrible things. He blew up the French plane, and he blew up the American plane. And what does the Bush administration do? The Bush administration is far more on the side of the Libyans than it is as far as the victims of terrorism go, though it talks a good line about caring about terrorism. If they can make friends with Moammar Gadhafi because they want his oil, then that tells you where they stand.”

Cohen said she cannot understand why the U.S. would reimburse Libyans for Reagan’s air strikes – attacks that were a result of Gadhafi’s bombing of the disco. She believes the U.S. pushed for diplomatic relations because the agreement could result in more contracts for American oil companies.

“I think this is absolutely horrible,” she said. “It’s really sickening, and it’s really dirty. They are being very private and secretive about it.”

While Libya has given $8 million of the $10 million it owed to many of the 268 families involved in the Pan Am explosion, it had refused to pay $2 million because of a disagreement with the U.S. about reciprocal obligations.

Original Link.