Archive for January 28th, 2009

Received Our “Fireproof the Movie”; It’s Awesome!!

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009


We received our copy of the “Fireproof” DVD and had a chance to watch it. It is awesome.

Here is a video of my favorite song from the movie.

Be sure to pick up a copy for yourself.

“Fireproof the Movie” Website.

Obama Hails ‘Anti-Israel’ Arab Plan

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

JERUSALEM – Following scores of denials he would trumpet the plan, President Obama today hailed a so-called “Saudi Peace Initiative,” which offers normalization of ties with the Jewish state in exchange for extreme Israeli concessions.

Defenders of Israel warn the plan would leave the Jewish state with truncated, difficult-to-defend borders and could threaten Israel’s Jewish character by compelling it to accept millions of foreign Arabs.

WND was first to report last November advisers to then-presidential candidate Obama gave positive reception in meetings with Arab diplomats to the Saudi plan – but the reports were strongly denied by Obama’s campaign.

Today, in an interview with an Arab television network – his first formal interview as president – Obama trumpeted the Saudi initiative:

“Well, here’s what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. … I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace. I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Obama said he “believes” that there are “Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.”

In November, WND quoted a top Arab diplomatic source stating Obama advisers held meetings with Arab countries in which the Saudi Initiative was “very present.”

The source said in most cases it was the Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, that stressed the importance of the plan. He said Obama’s advisers expressed a positive attitude toward the plan, but he stopped short of confirming a London Times article that claimed Obama would make the plan a central part of his Mideast policy.

Then-senior Obama Mideast adviser Dennis Ross flatly denied the Times report, which quoted a source close to Obama stating that the president-elect intended to throw his support behind the Arab plan. Ross is now Obama’s Mideast envoy.

One senior Obama adviser was quoted telling the Times that on a visit to the Middle East last July, Obama said privately to the Palestinian leadership it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse the Saudi Initiative, which Obama purportedly said could “give them peace with the Muslim world.”

Although Ross denied Obama would trumpet the Arab plan, Israeli President Shimon Peres told the British in November that in conversations he held with the president-elect, Obama proclaimed himself “very impressed” with the the Saudi plan, which was ratified by the Arab League. Peres was responding to questions about whether he thought Obama would advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in general and the Saudi plan in particular.

Initiative threatens Jewish state

The Saudi Initiative, originally proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002, states that Israel would receive “normal relations” with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, which includes the Temple Mount.

The West Bank contains important Jewish biblical sites and borders central Israeli population centers, while the Golan Heights looks down on Israeli civilian zones and twice was used by Syria to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.

The Saudi plan also demands the imposition of a non-binding U.N. resolution that calls for so-called Palestinian refugees who wish to move inside Israel to be permitted to do so at the “earliest practicable date.”

Palestinians have long demanded the “right of return” for millions of “refugees,” a formula Israeli officials across the political spectrum warn is code for Israel’s destruction by flooding the Jewish state with millions of Arabs, thereby changing its demographics.

When Arab countries attacked the Jewish state after its creation in 1948, some 725,000 Arabs living within Israel’s borders fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Also at that time, about 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries or fled following rampant persecution.

While most Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel and other countries, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have been maintained in 59 U.N.-run camps that do not seek to settle its inhabitants elsewhere.

There are currently about 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the U.N., including children and grandchildren of the original fleeing Arabs; Arabs living full-time in Jordan; and Arabs who long ago emigrated throughout the Middle East and to the West.

According to Arab sources close to the Saudi Initiative, Arab countries are willing to come to an agreement whereby Israel absorbs about 500,000 “refugees” and reaches a compensation deal with the PA for the remaining millions of Palestinians.

Obama advisers back Arab plan

Some top Obama current and former advisers have recently endorsed the Arab Initiative. The Times referenced a partisan group of senior foreign policy advisers who urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory, including Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democratic former national security adviser. Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, also joined in the appeal.

Original Link.

Racism of the Congressional Black Caucus

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

At least three times racism has raised its head in the new administration of President Obama, and now his chief spokesman has cited “membership policies” as an explanation for the all-whites-are-banned practice of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to the question from Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, following the conclusion of today’s press briefing at the White House.

“To your knowledge has the president ever disagreed with the expressed hope that children ‘could live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character’ as made by Dr. King,” Kinsolving asked.

“Has he ever … ,” Gibbs asked.

“Disagreed,” Kinsolving finished.

“Not that I know of, no. I think he believes that’s the goal of this country,” Gibbs said.

Kinsolving continued, “Since the members of Congress who have applied to join the Congressional Black Caucus have been turned down because, as the black caucus’ William Lacey Clay put it, ‘they are white and the caucus is black,’ my question: Does the president hope the caucus will stop this racial discrimination?”

“I will certainly look into. … I don’t know what … prompted Mr. Clay,” Gibbs said.

“There have been three of them who have applied and they’ve been turned down because they are not black, and that is the policy of the Congressional Black Caucus, and if you can ask the president, I would be delighted to hear,” Kinsolving said.

“I think the first thing to do is ask members of … ,” Gibbs aid.

“I have. I have,” Kinsolving confirmed.

“… what their membership policies are,” Gibbs said.

As WND reported, U.S. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., was refused permission to join the organization because of his race.

Kinsolving recently documented in his WND column how Anh (“Joseph”) Cao, the Vietnamese-American Republican from Louisiana who defeated the re-election bid of New Orleans Democrat William Jefferson, expressed an interest in joining because the district he represents is predominantly black.

Also, in 2007, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituents, who were 60 percent black. It was reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain “exclusively black.”

Kinsolving reported Clay said, “Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He’s white and the caucus is black. It’s time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood.”

Kinsolving said Clay later issued an official statement from his office: “Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept – there has been an unofficial congressional white caucus for over 200 years, and now it’s our turn to say who can join the ‘the club.’ He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.”

Charges of racism arose after posting of a video showing top Obama economic adviser Robert Reich saying he wanted to make sure economic stimulus money didn’t go to just “white male construction workers.”

Also as WND reported, Democratic Party strategist Donna Brazile admitted she swiped Obama’s complimentary blanket from his inauguration ceremony and then joked it was not a criminal offense because, “We have a black president … this was free.”

Also, outrage erupted over the inauguration benediction by Rev. Joseph Lowery, the 87-year-old civil rights pioneer, for asking God to help mankind work for a day when “white would embrace what is right.”

Obama, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus while on Capitol Hill, reacted to the benediction with a smile.

Original Link.

Little Known Part of Stimulus Plan; Feds to Take Your Medical Records

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

That’s right folks. Under the so-called “stimulus” plan that the Obama crew is ramming through congress, there is a little know part to it that would compel your medical providers, without your consent or ability to opt out, to give the government your medical records.
My first question would be: why are my medical conditions any concern of theirs? Of course, if one was planning on nationalizing health care, involuntarily seizing all the medical records would be the first place to start.
Jennifer Rast over at the Scriptorium has this to say:

Without much coverage from the media, and no mention of it from the President or Congress, Obama’s “stimulus” plan contains a provision to force every single American to submit their medical records to a government controlled electronic medical records database. There would be no way to opt out, because choice is only a good thing if you want to murder a baby.

Some of you may not have a problem with hundreds of thousands of agencies having access to information about your health, mental health records, whether you’ve been an obedient patient or not, and more. Most Americans, however, probably don’t want every detail of their medical history accessible to millions of people. Personally, I don’t want the Federal Government keeping that kind of information about me in a database, because I don’t trust our government to use it responsibly, especially with rabid supporters of the culture of death now in power. Pelosi’s population control plans could take on a whole new direction with that kind of information at her fingertips. It’s happened before in this country, and that was before God was kicked out of our government, schools, and the public square.

Judging by the drooling and groveling going on in meetings between Obama and leaders in the GOP, we can’t count on them to stop this power grab without an uprising from their constituents. Everyone should be writing their representatives in Congress, and calling, or faxing if possible. They need to know we don’t want this, and that there must, at the very least, be a provision for people to opt out of the system if they have concerns about privacy.

Read the whole news story here:

A little-discussed provision in President Obama’s economic stimulus plan would demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed.

Patients might be alarmed, too, privacy advocates said, if they realized information such as documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.

Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, said unless people have the right to decide “if and when” their health information is shared, there is no real privacy.

“President Obama has pledged to advance freedom,” she said. “Therefore the freedom to choose not to participate in a national electronic health-records system must be upheld.”

Blevins’ organization, one of the few raising the alarm at this point, said the stimulus plan would impose an electronic health records system on every person in the U.S. without any provision for seeking patient consent or allowing them not to participate.

“Without those protections, Americans’ electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network,” Blevins said.

The organization said Americans who care about health privacy should contact members of Congress and the president to let them know about the need for opt-out and consent provisions.

According to the institute, the measure currently includes plans for:

* An electronic health record “for each person in the United States by 2014.”

* A national coordinator to develop a “nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information.”

The institute said the medical privacy rule established under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 already allows personal health information to be passed along without patient consent for treatment, payment and “oversight.” The recipients of such information could be any of the people in the 600,000 organizations in the industry.

“Nobody wants to stop the proper use of good technology,” Blevins said, “and for some people privacy is not an issue.”

But she said the bottom line is that patients “would end up losing control of his or her personal health information.”

“There’s a lot at stake with electronically transferring health data and paying claims within the $2.2 trillion healthcare industry,” warned the organization, which works on issues of health freedom in the U.S.

Another group, Consumer Watchdog, even suggested today Google is trying to lobby for the “sale of electronic medical records.”

The group said, “Reportedly Google is pushing for the provisions so it may sell patient medical information to its advertising clients on the new ‘Google Health’ database.”

Consumer Watchdog said, “Americans will benefit from an integrated system capable of making our medical records available wherever we may need them, but only if the system is properly used.

“The medical technology portion of the economic stimulus bill does not sufficiently protect patient privacy, and recent amendments have made this situation worse. Medical privacy must be strengthened before the measure’s final passage,” the group said.

WND previously has reported on attempts in Minnesota by state lawmakers to authorize the collection and warehousing of newborns’ DNA without parental consent.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been successful in stopping the action there so far.

Original Link.

Bomber’s Martyrdom Tape Renews Fears Over Consequences of Closing Gitmo

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

As President Obama pushes for the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison, the debate over where to house the terror detainees being held there is heating up.

An exclusive video of a former Gitmo detainee’s martyrdom tape, obtained by FOX News, is a reminder of the concerns that terror suspects — who have been held but released from Guantanamo Bay — are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies.

Abdallah Ali al-Ajmi was transferred back to his home country of Kuwait after his release from Guantanamo in 2005. Last April he blew himself up in a homicide attack that killed 12 people in Mosul, Iraq.

Al-Ajmi, known in Guantanamo as Detainee 220, made his martyrdom tape before the attack.

“In the name of Allah, most compassionate, most merciful and prayers and peace be upon our Prophet,” al-Ajmi says in the video. “I thank Allah, Lord of the Worlds, who freed me from Guantanamo prison and, after we were tortured, connected me with the Islamic State of Iraq [ISI]. And it is the gift of Allah to follow the path of this nation, the ISI.”

In the video, translated by the NEFA Foundation, a non-profit that tracks terror groups, al-Ajmi mentions Guantanamo Bay right away. For many jihadists, having served time at Guantanamo is seen as a badge of honor.

Click here to visit the NEFA Foundation Web site.

Al-Ajmi’s attack is one of the most well known and well documented cases of an ex-Gitmo detainee returning to the battlefield as a homicide bomber. His video renews concerns of many in the intelligence community of the potential consequences by releasing these prisoners.

Sixty-two detainees released from the U.S. Navy base prison in Cuba are believed to have rejoined the fight, said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, citing data from December. That’s up from 37 as of March 2008, Morrell said.

The new figures come as President-elect Barack Obama issued an executive order last week to close the controversial prison. It’s unlikely, however, that the Guantanamo detention facility will be closed anytime soon as Obama weighs what to do with the estimated 250 Al Qaeda, Taliban or other foreign fighter suspects still there.

Original Link.

“Obama Engages the Middle East” by Stan Goodenough

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

Barely in office, America’s brand new president and his secretary of state are already moving fast to position themselves on the so-called Israeli-”Palestinian” conflict.

Shining like new pennies, bolstered by the massive national wave of feel-good optimism, they stood in front of the television cameras last Thursday and drew up their battle plans, declaring their intentions and appointing the man who will spearhead their efforts to realize success on the ground.

“I pledge my supreme effort,” Barack Hussein Obama declared, “in the search for peace and a stability in the Middle East.”

We will – said Hillary Rodham Clinton as she introduced new envoy George Mitchell – be adopting a “robust” approach.

Mitchell is due in Jerusalem tomorrow. It looks like Obama is already moving to engage the enemy here.

Who, one might ask, is that enemy?

To best answer, let’s identify America’s “friends.”

Obama’s first telephone call from the Oval Office last Wednesday, the day after his inauguration, was to Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Mahmoud Abbas. The president promised the terrorist-in-a-tie that his new administration would be pushing ahead towards the “two-state-solution.”

Obama also saw to it Tuesday that his first television interview was addressed to the Arab-Islamic world. “Americans are not your enemies,” he told Al-Arabiya TV.

“We sometimes make mistakes — we have not been perfect.”

Muslims attacked America on 9-11. Muslims have been triggering and waging war all around the globe, often aimed at America’s interests, but the US president tells Muslims AMERICA has made mistakes!?

Who, WHO is the enemy in Obama and Clinton’s eyes?

Is it the Arab world, that for decades has ganged up on Israel and asserted effort after effort to destroy the state which has 950-times less land than the Arabs do?

Is it the Arab regimes of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, whose rejection of the Jews’ right to their homeland has been the primary factor responsible for the instability in the Middle East that has so detrimentally affected the interests of the United States and the rest of the western world?

Is it the countries which, endowed with stupendous wealth, threaten – and sometimes make good on their threat – to hold the oil-reliant nations hostage unless they dance to their Arab tune?

Is it the vicious abusers of human and women’s rights, who torture their opponents in medieval dungeons, forbid – on pain of death – the personal choice of their people to convert from Islam to Christianity – or to sell their land to a Jew; and condemn their own citizens to live in poverty while they spend billions of dollars pursuing more advanced weapons with which to attack Israel?

Is it the opportunistic despots who traditionally have chosen to side with America’s foes and only – transparently – agreed to become America’s “allies” when other options have been closed to them and/or in exchange for the goodies such an alliance can bring?

Is it the people who break out in singing and hand out candy to celebrate jihadist attacks on the United States and the murdering of thousands of American citizens; the people who burn the Stars and Stripes and trample the ashes into the dirt while spewing out their hatred for the Great Satan; the people who make an instant hero out of a “journalist” who flings his shoes at the president of the despised and abhorred United States?

Are these countries the enemy?

Or is the Obama administration – not withstanding its repeated pledges of friendship and fealty to Israel’s security – soon to discover that it is Israel who will get in the way of its policies, program and “peace” plan for the Middle East?

Will the bad boy on the block for America quickly become the small state under its proud Star of David, surrounded by belligerent and bullying regimes who have steeped their people in antisemitism and for decades promised them, day-after-day, the spoils that will be theirs when they have finally vanquished the Jew?

Will the enemy be the only Middle Eastern nation that shares America’s values of democracy, freedom of the press and respect for human rights?

Will the – eventual if not immediate – enemy be the nation whose forefathers gave America the Bible on which their legal system and a great deal of their national history and values have been built?

Will the enemy be the remnant of a nation which, against all imaginable odds, managed to survive centuries of assorted and often terribly effective efforts to annihilate them simply because of who they are as a nation and Who they represent?

Will the Obama administration’s enemy be this little land whose people look, almost fawningly, to the US for friendship, swearing allegiance to the American flag in almost the same breath with which they swear allegiance to their own?

America, under its new liberal leaders, will soon begin to turn the screws on Jerusalem.

It’s going to happen.

Mark my words.

Original Link.

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh After Firing Back at Obama

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

I came under fire for agreeing with a commentator that I wouldn’t be praying for “Obama’s success”. Why do those of us who refuse to support this man that we disagree with get demonized? Didn’t those who opposed Bush’s programs and ideas actively wish for his plans to fail? I’m not going to be a part of Obama-mania. If that upsets you, well, I’m sorry you feel upset, but I don’t plan on changing.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition to express outrage at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Obama to “fail.”

“Jobs, health care, our place in the world — the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed,” the petition reads. “Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh’s Attacks — sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama.”

The petition comes after Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill Friday that they need to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

On Monday, Limbaugh shot back at Obama, opening his show by saying, “I’m the man you should not be listening, according to President Obama.”

“I think [Obama] wants me to fail,” Limbaugh said. “He’s more frightened of me than he is of John Boehner, which doesn’t say much for our party.”

The remarks came after Limbaugh said last week on his radio show: “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails’.”

The committee’s online petition includes a YouTube video featuring audio clips of the radio host’s recent remarks.

Original Link.

“Gitmo Questions for Press Secretary Robert Gibbs” by David Limbaugh

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

During his first week in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year. Later communications from his office disclose that he hasn’t yet fully explored the potentially negative consequences of closing the facility. The problem, he said, is more complicated than it first appeared. This raises a number of questions, Mr. Gibbs:

–How can President Obama credibly maintain that the issue is more complicated than he thought, when people have been raising these problems for years? Is he just now discovering that there are serious consequences involved, or did he already know and finesse the issue during the campaign for political purposes? If he didn’t know (and even more so if he did know), doesn’t he owe former President George W. Bush an apology for his unfair criticisms? Doesn’t he owe the American people an explanation as to how he could possibly have been unaware of such rudimentary aspects of this fundamentally important national security issue?

–Given that he now concedes there are unexplored complications, wasn’t it precipitous and imprudent of him to issue the closure order? What if further research indicates there are no reasonable alternatives other than to bring these prisoners to the U.S. mainland and grant them the full panoply of constitutional rights? Or does he actually favor full-blown constitutional rights for terrorists? If so, will he not be leading America back to its pre-Sept. 11, 2001, mindset, which treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter rather than a military one?

–Democratic Rep. John Murtha praised the Gitmo closure order as a “first key step in restoring America’s image and credibility in the world.” Murtha said, “The problem with Guantanamo was never about its bricks and mortar … (but) that its very existence stains and defies the moral fiber of our great nation.” Based on the president’s repeated statements, it’s obvious that he essentially agrees with Murtha that the primary problem Gitmo poses is its effect on America’s image in the international community. That being the case, why won’t the president’s simultaneous executive order banning “torture” rectify this supposed image problem, thereby allowing us to preserve the facility and avoid these complicated issues concerning its closure? After all, if, as Murtha says, it’s not about the bricks and mortar, then why don’t we keep using the same bricks and mortar and handle our image problem with clear publications of the president’s orders forbidding enhanced interrogation techniques? Isn’t the honest answer that the president is more worried about his image with his hard-core anti-war base than America’s image internationally? But if I’m wrong and his overriding concern truly is with international opinion, then could you please explain why he and other Democrats are constantly exaggerating and mischaracterizing the alleged incidents of abuse? We know there were only three cases in which waterboarding was used. Also, if America’s image is the problem, why does Mr. Obama continue to sanction the charge that the Bush administration was behind the regrettable incidents at Abu Ghraib, when the evidence indicates it did not authorize them and swiftly punished those who were culpable? Wouldn’t it better serve America’s international image if the Obama administration made clear to other nations that these were renegade acts never authorized by the Bush administration? Or would the damage to the president’s image with the fringe left from such a clarification be a price he’s unwilling to pay, even if it would serve his stated goal of repairing America’s image?

–What if the president’s further study reveals that our national security strongly militates in favor of keeping Gitmo open? Is the president prepared to say he is more concerned with America’s image than its safety?

–In that the president has decided, categorically, to forbid whatever he believes constitutes “torture,” could you please explain to the American people what alternative techniques he might implement that are reasonably designed to extract lifesaving information from terrorists? We do know, do we not, that information gleaned through these controversial techniques prevented real attacks and saved real lives? If the president is aware of no effective alternative techniques, will he tell the American people that he’d rather terrorist attacks occur and American lives be lost than debatable techniques be imposed? With all due respect, it is not a sufficient answer to say that in theory, enhanced interrogation techniques don’t work, because we know that in reality, they do — and did.

–Now, could we please turn to the question of abortion and consider how President Obama’s controversial executive order will fulfill his campaign promise to bring America together?

Original Link.