Archive for March 6th, 2009

Clinton’s Gift to Russian Foreign Minister Has Incorrect Word – Implying Hostility Instead of Peace

Friday, March 6th, 2009

Note to self: When trying to improve ties with a former Cold War-era foe, check a dictionary.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton learned that lesson the hard way Friday when she presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a gift bearing an incorrect translation — one that implied hostility, rather than peacemaking.

Clinton presented Lavrov with a gift-wrapped red button, which said “Reset” in English and “Peregruzka” in Russian. The problem was, “peregruzka” doesn’t mean reset. It means overcharged, or overloaded.

And Lavrov called her out on it.

“We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” Clinton asked Lavrov.

“You got it wrong,” Lavrov said. “This says ‘peregruzka,’ which means overcharged.”

The two top diplomats, who met in Geneva, laughed and Clinton explained: “We won’t let you do that to us, I promise.”

Clinton said earlier she was presenting the gift because it “represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is, ‘We want to reset our relationship.’ And so we will do it together.”

Clinton adviser Philippe Reines said the typo would be fixed, noting that the correct translation for “reset” is only a couple letters off.

“Since we’re all learning a little Russian today, Opechatka is Russian for typo. So the ‘Opechatka’ is being fixed, the gift will correctly read ‘Perezagruzka,'” he said.

Original Link.

“Sir Teddy and How Government Is Becoming a Royal Class” by Matt Towery

Friday, March 6th, 2009

Message to the Federal Government – Don’t Tread on Me (Click Here to Learn More)

Every day I read or hear something new that makes me scratch my head and wonder if I’m not stuck in the middle of some bizarre nightmare. One in which everything that makes sense is ignored and the craziest of ideas are championed.

Now it’s the news that England will soon award honorary knighthood to ailing Sen. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy. Look, as I’ve noted before, it’s no secret in Washington that Kennedy is well-liked by both his Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate. And I don’t want to kick a man when he is fighting a brain tumor.

So I’m not going to list reasons why Kennedy might not be the most deserving candidate for knighthood. Instead I’ll hold up this latest bit of news as a symbol of a government that now appears week by week to be turning into something like a permanent “royal class”; and how this class seems determined to push the commoners into becoming confused, burned out and overtaxed. By “commoners” I mean, of course, those who have built small businesses, provided employment to those who wanted and needed to work, and contributed part of their hard-earned dollars towards churches, synagogues and charitable causes of all types.

We now seem headed down the road in which those at the highest end of government, along with a shrinking set of entertainers and athletes, become a special class. It’s for them that most others will work to fund the growth of the elites’ power.

Alternatively, the commoners will be subsidized and thus virtually owned. They’ll be forever dependent on this special group to feed, house and provide them health care. And, as too many people lose interest in pursuing what used to be the American Dream of economic and political independence, they’ll even be reliant on the elites to entertain them.


Don’t forget head of the Federal Reserve, who has handed out $2.2 trillion to financial institutions under the various “bailout” efforts, and yet told Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in a hearing this week that it would be “counterproductive” to disclose which banks received funds or how much they got. Unbelievable.

And there’s the “post-9/11” approach government has taken. To be fair, I’ve heard several conservative talk show hosts blast Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her use of a private government jet, without understanding that Speaker Denny “Do Nothing” Hastert had the same access to such aircraft after 9/11. But with everyone else being told that private jets are “evil signs of abusive wealth,” can’t Pelosi take the same risk we all do and fly commercial?

The answer is no, because Pelosi has become an empress, and everyone in Washington knows it. In fact, she’s disappointed in Obama’s plans because they don’t go far enough in punishing the wealthy, redistributing wealth more quickly, and completely and immediately abandoning the people of Iraq.

So let me get this straight. While Ted Kennedy becomes “Sir Teddy,” President Obama is treated more like a king than a perhaps a new president who’s capable of occasionally making a bad decision; the head of the Fed brushes off U.S. senators, and “Queen Nancy” goes flying around in her plane. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to hold our breath and figure out how to survive.

I can personally vouch for this much: Whatever slings and arrows he endured while Speaker, Newt Gingrich not only flew commercial airlines, he usually insisted on flying in coach. I know because I once begged him to take a seat I had in first class. He wouldn’t.

And I doubt he would ever want to be referred to as “Sir Newt.”

Read the complete article here.

$1 Trillion – A New Perspective

Friday, March 6th, 2009

Message to the Federal Government – Don’t Tread on Me (Click Here to Learn More)

Obama and the congressional Dems what to pass a $3.6 trillion budget for next year.

That seems like a lot of money, but is there any way to put that into perspective? has an article entitled “What does one TRILLION dollars look like?”
You need to go read the article, but in case you don’t have time, I’m going to give you the ending of it.
Remember, this is only ONE trillion dollars. Obama’s budget is over three and a half times more.

Ladies and gentlemen… I give you $1 trillion dollars…

One Trillion Dollars

$1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars)

(And notice those pallets are double stacked.)

So the next time you hear someone toss around the phrase “trillion dollars”… that’s what they’re talking about.

Original Link (takes a few minutes to load).

GOP Forces Senate to Delay Vote on $410B Spending Bill

Friday, March 6th, 2009

Good for the GOP and the “moderate” Democrats.
Meanwhile, this is what Obama and the Democrats are doing to our country…

Small Business

They are hurting this country so much by targeting small businesses.

Senate Democratic leaders are still coming up short as they work furiously behind the scenes to gather up 60 votes to pass a $410 billion spending bill that funds the government through September.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Thursday night that he was one vote short of the votes needed despite calling Senate Appropriations Committee Republicans to try to secure support from about six of them. A vote had been scheduled for Thursday evening, but now the bill is on hold at least until Monday, meaning that for now most government departments will have to continue operating at 2008 spending levels.

Earlier Thursday, Reid said he had only three solid “yes” votes from the GOP: Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Richard Shelby of Alabama and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Concern is high enough that the leadership team canceled a weekly background briefing with reporters in order to shore up the vote.

Among the targeted committee Republicans: Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Bob Bennett of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Arkansas and Kit Bond of Missouri.

Specter and Alexander have both complained that not enough Republican amendments are being considered. Specter, in a floor speech, said, “I’m inclined to vote against cloture.”

Cloture is a tactic used by the majority to shut off a filibuster. It takes 60 votes to shut off debate and move to final passage.

Original Link.

California Court Seems Skeptical on Overturning Prop. 8

Friday, March 6th, 2009

I may have to backtrack on my prediction, but it’s early yet, so it may yet come true.

SAN FRANCISCO- The mood was somber among radical homosexual activists after a bruising, three-hour hearing before the justices of California’s highest court, who expressed considerable skepticism at the idea of overturning the state’s voter-approved ban on so-called same-sex marriage.

Thursday’s arguments pitted the right of the people to change their constitution against homosexual activists who are the minority. The California Supreme Court’s seven justices indicated a wariness to override the will of voters, who approved Proposition 8 in November – 4 1/2 months after the same court had ruled 4-3 to legalize gay marriage.

Justice Kennard made it clear Thursday that her position in last year’s gay marriage ruling would have no bearing on how she rules this time around. She repeatedly pointed to the public’s “very, very broad, well-wrought” authority to amend the state’s governing framework at the ballot box.

Read the rest of the article here.

Execute Rush Limbaugh for Treason?

Friday, March 6th, 2009

Obama Shill, Stephanie Miller, has a solution for Obama in regards to Rush Limbaugh; execute him for treason.

Obama's Axis of Evil

Radio talker Stephanie Miller, outraged that Rush Limbaugh wants Barack Obama’s policies to fail, has called for the nation’s top talk host to be charged with treason and executed.

She made the call, not on her rather obscure radio program but on CNN’s “Larry King Live” show Tuesday.

King seemed unfazed by the suggestion, neither following it up with a challenge or a question.

“To me that seems treasonous,” Miller said. “If I could say something tonight that gets me that kind of attention, like maybe Rush Limbaugh should be executed for treason. How about that?”

Original Link.

Hitler was a Christian, or Was He?

Friday, March 6th, 2009

It doesn’t happen often, but sometimes our detractors attempt to draw moral equivalence between us as Evangelical Christians to people of ill repute, who either claimed to be Christians or who were perceived as being Christians. One person of comparison they like to use is Adolf Hitler, the German dictator from the World War Two era who facilitated the Holocaust.

From the article “The Religious Affiliation of Adolf Hitler German Dictator, Nazi Leader” on the website:

“There is no question that Hitler was a Nazi. Nazism was clearly his most important religious affiliation, not in the positive way the word “religion” is often defined, but in the general sense that any philosophy or belief system which is most important in a person’s life is that person’s “religion,” regardless of whether or not it is universally labelled as a “religion.” Hitler was also born into a Catholic family, but he rejected Catholicism and in most ways he rejected Christianity in general. On occasion we have read people claim that “Hitler was a Catholic” or “Hitler was a Christian” in a meaningful way, implying that Christianity or Catholicism was the primary impetus for his Nazi reign. Such claims are simply vitriolic attacks occasionally voiced by ideologically-inclined anti-Christian, anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi people. Historians agree that Hitler was pointedly anti-Christian. We are not aware of any published sources from acknowledged academic historians or writers that identify Adolf Hitler as significantly Catholic or Christian in his motivations as an adult.”

They go on to quote Jewish writer Julie Seltzer Mandel and Jadwiga Biskupska of Cornell University.

From Jadwiga Biskupska:

“Catholicism and Nazism have a more complicated relationship than some might think. Hitler both despised and admired various aspects of the Roman Catholic Church. Though the Nazi movement was superficially areligious, even anti-religious, the Nazi’s greatest piece of propaganda and self-aggrandizement, Leni Riefenstahl’s 1934 film about the Nuremberg Party Rally, Triumph of the Will, is in many ways profoundly religious. The film both makes use of Catholic religious imagery and draws on the Catholic sacramental tradition to give dignity and legitimacy to its construction of Adolf Hitler as the “god” of the Nazi movement… Since the beginning, Catholicism and Nazism had an uncomfortable coexistence. They jarred long before Riefenstahl began filming Hitler’s rally in the summer of 1934… The Concordat, along with many other more famous agreements and treaties signed by the Fuehrer, was quickly violated, and the Church was ineffective in protecting Catholics from all manner of religious and cultural harassment. Alfred Rosenberg, the closest Nazism as an ideology ever came to having a philosopher, was consistently and virulently anti-Catholic… Hitler himself was not purely or simply anti-Catholic or anti-Church, and certainly not so before his rise to power. He was a baptized Catholic, as was his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, and a number of other prominent members of his administration. Interestingly, though both men rejected their Catholic faith and recognized that they had excommunicated themselves, neither ever formally left the Church and dutifully continued to pay church taxes until their respective deaths. Hitler’s own mother, to whom he was very close, was a devoted Catholic, and Hitler received Catholic schooling during his childhood in Austria… In his extensive, often contradictory writings and “table-talk,” Hitler reveals an ambivalent attitude toward the Catholic Church. As an institution on German soil, he is very much opposed to it, and he ridicules the teachings of Church fathers and the practice of the Catholic faith… he detested the doctrines, of the Roman Church… Institutionalized religion, in Hitler’s view, was a waning phenomenon…”

From Wikapedia:

“Josef Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: “The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay.” Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” In the Hossbach Memorandum, Hitler is recorded as saying that “only the disintegrating affect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age” were responsible for the demise of the Roman Empire. In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-Christian tract from 362 AD, neo-platonist and pagan Roman emperor Julian the Apostate’s Against the Galileans, saying ‘I really hadn’t known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this…'”


“In 1998 documents were released by Cornell University from the Nuremberg Trials, that revealed Nazi plans to exterminate Christianity at the end of World War II. The documents cover the Nuremberg trials of leading Nazis and demonstrate the deliberate genocide of Jews during the Holocaust, in which some six million Jews were killed. One senior member of the U.S. prosecution team, General William Donovan, as part of his work on documenting Nazi war crimes, compiled large amounts of documentation that the Nazis also planned to systematically destroy Christianity.

Donovan’s documents include almost 150 bound volumes currently stored at Cornell University after his death in 1959; these documents state

“Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion,” said an OSS report in July 1945. “The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself.

They also show the different steps involved in the persecution, including the campaign to suppress denominational and youth organizations, denominational schools, and the use of defamation against the clergy, orchestrated to started on the same day over the Reich and supported by the press, Nazi Party meetings and by traveling party speakers. The documents show that the Nazis early on wanted the churches neutralized because they feared that the Churches would oppose Nazi plans based on racism and aggressive wars. The Nazis planned to infiltrate churches and use defamation, arrest, assault and/or kill pastors, and “re-educate” church congregations. They also suppressed denominational schools and Christian youth organizations.”

Now I’ve presented this information in order to satisfy our non-Christian readership. Our Christian readership should have already stumbled to the fact that Adolf Hitler didn’t Live like the Bible tells us a Christian should live.

Was Hitler a Christian? I believe both the religious and secular evidence gives us an emphatic “No”.

Original Link.

U.N. to Make Ban on Criticizing Islam Mandatory?

Friday, March 6th, 2009

Muslim-dominated nations at the United Nations are once again pushing a religious “anti-defamation” plan that would bar worldwide all criticism of their founder Muhammad and his teaching.

According to a report by CNN’s Lou Dobbs posted on YouTube, the proposal that has been repeatedly brought in recent years by the Organization of Islamic Conference states is expected to resurface as early as this spring.

This time, however, the resolution wouldn’t allow nations to opt out.

“The United Nations has adopted what it calls a Resolution to Combat Defamation of Religion,” Dobbs said in the report. “The U.N. now wants to make that anti-blasphemy resolution binding on member nations, including, of course, our own. That would make it a crime in the United States … to criticize religion, in particular, Islam.”

Constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams said in the report, “What they would do would be to make it illegal to put out a movie or write a book or a poem that somebody could say was defamatory of Islam.”

WND has reported several times on the OIC proposal at the U.N., including late last year when a vote indicated that international support for the plan was falling.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, has assembled a petition opposing the plan that has been signed by more than 400,000 people already. He said the most recent U.N. General Assembly vote – which was 86 in favor, 53 opposed and 42 abstentions – was a dramatic shift from the vote from one year ago, which was 108-51-25.

Because of the circuitous route to adoption in the U.N., a single General Assembly vote does not automatically mean adoption. Nor does it mean the proposal will disappear.

Columnist Chuck Hustmyre highlighted some of the practices of nations where Islam already has special protections from criticism.

“Afghanistan and some other OIC member nations impose the death penalty on those who convert from Islam to another religion,” he wrote.

The anti-defamation resolutions began with describing the “need” to protect Islam and in recent years has developed into a call for the protection for “religions” from defamation.

However, the only religion specifically cited, in fact, is Islam.

The Muslim nations have sought to have member states enact laws banning such “blasphemy.”

The plan expected to be introduced soon, however, will include a recommendation to the U.N. Human Rights Council that the ban be made binding on member nations, the report said.

The need for a mandatory rule was cited by Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan, reported Hustmyre, who also cited the apparent implementation of the plan already.

He reported in India, police arrested the editor of an English-language newspaper after it reprinted a British article titled, “Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?”

Newspaper officials were accused of “hurting the religious feelings” of Muslims.

He also reported in the U.S., publisher Random House in 2008 canceled publication plans for a novel, “The Jewel of Medina,” because executives feared the book might offend Muslims.

The 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have lobbied for the plan, which is based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, since 1999. The Cairo declaration states “that all rights are subject to Shariah law, and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights.”

The ACLJ, in promoting its petition to raise awareness of the campaign, said, “The fact is this: The proposal, while purportedly to protect against ‘defamation of religions,’ is frequently used as a weapon to silence religious minorities, including Christians in many countries.

“The resolution actually targets anyone who speaks negatively in any way about Islam. Sharing your faith would become an international crime punishable by imprisonment – or death,” the ACLJ said.

Fox News religion contributor Lauren Green previously reported the encroachment of the plan already.

“But you say, ‘That can’t happen,’ or ‘that would be ludicrous.’ The fact is, it’s already happening. Christians and other minority religions in predominantly Islamic areas or countries are being persecuted to barbaric levels. Reports from Nairobi, Kenya, say that one aid worker was beheaded in September for converting from Islam to Christianity; the Iranian government has already passed a bill calling for execution on the basis of apostasy (anyone converting from Islam to another religion), and of course we’ve seen the violence that erupted over the Danish cartoon of the prophet Mohammed,” Green said.

An ACLJ analysis found the OIC “uses the religious defamation concept as both a shield and a sword. In Islamic countries, blasphemy laws are used as a shield to protect the dominant religion, but even more dangerously, they are used to silence minority religious believers and prevent Muslims from converting to other faiths, which is still a capital crime in many Islamic countries.”

The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.

“This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions,” said a statement from Leonard Leo. “We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion.”

Original Link.

About Those Israeli ‘Settlements’

Friday, March 6th, 2009

UN tool-in-chief Ban Ki-Moon is at it again , calling for an Israeli ‘settlement freeze’

“I have stated that the United Nations will work with a united Palestinian government that brings Gaza and the West Bank under the authority of President Abbas. I urge all Palestinian parties, and all regional and international players, to support the process of Palestinian reconciliation.

If anything, the crisis in Gaza underscored the depth of the political failures of the past, and the urgent need to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace for all peoples in the Middle East. Just as we need a unified Palestinian government committed to the peace process, we need an Israeli government that will uphold its commitments. Just as we need the Palestinians to address security issues, as the Palestinian Authority is doing so commendably in the West Bank, we need the Israelis to implement a genuine settlement freeze.

Settlement expansion is illegal and unacceptable and does so much to undermine confidence in the political process throughout the Arab world. I am urging all international partners to make this issue central to renewed international peace efforts.”

I wonder..did the Secretary General of the UN write this all by himself? Because it’s a lot more revealing than I think he intended.

Let’s examine this whole warped concept of ‘settlements.’

Some of these communities have been there longer than Ban Ki-Moon’s home country South of Korea has existed, and even the ones that haven’t have existed for forty years or so. In 1948, when the Arabs attacked Israel at its birth and ethnically cleansed Jews from Judea and Samaria ( AKA the West Bank) and East Jerusalem, they simply apropriated a lot of Jewish homes and property…which is how the place CNN and al-Reuters refer to ‘traditionally Arab East Jerusalem’ came to be. It was ‘traditionally Arab’ for only 19 years, from 1948 to 1967. Yet somehow this illegally seized property somehow never got the label ‘settlements.’

In fact absolutely nothing was ever heard in the hallowed halls of the UN about this theft, or about the forced expulsion of almost a million Jews from the Arab world.

Even more ironically, when Israel retrieved these areas in 1967 after being attacked by Jordan, they let the Arabs who had participated in this theft hang on to their ill-gotten gains for the most part instead of retaliating in kind. So almost all the so-called settlements were built according to official Labor government policy on land that was either vacant or on Jordanian government land.

Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem is a good example. Originally purchased from the Ottoman Emirs at an exhorbitant price in 1924 by the Jewish National Fund, the residents with great effort and toil had built a prosperous farming community there. In 1948, they were cut off by the Jordanian Arab Legion and their British officers and offered safe conduct to the Jewish lines if they surrendered. Burdened with women and children, armed with a few rifles and facing a modern fighting force, they agreed.

After the Jews laid down their arms , the Arabs massacred two hundred of the inhabitants outright, including almost all of the able bodied men. The rest, mostly women and children were sent to a Jordanian military prison, where they lived under unspeakable conditions until they were repatriated to Israel in 1950.

Gush Etzion became a Jordanian military base, with the rightful owners able to view their old homes from the John F. Kennedy Memorial forest in Israel. And after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967, the Israelis recaptured it and returned it to the rightful owners.

Was it somehow ‘illegal’ to restore this stolen property to its rightful owners? Apparently the UN and Ban Ki-Moon seem to think so. Just as they seem to think that 19 year’s worth of squatter’s rights is more legitimate than 40 to 60 years’ worth of ownership.

There’s another hidden context to this that’s insidious, but reveals how closely the UN and the rest of the so-called ‘Quartet’ including the Obama Administration are signalling that Jews have no real rights in the Middle East and are not to be tolerated except grudgingly.

Both Ban Ki-Moon and our own secretary of state Hillary Clinton have made a huge point about a ‘settlement freeze’ as part of the Road Map. Since the Israelis are not kicking Arabs out of their homes, what they’re really referring to as settlement expansion is building homes for Jews inside or next to existing Jewish communities on vacant land to cover the natural population increase .

Now ask yourself – why would that be a problem? What does it have to do with where the borders end up being drawn, really?

A million Arabs live in pre-1967 Israel as a minority with full rights under the law and no one at the UN is talking about removing them as an obstacle to peace. Is there a reason that Jews somehow wouldn’t able to have the same privilege in an Arab state?

Could it be that the Arabs are unwilling to to tolerate the existence of a single Jew in the new supposedly ‘peaceful’ and ‘democratic’Palestinian state the EU, the US and the UN are so dead set on creating?

Could it be that the UN and the rest of the Quartet are aiding and abetting – dare I call it by its true name – apartheid?

You bet they are. And without the slightest bit of shame.

Original Link.

Brought to you by:

Christian Gifts from Israel – The Jerusalem Gift Shop