Archive for April, 2009

World Health Officials Race to Stem Deadly Flu

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

Use common sense. Wash your hands often, cover your mouth when you cough, get extra rest/sleep and take vitamins, especially Vitamin C.

MEXICO CITY — World health officials, racing to extinguish a new flu strain that is jumping borders, raised a global alert to an unprecedented level as the outbreak claimed more lives in Mexico. The U.S. prepared for the worst even as President Barack Obama tried to reassure Americans.

With the swine flu having already spread to at least four other countries, authorities around the globe are like firefighters battling a blaze without knowing how far it extends.

“At this time, containment is not a feasible option,” said Keiji Fukuda, assistant director-general of the World Health Organization, which raised its alert level on Monday.

At the White House, a swine flu update was added to Obama’s daily intelligence briefing. Obama said the outbreak is “not a cause for alarm,” even as the U.S. stepped up checks of people entering the country and warned U.S. citizens to avoid nonessential travel to Mexico.

“We are proceeding as if we are preparatory to a full pandemic,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The European Union health commissioner suggested that Europeans avoid nonessential travel both to Mexico and parts of the United States. Russia, Hong Kong and Taiwan said they would quarantine visitors showing symptoms of the virus.

Mexico, where the number of deaths believed caused by swine flu rose by 50 percent on Monday to 152, is suspected to be ground zero of the outbreak. But Mexican Health Secretary Jose Angel Cordova late Monday said no one knows where the outbreak began, and implied it may have started in the U.S.

“I think it is very risky to say, or want to say, what the point of origin or dissemination of it is, given that there had already been cases reported in southern California and Texas,” Cordova told a press conference.

It’s still not clear when the first case occurred, making it impossible thus far to determine where the breakout started.

Dr. Nancy Cox of the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said she believes the earliest onset of swine flu in the United States happened on March 28. Cordova said a sample taken from a 4-year-old boy in Mexico’s Veracruz state in early April tested positive for swine flu. However, it is not known when the boy, who later recovered, became infected.

The World Health Organization raised the alert level to Phase 4, meaning there is sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus causing outbreaks in at least one country. Monday was the first time it has ever been raised above Phase 3.

Putting an alert at Phases 4 or 5 signals that the virus is becoming increasingly adept at spreading among humans. Phase 6 is for a full-blown pandemic, characterized by outbreaks in at least two regions of the world.

Fifty cases — none fatal and most of them mild — were confirmed in the United States. Worldwide there were 79 confirmed cases, including six in Canada, one in Spain and two in Scotland. Thirteen are suspected in New Zealand, and one is suspected in both France and Israel.

Symptoms include a fever of more than 100, coughing, joint aches, severe headache and, in some cases, vomiting and diarrhea.

Amid the alarm, there was a spot of good news. The number of new cases reported by Mexico’s largest government hospitals has been declining the past three days, Cordova said, from 141 on Saturday to 119 on Sunday and 110 Monday.

In a bid to prevent mass contagion, Mexico canceled school nationwide until May 6, and the Mexico City government is considering a complete shutdown, including all public transportation. The Cinco de Mayo parade celebrating Mexico’s defeat of a French army on May 5, 1862 and Mexico City’s traditional May 1 parade were canceled. More than 100 museums nationwide were closed.

Original Link.

‘Two States for Two Peoples’ is an Empty, Deceptive Leftist Slogan

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

We must admit that when it comes to demagoguery, the sophisticated Left is able to produce simple and catchy phrases.

The fact that these slogans have nothing to do with the truth does not stop leftists from using them, knowing that most people won’t examine these catch-phrases too deeply. The slogans will get the job done. If they repeat the lie as many times as possible, perhaps people will ultimately be convinced.

For example, the slogan “two states for two people – so simple and so catchy. Numbers that create a sense of credibility. Seemingly it doesn’t get any better than this. But let’s look a little deeper: Are the numbers credible?

How many states have been established in the area that used to be called Palestine-Land of Israel? Today there are two states there, Israel and Jordan. And how many peoples live in them? If we insist on distinguishing the Palestinian people from the overall Arab world, there are two peoples living in these two countries; after all, there is no such thing as the Jordanian people, as all learned experts would agree.

Indeed, most leftists I spoke with were unwilling to relate to this argument, claiming that it is no longer relevant, yet when one looks into a conflict and its possible solutions, one needs to take into account a historical range that goes further back than 40 years.

The state of Jordan is ruled by the Hashemite regime (which isn’t exactly democratic); it settled there with the help of the British army. The Brits handed over the east side of the Jordan River, which was part of the mandated Land of Israel, to the Emir Abdullah, who arrived from Saudi Arabia.

Therefore, there are already two states for two peoples at this time; the only thing that possibly still remains to be done is to hold a multinational conference and decide on dividing the area in a more equal and just manner – by boosting the size of the Jewish State at the expense of Jordan.

The Left’s attempt to limit the conflict to the period of time between the Six-Day War and our times, without the obligation to take into consideration the historical and geographical space, brought the disasters of terrorism and Qassam rockets. The Left’s disregard for the fact that every Arab child recites terms such as “right of return” is part of its attempt to reject reality.

Experiment has failed
What does the slogan “two states for two peoples” hide? In fact, we are talking about three states for two peoples, whereby we get roughly three-fourths of one country, as opposed to two and a quarter Arab states; that is, Jordan and a Palestinian state that possess 75% of the land area, and the dwarfed State of Israel, which is also home to an Arab irredenta with a hostile identity.

Another lie inherent in this simplistic slogan is the viability of establishing a Palestinian state. Ever since the Oslo Accords we have been tirelessly preoccupied with this illusion. We crowned the arch-terrorist Arafat, and later Holocaust-denier Abbas. While doing so we also managed to contribute to Hamas’ rise,

we sustained more than 1,000 terror casualties, and we also saw thousands of Arabs murdered in internal conflicts. Anyone with eyes in their head understands that this experiment, which claimed the lives of our best people, has failed.

Hence, when you encounter this empty slogan, keep in mind that there were other such slogans in the past: “Peace Now” and “Peace is better than Greater Israel.” So where is this peace that leftists governments failed to bring during their terms in office? Perhaps, for a change, we should adopt an old rightist slogan that was never attempted as a policy: “Jordan is the Palestinian people’s state.”

Original Link.

This post is brought to you by:

The Jerusalem Gift Shop 234x60

Christian Gifts from Israel – The Jerusalem Gift Shop

‘Brazen Allegiance’ to Tiller Behind Veto by Sebelius

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

It makes no sense at all to put a abortion advocate Sebelius in as the head of Health and Human Services. Like so many other appointments Obama has made, he’s just rewarding his mouthpieces and cares nothing about qualifications…unless all he’s looking at is the advancement of his incredibly liberal left agenda, which, by the way, is all he is interested in doing.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius — President Obama’s secretary-designate for Health and Human Services — has vetoed a bill designed to regulate late-term abortions.

Senate Bill 218, vetoed by Sebelius on Thursday, would prevent abortionists in Kansas from circumventing state law. In addition to that, says Judy Smith of Concerned Women for America of Kansas, the measure just makes common sense.

“It would require that the only third-trimester abortionist in Kansas would have to report, when he performed an abortion on a post-viable child, the exact nature of the mental illness that would have provided irreparable and irreversible harm to the mother — which is dictated by Kansas law,” Smith explains.

That is the only way a third-trimester abortion can be done in Kansas. But the law does not currently require a report on the specifics of the mental health problem. The proposal is specifically directed at late-term abortionist George Tiller.

“George Tiller and those who work for him have repeatedly used the mental health exception,” says Smith, “but they’ve done it in a very generic term — just ‘mental health,’ with no specific diagnosis such as clinical depression or psychosis or whatever.”

Original Link.

Social Policy Takes a Left Turn Under Obama

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

“Social Policy Takes a Left Turn Under Obama” is an understatement.

From the conscience clause to stem cell research, President Obama has shifted social policy to the left in his first 100 days in the White House. But the reversal of several of his predecessor’s regulations has garnered hardly a whimper — leaving many to wonder how much social issues matter to Americans amid two wars and an economic crisis.

— Obama overturned George W. Bush’s restriction on embryonic stem cell research last month when he signed an executive order authorizing expanded federal funding — a decision he described as moral because it pursues research that will “ease human suffering.”

— Obama has proposed reversing additions to the “conscience clause” enacted by the Bush administration that allow physicians and other health care providers to refuse to provide medical services that conflict with their faith or conscience.

— On Feb. 25, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration will reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons and impose additional restrictions.

— And although Obama has said he opposes gay marriage, he has made clear that he supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.

“It’s cultural aggression,” former Bush adviser Karl Rove told, adding that policy changes that “inject government” into moral matters — like the conscience clause — will have “enormous consequences.”

But conservatives like Rove acknowledge that little attention has been given to Obama’s agenda shift since he took office — largely because lawmakers are more concerned with the economic downturn and national security.

“They’re not getting attention because the defenders of these policies haven’t grabbed the stage,” Rove said.

Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said matters of national and international security — like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and North Korea’s recent missile launch — have taken precedence in the first 100 days.

“That trumps the social issues,” Bond told

The financial crisis, which mushroomed one month before Obama won election in November, determined the government’s chief focus, lawmakers say.

“The focus of the president’s first 100 days has been the economy and getting it turned around,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. “As a result, people are more focused on the pocketbook issues at the moment”

“The economic problems of the country have overwhelmed the rest of the issue terrain,” said Tad Devine, former adviser to presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. “People are worried about their jobs, their savings, their homes, their retirement. There’s just no daylight for other things to rise to the surface.”

Devine also cited what he believes is a change in the country’s attitudes, saying issues that were once “hot button” topics have lost much of the public’s attention.

“It’s just a different country now. These issues don’t have the power that they used to have a decade ago — even five years ago,” Devine said, adding that funding for public education and patients’ bill of rights were among the top polling issues when Gore ran in 2000.

Devine said the change in cultural attitudes is most clearly seen through the issue of gay marriage. “This was something that, just a few years ago, you didn’t have serious discussion of it. There might have been some discussion of it, but it wasn’t manifested in legislatures.” he said.

Stephen Wayne, professor of government at Georgetown University, said, “Things that are expected don’t receive a lot of news coverage. He made his positions clear during the campaign. It’s something we come to expect when we get a president with a different view.”

Original Link.

Freedom in Christ

Monday, April 27th, 2009

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Freedom in Christ

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

Life by the Spirit

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Galatians 5:1-26 (New International Version)

Supermodel Kathy Ireland Lashes Out Against [Abortion]

Monday, April 27th, 2009

I wonder if this has anything to do with Carrie Prejean? Maybe the fact she was willing to express her Christian values in a public forum may be causing other high profile Christians to be a bit more vocal about their convictions. In any case, my hat is off to Ms. Ireland as well.

It’s no secret that the majority of Hollywood stars are strong advocates for a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to terminate a pregnancy, however former “Sports Illustrated” supermodel-turned-entrepreneur-turned-author Kathy Ireland has gone against the grain of the glitterati and spoken out against abortion.

“My entire life I was pro-choice — who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science,” Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book “Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity.”

“What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there.”

However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life.

“I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby. Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time,” Ireland argued. “I’ve also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didn’t want to be pro-life, but this is not a woman’s rights issue but a human rights issue.”

Ireland also asserted that she believes “no justification is adequate” (for an abortion) unless another the mother’s life is in danger.

“In that instant, your intention is not to kill but to save the life of another. If we’re about to demolish a building we make absolute certain there are no human beings in there before we take a wrecking ball to it, but the unborn doesn’t have a voice so it’s up to us to speak for them,” she added passionately. “If I see someone abusing a child I am going to stand up against that, and that’s how I feel about abortion. Women are not given all the facts, they’re told it is a harmless procedure and now it has turned into such a political football.”

The committed Christian and devoted mother even dedicated the chapter “Faith & Your Family” in her new book to her foundations in Christianity and believes that this is what’s missing from so many American families today.

“You have to figure out your own values and why you have them. People are going to try and push and pull at your convictions, so you have to have boundaries and put them in place,” she said.

Original Link.

“War On The Cross” by Michael G. Mickey

Monday, April 27th, 2009

In recent days a lot of energy has been put forth by me and the site’s regular contributors in an effort to keep everyone up to speed on how quickly – and demonstrably – we are moving toward the complete fulfillment of God’s promise that the last days would be as they were in the days of Lot. (Luke 17:28-30) We’ve also discussed how there is an effort underway to silence Christians and, in doing so, the Word of God itself. As I’m going to demonstrate today, we are on the front lines of a spiritual battle here in the last days that is simply unprecedented, both in its directness of approach and its long-term goal.

The Telegraph is reporting the following in part (emphasis added mine):

The National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS) plans to launch a recruitment drive this summer.

Backed by professors Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling, the initiative aims to establish a network of atheist societies in schools to counter the role of Christianity.

It will coincide with the first atheist summer camp for children that will teach that religious belief and doctrines can prevent ethical and moral behaviour.

The federation aims to encourage students to lobby their schools and local authorities over what is taught in RE lessons and to call for daily acts of collective worship to be scrapped. It wants the societies to hold talks and educational events to persuade students not to believe in God.

Chloë Clifford-Frith, AHS co-founder, said that the societies would act as a direct challenge to the Christian message being taught in schools.

She expressed concern that Christian Unions could influence vulnerable teenagers looking for a club to belong to with fundamentalist doctrine.

In particular, she claimed that some students were being told that homosexuality is a sin and to believe the Biblical account of creation.
“We want to point out how silly some of these beliefs are and hope that these groups will help to do that,” she said. [More…]

The first thing I would point out to everyone is the most obvious: Atheists like Richard Dawkins are supposedly anti-religion. In spite of this, as the article highlights, the efforts of those espousing militant atheist beliefs like Dawkins conveniently forget all the other gods, especially the god of Islam. That would be because they only fear ONE God that is worshipped by mankind – the God of the Bible. (That and the fact Dawkins and his ilk are scared of the Muslims.)

When I think of how bold atheists like Richard Dawkins are when it comes to waging war on the cross, I have to admit chuckling now and then. They challenge the Most High God openly and boldly, an example in the excerpt above being their claim that believing homosexuality is a sin is silly, but have to be pressed to denounce Islam, for example. Even when their hand is forced into doing so, any opposition expressed will be much more tame than when they rail on Christianity, most often blanketed in a statement of overall dislike of religions such as: “We are opposed to all forms of religion, not just Christianity.” Oh really?

Am I the only one who wonders where are all the news articles documenting their efforts to form atheistic organizations seeking to “counter the role” of Islam are? You’d think the atheists, in mankind’s best interest of course, would be concerned about countering that religion too, especially in light of September 11th, the Madrid train bombings, Muslim Iran seeking nuclear weapons after its leader has openly threatened to wipe an entire nation off the face of the earth, namely Israel, but none of that seems as worthy of their attention as silencing Christianity. And to think these people boast of how intellectually superior they are to Christians! Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:22)

Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ scares – and threatens – atheists where religion is concerned, mostly because only Christ and His judgment of them to come is seared into their consciences. This the atheists loathe, to the point that they foolishly hope that, if they can create a world where Jesus Christ isn’t even mentioned, they can feel safe for a time. Who knows? Somewhere in the recesses of their spiritually-tormented souls they may hope, literally, that if enough people stop believing in God, He will cease to exist or maybe change His mind about holding them accountable for their sins. Good luck with that, atheists!

And did you catch the part of the article above where the atheists made the bizarre claim that religion, by which I’m assuming they’re referring to Christianity in keeping with the article’s theme, may “prevent ethical and moral behavior?” That’s a laugher for the ages, isn’t it? Or did they not hear that thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc.?

Stop Kidding Yourself

If you’re reading this commentary and you’re an atheist, hear me now. Waging war on the cross and Jesus Christ is utter foolishness. And if you’re railing on Christianity while ducking radical Islam because you’re afraid of Muslims, you’re acting doubly foolish! Let me be blunt. If you’re an atheist and you are afraid of men but not the judgment of Jesus Christ? You’re bordering on insanity, especially when both you and I know – yes KNOW – that nothing you are doing or saying against Christianity is making you any less concerned about the prospect of the God of the Bible’s judgment of you to come! This you should actually be thankful for because it is hope – your only hope!

Jesus Christ said: “And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” (Luke 12:4-5)

Anyone, regardless of their religious faith or even lack thereof, can kill your body, but there is only One who can both take your life here on earth from you and, later, cast your sin-riddled body into an eternal lake of fire from which there will be no escape or hope of rescue from!

Choose Jesus Christ today I beg you. He loves you!

Be Of Good Cheer

Lastly, Christians, be of good cheer! While there is much going on in the world around us of concern, the content above being a prime example, things wouldn’t be nearly this bad if we weren’t rapidly approaching something good happening that we’ve been promised – our redemption!

Church, the darkness seems to be pressing in on us more and more daily, but remember: There’s a light at the end of this tunnel for us!

Keep your watch! The Bridegroom is coming!

On a completely unrelated note, the Bible forewarns that pestilences are going to play a prominent role in the last days. (Matthew 24:7, Luke 21:11)

I am monitoring, with great interest, the sudden emergence of the swine flu epidemic in Mexico that the World Health Organization is fearful may turn into a global pandemic, just another indicator of the lateness of the hour we’re living in.

Just in: Swine flu is possibly in New York. It’s already been found in California, Kansas and Texas. New Zealand, France, Israel too.

Original Link.

“Perez Hilton: The Foul Face of ‘Gay’ Activism” By J. Matt Barber (Content Warning)

Monday, April 27th, 2009

Warning: This article contains graphic but accurate material that may be offensive to some readers.

You may have heard. During Sunday’s Miss USA pageant openly “gay” activist and pageant judge Perez Hilton – the self-styled “Queen of Media” – ambushed Carrie Prejean – the openly Christian Miss California – with a politically loaded question on so-called “same-sex marriage.” Prejean’s candid answer – as both Hilton and Miss USA organizer Donald Trump later admitted – likely cost her the crown.

From the moment she opened her mouth, Prejean has given liberals a clinic in class. Hilton, on the other hand (a.k.a. Mario Armando Lavandeira), has provided the world a sneak peek into the soul of homosexual activism.

This is one for the up-is-down-black-is-white hall of fame. The media’s fabricated flap over Prejean’s answer – a public defense of legitimate marriage – has a reasonable America scratching its collective noggin in stunned disbelief. Not because of the answer she gave Perez – which was both well received by the pageant audience and overwhelmingly shared by about 70 percent of Americans – but, rather, because of Hilton’s hate-filled, misogynistic response to her answer and the disgraceful, knee-jerk defense of that response by liberals in Hollywood, the media and organized homosexuality.

After Hilton asked the lovely and talented Miss California whether “every state” should legalize “same-sex marriage,” Prejean responded: “In my country, in my family … I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.”

Oh the humanity!

Evidently this was not the rooty-tooty-fresh-n’-fruity answer Hilton – the creepy valley girl wannabe with a five o’clock shadow – had hoped for. He promptly marked Prejean’s score card with a zero, plopped down in front of the television cameras and began blubbering away like a fussy little snot with a dirty diaper.

Having already publicly called Prejean a “dumb b—-,” he then yammered to a sympathetic Norah O’Donnell on MSNBC that, not only was he refusing to apologize, he was actually “thinking the C-word.” This, of course, one of the vilest things anyone can call a woman. Yet, rather than taking Hilton to task for the boy lover’s girl-hating poison, O’Donnell joined in on the bash-fest, criticizing Prejean for her traditional view.

But Hilton wasn’t done yet. Ramping up his vicious attack on the Christian California bombshell, our lispy-wispy lil’ cupcake dove headlong into the annals of dirt-baggery lore. He defaced a photo of Prejean on his weblog scribbling, below her chin, a crude depiction of a male phallus ejaculating in her mouth.

How did Prejean react?

While talking to Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show she said, “I knew at that moment after I answered the question, I knew, I was not going to win because of my answer, because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God. … I wouldn’t have answered it differently. The way I answered may have been offensive. With that question specifically, it’s not about being politically correct. For me it was being biblically correct.”

On the Fox News Channel’s Hannity program, Prejean shared, “You know, I forgive him. I know that he’s angry for whatever reason. I know there must be a bigger issue going on in his life.”

Like I said – Class.

Still, Perez Hilton – Hollywood’s frothy-potty-mouthed little drama queen – isn’t alone in his hatred for Prejean or the three-fourths of Americans who share her opposition to the novel and incongruous concept of “gay marriage.”

For example, Wayne Besen, a prominent leader in the homosexual activist community, unbelievably went on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor to defend Hilton. He picked up Hilton’s anti-Christian torch, incredibly charging that it was Prejean, not Hilton, whose millennia old recognition of biblical marriage “was divisive.” Besen then added insult to injury and revealed his true rainbow colors by tagging the 70 percent of Americans who oppose “gay marriage” as “bigots.”

This whole hateful affair provides the perfect metaphor for the current divide between defenders of traditional sexual morality and the extremist “queer” activist movement. As Congress debates the constructive repeal of both the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of “equal protection under the law” and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion through passage of discriminatory and wholly unnecessary “hate crimes” legislation, this little episode once again reminds us that the self-described champions of “tolerance” and “diversity” are the most intolerant and hateful among us.

How soon we forget. Just hearken back a few months to the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which restored the definition of natural marriage to the Golden State. There we all played witness to “gay” activist calls for church burnings, Mormon Temple vandalism, death threats against Prop 8 supporters and quasi-riotous assaults against peaceful Christian marriage supporters.

So, insofar as liberals continue to dig their own hole by defending Hilton and piling on Prejean, I submit they’re doing the other 70 percent of us a favor. In their biting anger, they’ve cast aside the sublime mask of “tolerance,” revealing an ugly, desperate and most intolerant countenance below.

For that, I say thank you. For your treatment of Carrie Prejean, I say shame on you.

Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. He also co-hosts the nationally syndicated “Liberty Live” talk radio program on AFR Talk. Send comments to Matt at (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Original Link.

Italian Cruise Ship Fires on Somali Pirates

Monday, April 27th, 2009

Well at least someone is doing something about the Muslim pirates. Notice who…

ROME — An Italian cruise ship with 1,500 people on board fended off a pirate attack far off the coast of Somalia when its Israeli private security forces exchanged fire with the bandits and drove them away, the commander said Sunday.

Cmdr. Ciro Pinto told Italian state radio that six men in a small white speed boat approached the Msc Melody and opened fire Saturday night, but retreated after the Israeli security officers aboard the cruise ship returned fire.

“It felt like we were in war,” Pinto said.

None of the roughly 1,000 passengers and 500 crew members were hurt, Melody owner Msc Cruises said in a statement issued by its German branch.

Domenico Pellegrino, head of the Italian cruise line, said Msc Cruises hired the Israelis because they were the best trained security agents, the ANSA news agency reported.

Original Link.

Swine Flu Posses Severe Risk – Two Cases Confirmed in Kansas; Eight Probable in NYC; CDC Declares Public Health Emergency – Maybe U.S. Will Finally Get Serious About Borders; Doubtful

Monday, April 27th, 2009

The swine flu as moved up from Mexico, through our completely open borders, and is now killing the elderly and children here in the United States. Will we finally get serious about our borders? I doubt it. What we can count on is Emperor Obama taking advantage of the situation and taking away more of our freedoms. Remember, “never waste a good crisis”.

WASHINGTON — The United States has activated an emergency plan to combat swine flu as the Obama administration announced measures Sunday to contain the sometimes deadly virus.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified the strain of swine flu and is prepared to distribute a quarter of the U.S. stockpile of 50 million doses of anti-viral medications in places around the country where swine flu has been located or may be expected to spread, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a briefing at the White House.

Travel advisories have not been issued by the State Department, Napolitano said, nor is the United States going to screen passengers on flights arriving from Mexico. She said funds have been freed up in case a larger response is needed.

Hand-washing, mask-wearing and other measures will help prevent the spread, Napolitano said explaining how the public can help slow potential contaminations.

“If you are sick, stay home,” Napolitano said. “Take all of those reasonable measures that will help us mitigate and contain” the illness.

People who are ill should not go on airplanes, to school or other places, added Dr. Richard Besser, the acting head of the CDC.

Besser said the United States is working with the World Health Organization, Canada and Mexico as well as other organizations to reduce the spread of the virus, which appears to have originated in Mexico and has resulted in up to 81 deaths there.

The CDC has issued advice on its Web site on how to avoid the sickness and how to react if people think they are infected.

“Every outbreak is unique” and it’s very hard to say how long it will be before it’s contained. But Besser said since it’s near the end of flu season right now, a decline would be likely.

However, he added, “We view this more as a marathon. We do think this will continue to spread but we are taking aggressive actions to minimize the impact on people’s health.”

“Even if this outbreak is a small one we can anticipate that we may have a subsequent of follow on outbreak in several months from now,” Napolitano said.

In a press conference held Sunday, New York Governor David Paterson said the eight potential cases in Suffolk County have been tested.

“It’s a situation we’re monitoring but it seems there’s no real danger ahead,” said Gov. Paterson.

Gov. Paterson said daily updates are being given to 25,000 physicians, hospitals and health care providers.

In the U.S., 20 cases of swine flu have been confirmed in California, New York, Texas, Ohio and Kansas. Patients have ranged in age from 9 to over 50. Besser said that all the cases have resulted in recovery and one person remains hospitalized.

However, the same flu has sickened more than 1,324 in Mexico since April 13.

As the briefing was occurring, Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard announced that two more people died overnight in the capital of swine flu, and three other deaths are suspected to have been caused by the new strain. Ebrard said 73 more people have been hospitalized with influenza and authorities are investigating how many of them may have been infected with swine flu.

Original Link.

Michelle Malkin had this to say:

The deadly flu strain sweeping across Mexico and into the U.S. has world health experts sounding the alarm bells. Mexico City has been shut down. Officials are advising citizens there to wear masks. There’s talk of a pandemic. California and Texas have seen several reported cases, but no deaths in the U.S.


A new flu strain that has killed up to 68 people in Mexico could become a pandemic, the World Health Organization warned on Saturday, as health experts tried to track the disease’s spread.

Hospitals tested patients with flu symptoms for the never-before-seen virus, which has also infected eight people in the United States. No further deaths had come to light since Friday afternoon, but officials warned the person-to-person infections meant there was a risk of a major outbreak…

…Mexico has shut schools, cinemas and museums and canceled public events in its sprawling, overcrowded capital of 20 million people to try to prevent further infections. Weekend soccer matches were played in empty stadiums and people on the street wore face masks.

The strain of flu has spread fast between people and infected some individuals who had no contact with one another.

The WHO says the virus from 12 of the Mexican patients is genetically the same as a new strain of swine flu, designated H1N1, seen in eight people in California and Texas. All of the eight later recovered.

An emergency committee of WHO experts, convening on Saturday, will advise Chan on issues including possibly changing the WHO’s pandemic alert level, currently 3 on a scale of 1 to 6.

A NYC prep school saw 75 students fall ill on Friday and health officials are testing to see if it’s the new strain of swine flu.

The World Health Organization is set to declare the outbreak an “international concern.”

I’ve blogged for years about the spread of contagious diseases from around the world into the U.S. as a result of uncontrolled immigration. We’ve heard for years from reckless open-borders ideologues who continue to insist there’s nothing to worry about. And we’ve heard for years that calling any attention to the dangers of allowing untold numbers of people to pass across our borders and through our other ports of entry without proper medical screening — as required of every legal visitor/immigrant to this country — is RAAAACIST.

9/11 didn’t convince the open-borders zealots to put down their race cards and confront reality.

Maybe the threat of their sons or daughters contracting a deadly virus spread from south of the border to their Manhattan prep schools will.

Original Link.

Pelosi Was Briefed About Waterboarding, Lies About “Not Knowing”

Monday, April 27th, 2009

More lies from Queen Nancy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other “enhanced” interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.

But in a story published in the Washington Post in December 2007, two officials were quoted saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time.

The clash of accounts has stirred Republican claims that Democrats have selective and politically motivated amnesia when it comes to who knew what, and when, about the Bush-era interrogation programs.

“I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods, and not a word was raised at the time, not one word,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., is seeking a detailed list of all lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics. Republicans are drawing attention to the briefings to challenge Democrats who now say they are open to investigating, and possibly prosecuting, officials and lawyers involved in the drafting of the harsh interrogation techniques.

Pelosi is among those lawmakers who want an independent commission established to probe the evolution of the policies — but it’s still unclear what she knew early on in the Bush administration.

Asked about the briefings on Thursday, Pelosi said: “We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.”

But she also did not explicitly say that waterboarding was not part of the conversation. She indicated instead that any discussion they may have had was hypothetical.

“What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … opinions, that they could be used, but not that they would,” she said.

Pelosi indicated the briefings could have been incomplete, saying: “We only know what they choose to tell us, and the manner and timing which they tell us.”

The Post article noted that strict rules during the secret briefings prohibit lawmakers from taking notes or consulting with legal experts, hindering the lawmakers’ ability to challenge what they are being told — in this case, about interrogation tactics.

But that doesn’t mean they can’t ask critical questions.

Pelosi indicated Thursday she’s being hamstrung from fully addressing the briefing, and publicly questioning the tactics described in it, because it was secret.

“It’s very interesting that people are talking so freely,” Pelosi said.

Original Link.

Obama’s Federal Spending Spree Raises Management Concerns

Monday, April 27th, 2009

In the early months of his presidency, President Obama has shown he isn’t afraid to spend billions of dollars on corporate bailouts or to run up trillions of dollars in U.S. debt to battle an economic crisis.

But in doing so, he has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration — one that officials are already warning will be fraught with peril.

During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.

Analysts call the spending spree “unprecedented” when the nation is not in a declared war, and they say the challenges that accompany it are a logical result.

“You take any organization in the world and you double its size in 90 days, it’s going to have a hard time managing that transition,” said William Gale, vice president and director of the economic studies program at Brookings Institute.

“The sheer management issues that come up are very important,” Gale said, “because I can imagine the people running those projects that are about to be doubled may not want to see their face on ’60 Minutes’ as the poster child for government waste and useless spending.”

Among the warning signs: The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that states need help covering the cost of overseeing their share of the massive federal stimulus program.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a congressionally appointed oversight panel this week that America’s banks are still broken, despite all their bailout billions. And an inspector general assigned to the bailout program concluded this week that a private-public partnership designed to buy up bad assets is tilted in favor of private investors and creates “potential unfairness to the taxpayer.”

Brian Reidl, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said all the spending may lead a Democratic-controlled Congress to “overreach and create expensive, unworkable new programs that will not be easy to fix or cut later.”

“There are significant economic risks to rapidly expanding the size of government,” Reidl said. “Countries with large governments produce less wealth and create fewer jobs than countries with minimal government.”

The number of programs and the dizzying array of acronyms describing them are enough to leave a Scrabble champion exhausted.

There’s TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) and PPIP(Public-Private Investment Program).

On top of that, Obama’s budget proposal includes $770 billion in tax cuts over 10 years for the middle class, $150 billion for funding “green” energy sources and $634 billion toward the introduction of universal health care.

Reidl forsees legislative hurdles.

“Congress has a lot on its plate this year,” he told “It will be hard for Congress to write useful legislation on energy, health and education while passing all the regular spending.”

He said Obama is doing too much too fast.

“It’s extremely difficult to craft intelligent legislation in so many areas at one time, especially in a president’s first year, when he is facing the same learning curve that any president would face,” he said.

But Gale said he believes the White House has done an “enormous” amount right in the first 100 days.

“The flip side of the very aggressive posture the administration has taken is if the economy goes through the floor, we’re going to see budget deficits like you’ve never seen,” he said.

Even if the administration is able to get all the programs up and running, Gale said, an exit strategy is lacking to extricate the federal government from the credit markets and all of the state and local government spending.

“I’m not confident that Congress or the administration will have the political discipline to keep these things temporary,” he said.

“It kind of reminds me of Iraq,” he said. “We’re here. Now what?”

Original Link.

Obama Avoids Using Word ‘Genocide’ in Statement Condemning Armenian Killings

Monday, April 27th, 2009

Well of course…why would “The One” want to characterize the well documented death and destruction of 1.5 million Christian Armenians ‘genocide’? He might anger his Muslim overlords (the only people he bows to).
Do we really need to point out that it was Pelosi’s attempt to score cheap political points against Bush, and undermine the war effort in Iraq, that brought this whole issue to the forefront?
More Democrat duplicity.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Friday refrained from branding the massacre of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey a “genocide,” breaking a campaign promise while contending his views about the 20th century slaughter had not changed.

The phrasing of Obama’s written statement attracted heightened scrutiny because of the sensitivity of the issue and because the two countries are nearing a historic reconciliation after years of tension. The Obama administration is wary of disturbing that settlement.

Marking the grim anniversary of the start of the killings, the president referred to them as “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century.”

“I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed,” Obama said. “My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts.”

“The best way to advance that goal right now,” Obama said, “is for the Armenian and Turkish people to address the facts of the past as a part of their efforts to move forward.”

For Obama, referring to the killings as genocide could have upended recent pledges of a closer partnership with Turkey, a vital ally in a critical region. Steering around the word, however, put him at odds with his own pledges to recognize the slaughter as genocide.

Obama said the Armenians who were massacred in the final days of the Ottoman Empire “must live on in our memories.” He said unresolved history can be a heavy weight. “Reckoning with the past holds out the powerful promise of reconciliation,” he said.

“I strongly support efforts by the Turkish and Armenian people to work through this painful history in a way that is honest, open, and constructive,” he said.

Original Link.

Love for Enemies

Friday, April 24th, 2009

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

Jesus Teaching

He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:43-48 (New International Version)

“Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones” by Michael G. Mickey

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but speaking or writing words that offend homosexuals? They may land me (or you) in jail, thanks to our leaders in Congress.

Continuing the site’s coverage of H.R. 1913, which has, thus far, consisted of a commentary by Matt Barber and yours truly, evidence is continuing to mount that this legislation, being fast-tracked to becoming the law of the land thanks to a liberal Congress and White House, is potentially very threatening to Christians who are doing nothing more than saying homosexuality is a sin, something which is both true and a sign that the return of Jesus Christ is at hand as documented in Luke 17:28-30:

Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.

Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Lot lived in a place called Sodom, from which we today derive the word sodomy. This is what spiritual wickedness in high places doesn’t want Christians pointing out to people and, it would appear, our Congress as well.

In a article dated today, it is being reported that “hateful words” may soon be prosecutable if this legislation ends up passed into law – and it will be unless we get up in arms and pronto! This legislation is going to be voted on within a week so we need to get in touch with all our representatives in Congress TODAY concerning H.R. 1913. If we don’t do so right now, I fear we’re going to be placed in a position that may force us to make some very difficult decisions in the future – and require our government to build many more institutions to house the criminal element that is the Bible-believing, Word-upholding Church of Jesus Christ.

What will this legislation do?

If passed into law, it will add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.

Threat or no threat?

Is this legislation truly going to pose a threat to Christians who merely express what the Bible says with no threat of violence or hatred added? It depends on who you ask – or believe.

John Conyers (D-Michigan), a co-sponsor of the measure, is quoted in the ONN article linked above as saying: “The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way.”

So, no violence involved means no prosecution according to Conyers, but is that the case? Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) is quoted in the same article making a comment that leads me to believe there’s cause for greater concern than Conyers is willing to admit (emphasis added mine):

“We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts.”

The way I read Sheila Jackson’s comments, mere words deemed by a homosexual to be hateful may be enough to get one prosecuted for a hate crime.

Christians, I want you to read the last paragraph of the ONN article posted below very carefully if you think Satan’s hand isn’t all in this:

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, offered several amendments that would have provided religious-freedom protections from hate crimes prosecution, but they were all rejected by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

Democrat John Conyers was, undoubtedly, present when Congressman Gohmert tried multiple times to ensure that religious freedom provisions were written into this bill before it progressed, but to no avail. Logically, if the Democrats were interested in protecting our constitutional right to freedom of religion, they wouldn’t have minded addressing Congressman Gohmert’s concerns to ensure that the local pastor down the street, for example, couldn’t be prosecuted for condemning the sin of homosexuality, but they didn’t. Why do you suppose that’s true? Satan wants to silence the Church here in the last days and those who serve his will in Congress, be it intentional or below their level of consciousness, are willing to throw the Christian majority of this nation under the bus to appease the insecurities of the homosexual minority.

Bring it on!

Barely a day goes by when someone doesn’t lash out at me, often using ‘hateful words’, concerning my faith in Jesus Christ and my belief in Bible prophecy, even as events like this continue to prove me right concerning all I express here in support of same. Is there a federal law on the books to ensure that my feelings are never hurt by mere words? No and there never will be, but you won’t hear me bawling about how pitifully I’m treated, asking for the federal government to protect me from WORDS. Words don’t hurt me, words don’t scare me and the words of people who hold views in opposition to mine don’t influence who I am at all. To my enemies I say, “You want to hurt me with words? Bring it on!”

Sure, words spoken to me and about me sting a bit occasionally, but I’m okay with that unless hateful words morph into threats of violence or actual crimes being committed against me. Anything less than that? Wouldn’t that be constitutionally-protected freedom of speech? If a Muslim today writes me a nasty e-mail critical of my faith and the lifestyle I lead as a result of it? Isn’t that his or her right? Certainly, unless that type of interaction rises to the level of harassment which there are laws in the individual states capable of remedying.

Readers, listen to me. If we don’t get vocal – and I mean VOCAL – the Obama administration, in cahoots with the Democrat-led Congress, are going to strip us of all our constitutionally-protected rights one by one by one until this nation is either going to explode at the seams or collapse completely under the weight of God’s judgment being cast down upon it.

In Leviticus 18, beginning one verse after the Lord commands that we are not to engage in homosexuality or bestiality, we are told that those activities defile not only a nation but the very land upon which that nation rests. Furthermore, in Leviticus 18:25, we read that once this sort of sin becomes rampant, the land will vomit out its inhabitants. In verse 26, the Lord advises that a nation isn’t to knowingly permit a stranger passing through its lands to commit homosexuality or bestiality let alone its citizens and in verses 27 and 28? The Lord repeats Himself in stating these things defile a nation and warns against a nation permitting them, reminding us again that the land will vomit out its inhabitants if a nation overlooks His commands on this topic! Those words, ladies and gentleman, are not the words of Michael G. Mickey. Those are the words of the Most High God!

Liberals in Washington, consider yourselves warned! God is watching and He will keep His Word in the end. Continue in your efforts to accommodate homosexuality in defiance of the Word of God and see what happens! The United States of America will be destroyed as a direct result of your foolishness! And worst of all? It will be destroyed when there wasn’t a great deal of a problem to begin with!

Over 300,000,000 Americans live in this great nation. Out of all those people, in spite of all the homosexual activism and gay pride being publicly expressed these days in town and city squares, parades, and in the parks of our lands, there were only 1,521 hate crimes committed against homosexuals last year. So what is our Democrat-led Congress doing? Trying its very best to broaden our laws to ensure that more homosexuals can claim they’ve been victimized to rally sympathy for them so they can publicly live their lifestyles, which God calls an abomination, without anyone so much as lifting a voice of criticism, whether that criticism is based on religious beliefs or simply the obvious which is that homosexuality is completely unnatural as even a cursory examination of human anatomy reveals.

The sexual organs of men are not compatible with those of other men. Ditto for the women. Even if we applied the issue of homosexuality to the whimsical theory of Darwinian evolution, the staggering numbers of homosexuals emerging today would blow the theory completely out of the water. How? It would demonstrate that human sexuality is evolving in a manner threatening to the survival of the species. Evolution isn’t supposed to do that, is it? Not that I recall, but what do I know?

Well, another day, another rant. I’m done for now.

God bless you all and yes, I do pray God’s blessings for all who read this, regardless of whether you agree with the words you’ve read here or disagree with them. I’m not an evil or angry man. I’m just reporting what is no longer deemed to be politically acceptable to be communicated which is that all mankind is accountable to God. We are accountable to God as individuals AND we’re accountable to God as a nation, like it or not, believe it or not.

Disclaimer: Due to the fact our Department of Homeland Security views my Christian theology as radical and potentially extremist, I want to state for the record that I, Michael G. Mickey, am not in any manner endorsing nor soliciting any type of hatred against anyone. The same applies to any action of an illegal nature being committed against the government of the United States of America. What I am wholly supportive of, on the other hand, is Christians exercising their constitutionally-protected right to question the decision-making of our government presently calling the shots in Washington, D.C. and our constitutional right to acknowledge our government’s utter incompetence in relation to prioritizing what needs to be addressed in our society and what definitely doesn’t. The sort of critical opinions I’ve shared here were abundantly streaming from the Left and considered perfectly acceptable political and social dialogue throughout the years of the Bush administration and I hope they are now.

Original Link.

“H.R. 1913 On The Fast Track” by Michael G. Mickey

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Yesterday I posted a commentary by J. Matt Barber on H.R. 1913, legislation that could pave the way for Christians who express disapproval or disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, even from a biblical standpoint, to be prosecuted for having committed a HATE CRIME.

As reported by, the entire foundation of H.R. 1913 was stripped out from under it yesterday when it was proven that said foundation was built upon lies – blatant lies that the House Judiciary Committee somehow managed to get around by today and pass the measure which is now expected to go to a full vote before the House of Representatives next Wednesday. A Senate version of the legislation is to be considered next week as well, this legislation apparently burning a hole in the pockets of our liberal members of Congress due to their obvious desperation to forward the homosexual agenda as quickly as possible.

A lot can happen in a single day

Just yesterday, mere hours after I posted Matt Barber’s commentary on this issue, the article indicates that Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, was sensing the measure was in trouble with good reason. The Democrats had lied and been caught in it, according to Lafferty:

“We exposed the fact that they claimed, they have fraudulent claims that there was an epidemic of hate against homosexuals and drag queens, transgenders — and that claim was the foundation of the bill,” she notes. “They claimed that homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution, and that perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against these gays, lesbians, and transgenders, and that they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. We nailed them on the fact that that’s a lie.”

Lafferty says during yesterday’s markup hearing, Democrats neglected to mention that in America — a country of 300 million people — there have been only 1,521 cases of hate against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people.

An Epidemic of Hate?

Homosexuals having to flee across state lines to avoid persecution and, beyond that, perpetrators of crimes against them chasing them from state-to-state? The very premise of such a claim reads like a scene from a homosexual version of “Smokey and The Bandit”, doesn’t it?

And then there is the laughable issue of gays not being able to purchase goods or services. How stupid do our members of Congress believe we are? Show me someone with a fistful of dollars in their hand and I’ll show you someone who can purchase most anything they desire in this nation of ours. Give me a wad of cash and within an hour or two I’m confident I could buy something illegal to even possess, but we’re to believe that there is an epidemic problem of homosexuals being unable to buy groceries, a haircut or get someone to fix a broken water fixture in their home? Baloney! All of it!

The issue isn’t that homosexuals can’t purchase goods or services. No, my friends. That isn’t it at all. The real issue is they can’t, under present law, command a Christian catering service, for example, to handle their “wedding reception” for them. Sure, they could find any of a blue million catering services that wouldn’t mind doing it in the first place, but it just isn’t fair for anyone to demonstrate disapproval of their lifestyle or be committed to their religious faith to the extent that they wouldn’t bow to the homosexual community’s agenda.

And homosexuals can’t find jobs? Pffft! I know quite a few homosexuals who are gainfully employed. Not only that, I can’t recall even once seeing a job application that required one to indicate their sexual orientation, but we’ve got ourselves an epidemic of employment discrimination afoot in this nation of ours, a large portion of it directed against homosexuals. I can’t get past the irony of this last supposedly problematic issue raised – employment discrimination. And why would that be? Because I know of a young woman who was denied the title (or job) of Miss USA because a flamboyant homosexual judge who goes by the professional name of Perez Hilton admittedly gave her a ZERO during her interview process during the Miss USA pageant just a few days ago. Why did he do that to her? Because she didn’t sign off on gay marriage in response to a question posed to her by him on that politically-loaded topic.

In spite of Hilton’s discrimination against her, Miss California (Carrie Prejean) still almost won, finishing as the first runner-up. But the bottom line remains the bottom line: She isn’t wearing the crown of Miss USA today because of the wrath of a homosexual! And yes, it was wrath.

How do I know it was the hatred and intolerance of Perez Hilton that cost Carrie Prejean the title of Miss USA and not an objective and tolerant look at the answer she gave in response to his question? All one has to do is review how Mr. Perez has acted beyond the pageant!

Being homosexual and oppressed as Hilton and so many homosexuals are today, he has, as noted earlier, admitted giving her a ZERO on her interview. He’s also referred to her as a “dumb b*tch”, acknowledged a desire to refer to her as a c*nt, and, as I understand it, took the liberty of posting a picture of her on his website with a penis drawn across her face. Pretty obvious, isn’t it? But are we hearing any outpouring of support for Miss California in the mainstream media? Any at all? Uh, no. That would be because tolerance is a one-way street that flows away from God and all that is right – the same direction the vast majority of the mainstream media flows, proving the accuracy of the Bible when it refers to Satan as “the prince of the power of the air.” (Ephesians 2:2)

If you’re hearing support of Miss California on any significant scale, you’re hearing it from Christian and conservative websites and talk radio, which H.R. 1913, should it become the law of the land, may place squarely in the crosshairs of the homosexual community. And make no mistake about it, if this bill gets past the House and Senate, our beloved Christian president, Barack Hussein Obama, will sign it into law faster than he’d drop to one knee in submission before the Muslim leader of a foreign country or shake hands with a dictatorial enemy of the United States like Hugo Chavez.

How much longer, Lord? How much more of this must we endure?

Related: Civility and tolerance in the age of Obama

Original Link.

“Separate but Unequal Protection” By J. Matt Barber

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) have quietly re-introduced the federal thought crimes bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling “hate speech” laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. The bill is expected to be marked up Wednesday [4-22-09] before the full House Judiciary Committee.

Under the 14th Amendment, victims of violent crime are currently afforded equal protection under the law regardless of sexual preference or proclivity. If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that. It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., “gay” and lesbian “sexual orientation” or cross-dressing “gender identity”).

Of course, this entire concept flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or “transgender” and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.

There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not currently receive equal protection under the law. In fact, you need only look to the most famous “hate crime” of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard’s murder was not a “hate crime” by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers) the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard’s murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible).

Likewise, the murderer of Mary Stachowicz – a devout Catholic grandmother who was brutally killed by a homosexual man in Chicago merely for sharing the Bible – was also given a life sentence. The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation.

Yet, proponents of H.R. 1913 claim it’s needed to curb an epidemic of so-called “hate crimes” committed against homosexuals and those who suffer gender identity disorder. This is a lie that is knowingly and intentionally cultivated by a very well funded and intrinsically deceptive homosexual lobby. The alarmist propaganda simply doesn’t square with the facts.

According to the latest FBI statistics, in 2007 there were about 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the U.S. Of those, only 1512 were reported as “hate crimes” motivated by “sexual orientation” bias. Over two thirds of those were allegations of “hateful” words, touching, intimidation, pushing or shoving. There were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including 5 deaths) allegedly motivated by “sexual orientation” bias nationwide. In each case, where appropriate, offenders were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and victims were afforded the exact same justice guaranteed every other American.
The entire push for federal “hate crimes” legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very “hate crime” (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated “hate crimes” continue to pile up.

So, if proponents of H.R. 1913 are neither justified nor motivated by an actual need for the bill – as clearly demonstrated – then what drives them? The answer is twofold. First, passage of “hate crimes” legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable “suspect class” characteristics such as skin color or a person’s true gender.

This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publically express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as “homophobic bigots” to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

In short, this bill places newfangled “gay rights” in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It’s a zero sum game and someone has to lose. Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.

But the threat is not just some shadowy phantom looming in the near future. It’s a clear and present danger. While debating the notion of “conspiracy to commit a hate crime” in the last congress, Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of “inducement” to violence.

Furthermore, under existing criminal statute if H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a “hate crime” to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a “gay pride” parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual’s shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony “hate crime.”

But the Christian needn’t even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in “apprehension of bodily injury” by the Christian’s words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony “hate crime.” The FBI has included mere words – “insults” and “intimidation” – in calculating “hate crimes” statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there’s every reason to believe they’ll subjectively consider “insults” and “intimidation” (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting “hate crimes.”

Yes, it’s a brave new world and with H.R. 1913 – among other things – a once free America has moved, both literally and figuratively, a quarter of a century beyond Orwell’s 1984.

Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. He also serves as Associate Dean of Liberty University School of Law and co-hosts the nationally syndicated “Liberty Live” talk radio program on AFR Talk. Send comments to Matt at (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Original Link.

Possible Interrogation Probe Dashes Hopes for Bipartisanship Under Obama

Friday, April 24th, 2009

We are not a third world Banana Republic or Communist Dictatorship that imprisons our former leaders for politically incorrect policy decisions. Have we, as a country, really degraded to this point? If so, then we are ripe for the picking, and are just years, if not months away from loosing our country to a charismatic dictator.

Mark your calendar: April 21, 2009. That’s when the Era of Bipartisanship died.

That’s what some Republicans suggested after President Obama opened the possibility of a congressional investigation and prosecution of Justice Department lawyers who authorized “enhanced” interrogation techniques on terror suspects during the Bush administration.

If the coffin needs a final nail, it will come if Democrats decide to fast-track Obama’s legislative priorities through a budget maneuver known as “reconciliation.”

Republicans and some Democrats oppose the tactic because it would prevent a long debate on what they consider complex issues.

Bipartisanship was already on life support after Republicans largely opposed the president’s economic policies, and it took a turn for the worse on Tuesday when Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether “those who formulated those legal decisions” behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted.

Those methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last week, included tactics such as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.

Obama acknowledged the complexities involved with prosecuting Bush officials.

“As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards,” he said. “I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations.”

He suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a “further accounting” of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 Commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.

But at a closed-door bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders Thursday, Obama reportedly resisted pressure from Democrats to probe Bush officials. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Obama she wants a “Truth Commission” to investigate the interrogation policies — an option that several congressional Democrats support.

But Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., apparently didn’t embrace the idea.

Obama also addressed the “reconciliation” procedure at the meeting, saying it may be used as “a last resort” on health care reform legislation.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the president that “reconciliation” would cause serious problems and hamper bipartisan cooperation, GOP aides told FOX News.

But some Republican leaders haven’t given up on achieving bipartisanship.

House GOP leaders wrote Obama a letter dated April 22, detailing the policy proposals they wish to work with him on, including tax cuts for businesses and families and tax breaks for homeowners and potential homebuyers.

“We believe that if Washington can put aside petty politics and unite for the good of the American people, we can accomplish great things,” the letter read. “Unfortunately, there has been a sad lack of bipartisanship. This lack of bipartisanship has been a major detriment to your stated desire to change the way that Washington works.”

Republicans blamed Democrats for the lack of bipartisanship.

“Democratic leaders in Congress have so far ignored your call for a new era of bipartisanship in Washington,” they wrote, claiming Democrats have not engaged in dialogue with them on legislation. “However the next 100 days can be different.”

Original Link.

“Importance of Being Judgmental” by Alan Keyes

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Another question asks about God’s forgiveness of sin. God’s reply: “I do not forgive anyone because there is nothing to forgive. There is no such thing as right or wrong and that is what I have been trying to tell everyone, do not judge people. People have chosen to judge one another and this is wrong, because the rule is ‘judge not lest ye be judged.'”

I received this report of the contents of books in the Neale Walsch series “Conversations with God” from one of my e-mail correspondents. (Reportedly, Walsch’s work is one of Oprah Winfrey’s particular favorites.) I was struck by the self-evident contradiction that has Walsch’s god saying, “There is no such thing as right or wrong” in one breath, and “this is wrong” in the next. Obviously Walsh’s god has no problem applying a concept while declaring that it doesn’t exist.

I’d be tempted to think Walsch meant this as a joke, but this kind of silliness is typical of the shallow nonsense that passes for spirituality with the Oprah/Obama set. Mere mortals such as I have a hard time understanding how it’s possible to recognize something as wrong when there’s no such thing as right or wrong. Like eating a cake that’s no longer there, it’s a trick that can apparently be mastered only by the glamorous few.

Anyone who asserts that people should not be “judgmental” and then decries racism or “homophobia” is guilty of the same illogic. The word “judgment” traces its roots to Latin, jus dicare, meaning to say or pronounce what is right. Judgment assumes that right exists and can be recognized as such. If someone decries racism as an injustice (a word that also includes the reference to right or jus), they are invoking a concept or standard of right that makes it so. If “there is no such thing as right or wrong,” this standard cannot exist. Their opposition to racism (or any other injustice) is groundless emotionalism. It has no more claim to respect than the opposite view – that racial superiority legitimizes oppression of those who are inferior.

This careless illogic barely disguises the reassertion of the law of the jungle (might makes right; superior force creates legitimacy), a form of fatalism that encourages submission to whomever happens to enjoy success at the moment, with no standard to inspire opposition to their will except the promise of superior power. Though the Oprah/Obama crowd poses as compassionate people who care about the weak, it represents the reassertion of a purely power-based order in human society, a concept of law and government most fully codified under ancient Roman rule.

Roman imperial rule epitomized the human social order based on self-legitimizing power. As advocates of a moral understanding that implies returning to this social order, the Oprah/Obama crowd profoundly rejects the moral understanding Jesus Christ asserted against it. The biblical Creator God is the transcendent, absolute power who provides the basis for a concept of right that limits the claims of every human power, whatsoever. However powerful or successful any human or humans become, the weak and powerless have recourse to this standard of justice as a rallying point against the claim of the more powerful to rule without respect for any will but their own. This standard becomes the basis for the idea of “limited government,” not just as a particular matter of fact, but as the conceptual test of just government as such. This means that any government not intrinsically constrained to respect the right established by God’s will has no legitimacy.

It’s no accidental coincidence that this return to the ancient Roman understanding of power involves promoting the false notion that personal liberation mainly involves the free play of sexual and other physical passions. In fact, the paradigm of such liberation is the wealthy drug addict’s freedom to get high – a condition that, in fact, involves a degrading form of subjection and slavery. Moreover, as the capacity for self-control in the face of passion erodes, so does the ability to control fear (which is, after all, a physical passion) when confronted with danger. This reinforces the ability of the more powerful to cow and manipulate those less well endowed.

Christian faith proved to be an effective antidote to this preparation of the will for tyranny. The image of Christian martyrs singing hymns as they faced wild animals in the Roman arena testifies to its ability to rouse their courage. Thanks to Christianity, the virtues usually reserved for trained warriors, like the Spartans, were made available to all kinds of people, including those previously regarded as naturally weak and, therefore, inferior.

As contemporary elites strive to recreate the inegalitarian forms of government and society that remove all constraints from their vainglorious ambitions, Christianity therefore poses an infuriating obstacle. The conviction that any individuals who put their faith in Christ have access to the wisdom and power of the Creator God defeats the psychologically intimidating effect of physical superiority, thereby depriving the superior few of their most important advantage. Jefferson was right when he swore eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. Unconstrained rule by the superior few becomes impossible when many people are imbued with the mental independence derived from a faith that makes the greatest power imaginable the reliable ally of their right actions (rights).

The Oprah/Obama crowd may pose as champion of the masses, but it serves an agenda that must ultimately reinstate the routine oppression of the many by the few. Before the meaning of Christ’s incarnation was accurately translated for the benefit of the common people, such oppression was characteristic of societies everywhere. I believe that the American republic has been the primary and most successful result of that translation. As it now faces what may be the last crisis of its existence, its fate heavily depends on whether those who profess to be Christians will understand the indispensable role that must be played by the courage their faith makes available to all. This may be the most important practical prerequisite of the equality America’s founders asserted on behalf of all humankind.


For more from Alan Keyes visit Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people’s sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America’s wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America’s Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led gras

Original Link.

Prevent Another 9/11 or Stand Idly By and Do Nothing in Order to Appear More “Christian” Like?

Friday, April 24th, 2009

One question that seems to show up, from time to time, is what should the Christian stance be concerning the war on terror?
I’m not an expert on any of this, but I will share my opinion and use a couple of good sources to help us understand what we, as Christians, should do.

Did Jesus advocate the use of a sword for self-defense purposes (Luke 22:36-38)?

Jesus is well known for His continued emphasis on love, forgiveness, and “turning the other cheek.” It is therefore surprising to find Jesus advising the disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36: “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Did Jesus in this verse advocate the use of a sword for self-defense purposes?

This is an issue over which Christians have vehemently disagreed for many centuries. Following is a summary of the two basic views of how Christians have interpreted Jesus on this issue.

THE PATH OF NONRESISTANCE. Christian pacifists believe it is always wrong to injure other humans, no matter what the circumstances. And the same principles supporting pacifism carry over to nonresistance–the belief that any form of self-defense is wrong. This view is usually based on the exemplary life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

According to Christian pacifist John Yoder, Jesus rejected the existing political state of affairs and taught a form of radical nonviolence. Central to Christ’s teaching, Yoder says, is His biblical mandate to “turn the other cheek” when encountering violence (Matthew 5:38-48).

In Yoder’s view, the way to victorious living is to refrain from the game of sociopolitical control. Jesus exposed the futility of the violence engrafted in the present world system by resisting its inclinations even to the point of death. Hence, Christians are to refuse the world’s violent methods and follow their Savior to the cross (Matthew 26:47-52). When Jesus told the disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36), pacifists suggest He was only speaking figuratively.

“TURN THE OTHER CHEEK” ALWAYS? It is true that Jesus said to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:38-42. However, many scholars do not believe pacifism (or nonresistance) is the essential point of His teaching in this passage. These scholars do not believe Jesus was teaching to “turn the other cheek” in virtually all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (see John 18:22-23).

The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: “What’s interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]….If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand….To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent.”

The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would thus seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (see also Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian’s personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist.

In terms of following Christ’s example, one must remember that His personal nonresistance at the cross was intertwined with His unique calling. He did not evade His arrest because it was God’s will for Him to fulfill His prophetic role as the redemptive Lamb of God (Matthew 26:52-56). During His ministry, however, He refused to be arrested because God’s timing for His death had not yet come (John 8:59). Thus, Christ’s unique nonresistance during the Passion does not mandate against self-protection.

THE BIBLICAL CASE FOR SELF-DEFENSE. It is noteworthy that the Bible records many accounts of fighting and warfare. The providence of God in war is exemplified by His name YHWH Sabaoth (“The LORD of hosts”–Exodus 12:41). God is portrayed as the omnipotent Warrior-Leader of the Israelites. God, the LORD of hosts, raised up warriors among the Israelites called the shophetim (savior-deliverers). Samson, Deborah, Gideon, and others were anointed by the Spirit of God to conduct war. The New Testament commends Old Testament warriors for their military acts of faith (Hebrews 11:30-40). Moreover, it is significant that although given the opportunity to do so, none of the New Testament saints–nor even Jesus–are ever seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 3:14).

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:14). When protecting one’s family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.

Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that “to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”

What does the Bible say about torture?

Torture can be defined as “the infliction of intense pain to punish, to coerce, or to derive sadistic pleasure.” Of course, sadism is never appropriate or just, but what about punishment or coercion? Is there ever a time when inflicting pain is justified in order to punish wrongdoing or to obtain a confession? What does the Bible say?

The Bible acknowledges the existence of torture. In a parable, Jesus spoke of a servant who was “turned . . . over to the jailers to be tortured” (Matthew 18:34). Such an allusion seems to indicate that the use of torture was common in the prisons of the day. The Bible also records the stories of many victims of torture: Jesus, Paul and Silas (Acts 16), the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:2; 38:6), and other unnamed saints (Hebrews 11:35). In every case, we see that the godly are the victims of torture, never the perpetrators of torture.

As individuals, we are not to seek revenge. Vengeance belongs only to the Lord (Psalm 94:1; Romans 12:19). Also, as individuals we have no authority to punish society’s wrongdoers or to extract confessions from them. Therefore, as individuals, we can have no license to torture; inflicting intense pain on others is wrong. God alone is able to mete out punishment with perfect justice, and it is His prerogative to make His punishment painful. Demons are aware of a future time of “torture” for themselves (Matthew 8:29). Hell is a place of “torment” and intense agony (Matthew 13:42; Luke 16:23-24). During the Tribulation, torment will be part of the plagues upon evildoers (Revelation 9:5; 11:10). In any of His judgments, God is holy and perfectly fair (Psalm 119:137).

Now we’ll consider the use of torture in relation to governmental policy. We know that God has appointed civil governments and charged them with maintaining justice in this world (Romans 13:1-5). “For [the ruler] is God’s servant to do you good . . . an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (verse 4). Elsewhere, God calls judges and magistrates “gods”; that is, their authority to provide justice comes from God Himself (Psalm 82:1-4). If they fail in their duty, they will themselves be judged by the Lord, the Judge of all (verses 7-8).

So government bears the responsibility to protect the good and punish the evil. What methods may it employ in carrying out that responsibility? Beyond the endorsement of capital punishment (Romans 13:4; Genesis 9:6), the Bible does not say. The Bible neither condemns nor condones a government’s use of torture.

Many questions can and should be asked: What specific techniques should be considered “torture”? Where do we draw the line? Is the infliction of any kind of pain inherently wrong? What if there are no permanent physical effects? Is sleep deprivation torture? What about a forced change in diet? Should yelling at a prisoner be considered psychological torture?

May a government, in order to protect its law-abiding citizens, engage in “highly coercive interrogation” (the use of strongly persuasive techniques to obtain tactical information)? What if these techniques do not inflict physical pain?

What if the goal of torture is to prevent further tragedy? What if a prisoner were withholding information that could save the life of an innocent person? What if a hundred lives could be saved? A thousand lives? Should that prisoner be threatened with physical pain until he reveals the information? What, then, if his information is wrong? And what about unlawful enemy combatants who are, legally, not prisoners of war and therefore do not fall under the rules of the Geneva Convention?

These are all questions not addressed in the Bible and that are beyond the scope of this article, but they highlight the need for us to pray “for kings and all those in authority” (1 Timothy 2:2). May our policy makers have the wisdom to distinguish good from evil and to provide true justice.

The Christian side of me says “combat all evil with the most Christ-like and loving methods possible”. The husband/father side of me says “I’ll do anything necessary to see to that one kills or injures my loved ones”.

I had the honor of speaking with Darrell Scott, the father of Columbine High School massacre victim Rachel Joy Scott. As the story was related to me, one of the Columbine terrorist confronted her with the question “Do you believe in God?” She answered “yes” to which he responded by shooting her in the arm, leg and chest. She lay severely wounded for several minutes until the terrorist returned. One of them asked her “do you still believe in God?” She once again answered “yes”. He is reported to have then said “then go and join him” and he shot her in the head killing her.
Mr. Scott is one of the most Christian men I have ever met. He advocates complete forgiveness of the Columbine terrorist. But on the same token, he made the following statement (paraphrased):
I would have done anything necessary, including killing the boys, to have saved my daughter’s life.

Is he any less of a Christian for having the same parental instincts that most parents have? These are complex issues with no simple answers.

As a Christian, we must oppose evil in every way possible, while keeping the teachings of Jesus as the test of all of our actions.