Archive for April 23rd, 2009

Job is Blessed

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

Then Job replied to the LORD :

“I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.

You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.

“You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.’

My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.

Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes.”

After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job’s prayer.

Job Prays

After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before. All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. And so he died, old and full of years.

)Job 42:1-16 (New International Version)

Christian Students Censored at Nashville-Area School

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
-First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Lakeview Elementary School students wanted to display posters that referenced God and prayer, but school officials said they had to cover up those references before the posters could be displayed. The posters were hand-drawn by students and announced voluntary activities such as the “See You at the Pole” prayer event.

“Well, Christian students shouldn’t be censored just for expressing their beliefs. They do not check their constitutional rights upon stepping [through] the schoolhouse gate,” [Nate Kellum with the Alliance Defense Fund] points out. “And yet that seems to be the philosophy of the school district here that they are selectively censoring their speech because, in their opinion, religious speech is inappropriate.”

Kellum says the school is arguing that the posters cause an Establishment Clause problem, and that some students might be offended if these religious students were able to express their beliefs.

Original Link.

Hate Crimes Vote Postponed, Dems Caught in ‘Lie’

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

This “hate crimes” bill will be used to silence Christians preaching the Word of God and His condemnation of homosexuality as a sin.

Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee had planned on holding a vote on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act yesterday, but due to a large amount of Republican amendments to the bill, the vote was postponed until this morning. The bill would add homosexuals and transgender people to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.

“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,” [Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition] 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.

Original Link.

An Islamist ‘New World Order’

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) member-states at the Durban II gathering in Geneva is pushing for “a new world order” that would expand and impose “nondemocratic and illiberal values on the West,” says the Danish editor who in 2005 commissioned and published a series of cartoons, one of which depicted the prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban that led to worldwide Muslim rioting.

Flemming Rose, editor of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s largest-circulation newspaper, is visiting Israel under the auspices of the Hebrew University’s Shasha Center for Strategic Studies, headed by former Mossad director Efraim Halevy. He’s here to lecture on how nations need to find the right balance between religious sensitivities and freedom of expression.

Rose says the OIC is trying to use Durban II to rewrite the rules of human rights and international law in a way that undermines the values of liberty enshrined in the Western canon – including the US Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It’s all part of an ongoing Muslim campaign that has been making significant strides, says Rose.

European liberal values, which dominated United Nations voting following the fall of the Soviet Union, are now in retreat. Muslim states attending Durban II are pushing the conference to say that criticizing Islam is a form of incitement.

“We’re seeing an erosion of support in the West for freedom of expression in the guise of preventing incitement against Islam,” says Rose.

He wants the West to stop being so defensive, pointing out that “Muslims in Demark enjoy far more civil and political rights than they would have in their home countries.”

Rose would distinguish between criticizing Islam as a theological and political idea and insulting its adherents.

“I spent many years in the former Soviet Union as a foreign correspondent and married a Russian woman. I am a strong anti-communist, but my late Russian father-in-law was a staunch Stalinist. I abhorred his convictions, but felt love and tenderness for him as an individual.”

His experience in the Soviet Union gave him a “very strong antagonism against self-censorship and intimidation of people because of what they are saying.”

In Muslim society, he notes, the rights of the dominant religion and culture are paramount. In the West, it is the rights of the individual that reign supreme.

Rose argues that in a globalized world, the idea that Westerners conduct their lives according to Western values while Muslims conduct theirs according to Muslim values simply does not work – because globalization involves both technology and human migration.

“When you publish in Denmark, you can read it within minutes in a totally different political and cultural context. At the same time, every European society is getting more complicated culturally and ethnically. Different taboos and moral codes are forced to live together.”

Within their own world, says Rose, Muslims “do not see their own minorities. And when they come to the West, they continue to behave as if they were in the majority.”

In this context, the West has no choice but to stand firm on its values – because Muslims are constantly pushing theirs. In our interconnected world, the old model of live and let live simply doesn’t make sense.

What Rose would really like to see is reciprocity. He dreams of challenging Muslims: “Accept my taboos, and I will accept yours. If it is a crime to build a church in Saudi Arabia, then it should be illegal to build a mosque in Europe.”

But such an approach, he readily admits, is unacceptable because it would lead to an intolerable decrease in freedom.

He talks about “sleeper” blasphemy laws – statutes that have long been on the books in European countries, and that Muslims are trying to reinvigorate. He argues for a “redefinition” of the concept of blasphemy so that it is not exclusively about religion but includes values, classical liberal ones as well.

Were it up to Rose, the only free speech restrictions he’d allow are those that prevent incitement to violence, and discourage libel and infringement on privacy.

“All other restrictions – like blasphemy laws, some of which date back to the 1930s – I’d get rid of.”

The key, says Rose, is for the West to continue to emphasize individual rights and not, as in Muslim society, collective rights.

That leads him to make the controversial case for repealing legislation that makes Holocaust denial a crime – even though he feels strongly that the Shoah was a unique event in history, “without precedence. But I think it is a question of morality that you deal with through education and debate; it is not something you legislate. I would only leave [the Holocaust denial law] on the books if you could prove that repealing it would lead to violence. That is not a danger in today’s Europe.”

“Let’s be consistent,” he says. “We don’t want Jews to have a law based on them as a group if we’re arguing that Muslims living in the West should equally not have special group privileges.”

Moreover, he says, holding firmly to preserving Western values at home makes it easier for the West to defend human rights in the Muslim world and elsewhere.

Rose wants Israelis to understand that Durban II is part of a broader trend of non-democratic societies trying to hijack international law, thereby instituting a new set of values.

How ingenious, he notes, that having coined the term “Islamophobia,” Muslim countries are insinuating that criticizing Islam – as distinct from discriminating against individual Muslims – “is a disease, a sick fantasy that needs to be cured.”

Original Link.

This post is brought to you by:

The Jerusalem Gift Shop 234x60

Christian Gifts from Israel – The Jerusalem Gift Shop

Liberal Student Infiltrates Liberty University to Write Exposé and Discovers Intolerance…From the Left

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

This is also a typical liberal trait…attack anyone and everyone who does not agree with their viewpoints one hundred percent.

This is just too funny! A liberal Ivy League student decides to enroll at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Virgina and write a book exposé (The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University) supposedly showing the intolerance that must be there, or so he thought. The liberal student, however, was surprised to find little of the expected intolerance but is now finding plenty of it from the left because his book was not an outright condemnation of Liberty University nor of Jerry Falwell whom he met during his semester there. An AP story by Eric Tucker sets the scene:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Kevin Roose managed to blend in during his single semester at Liberty University, attending lectures on the myth of evolution and the sin of homosexuality, and joining fellow students on a mission trip to evangelize partyers on spring break.

Roose had transferred to the Virginia campus from Brown University in Providence, a famously liberal member of the Ivy League. His Liberty classmates knew about the switch, but he kept something more important hidden: He planned to write a book about his experience at the school founded by fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell.

Roose explains the reason for his infiltration:

“As a responsible American citizen, I couldn’t just ignore the fact that there are a lot of Christian college students out there,” said Roose, 21, now a Brown senior. “If I wanted my education to be well-rounded, I had to branch out and include these people that I just really had no exposure to.”

We have to give Roose credit here. Unlike most liberals, he actually opened himself up to contrary ideas. Something his parents found hard to understand:

Roose’s parents, liberal Quakers who once worked for Ralph Nader, were nervous about their son being exposed to Falwell’s views. Still, Roose transferred to Liberty for the spring 2007 semester.

He was determined to not mock the school, thinking it would be too easy _ and unfair. He aimed to immerse himself in the culture, examine what conservative Christians believe and see if he could find some common ground. He had less weighty questions too: How did they spend Friday nights? Did they use Facebook? Did they go on dates? Did they watch “Gossip Girl?”

Did they Twitter? Did they use electricity? Did they eat with utensils?

He lined up a publisher _ Grand Central Publishing _ and arrived at the Lynchburg campus prepared for “hostile ideologues who spent all their time plotting abortion clinic protests and sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls.”

Instead, he found that “not only are they not that, but they’re rigorously normal.”

GASP! But how can that be? Haven’t all good liberals been taught that Liberty University students are a bunch of ignorant hateful yahoos foaming at the mouth? Kevin Roose appeared to have strayed dangerously from the Party Line.

He met students who use Bible class to score dates, apply to top law schools and fret about their futures, and who enjoy gossip, hip-hop and R-rated movies _ albeit in a locked dorm room.

Stop! You’re making the LU students sound too normal!

A roommate he depicts as aggressively anti-gay _ all names are changed in the book _ is an outcast on the hall, not a role model.

But…but where’s all the hate?

Roose researched the school by joining as many activites as possible. He accompanied classmates on a spring break missionary trip to Daytona Beach. He visited a campus support group for chronic masturbators, where students were taught to curb impure thoughts. And he joined the choir at Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Roose scored an interview with the preacher for the school newspaper, right before Falwell died in May of that year. Roose decided against confronting him over his views on liberals, gays and other hot-button topics, and instead learned about the man himself, discovering among other things that the pastor loved diet peach Snapple and the TV show “24.”

You mean Falwell wasn’t consumed with hate 24/7 as all good liberals “know” as absolute fact?

And now something that will really disturb the “tolerant” liberals:

Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly _ for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts.

He’s even considering joining a church.

This latter must be very upsetting to liberals including his own parents. Sonny Boy! Where did we go wrong? To see just how upset the liberals are over this book, just read a few examples of intolerace in the Huffington Post comments section:

Wow, that must be a pretty good brainwashing program they’ve got there. That or this guy is weak sauce. You wouldn’t catch me praying to some magic sky daddy if I spent a THOUSAND years at Liberty “University.”

He should have gone to a deprogrammer to complete the experience.

I wish he’d done an MRI before and after. It appears he’s been brainwashed. Long periods of time with cults will do that.

I’m a little worried about Kevin’s soul now that he’s been programmed. He seems strong and intelligent though, so there’s still hope for him. I’ll be praying for his salvation from the radical right.

I hope he’s been debriefed and re-socialized into the real world. Never visit the darkside.

So it turns out that Kevin Roose did discover intolerance due to spending a semester at Liberty University and, as we can see from these comments, it is now coming from the left.

Welcome to the Brave New World of ironic reality,  Kevin.

Original Link.

Photos of the Seattle, Washington Tea Party

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

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

Our friends, Ben and Jen Rast, have posted pictures of the Tea Party in Seattle, Washington.

Seattle Tea Party

See all of the photos here.

“Peace Through Weakness” by David Limbaugh

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

Observing the Obama administration’s approach so far to the war on terror is somewhat reminiscent, if you’ll accept the crude analogy, of watching Panamanian boxing legend Roberto Duran’s rematch against American boxing legend Sugar Ray Leonard. Duran was within his rights to say “no mas” and quit, but it didn’t keep him from losing.

But here the analogy breaks down. While Duran could avoid further Leonard blows by quitting, a nation under attack by a warring force cannot prevent further attacks against itself simply by declaring an end to hostilities. Yet that’s precisely what the Obama administration appears to be doing in the war on terror, most recently with its outrageously reckless public release of classified Justice Department memos on the legality of CIA interrogation techniques used on enemy prisoners.

Democrats ceaselessly complained about the Bush administration’s allegedly misguided approach to the war, contending it was too broad (Bush should have focused almost exclusively on al-Qaida in Afghanistan), that he engaged in cowboy diplomacy, and his treatment of enemy prisoners was inhumane.

Deny it if you choose, but the gravamen of these complaints was that the United States, in many ways, was the bad guy, the aggressor nation that attacked Iraq without provocation or justification, was inflicting gratuitous “collateral damage” on Iraq and its people, and routinely — and as a matter of policy — was brutalizing and torturing enemy prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and everywhere else our heartless authorities could get their hands on them.

During the campaign, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced these themes wholesale, saying we’d alienated other nations with our unilateralism, stirred up the Arab street against us, and become a virtual terrorist recruitment factory.

Democrats even argued, straight-faced, that our “torture” of terrorist detainees could imperil Americans POWs, as if their beheadings were responses to our slapping. They said we could change all that by reversing course and extending a hand of friendship, peace and cooperation to other nations, particularly those of the Muslim world.

The unmistakable corollary of these complaints against United States policy was that if we’d just quit being so arrogant toward the rest of the world and mean to our enemies, er, criminal defendants, we could bring this war to an end. Or, at least, we could diminish the terrorists’ resolve by removing apparently legitimate complaints they have against us and retarding their recruiting efforts.

It really does sound fantastic and silly that anyone could really believe that the United States has brought terrorist wrath upon itself by doing anything other than, perhaps, nobly allying with Israel. It’s even more ludicrous to entertain seriously the notion that if we’d just start being nicer, we could improve our international image and make ourselves safer, especially when you consider that being nicer entails lowering our guard and playing into the enemy’s hands on a number of fronts.

But this is precisely the kind of silliness that is driving Obama’s foreign policy. From the get-go, Obama has been apologizing to the world for the “arrogance” and brutality of the United States; bowing before, kissing and warmly accepting America-bashing books from foreign kings and dictators; flirting with nuclear disarmament while rogue nations rush, undeterred, to join the nuclear club; contemplating serious defense budget cuts across the board, which could jeopardize essential weapons systems; insisting that we cashier war terminology by substituting “overseas contingency operations” for “war on terror” and “man-caused disasters” for “terrorist attacks”; and now releasing internal CIA memos detailing enhanced interrogation techniques, which have demonstrably prevented attacks and saved lives.

Obama pretended to agonize over his decision to release the memos over the objections of his own intelligence officials, but there is no excuse for the damage it will do to our national security by neutralizing the future use of these procedures and inviting “the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened our intelligence gathering in the past,” in the words of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden. Making it worse, we got nothing in return except for Obama’s selective nod to “transparency,” as if it’s prudent to be transparent with classified intelligence involving our national security.

It is axiomatic that ideas have consequences, a theme being played out by the Obama administration’s turning a blind eye to the magnitude of terrorist evil and seeing a rough moral equivalence between beheadings by terrorists and aggressive American interrogation techniques to extract lifesaving information from terrorists.

Commentators who believe Obama only released the “torture memos” to appease his bloodthirsty, Bush-hating, leftist base, which would be bad enough, are missing the point that Obama shares his base’s beliefs. Obama is commander in chief, and his guiding foreign policy doctrine is “peace through weakness.”

Original Link.

“New Energy Bill Could Mean Lights-Out for American Business” by Jeff Schreiber

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

Under Barack Obama’s leadership, the United States of America will soon look like some sort of bizarro Field of Dreams — if you tax it, they will leave.

I saw this interview this morning and, as always, was left impressed with Arizona Congressman John Shadegg, about as solid a conservative as there is. Unfortunately, I was also left shaking my head, wondering how anyone would want to do business in the United States once these Draconian pseudo-environmental measures are put into place by the Obama administration and its Congress.

Why would any business entity want to put itself in a situation where they could be considered liable for perceived harm due to global warming, an unsettled scientific theory more about socialist aftereffects than planetary concern?

President Obama, and liberals in general, need to learn a valuable lesson — the more government gets involved in something, the less of that something we all will have. With regard to national security, the more the government gets involved in regulating intelligence-gathering measures, the less likely people will put themselves on the line to gather intelligence, and the less secure we all will be. With regard to Wall Street, the more the federal government involves itself in executive pay and the daily goings-on in the banking industry, the less likely that industry will be brought out of this quagmire by talented individuals, and the less prosperity we all will see.

Our first president was fond of saying that the federal government is like fire — useful if contained and used for certain, limited endeavors, but deadly to all if left unchecked and allowed to rage out of control. These environmental measures in particular show just how far our federal government is willing to reach, and just how sneakily they intend to get there.

Bad news for everybody. Spread the word.

Original Link.

Democrats Under Ethics Cloud Benefit From Distracted Public

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

Is anyone really surprised by this?

Allegations of ethics violations by a handful of Democrats in recent months reached something of a crescendo this week as two prominent members of Congress were accused of corruption.

California Rep. Jane Harman denied allegations that she offered to help seek reduced charges for two pro-Israel lobbyists suspected of espionage in exchange for help from a pro-Israel donor, also suspected Israeli agent, in lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to give Harman a key chairmanship.

And California Sen. Dianne Feinstein denied that she devised legislation that helped her husband get a federal contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

But the latest cases, which involve Democrats, did not make the same splash that corruption allegations did a few years ago, when Republicans were on the receiving end of the finger-pointing.

Some Republican analysts attribute the difference to timing.

Democrats have benefited from an “Obama media cycle,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean, who served as an aide to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.

Reporters are struggling to keep up with the Obama administration and all the crises it’s grappling with, Bonjean told

In addition, he said, the media and the public have become more desensitized to allegations of corruption against lawmakers after the ones against Republicans.

GOP consultant Joe Gaylord, who served as an aide to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, told he believes GOP values and principles played a role in garnering more attention to ethics accusations against Republican lawmakers.

“Republicans who have generally used the ethics process become much more susceptible to the hypocrisy charges because they set a high standard for how people should behave,” he said. “Then when a Republican doesn’t behave properly, it becomes a bigger story.”

That last statement says it all.

Original Link.