Archive for April 28th, 2009

Made Alive in Christ

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Alive Again

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Ephesians 2:1-10 (New International Version)

Eighty-Two Percent Opposed to ‘Cyberspace Security’ Bill in Senate

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

This bill, if passed into law, would give Emperor Obama the right to shut down the internet in times of “emergency”. The mere fact they are even seriously considering seizing these powers should be of great concern to you. Contact your senator today and demand that he/she stop this bill.

WASHINGTON – A Zogby poll released today shows overwhelming opposition to a Senate bill that would give the president authority to shut down the Internet in times of national emergency.

Commissioned by the O’Leary Report, the poll of 3,937 voters in the last election shows 81.8 percent oppose the idea, with only 5 percent supporting it. The margin of error is +/-1.6 percent, according to Zogby.

The bill in question is the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, sponsored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. It would give to the U.S. government authority over all networks considered part of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Under the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009, the president would have the authority to shut down Internet traffic to protect national security.

WASHINGTON – A Zogby poll released today shows overwhelming opposition to a Senate bill that would give the president authority to shut down the Internet in times of national emergency.

Commissioned by the O’Leary Report, the poll of 3,937 voters in the last election shows 81.8 percent oppose the idea, with only 5 percent supporting it. The margin of error is +/-1.6 percent, according to Zogby.

The bill in question is the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, sponsored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. It would give to the U.S. government authority over all networks
considered part of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Under the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009, the president would have the authority to shut down Internet traffic to protect national security.

The government also would have access to digital data from a vast array of industries including banking, telecommunications and energy. A second bill, meanwhile, would create a national cybersecurity adviser – commonly referred to as the cybersecurity czar – within the White House to coordinate strategy with a wide range of federal agencies involved.

“I know the threats we face.” Rockefeller said in a prepared statement when the legislation was introduced. “Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest.”

The bill would allow the government to create a detailed set of standards for cybersecurity, as well as take over the process of certifying IT technicians.

A spokeswoman from Rockefeller’s office told Fox News neither he nor the two senators who co-sponsored the bill, Snowe and Nelson, will answer questions on cybersecurity until a later date.

Original Link.

Artist Mocks Jesus, Puts Crown of Thorns on Obama in Art Work Called “The Truth”

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

Another deranged fan of Obama who wants to equate him to Jesus. What a slap in the face to Christians. Don’t look for any riots though…Christians don’t act like Muslims when our religious figures are insulted.

On his 100th day in office, President Obama will be “crowned” in messianic imagery at New York City’s Union Square.

Artist Michael D’Antuono’s painting “The Truth” – featuring Obama with his arms outstretched and wearing a crown of thorns upon his head – will be unveiled on April 29 at the Square’s South Plaza.

According to a statement released about the portrait, “The 30″ x 54″ acrylic painting on canvas depicts President Obama appearing much like Jesus Christ on the Cross: atop his head, a crown of thorns; behind him, the dark veil being lifted (or lowered) on the Presidential Seal. But is he revealing or concealing, and is he being crucified or glorified?”

Even the title of the piece, “The Truth,” suggests a play on biblical themes, as Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

“More than a presidential portrait,” writes D’Antuono on a website touting the painting, “‘The Truth’ is a politically, religiously and socially-charged statement on our nation’s current political climate and deep partisan divide that is sure to create a dialogue.”

Like others in the news who have depicted Obama in Christ-like imagery, D’Antuono insists he isn’t claiming the man is Messiah, but only inviting “individual interpretations.”

“‘The Truth,’ like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder,” claims the exhibit’s press release.

D’Antuono even invites the public to email him with reactions to the piece, answering his posed question, “What’s your truth?”

Read the rest of the article here for more examples of deranged Obama worship.

Obama Nominee for “Regulatory Czar” Advocates “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet and Government Inspection of Personal E-Mails

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

You have got to be kidding me!! What a massive intrusion into our lives by the government. Where does it end? Will we be forced to surrender all of our freedoms to the Emperor? If he has his way, the answer is a resounding “YES”!!

Barack Obama’s nominee for “regulatory czar” has advocated a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.

The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama’s friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O’Leary, “Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech.” OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.

Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.”

Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory “electronic sidewalks” for the Net. These “sidewalks” would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as “The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.”

“Apparently in Sunstein’s world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires,” Thierer wrote.

Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be “too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns.” He also acknowledged that it was “almost certainly unconstitutional.”

Perhaps Sunstein’s most novel idea regarding the Internet was his proposal, in his book “Nudge,” written with Richard Thaler, for a “Civility Check” for e-mails and other online communications.

“The modern world suffers from insufficient civility,” they wrote. “Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don’t send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven’t learned the rule or don’t always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month.”

That’s where the “Civility Check” comes in.

“We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you’re about to send is angry and caution you, ‘warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?'” they wrote. “(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, ‘warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.’ With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather’s birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!).”

Sunstein’s nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views:

* In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.

* In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.”

* In his 2004 book, “Animal Rights,” he wrote: “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”

* In “Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer,” he wrote “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”

“As one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics,” said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. “He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration’s regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team.”

O’Leary disagrees.

“It’s hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein,” he says. “Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that ‘limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.’ If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online – right down to our personal e-mail communications – would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government.”

Original Link.

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.