Archive for January 11th, 2010

No Cameras in Federal Courtroom for California Gay Marriage Hearing

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Another example of the liberal version of “transparency” at work.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is blocking a broadcast of the trial on California’s same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.

The federal trial is scheduled to begin later Monday in San Francisco. It will consider whether the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008 is legal.

The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday’s order will be in place at least until Wednesday.

Opponents of the broadcast say they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present. Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.

Original Link.

‘Marriage’ in Calif. – A Never-Ending Legal Battle

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Please continue to pray about this.

Prop. 8 is the constitutional amendment that a majority of California voters approved in November 2008 to overturn a State Supreme Court decision that legalized homosexual “marriage” in that state. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Austin Nimocks tells OneNewsNow that proponents of same-gender marriage — who are arguing that Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution — evidently have a problem with a basic democratic process.

“The advocates of redefining marriage are trying to do it yet once again through the courts, to impose [same-sex marriage] upon people who don’t want it…,” says the attorney. “And really the fundamental issue here is whether or not in America we respect and should uphold the right of a free people to make social policy choices through the democratic process.”

Irrespective of any legal arguments, Nimocks says that is the only focus of the debate. “[W]hat we have here is a handful of activists who are trying to void a constitutional amendment simply because they don’t agree with the collective decision of seven-million Californians,” he states.

Nimocks adds that if the courts allow the activists to get away with it, “we have forfeited the very core of the American democratic system.”

Original Link.

“Terrorism and Health Care – Connecting the Dots” by Star Parker

Monday, January 11th, 2010

As President Obama announced his analysis of how the Christmas Day near-miss terrorist attack occurred, Democrat Senate and House leaders conferred in secret to produce a health care reform bill.

Despite extensive information on the would-be terrorist, each piece of which was incriminating on its own, the man evaded a vast government bureaucracy and almost blew up a plane filled with Americans.

Yet, Democrats, with the health care bill they are now piecing together behind closed doors, will bring all American lives and health care under the purview and control of government bureaucracy.

Talk about an inability to connect the dots.

The initial assessments of the terrorist incident that both the President and his Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano shared with the nation were wrong. The president called the man an “isolated extremist.” Napolitano said the “system worked” and expressed doubt that the man had al Qaeda connections.

But the President and Napolitano did get something right. They identified what did work. What saved the lives of innocent Americans were private citizens, using their own brains and initiative that acted to bring this terrorist down.

The President said that this near disaster was “not the fault of a single individual or organization, but rather a systematic failure across organizations and agencies.” So no heads will roll.

America’s unique success comes from freedom and limited government. Government’s responsibilities are laid out clearly in our constitution, which we choose to ignore.

National security is a job of government. Designing health insurance policies and forcing private citizens to buy them, running car companies, bailing out banks, and subsidizing homeowners who can’t pay their mortgages, is not.

We can’t function if no one understands what their job and responsibility is. And here, Mr. Obama, the buck indeed stops with you.

Original Link.

Democrat Double Standards, Again

Monday, January 11th, 2010

This almost gets monotonous. I’m really in awe that people cannot see the duplicitous nature of Democrats. It’s not like they are even trying to hide it anymore.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has joined Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in calling on Harry Reid to resign his Senate majority leadership role after news broke over the weekend that Reid described then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008 “light-skinned” with “no Negro dialect” unless he wants one.

Cornyn, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Sunday that Reid should follow the example set by Trent Lott in 2002, who resigned his leadership post after making unfortunate remarks at the centennial birthday party for Sen. Strom Thurmond, who had been a segregationist in the 1940s.

“In 2002, Democrats expressed outrage at Senator Lott and called on him to step down as leader. That same standard should be applied to Senator Reid and his embarrassing and racially insensitive statements; statements, I would add, that Senator Reid still has yet to clarify,” Cornyn said in a written statement.

“As we await his explanation, Senator Reid should do the right thing, follow the example that he himself set in 2002, and step down as majority leader.”

Earlier in the day, Steele also accused Democrats of hypocrisy on the matter.

“There is this standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it is racism,” Steele told “Fox News Sunday.”

“If (Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell had said those very words that this chairman and this president would be calling for his head, and they would be labeling every Republican in the country as a racist for saying exactly what this chairman has just said,” Steele continued.

Original Link.

“A GOD WHO HATES” a Book Review by Fern Sidman

Monday, January 11th, 2010

A God Who Hates bookcover

A GOD WHO HATES

The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed The Muslim World Speaks Out Against The Evils of Islam

BY: WAFA SULTAN

Reviewed by: FERN SIDMAN

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States, it became abundantly clear to the Western world that there was a new and pernicious nemesis in town. Radical Islamic suicide bombers had jolted us out of our torpor as we confronted the stark and frightening realization that our cherished democratic values, principles, code of ethics and very lifestyle were in existential danger. In order to eradicate the visceral feelings of resentment of Muslims that were ruminating in the psyches of Americans and other westerners; the media, along with those in academic and “politically correct” circles initiated a campaign of “re-education”. Extolling the virtues of the religion called Islam, they put forth the notion that Islam is a genuine religion of peace; a religion that places a sacred value on the sanctity of life. We were told that only a few extreme “radical Jihadists” belonging to an obscure organization called Al Qeada were responsible for tainting and maligning the purity of Islam.

Wafa Sultan, an ex-Muslim dissident from Syria, offers a wholly different take on this sophistical premise in her shocking new book, “A God Who Hates” (St. Martin’s Press – 2009) as she portrays a searing portrait of Muslim culture. The subtitle of the book describes Sultan as “the courageous woman who inflamed the Muslim world” as she “speaks out against the evils of Islam.” The reader is left with no doubt that Sultan is way more than a doughty and intrepid advocate of the truth, but a woman who is willing to place her life in mortal danger in order to preserve, protect and defend Western civilization as we know it. She raises the narrative to a highly profound level as she essentially reveals that, contrary to popular opinion, it is not a few “radical Jihadists” who are guilty of distorting otherwise warm and fuzzy Islamic precepts, but rather the culprit in engendering this kind of vitriolic hatred and bloodlust is none other than the Koran itself, along with the paradigm of the prophet Muhammad and the “god” known as Allah. She refers to Islam, as “the ogre” as she explores the psychological roots of a nomadic people who invented this religion in order to assuage their own paralyzing fears and overwhelming feelings of desperation and helplessness.

Wafa Sultan knows from whence she speaks. Having grown up in a devoutly Muslim home in Syria, she recalls her very personal stories of the barbarism of Islam and how it impacted on her and her family. Being born female in a Muslim culture that enforces a male hegemony, Sultan recalls the humiliating degradation imposed on her grandmother, mother and sisters who were virtual slaves to their husbands and their fathers. Contempt and loathing for women as inherently inferior beings permeates the Muslim world as is evidenced in today’s alarming escalation of “honor murders” in which Muslim men brazenly murder their womenfolk for alleged transgressions of Sharia law.

Women’s inhumanity to other women is also discussed here as Sultan tells us of the abusive treatment of daughter-in-laws by their own mother-in-laws who punish them in the same way that they themselves were tormented as young brides. Education for girls and women in Islamic society was sorely lacking and discouraged in order to keep them locked in a permanent state of servility. Their treatment of children is also spotlighted as abusive as the Koran mandates that they mete out corporal punishment to their children who do not pray or adhere to the tenets of Islam.

Sultan herself was fortunate in a sense. She was educated as a physician in Syria and her headstrong, independent nature compelled her to extricate herself from the draconian dictates of an oppressive religion. Moreover, as a physician in Syria she takes note of the glaring inequities of medical care as it pertains to gender. Dr. Sultan viewed Muslim men as anathema but as luck would have it, she met an educated man who respected her. After their marriage they made their way to the United States where she now raises her children and practices medicine in the Los Angeles area.

Citing a gamut of Koranic verses and providing concrete historical evidence dating back to the 7th century, Sultan proves that the predicate for Islam is unadulterated fear, violence, hatred of the other, theft and murder. From the genesis of the Islamic movement, the author informs us of Arab nomadic tribes raiding one another in bloodthirsty rampages that left sheer devastation in their wake. Describing the terror and desolation that the Arab peoples felt so acutely during centuries of desert dwelling, Sultan tells us that the fear of dying in the arid and harsh desert from hunger, thirst, illness and the always imminent attack by another tribe created an anxious and violent nation whose sole objective was daily survival at all costs. Says the author, “Arabs who lived in the environment that gave birth to Islam were powerless in the face of the challenges presented by this environment, which threatened their lives and their welfare. Because they felt so helpless they felt a need for forcefulness and created a god who would fulfill this need. When the Arab male lost his power he felt the need for a forceful god. And so he created a forceful god in the image of his need – but this god was not powerful.”

Thus, the religion of Islam instills a hatred of the infidel, “the other” and anyone who does not subscribe to the tenets of their bellicose belief system. History has recorded that scores of heinous murders of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs were perpetrated by the hands of Allah’s followers. Because their god is described in the Koran as “The Harmer:, “The Avenger”, “The Compeller” and “The Imperious”, it is Sultan’s view that the Islamic people have internalized such labels and have sought to emulate the rudimentary character of their deity. Brutal savagery towards anyone they perceive to be a threat and even against one another is one of the modalities through which Muslims actualized these “godly” traits. She describes the prophet Muhammad as a man bereft of moral authority; a pedophile and a purveyor or violence and falsehood; He gives his tacit approval to his followers to continue on the trajectory of “holiness” by engaging in hostile acts of religious zealotry, without regard for human life.

Offering eclectic insights into Muslim culture, Sultan tells us that because Islam is so riddled with strife, negativism and banal hatred it’s language readily reflects this all encompassing disposition. As such, Muslims do not speak in a calm and reasoned manner but rather are vocally strident; resorting to constant shrieking, yelling, bellowing and shouting while engaging in acrimonious, ad hominem attacks against those who they are purportedly conversing with.

And that, of course, segues into a chapter called, “Who is that woman on Al Jazeera?”. As a world renowned essayist, Dr. Sultan’s opinions were well known through the Arab and Muslim countries. For that reason, the Al Jazeera television network invited her to debate a domineering Islamic cleric on the topic of “the connection between Islamic teachings and terrorism.” It was in this venue that Dr. Sultan, having been denied the right to express herself or given enough time to state her case by the male moderator, did so anyway in an erudite and eloquent fashion without raising the volume of her voice; in contrast to her adversary who engaged in ear popping dialogue.

Given the last few seconds of the show to conclude her thoughts, Dr. Sultan was once again interrupted by the clergyman but this time told him in no uncertain terms to “Be quiet! It’s my turn!”. This kind of rejoinder is considered common parlance to us Westerners who enjoy watching television debates but these few words sent shock waves throughout the Muslim world. “I uttered this sentence without realizing it would open a new chapter in Arab and Muslim history. Never in the history of Islam has a woman clearly and forcefully asked a Muslim man to be quiet because it was her turn to speak”, says Dr. Sultan.

Throughout this engrossing and compelling book, Sultan generously heaps praise on her adopted country. She acknowledges her appreciation for the plethora of rights, individual freedoms and liberties that she has enjoyed in the United States for the last 21 years. She urges America to stand strong in the face of the proliferation of global radical Islam and suggests that it confront the burgeoning threat to our civilization that “the ogre” represents in a pro-active fashion. “I love America as few people do” says Sultan, and “my love for it makes me feel concern for it. I do not want any danger to threaten the safety or beauty of this country that rescued me from my fears and fed me when I was hungry. America, to put it very briefly indeed, is my freedom.”

———————————————-

Fern Sidman holds a B.A, in political science from Brooklyn College. She was the educational coordinator for the Betar Youth Movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s. She was national director of the Jewish Defense League from 1983-1985. She was a researcher for several books written by Rabbi Meir Kahane, ZTK”L. She was the managing editor of the publication entitled, The Voice of Judea, and is a regular contributor to its web site. She is currently a writer and journalist living in New York City. Her articles have appeared in The Jewish Press, The Jewish Advocate, The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, and numerous Jewish and general web sites including, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Pipes and Michael Freund.
We are delighted to have Ms. Sidman as a regular contributor to the Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog.

“When War Is Not Metaphor” by Suzanne Fields

Monday, January 11th, 2010

My dinner partner at the holiday table was home on leave from Army Ranger training. He had been living outdoors, learning to be at home in the rain and the mud, eating to lose weight and build muscle through rigorous sleep-deprived maneuvers. He could run, jump and do push-ups in numbers that would embarrass the regulars at the local gym who pump iron and swim their laps in the comfort of indoor luxury.

He was looking forward to deploying to Afghanistan. I wasn’t sure I heard him right, so I asked him to repeat himself. Yes, he was looking forward to deploying to Afghanistan.

He had been an ROTC cadet at one of our elite Eastern universities. He was sure that none from his class could be happier than he was. He wanted to be an Army Ranger because it would give his life meaning and purpose. He wasn’t sure many of his classmates in other professions would say that. He wanted a part of ensuring the future of his country.

With neither sentiment nor arrogance, he talked of taking seriously the defense of country. He regards al-Qaida-trained terrorists as a deep and lethal threat to everything he holds dear. He was very matter of fact, and it was I who waxed sentimental, imagining him listening to Kate Smith sing “God Bless America.” She was the lyrical voice of patriotism during World War II and made Irving Berlin’s song a new battle hymn of the republic.

We don’t have a Kate Smith today. Our showbiz celebrities act as if they don’t know there’s a war on. They’re more concerned with acting outrageous than honoring the courageous. They no longer bother to give lip service to the values of God and country, and yet we face enemies as deadly and as determined as any we fought 70 years ago. The enemy today hides in caves, covens and cells but is just as real as the Nazis who set out to rule the world. They wear neither uniform nor identifiable insignia, and sometimes designer suits as camouflage. But their goal is as evil as the goals of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

President Obama observed the obvious in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, but it was a needed reminder: “Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leader to lay down their arms.” He reminded his Norwegian hosts that many of their countrymen feel “deep ambivalence about military action today.”

What he didn’t talk about was the deep ambivalence many Americans as well feel toward military action. It’s those ambivalent Americans the president yielded to in granting the Christmas Day bomber a civil rather than a military trial. Why the man with explosives in his underwear should be dealt with differently than, say, the eight Nazi saboteurs who arrived on the Atlantic shore in 1942 with explosives in a suitcase is a puzzle. They got their day in a military court, and though they never managed to detonate a single bomb, six were executed in the electric chair, one was sentenced to life in prison and the other was sentenced to 30 years.

Read the rest of the article here.