Archive for February 5th, 2010

“T-BOWED” By Eric Bruni

Friday, February 5th, 2010

Well, here we go again.

Tim Tebow, the rising football superstar, has dared to give his opinion on an issue and, of all issues he dared to confront, that issue just happened to be abortion.

You see Tim’s mother was confronted with an issue during her pregnancy with Tim. She was very ill at the time and doctors were advising her to get an abortion for ‘the sake of her health and that of her child’.

Doctors are so caring.

However, Pam, being the good Christian she is, decided to place her faith in God. She chose to love her child enough to give him a chance. The rest, as we say, is history.

What a great story. What a story of triumph. What a story of faith. What a story of the failings of man and the victory of trust in God. But that’s not how liberal feminists would tell it. You see, they would rather you NOT tell it at all. Why? Well, it’s simple. They are not who they claim to be. Let me explain.

These so called defenders women’s freedoms are not interested in women’s freedom at all. They want to keep a multi-billion dollar industry from going under. They couldn’t care less about women’s rights. If they did…………….they would “celebrate a woman’s right to choose Life”…………and they NEVER do. They only seem to celebrate a woman’s choice to commit infanticide.

When have you EVER heard a so called “pro-choice” advocate celebrate when a woman chooses to let her baby live? I don’t know about you, but I’ve NEVER heard them do that.

Oh, sure, they’ll say “well it was her choice” but it always comes across in a begrudging way that seems as if it’s delivered through clenched teeth.

Why?

I thought choice was the whole issue. It’s a woman’s right to choose, right? So when she chooses life, why do the feminists remain silent and when she chooses abortion they celebrate?

Quite a paradox.

The real message from these ‘heroes of women’s rights’ is “celebrate abortion”. So when a woman chooses life and wants to proclaim that she exercised her right to choose……..she’s told to shut up. They make her life a living hell and use her as some sort of symbol of evil against women and insist that her message is “intolerant”.

Who are the real intolerant people here?

I’d say she TOLERATED her child’s right to live and sacrificed convenience for herself.

I’d say that the “pro-choicers” are INTOLERANT of a life that may interfere with their own.

So what is society’s reaction to all of this?

Well, a people who have been completely desensitized to this evil tell Tim and his mother, “Well, maybe it would be better to not show such a thing on television. I mean, after all, we wouldn’t want to influence how many people want to watch the Super Bowl because of an utterly horrid commercial that would in any way celebrate life, now would we? Now roll the Viagra and Go-Daddy.com commercials!”

America, what in the name of all that’s holy is wrong with you people???

Are you telling me that we have stooped to such a low level as to be more concerned with pro football, TV attendance even, than with a person’s RIGHT to express a quality message about a major event in their life that directly affected a future pro football player?!

It goes beyond that. It goes back to money and selfishness.

That’s what this is all about. Let’s not dance around it. You cannot serve God and mammon.

If ‘pro-choice’ (death) supporters really had any guts at all, they would just admit what it is they really believe. But they won’t, because the nature of a coward is to hide behind something or someone else.

I, however, am not a coward. And so, I suggest we all give the NFL and TV stations something to be concerned about.

If Tim Tebow and his family are pressured to remove this commercial from the Super Bowl line-up, I ask you to support LIFE by turning the channel and not watching the game. Exercise your freedom to watch whatever else you want to watch.

As for me, I won’t be watching regardless.

For me the damage has already been done.

Unless of course, the pro-death hypocrites, rise up in one united voice in support of Pam and Tim Tebow………………………..but I’m not holding my breath.

God bless you all,
Eric Bruni
jesusknight72@hotmail.com

Original Link.

President of the Syria: ‘No Peace with Israel Even if They Return Golan Heights’

Friday, February 5th, 2010

This is the point that many of us have been trying to drive home for years now; it doesn’t matter how much land Israel concedes in the pursuit of peace, the Muslims will not be satisfied until they have wiped Israel out of existence.

Bashar Assad understands the price he and the ruling Alawite minority would have to pay, in a country that is 74 percent Sunni, for a genuine peace with Israel. That is why in this week’s New Yorker, Assad frankly told Seymour Hersh that even if Syria regained the entire Golan, Israel, “cannot expect me to give them the peace they expect.”

Indeed, if Israel got the peace we expected, Assad’s de-facto truce with the Muslim Brotherhood would come undone. He’d have to expel Hamas leaders from Syria, a step the Brotherhood would find insufferable. A bad divorce with Teheran would ensue. Hizbullah would reorient Lebanon’s policies accordingly.

In short, Assad would be going down the path taken by the late Anwar Sadat: carving out a separate peace with Israel while the Palestinian issue festered, albeit due to the Palestinians’ own intransigence.

Naturally, if Assad got the Golan Heights on his terms, the legitimacy of his regime would be bolstered. But no Israeli government – not Yitzhak Rabin’s and not Binyamin Netanyahu’s – can come down from the Golan in return for a sham peace.

Assad will not risk a real peace that would force Syria to rethink its ideological identity in the absence of the Zionist bogeyman. How could he justify continued authoritarian rule?

Moreover, real peace would open Syria to progressive influences. The regime could come under pressure from now dormant liberal reformers. The 18,000 Druse and 2,000 Alawites on the Golan would be reunited with their co-religionists, but decades of life under the Zionists will have created social, economic and, yes, political expectations that could “contaminate” the larger Syrian polity.

So a strong argument can be made that the last thing Assad really wants is peace with Israel.

Yet if this assessment is excessively cynical and Assad is prepared to take major risks for peace – he needs to come to Jerusalem and ask for the Golan. His appearance at the Knesset podium would likely create an inexorable momentum for a total Israeli withdrawal.

REGRETTABLY, Assad cannot afford to make real peace. Worse still, through a series of military and rhetorical miscalculations – inspired, perhaps, by Iranian mischief-making – Assad is blundering toward a conflagration with Israel.

Original Link.

An oracle concerning Damascus:
“See, Damascus will no longer be a city
but will become a heap of ruins.”

Isaiah 17:1 (New International Version)