ATTENTION READERS! WE HAVE MOVED THE TEDLAND DAILY!

WE HAVE OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A NEW SITE: http://www.tedshoebat.com/blog/

Michael Savage

Luke Historians--The Past Is The Key To The Present

lukehistorians.com

Luke Historians is a project inspired by one of the fascinating anomalies of Scripture: a scientific Greek who wrote two books of the Bible.

Luke Historians is a website dedicated to trumping convention in two ways:

Our society governs by the doctrine that "the present is the key to the past," which was originally supposed to apply to only the scientific concept of uniformitarianism. But how often is the past viewed through the lens of the present throughout all culture? We must instead investigate the past to interpret the successes and failures of the present.

The Past is the Key to the Present. The Bible is necessarily respected in academic circles as the single most influential text in Western Civilization. But fundamental misunderstandings about this remarkable book exist because the Greek and Hebrew minds clash. Most residents of the Western World descend from the Greek (or Gentile) heritage of thought and thus have difficulty understanding the historical and prophetic narrative of the Hebrew Bible.

That is why Luke is a great starting point for common ground debate, because Luke himself was a Greek taking part in a very Hebrew happening. Luke Historians is intended to be a haven for all the nerdy Christians, Skeptics and any others interested in solving the Bible and its role in history to crawl out of their various gang slums on the internet and meet for intelligent problem-solving. A Meeting of the Greek and Hebrew Minds.

Maher's Monkey Business: Academic Travesty and Religulous Obsession with O'Donnell

As science is increasingly politicized in the Delaware senate race, viewers have to wonder – what is a Darwinian skeptic, and is it safe to have one in Congress?

Last week, Bill Maher didn’t unearth an archived youthful indiscretion to make Christine O’Donnell the laughingstock of her critics. Rather, he insulted not only O’Donnell, but an untold number of citizens who question the scientific status quo.

“Evolution is a myth, and Darwin himself -” O’Donnell began to explain before being interrupted by Maher in a clip from 1998. “Evolution is a myth? Have you ever looked at a monkey?” was Maher’s comic rebuttal. We can cut him some slack since he was, after all, the comedian on the stage. But otherwise, a Creationist might as well attempt to refute an evolutionist by saying, “Creation is a myth? Have you ever looked at a DNA molecule?” It would be interesting to see which visual experience makes the more compelling argument.

I would probably be on Maher’s side in this argument if the people who had doubts about Evolution were only a bunch of backwoods hicks who had never seen a microscope before. But that in itself is a myth, because that simply isn’t the case. There are very serious, highly educated scientists that have realized certain facts in the natural world are not adding up in favor of the Darwinian tradition. Not all of them are Creationists, or even religious at all.

Contrary to the average media slant, it actually isn’t religion that is criticizing Darwin. Many dapper theologians have happily merged their belief in the Bible with belief in Evolution, and however soaring or sappy the result may be, it has earned them the highest approval rating Richard Dawkins can muster for a religion: Harmless. A serious Darwinian doubter is a different sort of person entirely – a seeker who looks beyond religious and professional boundaries.

Maher enjoys perpetuating the misconception that denial of Evolution is directly linked to unintelligence. It actually has nothing to do with basic intelligence. My Ivy League educated father has been disbelieving Darwinian evolution for decades - even while he would regularly take my siblings and me to the American Museum of Natural History and the Bronx Zoo.

It is also a misnomer to automatically label a person as “anti-science” just because he or she disbelieves the Darwinian extrapolation of macroevolution. All a Darwinian skeptic wants is every last iota of data spread upon the dissection table – no secrets, no cover-ups, no manipulation. Come to think of it, we could use a good dose of that mindset in Congress!

Even if Christine O’Donnell once confused carbon dating with potassium-argon dating (an unsurprising layperson’s mistake), at least she showed enough interest in the subject to investigate beyond the status quo. The awareness and consideration of more than one informed opinion is an appealing feature in a senatorial candidate.

O’Donnell said quizzically on Maher’s show, “Then why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?” However hastily formed that question may be, the “time did it!” sort of answer she was given was just as inadequate. A common atheist argument I’ve come across claims, “I looked up in the sky today and didn’t see God, and therefore He doesn’t exist.” That sounds remarkably naïve in my opinion, but Maher would probably consider it brilliant. Evolutionists say we can’t directly observe the macroevolution process, and Creationists say we can’t directly observe God, yet both say the handiwork of each is evident. That leaves us fairly even.

An atheist claims to not see enough evidence for God’s existence, and a non-Darwinist claims to not see enough evidence for the Darwinian concept of macroevolution. For some inhuman reason, the act of not being convinced is upheld as brilliant in the former case, but considered brain dead in the latter case. That is an academic tragedy.

History education is rife with reinterpretation of solid artifacts and writings made by people of the past. Even President Obama twice omitted “Creator” within one week when referencing the famous statement inscribed in the Declaration of Independence that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Ironically, that Creator-acknowledging statement was written by Thomas Jefferson, atheists’ favorite and most exploited Founding Father.

Perpetual attempts to seize the red pen and infuse new controversies into established pages of history and literature is bewildering, but nevertheless welcomed. Yet the one field that actually thrives most off of new observation and ideas – science – is the one subject where thinking outside of the politically correct box is forbidden. Why?

Many fail to understand or share my convictions about academic freedom. This frustrated me deeply until it dawned on me recently: How could they understand when so few have experienced the level of educational independence that I have had?

I come from an academic family. My grandfather studied botany at Cornell, and later became President of the University of Alabama. He also personally knows evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson. I was raised in a household with shelves full of materials by both Evolutionists and Creationists. My bedroom and schoolroom were occupied by National Geographic and Scientific American issues way before Answers magazine was in print. Henry M. Morris’ The Genesis Record resides in the family library along with an astronomy book that claims to recite the universe’s first three minutes of existence after the Big Bang.

My high school science textbooks were very committed to the scientific method, offering differing hypotheses and theories next to the currently known data of every major topic. One of the greatest impressions left on me from that curriculum was the way the text candidly admitted that science is such an expanding field that many things I learned in it might be outdated in a few years. By the way, those high school textbooks were written by a scientist who believes the Earth is young not for theological reasons, but solely because he thinks the data we have today shows strong evidence for a young Earth.

When I began taking science classes at a state university, I experienced academic confinement for the first time in my life. The college textbooks that I was issued said the very same things my high school textbooks said in the beginning - that science can never ultimately prove anything, that the ability to be disproved through test or observation is key to a good scientific theory, and that the textbook would mention disagreements among scientists and where intriguing questions remain in the field. Though I thoroughly enjoyed the subject I was studying, I was disappointed - yet not surprised - that the college textbook failed to keep its promises.

The increasingly politicized nature of the science debate is highlighted in this Delaware election. Democratic candidate Chris Coons cast in a negative light O’Donnell’s supposed desire to see public schools teach Creationism. To be honest, this characterization is a rather pointless diversion in the debate over science education.

There is no need for science classes to open with a narrative of the universe being brought into existence, such as what is found in Genesis. Historical documentation belongs in history class. Science education should consist of instruction in the scientific method and observation of data. If schools would even teach Darwinian evolution in its entirety - facts and failures, warts and all - we would possibly see a vastly more independent electorate infused with new enthusiasm for inquiring about the natural world.

Would there not be outrage if every political science and economics class forced students to study the system and predictions of only capitalism or only socialism instead of both? Would there not be suspicion of an elitist agenda at play if such were the case and no criticism of the predominant theory was allowed? Why, therefore, is this very thing happening in the field that is supposed to be the most open minded and expansive of all - science?

If you can’t take criticism of your ideas, then you do not need to be working in science or government. Perhaps there is a comfortable, mindless religion out there that will suit you well instead.

(Originally posted at The Washington Times Communities).

Theodore Shoebat sermon

Click here to listen to Theodore Shoebat's sermon in Reno, Nevada. Please be sure to click on "Evening Service - Ted Shoebat, Son of Walid Shoebat"

There Must Be So Much More…

by Amanda Read

Than what this era suggests!

Not to land in the middle of an abstract notion, mind you. That is not my intention at all. But I was once again brought to the awareness of “What the world expects” vs. “What GOD commands” in my own life.

Jennie Chancey made an elegant – albeit crucial point in a Letter that Rachel forwarded to me (”Letter” sounds more classic than article):

God’s Word is so rich and His ways so rewarding! We should always turn to the Bible (both “old” and “new” testaments!) to find out what the Lord would have us do. Unfortunately, too many modern Christians look everywhere else for answers before turning to the Word (just look at all the “Christian” psychology and counseling books in Christian bookstores).

This problem is particularly acute with Christian women, since feminism has slowly but surely crept into the church and stolen our hearts while we were not feeding them with God’s precepts and commands.

So many families believe that a young woman, like a young man, is “free and independent” at age 18 or age 21 and should leave home to strike out on her own. This is in total opposition to God’s teachings…I have had time to really dive into the Word and find what God requires of the Christian woman. I do not claim to understand it perfectly, but I do encourage you to hold fast to what God tells us to do. His Word is true and pure, and we cannot go wrong if we follow Him! Starting in the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy), we see that God made woman for man. As much as the feminists hate the idea, it is true. Conversely, man was made to protect, cherish and nourish the woman.

Men who are not doing that and are not loving their wives as Christ loved the church are covenant-breakers. Women who refuse to stay home and obey their fathers or husbands are also covenant-breakers. They are inverting God’s created order, which is God-Man-Woman-Animals. Today we have Animals-Woman-Man-God. Just take a look at what our society holds dear and who gets the most press time! Christians must strive to return to God’s created order…

…Moving on to the books of the law, we see in the case laws (these are the laws which tell us how to live the ten commandments) that God puts a daughter under her father’s protection. He is to help her to remain pure until marriage. He is to guard her from all the “Mr. Wrongs” in the world while she waits for Mr. Right. The whole purpose of the “bride price” and the bride’s dowry was not to sell women like cattle—as feminists like to assert—but to show how valuable a godly daughter is and to protect her in case her husband turns out to be a dud (heaven forbid).

The bride price (one year’s wages) and the daughter’s dowry (whatever her family gave her) were hers alone. The husband could not touch that money! Isn’t that something? It was hers to invest and use as she saw fit. What an amazing principle! This is how the Proverbs 31 woman could “consider a field and buy it” and use her own earnings to plant a vineyard.

Your father is your covenantal head. He is your covering. Christ is over him, and you are under both. My husband, in the same manner, is my covering. I am protected as long as I remain under his authority. Modern women chafe at the command that wives “obey their husbands,” because they want to maintain their own autonomy. This is incompatible with the Christian worldview. “He who would be greatest among you must be servant of all!”…

…Moving on to the books of the law, we see in the case laws (these are the laws which tell us how to live the ten commandments) that God puts a daughter under her father’s protection. He is to help her to remain pure until marriage.
He is to guard her from all the “Mr. Wrongs” in the world while she waits for Mr. Right. The whole purpose of the “bride price” and the bride’s dowry was not to sell women like cattle—as feminists like to assert—but to show how valuable a godly daughter is and to protect her in case her husband turns out to be a dud (heaven forbid).

The bride price (one year’s wages) and the daughter’s dowry (whatever her family gave her) were hers alone. The husband could not touch that money! Isn’t that something? It was hers to invest and use as she saw fit. What an amazing principle! This is how the Proverbs 31 woman could “consider a field and buy it” and use her own earnings to plant a vineyard.

Your father is your covenantal head. He is your covering. Christ is over him, and you are under both. My husband, in the same manner, is my covering. I am protected as long as I remain under his authority. Modern women chafe at the command that wives “obey their husbands,” because they want to maintain their own autonomy. This is incompatible with the Christian worldview. “He who would be greatest among you must be servant of all!”



So what does the single girl do? Scripture tells us that sons leave, but daughters are given. Daughters do not go out into the world to seek their place in it. They are to serve at home and sit in discipleship at the feet of older women and their own parents. Only older, “true” widows who have lived godly lives are given authority to maintain their own households, but younger widows are to return to their father’s house until they marry again (if ever—see Leviticus 22:13). Unmarried girls are to remain virtuous and to serve their father’s household.

I do not at all mean to imply that women should be uneducated, ignorant and unwise. The women hailed in the Bible as examples for us were exceedingly wise, clever, intelligent, capable and quick-witted. The single girl is not to sit around waiting for Mr. Right. She is to study to become Mrs. Right…Daughters need to be taught how to add to the riches of their father’s household as a preparation for enriching their own future homes.

A very bold list of statements even in familiar “contemporary” Christian ground, isn’t it? Does that seem to rouse in some female minds faulty visions of imprisonment or boredom? If so, I am probably a pitiful sight to many of you.
“My situation had, in certain ways, more freedom than that of most people, and in certain other ways, much less…”
Yes, surely, I must look like I’m “trapped” at home all day. But I feel so liberated! Why? Only by the grace of CHRIST – which I sometimes think that the majority ignores. (To complete the above quote) “…No, I decided, these discussions would have value and interest only for myself.” - Anne Morrow Lindbergh

Click Here


ATTENTION READERS! PLEASE CLICK HERE TO ENTER THE LUKE HISTORIANS -- A WEBSITE FOR CRITICAL THINKERS

The War On Absolute Truth

BY Theodore Shoebat

“There are no moral absolutes,” the foolish told the wise.

“Are you absolutely sure?” replied the wise.

Marriage being only “between a man and a woman” is an absolute. It can never be between a man and a horse or a tree, or between the sun and the moon, a mare and a stallion, chicken and rooster or rooster with rooster.

But the attack on Proposition 8 has nothing to do with the left’s love for homosexuals and everything to do with eroding the absolutes set in our Constitution. Altering the U.S Constitution is the only way for socialism to prevail in the U.S. Socialists like Elena Kagan plays with the First amendment, attacking that moral absolute and said to redefine it as depending “upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

These “societal costs”, spell socialism and nothing more. History tells us that by altering “absolutes” the Left replaced individualism (which works) with collectivism (which doesn’t).

Perhaps a little history can help us understand the likes of Kagan and Judge Vaughn Walker overturning Prop 8. Collectivism stems from positivism–founded by French philosopher Auguste Comte (19th century).

Positivism says that human experience is the supreme criterion of human knowledge, denies the existence of a personal God and takes humanity, “the great being”, as the object of its veneration in order to elevate man over God. Comte’s positivism was derived from Henri de Saint-Simon, a utopian ideologue who was the influence to none other then Karl Marx’s socialism.

In his Essay on the Science of Man (1813) Saint-Simon explained that every field of knowledge moved successively from a conjectural to a “positive” stage, and that the sciences reached this stage in a definite order, Physiology had now moved into a positive stage, just as astrology, and alchemy had previously given way to astronomy and chemistry. Now the science of man must move towards the positive stage and completely reorganize all human institutions. (1)

Aguste Comte perpetuated the search for a science of society through a three-stage theory of progress, which he derived from Saint-Simon in 1822. Thus the idea that truth is not absolute but historical became popularized during the nineteenth-century and is realized not in “individual thought” but in “social action” collectively.

It was Saint-Simon’s followers in the 1830s that first gave widespread use not only to the word “socialism,” but also—”socialize,” “socialization,” and socializing the interments of labor. (2) Comte’s influence by Saint-Simon explains why he rejected divine human rights: “Social positivism only accepts duties, for all and towards all…Any human right is therefore as absurd and immoral. Since there are no divine rights anymore, this concept must therefore disappear completely…” (3)

Later, positivism would now submerge itself with the coming of Darwinian evolution. And since mankind evolves, morality must also evolve with it, and instead of all men are created equal we have Charles’s Darwin’s doctrine: “Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed…as in man.”

It was evolutionist Herbert Spencer who first coined the phrase “Survival of the fittest” that intended to link darwinism and positivism together. Spencer believed that because human nature can improve and change, then, scientific‚ including moral and political views must change with it, that ethics “have to be considered as parts of the phenomena of life at large. We have to deal with man as a product of evolution, with society as a product of evolution, and with moral phenomena as products of evolution.” (4)

Thus, Spencer believed in the redefining of nations’ constitutions: “All evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions. This is true of everything that lives.”(5)

The final point in evolution according to Spencer was to see a progression to “perfect man in the perfect society.” Positivism quickly sprung on its way to America, a land whose constitution is disdained and in need of an altercation. Under positivism, judges were to guide both the evolution of law and the Constitution. By these, the views of the Founding Fathers are hampering the progressing evolution of society.

But if darwinian evolution is a science as claimed, why does it always have to leap onto ethics and morality?

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST AT LUKE HISTORIANS

CNN fires host Rick Sanchez over controversial remarks

By Michael Calderone


CNN host Rick Sanchez came under fire Friday after making controversial remarks the previous day on a satellite radio show.
Sanchez called out Comedy Central host Jon Stewart as a "bigot" for mocking him, and complained that Jews — like Stewart — don't face discrimination. He also suggested that CNN, and perhaps the media industry more broadly, is run by Jews and elitists who look down on Hispanics like himself.
Clearly, those comments didn't sit well with the network, which put out a terse statement around 6 p.m. Friday.
"Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company," the CNN statement read. "We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well."


So far, Sanchez hasn't spoken out about the explosive interview Thursday on "Stand Up! with Pete Dominick." On the radio show, the now-former CNN star didn't just make a single impolitic statement, but spoke at length — for roughly 20 minutes — about Stewart and a media world he believes to be filled with "elite Northeast liberals" who consider Hispanic journalists "second tier." Sanchez is a Cuban-American.

He specifically called out Stewart as someone with "a white liberal establishment point-of-view" who "can't relate to a guy like me." Also, Sanchez claimed that Stewart is "upset that someone of my ilk is at, almost, his level."
Sanchez also has yet to address the controversy via Twitter, where he is a frequent user. He even made the social media platform a signature part of his afternoon show, "Rick's List." Sanchez didn't appear on his 3 p.m. show on Friday, but CNN's public relations department put out word that he was going to be at a book signing at the CNN Center in Atlanta. It's unclear whether he attended it.

Sanchez joined CNN in 2004 after working as an anchor in Miami. Prior to that, Sanchez worked as a correspondent at MSNBC, providing breaking news updates at CNBC, and at other local stations.
CNN plans to air "CNN Newsroom" in the "Rick's List" time slot, weekdays from 3 to 5 p.m.

-----
LINK

THE MYTH OF THE CATHOLIC HITLER

By Theodore Shoebat



RICHARD DAWKINS: Hitler by the way was a Roman Catholic.


BILL O’REILLY: He never was. He was raised in that home. He rejected it early on.


RICHARD DAWKINS: We can dispute that.



Dawkins would search for a label anywhere he could find one since Hitler officially was an altar boy during his childhood. But using partial fact is misleading since there is ample evidence of Hitler’s new birth into what is termed Positive Christianity. When historians scratched beneath Hitler’s ‘Positive Christian’ label, his testimony went as follows: “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed.” 1

Shouldn’t Hitler’s own testimony suffice? Hitler sounded more like Richard Dawkins who sermonized his mantra with continual condemnations of God in the Bible as being a “malignant infection” and like Karl Marx’s “religion is the opium of the people.” Hitler was hardly like Catholic ‘Bill O’Reilly’ and aligned more with Dawkins; he “accepted evolution much as we today accept Einsteinian relativity.” 2

So why does the left accuse Hitler of being Catholic? Leftists avoid the stigma caused by the Nazi leftist views by steering Nazism and its toxic waste off-course to the far right. That way, Catholics and Evangelicals can be transformed and driven into the ‘extremist’ camp. Jesus became the new Joseph Goebbels since He sends unrepentant sinners to a worse inferno than Auschwitz. The “new Nazis” would stand daily Nuremberg trials as a result. Yahweh would become the new Hitler who is, as Dawkins put it: “Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

So, according to progressives, Hitler, history’s leading tyrant at first was labeled as God. By the time everyone recognized that he was a tyrant— God was labeled as ‘a Hitler’!

Neronic progressives are true to their Neronian faith; with superb eloquence and skill, they transfer their sins to the very victims whom their ill devised plans destroy. British political philosopher John Gray in his article Don’t Write Off Religion Just Yet stated: “atheism was—according to the founders of the Soviet state, and in fact—always an integral part of the Communist project. Despite the vehement denials of Dawkins and Hitchens, terror in Communist Russia—and Mao’s China—was also meant to bring about a utopian society in which religion would no longer exist.” If the left is correct, where are Hitler’s enforcements of prayer and teaching the Bible in classrooms? What we find in Nazi text books contradicts what the revisionists claim, even breaking all Ten Commandments: “The teaching of mercy and love of one’s neighbor is foreign to the German race and the Sermon on the Mount is according to Nordic sentiment an ethic for cowards and idiots.” 3

When it comes to the issue of Hitler’s spiritual views, he was far more interested in eastern and Nordic religions. Hitler described Confucius, Buddha, and Muhammad as providers of “spiritual sustenance.” 4


CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST

Amanda Read--The Tedland Daily's new contributor

Hello All,

I am happy to announce The Tedland Daily new Contributor, Amanda Read.





We have been working together on one of her sites The Luke Historians (found Here).

Amanda Read is a political and current events columnist for The Washington Times Communities and contributor to Unliberal. She is also a columnist for The Cross-Eyed Blog and Webzine, and has served as a contributing writer to The Girlhood Home Companion Magazine. You can find some of her writings at Awaken Generation and Sincerely Amanda, her blog at www.amandaread.com.

Amanda is the eldest of nine children and was homeschooled all her life until she began attending a state university shortly before reaching the age of 19. Because her father was a Russian linguist and foreign area officer in the U.S. Army, she took part in some of the multicultural experiences shared by most military children. The first ten years of her life were spent in Texas, California, New York, Germany, and Uzbekistan. The years since then have been spent in Alabama, where her father retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

At the age of 13, she started a homeschool e-newsletter. Her first news article was about the debacle at the Alabama Supreme Court over the Ten Commandments monument, which ended up ousting the popularly elected Chief Justice Roy S. Moore. Miss Read was also intrigued by the events of the War on Terror, and she has been writing about politics ever since.

In 2004, her mother discovered the fascinating history of Dr. Harvey W. Wiley and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. After years of researching and writing, Amanda completed a full length historical drama screenplay titled The Crusading Chemist in March 2008 and completed a revision of it last year. She is currently writing the book Confessions of An Unconventional Scholar: A Student’s Treatise on Education and co-authoring a book with Lindy Abbott, both of which should be released next year.

Miss Read lives with her family and is majoring in History and minoring in Political Science in college.

Kyokushin vs Muay thai

Thanks to iiiilgrigio

A'jad monster's ball

Wacky week in NY for wolf in cheap clothing

By BRAD HAMILTON


It was a strange week for the loony strongman from Iran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's six nights in New York featured a secret sit-down with militant minister Louis Farrakhan, heckling in a hotel bar, and a fear of being rubbed out that bordered on paranoia.

The president shared a hush-hush meal with Farrakhan and members of the New Black Panther Party Tuesday at the Warwick Hotel on West 54th Street.

The meeting of the podium smackers took place in a banquet room, where the fiery leaders presumably exchanged theories on what's wrong with the world.

On Thursday night, Sudanese diplomats trying to get in to see Ahmadinejad at the Hilton Manhattan East, on 42nd Street, squared off with security and a pushing match ensued. Two well-dressed women in their 40s came in, sat at the hotel bar and ordered drinks.

One of them caught the attention of the president's security detail, which had set up a station in the hotel lobby. She was soon surrounded by eight angry Iranians, who ordered her to leave. She refused.

A manager tried to calm things down. Suddenly, the woman stood up and pointed at the Iranians, yelling, "You stoned my sister! You're murderers!"

Paranoia was on parade at the Hilton the moment the president checked in on Saturday, Sept. 18. His team took six floors to themselves in the hotel's south tower, overlooking Tudor City, about 90 rooms in all. More than 20 were just for security.

Still, Ahmadinejad, who wore the same tacky suit and shirt all week, took every precaution. He never set foot in the lobby. Bulletproof glass was installed over room windows. When he left for meetings at the Iranian Mission, on Third Avenue, or the United Nations, he departed by an employee entrance, the path covered in a white tent -- a veritable tunnel to his vehicle. His head was covered with a white cloth. No one saw him on the street.

The entourage dined in but not on room service. Meals -- mostly lamb, shish kebabs, spiced ground meat and basmati rice -- were prepared by a Persian restaurant and carried in by Secret Service agents.

A source said the spicy grub made "the whole hotel stink like hell."

LINK

Laminin Shaminin

Dr. J. Wile

If you haven’t seen it, there is a video on Godtube, Youtube, and probably any other tube out there. It is of some preacher named Louie Giglio. He claims to have spoken to a “molecular biologist” from a “local university” who told him about the protein called laminin. This supposed molecular biologist told him that laminin is a cell adhesion molecule that “holds the body together.” Then, he shows his audience a “scientific illustration” of what laminin looks like. Here is basically what he shows the audience:







He goes on to say that this is confirmation of Colossians 1:17, “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” So…because the “scientific illustration” of laminin looks like a cross, God is using science to remind us that Christ holds all things together. Just in case the “scientific illustration” doesn’t convince you, he shows you an electron microscope image of laminin. He shows this:




Now I have to admit that someone who knows little about protein chemistry could easily be taken in by such tripe. Thus, even though this video upsets me, I am not upset with the people who send me this video. Neither am I upset with Louie Giglio for talking about this in his sermon without really understanding it. Preachers talk about things they don’t understand all the time, including the Bible. Thus, it doesn’t surprise me that a preacher would talk about protein chemistry even though he doesn’t understand it. What bothers me is that Louie Giglio claims he got this information from a molecular biologist.


No molecular biologist who understands his field would EVER suggest that there is some spiritual connection to the shape of laminin. Thus, someone in this story is lying. It might be Louie Giglio. Perhaps he stumbled across this and invented the story of a molecular biologist to give it more weight. It might be the guy who came up to him claiming to be a molecular biologist. Perhaps that person was some student who really doesn’t understand molecular biology but saw a simplified drawing of laminin and wanted to impress Louie Giglio. Perhaps the person really was a molecular biologist, at which point the university that gave him his degree is the liar, as a degree means a level of competency that this person clearly doesn’t have. I don’t know who the liar is here, but I guarantee you, there is a liar somewhere, because any molecular biologist would know the following facts:

1. Simplified drawings are never accurate pictures of protein shapes. Proteins have several levels of hierarchy to their structure, and even the best three-dimensional representations of proteins are mere approximations. God’s engineering is far beyond the understanding of man. Thus, the way we visualize proteins is oversimplistic at best.

2. Proteins change conformations. That’s what they must do in order to do their job. Thus, they don’t hold to a given shape. Indeed, the electron microscope picture that Louie Giglio gives in his sermon represents just one possible shape for laminin. Consider this image, which contains two different electron microscope images of laminin:



It looks to me like the bottom one is the one that Louie Giglio used, rotated 90 degrees. This makes me wonder if he intentionally edited out the other image. In any event, the top one shows what any molecular biology graduate student would know: proteins change conformation in order to do their job. The shape at any given time is most likely transitory.

3. There are just as many (if not more) Satanic (or otherwise evil) shapes in the human body. Consider this: DNA is the molecule that contains all the information that determines who you are. Here is a simplified drawing of the detailed structure of DNA, getting rid of the helical shape and just concentrating on what makes up the backbone of the molecule:




Do you see the blue shapes? Those are pentagrams. They represent the sugar ribose that makes up the backbone of DNA. Indeed, “ribose” is what gives DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) the “ribo” in its name. Thus, the molecule that makes the backbone of DNA and gives it part of its name is a Satanic symbol. What does that mean?

It gets worse! In every nerve cell of your body there are potassium channels. They allow your nerve cells (like those in your brain) to conduct action potentials, which is what makes them work. Guess what those potassium channels look like? Here you go:




what does that look like to you? To me, it looks like a swastika. So the cellular structure that allows you to think is an homage to Hitler?

Obviously, there are a variety of molecules in creation. In an attempt to understand them, we draw simplified illustrations that allow us to learn something about their structure and function. To say that there is some hidden “message” in these shapes is just nonsense.

__________
If you haven't seen the nonsense video that Dr. Wile is talking about, here it is:

Muslim Nations Call for U.N. to Track ‘Islamophobia’

U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay has agreed to consider the proposal, according to the OIC, a bloc of Islamic nations.
Friday, September 24, 2010
By Patrick Goodenough


(CNSNews.com) – The Quran-burning controversy in the United States has prompted the Islamic bloc at the United Nations to revive its call for the U.N. to set up an “international monitoring mechanism” to track incidents of “Islamophobia.”
Five years after establishing an “Islamophobia Observatory” of its own, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is now calling on the U.N.’s top human rights official to set up a comparable body at her Geneva office. According to the OIC, human rights commissioner Navanethem Pillay has agreed to consider the proposal.

At the U.N. Human Rights Council this week, OIC members are also seeking support for a resolution condemning Florida pastor Terry Jones’ abortive call to burn copies of the Quran on September 11.
Introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, the text condemns “the recent call by an extremist group to organize a ‘Burn a Koran Day’” and says it was among “instances of intolerance, discrimination, profiling and acts of violence against Muslims occurring in many parts of the world.”

When it comes to a vote -- before the Council’s session in Geneva ends next Friday -- the measure almost certainly will pass. The OIC controls more than one-third of the Council’s seats, and its resolutions are routinely backed by non-Muslim allies such as China, Russia, Cuba and South Africa.

Moreover, Western democracies which usually oppose OIC “Islamophobia” and “religious defamation” measures at the HRC – on freedom of expression grounds – will not likely do so in this case, having strongly condemned Jones’ threats earlier this month.
U.S. ambassador to the HRC Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe wrote to Pillay in late August, deploring Jones’ threatened action and telling her that the U.S. “supports the full use of your office and moral authority to speak out against intolerance and instances of hate speech where they occur.”

CLICK HERE

Corelli's Christmas Concerto

Thanks to MYATTUN

Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’

By: Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor
09/18/10 4:35 PM EDT

If the Left acknowledged sin, hypocrisy would be one of the most unforgiveable. But that’s exactly what hundreds of university faculty members – many in women’s and gender studies departments – were found guilty of during a recent experiment devised by a University of Illinois economics professor.

Prof. Fred Gottheil told Front Page Magazine that he compiled a list of 675 email addresses from 900 signatures on a 2009 petition authored by Dr. David Lloyd, professor of English at the University of Southern California, urging the U.S. to abandon its ally, Israel. Prof. Gottheil discovered that six of the signers, who hailed from more than 150 college campuses, were members of his own faculty.

“Would these same 900 sign onto a statement expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians?” he wondered. “I felt it was worth a try.”

The results? “Almost non existent,” he told Front Page editor Jamie Glazov. Only 27 of the 675 “self-described social-justice seeking academics” agreed to sign Gottheil’s Statement of Concern – less than 5 percent of the total who had publicly called for the censure of Israel for human rights violations.

The refusal of women’s studies professors to publicly condemn honor killings, or academic advocates of gay rights to speak out against the treatment of homosexuals in Muslim countries, is just about as hypocritical as it gets. Their loathing (dare we call it hate?) of the UN-created Jewish state is so deep that it “trump[s] their professional interests,” leading them into a “ideologically discriminatory trap of their own making,” Prof. Gottheil added.

“The academic Left may be just a little more sophisticated [than the non-academic Left] in their loathing of Israel, but scratch the surface and it’s all the same…It turns out that with all their professing of principle, they are sanctimonious bigots at heart.”


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/prof-calls-fellow-academics-sanctimonious-bigots-103207814.html#ixzz10IJipDFu

President Ahmedinejad Threatens U.S. With War 'Without Boundaries'

Iranian President Says Country Will Defend Its Nuclear Facilities


By THOMAS NAGORSKI, ABC News Managing Editor

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad warned the Obama administration today that if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked, the U.S. will face a war that "would know no boundaries."

The Iranian president, who is in New York for the annual meetings of the United Nations General Assembly, spoke at a breakfast meeting with reporters and editors at Manhattan's Warwick Hotel.

He said that Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear power, and warned Israel and the U.S. against attacking its nuclear facilities.

Asked about the possibility of a U.S.-supported Israeli air strike against Iran, the fiery Iranian leader said an attack would be considered an act of war, and suggested the U.S. is unprepared for the consequences. Such a war "would know no boundaries," Ahmedinejad said. "War is not just bombs."

South Florida: An arms smuggler's paradise

A crossroads for drugs and money laundering, Miami has expanded into a gateway for arms smuggling -- not only to Latin America but also to the Middle East and Far East.
BY JAY WEAVER

JWEAVER@MIAMIHERALD.COM

Miami seems more and more like the Casablanca of movie legend.
This month, a Palestinian man and a Cuban migrant were charged in an FBI counter-terrorism probe with plotting to buy hundreds of stolen assault rifles, high-tech bombs and remote-control detonators to ship to the West Bank.
Shortly before that, Miami Beach arms wunderkind Efraim Diveroli -- already convicted of selling banned Chinese-made munitions to the Pentagon -- was arrested on new firearms charges in Brevard County after he allegedly tried to import rounds of ammunition from South Korea.

And two years ago, a ring of foreigners and businesses was charged with illegally supplying electronic parts to Iran via South Florida for explosives that could be used to target American soldiers in Iraq.
The disparate cases are among dozens of South Florida prosecutions alleging illegal arms trafficking, weapons exports, embargo violations, and shipments of ``dual-use'' military and commercial technology -- a sign of heightened federal enforcement in the post 9/11 era.

Known as an international marketplace for drugs and money laundering since the days of Miami Vice, the region has expanded into a viable gateway for arms smuggling -- not only to Latin America but also to the Middle East and Far East.
Federal agencies, accustomed for decades to battling shadowy drug cartels in South America, quickly adapted to weapons investigations. They've been deploying the same crime-fighting techniques -- government informants, undercover agents, tape recordings and Internet searches -- to make cases.

Three years ago, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement established a bunker in Fort Lauderdale for probing illegal arms trafficking, generating more prosecutions in South Florida.
``The investigations are not just focused on the smuggling of arms out of the Port of Miami, Port Everglades or Miami International Airport,'' said Anthony Mangione, special agent in charge of ICE Homeland Security Investigations in Miami.
``We're focusing on these international arms brokers with laundry lists of weapons and explosives. These guys operate in the shadows, and it takes a lot to draw them out.''

In 2007, the Justice Department, recognizing the proliferation of illegal arms exports and related security threats, launched a plan to coordinate investigations, training and prosecutions. They also began pushing for more criminal cases throughout the country, beyond the traditional hot spots of large coastal cities such as Miami, Los Angeles and New York.


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/18/1831539/s-fla-becoming-gateway-for-arms.html#ixzz10Bqtdiez

Washington can hear you now

By Jim DeMint
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Christine O'Donnell's win on Tuesday may have shocked establishment politicians and the media, but it was no surprise for everyday Americans who have been struggling to get Washington's attention.

On Sept. 12, 2009, millions of citizens rallied across the country. They gathered in the nation's capital and other cities to convey a clear message: You work for us; we don't work for you. Stop the bailouts, the takeovers, the debt and dependence.

For years, conservatives have been told that the only way to create a big-tent party was to support big-government candidates who were "electable," rather than principled. History suggests otherwise. Majorities are built on principles, not the other way around.

When that big tent came to Washington last September, everyone in it was yelling that they wanted less government, not more. Democrats mocked these voters and tuned them out, but liberty-minded Republican candidates tuned them in. As a result, races that were once considered unwinnable have flipped from "safe Democrat" to "lean Republican" this election cycle.

Thanks to the grass roots, Republicans have a slate of candidates who believe in constitutional, limited government. We will balance the budget, repeal the unconstitutional health-care takeover, create a predictable tax and regulatory environment in which businesses can create jobs, and restore a sense of fairness to the economy. This platform stands in stark contrast to the Democrats' record. They have racked up trillions in debt on bad legislative bets, picking winners and losers in almost every major market sector. Their policies created turmoil and uncertainty, not prosperity.

LINK

Rep. Meeks helped 'jihad' flier

Queens Democrat: Ease JFK grill of Osama 'ally'
By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN


US Rep. Gregory Meeks scolded immigration officials for questioning a Muslim scholar whose nonprofits have been linked to financing terrorism.

The Queens Democrat contacted federal agencies -- finally appealing to then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff -- asking why Anwar Hajjaj faced "unwarranted scrutiny" when he returned to the United States from trips abroad through JFK Airport. Meeks described Hajjaj as a "highly regarded" professor of Islamic studies who leads Friday Muslim prayers at the Capitol. Meeks said Hajjaj was "a pioneer in distance-based learning of Islam" through the American Open University in Virginia, according to a copy of the Sept. 30, 2006, letter to Chertoff, which was obtained by The Post under a Freedom of Information Act request.

But The Post has learned Hajjaj also headed the Taibah International Aid Association, a charity that has been accused of funding Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The group was co-founded by Abdullah A. bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's nephew, who has been investigated for his ties to groups that have funded al Qaeda and Hamas.
Hajjaj is also director of another Virginia-based nonprofit, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth International, or WAMY. It was also founded by bin Laden's nephew and said to support al Qaeda. The group's 2005 federal tax form, the most recent available, is signed by Hajjaj, who is listed as director.
Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said WAMY has been a financial and ideological supporter of Islamic terrorist organizations. A WAMY publication lists people who have attacked Israelis as "heroes of Palestine" and referred to Jews as "humanity's enemies," according to a 2003 affidavit by a customs special agent.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/rep_helped_jihad_flier_hSquRbF732a7bJB42XKn5L#ixzz10BoPhOFi

Cream Puff Culture

By Amanda Read


“One reason why sin flourishes is that it is treated like a cream puff instead of a rattlesnake.”

– Billy Sunday

I recall reading that quote in one of my Christian Daily Planner journals when I was about ten years old. It didn’t strike me as being a very profound quote at the time, but it remained vivid in my mind. Then one day I fully comprehended the point – people treat sin like a cream puff by telling themselves, “Just a little taste of it here and there won’t hurt anybody,” when they should be avoiding it like a deadly, venomous snake. Perhaps out of fear of working too hard to be pure and righteous – as many fantasize our old-fashioned ancestors to have done – our nation at the relatively youthful age of 233 is a land of cream puffs that don’t see the serpent coming.

“We’ll overtake you soon because we have more children than you,” a Muslim doctor once told my great-uncle. I’m sure we’ve all heard some variation of the fact before: the average Muslim family has 8.1 children, while the American birth rate barely reaches the bare minimum for a culture to survive beyond 25 years – 2.11 children – and that is counting the influx of Latino immigration. Discounting the immigrants, the fertility rate of American citizens is a scanty 1.6. This means that there is a good chance the United States of America could become an Islamic-dominated nation (along with European nations) within 50 years unless something changes soon (1).

“A people whom you do not know shall eat up the produce of your ground and all your labors, and you will never be anything but oppressed and crushed continually; but there will be nothing you can do…the LORD will bring you and your king, whom you have set over you, to a nation which neither you nor your fathers have known…the alien who is among you shall rise above you higher and higher, but you will go down lower and lower. He shall lend to you but you will not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you will be the tail.” – Deuteronomy 28:32-44

That is the warning against disobedience (I find it interesting that this Scripture actually makes reference to an elected leader – one that the people set over themselves). I don’t think all hope is lost for America (after all, the nation of Israel went off on more than one rebellious tangent), but we should take warnings seriously and transform the cultural attitudes.

There is a lot that can be said on this subject, but I have to begin by speaking for every American family that has more than 1.6 children and isn’t ashamed of it, yet has been politely tolerating the cultural aspersions targeted at them. Who are the crazy idiots now? Birth control, not large families, is the stupid idea. As we were on the subject of abortion recently, I don’t think there are any particularly pleasant ways to handle this topic. The major reason why abortion is tolerated (and promoted) is that our contemporary Western culture shuns children.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST

"God is its author, and not man; he laid
The key-note of all harmonies; he planned
All perfect combinations, and he made
Us so that we could hear and understand." --John Gardiner Calkins Brainard

True Music

There is a true sublime in music....

Interiview with Jesse Peterson

Click Here to listen to my interview with Jesse Peterson



Be sure to click on the one that says: "Ground Zero and the Islamic Agenda"

OBAMA'S RADICAL PASTOR, JOEL HUNTER

By Theodore Shoebat

To combat the “Muslim Obama” buzz, CNN - in an unbalanced segment - brought Akbar Achmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University and Joel Hunter, Obama's spiritual adviser. While Hunter defends Obama as "definitely a Christian”, the implication is that Time Magazine’s 24% Muslim Obama survey is simply due to public paranoia.

But there are two sides to a story. While Hunter claims that Obama’s “spiritual formation work is simply not public”, suspects wonder as to why His anti-Christian rhetoric is so public? To “Christian” Obama, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application".

Neither does Obama’s combination burrito God fit the mainstream theology of protestants and Catholics that “All people of faith – Christians, Jews, Muslims, Animists, everyone – know the same God.”

Neither do his pastors Jeremiah Wright or his now defense advocate Joe Hunter fit the bill of the typical American Christian.

Hunter is clearly anti-Israel. On July 29, 2007, the New York Times published a letter that was sent to George W. Bush affirming his "clear call for a two-state solution."

The letter wished for a "creation of a new Palestinian state that includes the vast majority of the West Bank."

But when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Hunter displays extreme views that even go further than the typical ones. In an article in the Orlando Sentinel, he even condemned Israel's security fence as having “disrupted the lives and livelihoods of Palestinians and are a major threat to the viability of a future Palestinian state. In the long run, walls and fences and rockets cannot build prosperity or peace."

His partners in bashing Israel were Muhammad Musri, Steven Engel, and Thomas Wenski. Musri, is the president of the The Islamic Society of Central Florida. When Christian convert Rifqa Bary ran away from her Muslim family in order to protect herself from an honor killing, Musri questioned her honesty calling Rifqa "nothing more than a troubled teen" and a "rebellion" caused "by far-right religious groups" to even deny that there’s “no such thing as honor killing in the Koran".

According to the St. Petersburg Times, he declared Arab converts to Christianity were bribed liars “using tales of conversion to get financial backing from evangelical ministries." Musri attended an Islamist event on the theme of "Balancing Civil Liberties and Security" with CAIR members and some of the most extremist Saudi funded Islamists - Zulfiqar Ali Shah of ICNA and MAS and now CEO of the Universal Heritage Foundation in Kissimmee. (1)

Hunter spoke at The Common Word conference sponsored by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal alongside Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator with Universal Heritage which gave $12 million to Hamas, the biggest fundraising for Hamas in US history.

A month after 9/11, Mattson described the terrorist Wahhabist ideology as “a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that they had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European Protestant Reformation."

In a September 2002 interview with PBS, Mattson stated that she did not see "any difference" between Christian leaders criticizing Islam or al Qaeda on the one hand, and Osama bin Laden citing "Islamic theology to justify violence against Americans" on the other. (2)

Also speaking there was Dr. Aref Ali Nayed. When the pope asked the 9/11 terrorists to convert to Christianity turning "Your way of love those whose hearts and minds are consumed with hatred" Nayed said that there were "genuine questions about the motives, intentions and plans of some of the Pope's advisers on Islam". (3)

Joel Hunter was even signatory on the Al-Sahafa article, alongside with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of Masjid al-Farah in New York City, supporting the “Arab Peace Initiative", agreed by Yasser Arafat, which called for the complete withdrawal from the Syrian Golan Heights. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (aka Ground Zero Mosque Imam) is the Muslim peace activist who said that the "United States’ policies were an accessory" to 9/11 because "we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."

Hunter spoke at The Common Word conference which was sponsored by the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.

On October 20, 2009, Rauf and his wife Daisy both received a pledge from Former Muslims United which stated, “we now pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to achieve for former Muslims their unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We claim these rights as the foundation for our right to freedom from Shariah. We urge you to join us.” Neither Rauf nor his wife signed it.

Pastor Joel Hunter never stops talking about peace but yet associates himself with haters of peace.

(1)http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/180
(2) http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/9950
(3)http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/04/pope-at-ground-zero-to-call-for-terrorists-to-convert-to-christianity.html

Remember Fort Hood!

Reclaiming America at Fort Hood. America had enough of diversity, liberalism, appeasement, and silence. Diversity starts with the truth.

The event will take place in November 21st 2010 at Killeen Texas at the Killeen Conference Center.
Speakers will be Walid Shoebat, with decorated war hero General William Boykin, Kamal Saleem, and Robert Spencer.
For tickets got to FFMU.ORG or call at 877-832-720

THE SS: SEX AND SOCIALISM

By Ted Shoebat


Flavored cough syrup for kids is not intended for dessert. The sweetness was intended to lure children to ingest a spoonful of this remedy for congestion. Neither is sex meant for dessert. Out of control sex can also be disastrous. You might think that I do not know what I am talking about, especially after I share a confession that I never have had sex. No. Never.

But why should this be a confession? Confessions are for the guilty.

Sex, like marriage, is between a husband and wife. You can make fun of me for choosing abstinence but I have seen some teens gone wild and miserable during my high school days. I have had no regrets about watching the condom go by during the so-called safe sex class. School teachers had no business trying to persuade me via hands-on training with condoms while they told girls about birth control abortion pills. If such teachers were so caring - the premise they use - why don't they encourage the invention of a pill to solve the problem with the soaring divorce rate?

Republican strategist, Mary Matalin, said that "When The Pill arrived, we second-wave feminists heralded it as a miracle. The Pill had way less to do with reproductive control than just control. Period. Health concerns were dismissed; progressive mothers [...] sent their girls off to college with The Pill." And "girls with their packages of portable liberation ushered in a generation of women determined to break free from their inferior patriarchal oppressors. And how did they manifest their superiority? Their freedom? Thanks to The Pill, by casual, drive-by sex."

Birth control is popular in America. A recent CBS poll shows that 59% of Americans believe the pill is better for women. The Center for Disease Control reported that 1 in 4 women choose permanent birth control. Feminist Letty Cottin Pogrebin says the pill "was an equalizer, a liberator".

Nancy Pelosi, acting as an expert on the economy, tells us that birth control is good for the economy. Real experts like Gary S. Becker give us an absolute that "Depressions are associated with decreasing population." He was referring to the effects of birth control by paraphrasing Adam Smith, a pioneer of political economy.

Philip Longman confirms that birth rate decline is "the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st. century." Robert J. Samuelson wrote in The Washington Post: "It's hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling." In America, our baby boomers are already crossing the threshold into retirement. As the old increase in number relative to the young, fewer workers will exist to drive the economy and fund Social Security and Medicare.

The latter may be taxed more heavily and in turn, work less and have even fewer children, causing a vicious circle. We will soon find out that the problem with our economic crises is ignoring another absolute necessity, that is, to "be fruitful and multiply." Birth control is simply another way of trying to alter the sacred concept of the family.

The main dilemma is still how can family be sustained when women want to become totally equal to men Especially since it was the woman that had to endure child labor? But still yet, how did we get to the position that we must control our population?

In history, we shall see the future. By studying the history of this whole issue we will fully understand everything.

Progressive women wanted to become totally equal to men, and began to conclude that if they could prevent child-birth, they could enter the work force as men do. In 1960, the pill, met their need.

Theresa Notare laments the use of the pill: "How are women (and men) healthier or happier because of The Pill? A thoughtful person should connect the dots. Young people routinely have multiple sexual partners before marriage, no doubt facilitated by The Pill, and the divorce rate still soars. The Pill does not prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, accordingly, the STD rate is epidemic."

But the whole thing behind population control is more "control" than it is population, freedom or liberty. If the left can change the minds of people on absolute gender roles, they can deconstruct the entire nation and rebuild it to their liking, for a nation is built upon the family.

It was socialists and feminists William Thompson and Anna Wheeler who advocated socialistic communities, challenged patriarchy, advocated contraception, collectivization of domestic labor, and influenced the trade union and cooperative movements. Communists like Friedrich Engels, who co-authored the Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx, wished to destroy marriage and the family. Engels saw women in patriarchal families as slaves. This "slavery" came from private property. Gender inequality's purpose was for capital gain. For women's liberation to be established, women must become wage laborers. Women becoming workers would make them class conscious and capable of forging a revolution to destroy capitalism.

Feminism even goes back to the Saint-Simonians who fought the "tyranny of marriage" by communal living and free love. The Saint-Simonian women refused to submit to their husbands. They taught that traditional wives were "slaves" and described their husbands as slave masters. One called for the decriminalization of adultery, another the establishment of no-fault divorce.

But to every explosion of socialist control agenda, there are methods for silencing dissidents not by scientific nuanced study of the issues but by making louder thunder. The subject of Feminism gets men scolded by the "I am woman, hear me roar!" crowd, and sticky labels are flung on foreheads with the dreaded "male chauvinist sexist pig".

Feminism is not American. It is foreign and has infiltrated us. "In Goddess We Trust" is not American apple pie. Feminism was in France before it was in America, thus why Jefferson was shocked: "(Few Americans) can possibly understand the desperate state which things are reduced in this country [France] from the omnipotence of an influence which, fortunately for the happiness of the sex itself, does not endeavor to extend itself in our country beyond the domestic line." (1) Darwinist Herbert Spencer wrote that as we evolve, "race-maintenance is achieved ... with a decreasing sacrifice of parental lives to the lives of offspring". (2)

After looking through this history, the left's mission is apparent; they wish to rewrite absolutes that are impossible to destroy, absolutes that were etched by the "In God We Trust" crowd. But I guess a 19 year old should be ridiculed for thinking like Jefferson, who would have never married a Feminist. People can contract Herpes from a kiss and it sticks around like luggage until death do they part. As for me, a church going girl is awaiting for me someday to tie the knot, and will not mind having a large family until death do us part. Until then, God Bless the family.

1 A history of English utilitarianism By Ernest Albee, Page 323, See ch. xiv, 96.*
2 As cited in Ellis, 1997, pp. 90-91*

CLICK HERE

Lack of Intellectualism Is Losing the Marriage Debate

Judge Vaughn Walker's legal ruling striking down California's Proposition 8 certainly was no triumph of intellectualism. But while it's easy to thus dismiss it, what's usually forgotten is that reasoning such as his flies only in a certain cultural milieu -- a milieu that, in part, has been shaped by conservatives. Let's examine the matter.

Walker's lack of intellectualism is profound. Among other things, he said that opposition to faux marriage was ultimately based on "moral disapproval." While this is a rhetorically compelling argument in an age where "morality" has become a dirty word, it is also nonsense. This is not because he is wrong in his understanding of marriage's more cerebral defenders; it is because he is wrong in his understanding of law. For the fact is that all credible legal proscriptions and prescriptions are a matter of "moral disapproval." Don't believe me? I'll explain.

A law is by definition the imposition of a value (and a valid law is the imposition of a moral principle). This is because a law states that there is something you must or must not do, ostensibly because the action is a moral imperative, is morally wrong, or is a corollary thereof. If this is not the case, with what credibility do you legislate in the given area? After all, why prohibit something if it doesn't prevent some wrong? Why force citizens to do something if it doesn't effect some good? You'll never see a powerful movement lobbying to criminalize chocolate ice cream or broccoli.

To provide a concrete example, what is the possible justification for speed laws? It isn't simply "me no like speedy." Rather, there is the idea that it is wrong to endanger others or yourself, and, in the latter case, it could be based on the idea that it's wrong to engage in reckless actions that could cause you to become a burden on society. Of course, some or all of these arguments may be valid or not, but the point is this: If a law is not underpinned by a valid moral principle, it is not a just law. Without morality, laws can be based on nothing but air.

This brings me to a problem with a certain conservative argument. We have heard many, while bristling at Walker's ruling, complain that "one judge has wiped away the votes of seven million people with the stroke of the pen." Like Judge Walker's "moral disapproval" nonsense, such talk certainly is rhetorically effective. And if it is used simply for the purposes of rhetoric, it may be fine. But the reality is that if the Proposition 8 vote had been swung a few percentage points the other way, the measure wouldn't have passed, and the left could be citing the will of the people to buttress its cause.

But right and wrong aren't determined by popular will. Nor should the latter have a bearing on judges' rulings, as they are supposed to be governed by the Constitution. Thus, the problem with Walker's ruling is not that it is anti-majoritarian; it's that it is unconstitutional and dumb.

Since the constitutional factor is obvious, let's delve into the dumb part. Harking back to the foundation of law, if "moral disapproval" is off the table, on what legitimate basis can we refuse to recognize any conception of "marriage"? If right and wrong cannot be a guide -- or if we live in a relativistic universe in which there is no wrong -- then how can you, with credibility, prohibit polygamy or Billy from marrying his billy goat?

So while many people today believe, in grand relativist fashion, that morality is some arbitrary thing, they have it exactly backwards. Morality is "The Rules," and, just as with a football referee who ignores his game's rules and makes calls based on what feels right, it is when you ignore The Rules that you become arbitrary. Your rationale, boiled down, is then nothing more than "me no likey," nothing more than might makes right. For, to state the obvious, the recognition of morality is the only thing that moors us to reality -- moral reality.

And this is where the 7,000,000-vote argument finds common ground with Judge Walker's judicial activism. Both perspectives ignore morality and reduce the debate to one of who will wield the might that makes right, of who will be that renegade football referee. It is either the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of a black-robed minority, and who advocates which depends on how each group lines up on a given issue.

(Note: This isn't to say that 7,000,000-vote-argument advocates aren't more morality-oriented than Judge Walker's set. After all, many conservatives would point out that they cite the majority only because it supported a constitutional and moral position. Nevertheless, when taken at face value, the majoritarian argument is not logically sound.)

So what should be the logical basis for an argument against faux marriage?

Simply that it doesn't exist.

And you cannot have a right to that which doesn't exist.

This is not slick-lawyer sleight-of-hand -- this is what exposes it. For this issue is about changing definitions, not changing rights. After all, like all people, those experiencing same-sex attraction have always had a right to marry and have done so since time immemorial. It's just that marriage was always understood -- correctly -- to be the union of a man and woman. Thus, whoever did get married tied the knot with a member of the opposite sex.

But when we accept that a same-sex union can be marriage -- a standard with no credible basis whatsoever in history (which renders the votes of the ultimate majority) or morality -- the discussion about rights naturally follows. After all, if such a union is marriage and people have a right to marry, how can they be denied recourse to it?

Speaking of majoritarian folly, this brings us to another way most of us have undermined ourselves. While many say the Walker set has redefined marriage, this is nonsense that gives non-thinkers too much credit. They have not redefined it.

They have undefined it.

That is to say, they do not steadfastly, unabashedly, and definitively say, "Marriage is the union between any two adults and nothing else, and here is the moral basis for this conclusion." No, they would then be drawing a line just like the traditionalists, wouldn't they? They would be guilty of the kind of "bigotry," "exclusiveness," and "narrowness" of which they accuse their opponents. Relativists can't have that, so they offer no definition. All they do is imply that the traditional definition is incorrect.
By Selwyn Duke


And this is another hole in the Walker set's argument. After all, while they scoff at the claim that legalizing faux marriage paves the way for polygamy and everything else, an "undefinition" excludes nothing. Sure, they can oppose such things, but only as the renegade football referee saying "me no likey."

The reality is that if they cannot definitively say what marriage is, how can they be sure they know what it is not? And this is why their criticism of traditionalists deserves no respect: If they cannot say what defines a "right" marriage, they cannot credibly say the traditional definition is the wrong one.

Yet they don't have to because, while they can reliably define nothing, we allow them to define the terms of the debate. Know this: Every time you use the term "gay marriage," "homosexual marriage," or even "traditional marriage" (the Lexicon of the Left), you undermine yourself. If one of the first two, it is because you are explicitly acknowledging an imaginary institution's existence. If the last one, you are implying it. For what is the other side of the coin of "traditional marriage"? And if the American psyche is imbued with the idea that "marriages" between same-sex individuals exist and that marriage is a right, well, you can forget the legal and political battles. If you lose the cultural one, everything else follows. It's just a matter of time.

This is why "conservatives" must stop being conservative and start being bold. They must start thinking outside the box. Otherwise, we may win some battles in courts and ballot boxes -- we may carry the approaching November day -- but we'll be sure to lose the war and the way.

Ann Coulter speaking at gay rally

I don't know how Ann Coulter can call herself a Christian, or a conservative, when she is going to be speaking at a gay rally called homocon. A supposed gay "conservative" event. For one thing, there's no such thing as a gay conservative. Its like saying I'm a capitalist socialist.

The New York Observer reported on this:

By David Freedlander
August 6, 2010 | 4:36 p.m

GOProud, a 14-month-old 527 organization dedicated to representing the viewpoints of gay conservatives, will be holding their first New York gala in September, and it will be hosted by Ann Coulter, the conservative commentator who has gotten into trouble in the past for anti-gay comments.

The event, called "HOMOCON 2010"--a reference to gay conservatives, according to the group's founder Jimmy LaSalvia--bills Coulter as "the right wing Judy Garland."

LaSalvia acknowledged her previous statments, but said, "But she is fun, she is smart, she is hilarious, provocative and insightful. And our folks love her."

He added, "You are not going to see us placating the uber-PC crowd. We can laugh and enjoy everybody."

LINK

THE WAR ON PROPOSITION 8

BY TED SHOEBAT

"There are no moral absolutes," the foolish told the wise.
"Are you absolutely sure?" replied the wise.

Marriage being only "between a man and a woman" is an absolute. It can never be between a man and a horse or a tree, or between the sun and the moon, a mare and a stallion, chicken and rooster or rooster with rooster.

But the attack on Proposition 8 has nothing to do with the left's love for homosexuals and everything to do with eroding the absolutes set in our Constitution. Altering the U.S Constitution is the only way for socialism to prevail in the U.S. Socialists like Elena Kagan plays with the First amendment, attacking that moral absolute and said to redefine it as depending "upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

These "societal costs", spell socialism and nothing more. History tells us that by altering "absolutes" the Left replaced individualism (which works) with collectivism (which doesn't).

Perhaps a little history can help us understand the likes of Kagan and Judge Vaughn Walker overturning Prop 8. Collectivism stems from positivism--founded by French philosopher Auguste Comte (19th century).

Positivism says that human experience is the supreme criterion of human knowledge, denies the existence of a personal God and takes humanity, "the great being", as the object of its veneration in order to elevate man over God. Comte's positivism was derived from Henri de Saint-Simon, a utopian ideologue who was the influence to none other then Karl Marx's socialism.

In his Essay on the Science of Man (1813) Saint-Simon explained that every field of knowledge moved successively from a conjectural to a "positive" stage, and that the sciences reached this stage in a definite order, Physiology had now moved into a positive stage, just as astrology, and alchemy had previously given way to astronomy and chemistry. Now the science of man must move towards the positive stage and completely reorganize all human institutions.1

Aguste Comte perpetuated the search for a science of society through a three-stage theory of progress, which he derived from Saint-Simon in 1822. Thus the idea that truth is not absolute but historical became popularized during the nineteenth-century and is realized not in "individual thought" but in "social action" collectively.

It was Saint-Simon's followers in the 1830s that first gave widespread use not only to the word "socialism," but also—"socialize," "socialization," and socializing the interments of labor. 2 Comte's influence by Saint-Simon explains why he rejected divine human rights: "Social positivism only accepts duties, for all and towards all...Any human right is therefore as absurd and immoral. Since there are no divine rights anymore, this concept must therefore disappear completely..." 3

Later, positivism would now submerge itself with the coming of Darwinian evolution. And since mankind evolves, morality must also evolve with it, and instead of all men are created equal we have Charles's Darwin's doctrine: "Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed...as in man."

It was evolutionist Herbert Spencer who first coined the phrase "Survival of the fittest" that intended to link darwinism and positivism together. Spencer believed that because human nature can improve and change, then, scientific‚ including moral and political views must change with it, that ethics "have to be considered as parts of the phenomena of life at large. We have to deal with man as a product of evolution, with society as a product of evolution, and with moral phenomena as products of evolution." 4

Thus, Spencer believed in the redefining of nations' constitutions: "All evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions. This is true of everything that lives."5

The final point in evolution according to Spencer was to see a progression to "perfect man in the perfect society." Positivism quickly sprung on its way to America, a land whose constitution is disdained and in need of an altercation. Under positivism, judges were to guide both the evolution of law and the Constitution. By these, the views of the Founding Fathers are hampering the progressing evolution of society.

But if darwinian evolution is a science as claimed, why does it always have to leap onto ethics and morality?

What we are dealing with is noting new. President Woodrow Wilson said that Evolution is "not theory, but fact" that "Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice." 6 Wilson even mocked individual rights: "a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual". 7

Using positivism is nothing new and like Kagan, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1902 argued extensively that decisions should not be based upon absolute laws but the "felt necessities of the time" and "prevalent moral and political theories" instead of natural law and its absolute standards. Holmes claimed that: "The justification of a law for us cannot be found in the fact that our fathers always have followed it. It must be found in some help which the law brings toward reaching a social end."

It is no longer by the people and for the people, but by the whims of appointed judges. Charles Evans Hughes, the Supreme Court Chief Justice from 1930 to 1941, held a similar view: "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." US District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker's followed suit and overturned Prop 8, by this negating the law in the name of the law. With a stroke of a pen one judge ruled over votes which men bled and died for. Thus is tyranny.

What Elena Kagan is saying reflects the philosophy of the Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall who considered the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as "defective" and unwise. Kagan and her ilk bring nothing new; there are no new tricks under the sun. Americans need to wake up. Believing in absolutes or denying them matters nothing to absolutes, since no matter what choices Americans make, they must still choose between an absolute truth and an absolute lie. We either choose ethics according to God or ethics according to man. We can choose failed Socialism or successful Capitalism.

We can choose Universalism or Nationalism. Even if we do not make a choice at all, we would still have made a choice not to make a choice. I made my choices; I say "No" to the United Nations and yes to the United States with its Constitution set by the founding fathers over all other constitutions.

Indeed, if history repeats itself, it does so only on the fools. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverbs 14:12)

Theodore Shoebat is the author of For God
Or For Tyranny

1 See: Fire in the minds of men: origins of the revolutionary faith by James H. Billington.
3 Comte, Le Catchisme positiviste (1852).*
4 Spencer, The Principles of Ethics, Part III: The Ethics of Individual Life, Ch. 1, Introductory.
5 Spencer, Social Statics, Part I, Ch. 2 : The Evanescence of Evil, § 1.*
6 John G. West, Darwin's Conservatives: The Misguided Quest (Seattle: Discovery Institute, 2006), pp. 61.
7 John G. West, Darwin's Conservatives: The Misguided Quest (Seattle: Discovery Institute, 2006), pp. 61.

America’s Untapped Resource

By Ben Barrack

Former head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat was caught on more than one occasion speaking peacefully in English while preaching hate in Arabic. As a former member of the PLO, Walid Shoebat insists that such tactics are part of the overall strategy to deceive the west. In Islam, says Shoebat, the standard is to use Muruna (stealth, flexibility), Taqiyya (Guarding the faith), and Kitman (Concealing the true intent); in plain English—lying.

Shoebat insists that westerners are not used to the concept of lying in order to further the agenda of a religion but that is what we are facing. He also states that the motives behind the ground zero mosque are not all that dissimilar from the motives behind the murder of seven CIA officials in Khost, Afghanistan last year—the difference is in approach only.

Since converting to Christianity in 1993, Shoebat has made it his life’s work to warn the west of the threats it faces from Islam. He is ready to help in any way he can but when his phone rings, it’s never the CIA, the FBI, or the DOD on the other end. Instead, it’s often another radio talk show host fascinated by his story and wanting him to share it with the audience.

On December 30th, 2009, at Camp Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi detonated a bomb that killed himself and seven high ranking CIA officials, including the base chief who had been tracking Osama bin Laden since 1997. Narrowly escaping death was the #2 CIA Chief in Afghanistan. A supposed informant with allegedly time sensitive intelligence about al Qaeda’s number #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Balawi was a actually a triple agent.

In the days after the bombing, a video of al-Balawi was released in which he was seen revealing his intentions in Arabic prior to the bombing.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Center for Disease Control Survey Reports that One in Four Women Choose Permanent Birth Control

Essure Leading the Way as the Non-Surgical Option for Women Whose Families are Complete

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Aug 03, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- According to the recently released 2006-08 National Survey of Family Growth by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), one in four women choose permanent birth control. Conceptus, Inc. (CPTS 13.85, +0.25, +1.84%) wants women to know that its Essure(R) permanent birth control procedure has been gaining in popularity, and is a safe and effective solution used by hundreds of thousands of women worldwide.

In the past, tubal ligation -- a surgery that requires cutting into the body, general anesthesia and a hospital stay -- was the only permanent birth control option available to women. Since 2002, the Essure permanent birth control procedure has been a solution to this invasive surgery, and many women have chosen Essure over tubal ligation. The Essure procedure can be performed in the comfort of a doctor's office in minutes; it does not require surgery, general anesthesia, scarring, burning, hormones or slowing down to recover.

Female permanent birth control is used by 16.7%, or 10.3 million women, and male sterilization (vasectomy) is used by the partners of 6.1%, or 3.7 million women.

CLICK HERE