By Regina Sztajer

When Adolf Hitler took over power in Germany in 1933, he wasn’t interested in the Jewish vote nor was Franklin D. Roosevelt when he became president of the United States in the same year. Hitler promised to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth in Europe, all eleven million of them, and the world cared little. The result was the death of 6 million Jews during WWII in Europe, thanks to the ravings of Hitler’s anti-Semitism. Roosevelt wasn’t concerned because he didn’t need the Jewish vote for his next election. The world during the Avian Conference said no Jews would be welcomed anywhere including the United States.
How sad that a people would be told you have no place to go anywhere in the world but to your graves. How sad winning an election is more important than the lives of a people and they would have to go to their graves. I don’t care what President Obama says because he is only interested in being re-elected. He will not stand up to Iran, and Israel in order to survive may have to blast their nuclear facilities to kingdom come with without Obama’s permission.
Israel is not a nation of sheep ready to be led to the slaughter and Obama has shown his dislike for the Jewish people. Nothing gets my blood pressure up like when I am talking to a liberal, who is a Jew, and says don’t be silly Obama will not let Israel be destroyed.
An ostrich hides it’s head in the sand so if they can’t see you then you can’t see them. Let the world beware because the Jews of Israel aren’t ostriches. What a nerve that Obama should even suggest we wait until after an election when the lives of millions are at stake.
Wake up to the fact that if Iran uses a nuclear device over Israel it will contaminate the entire Middle East for years to come. Not just Jews will die but Palestinians as well. So let the terrorists beware that radiation doesn’t observe borders. That mushroom cloud over tiny Israel is coming your way also. The land will be of no use to you if it’s contaminated.
If Obama gets up at a Jewish event and says I care about Israel, don’t turn your back on him. How can Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel trust Obama to tell the truth when he had said Israel should go back to the 1967 borders.

“Parents should be able to kill their newborn children. So have concluded a group of academics with ties to Oxford University. In a recent article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, the authors concluded that there is no difference between abortion and killing a newborn. They called the latter “after birth abortion.” The Telegraphs’ Stephen Adams reports:

“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual… Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.” Journal of Medical Ethics

http://pjmedia.com/blog/killing-newborns-okay-by-oxford-academics/?singlepage=true

“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk… The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.” Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, Australian “ethicists”

http://pjmedia.com/blog/sliding-down-the-slippery-slope-at-warp-speed/?singlepage=true

Yes. Perhaps this is being posted a bit late. However, the points are still valid. If you are going to be that condescending, perhaps you should be reminded that you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time online obsessively reading columns and articles of those you snidely dismiss as less accomplished than yourself.

It is said that the only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn anything from history. Following the attack on 9/11, the nation’s leaders as epitomized by the members of Congress joining on the steps of the Capitol in patriotic chorus vowed that they would be vigilant against the laxity of policy and perspective that left the door wide open allowing such a tragedy to transpire in the first place. However, in the decade since then, little has changed in the hearts of many that would prevent an occurrence of similar or greater magnitude from happening again in the future.

Under the auspices of the National Cathedral, an interfaith memorial was to be held in Washington, DC. Since the President and a number of representatives from a variety of religious perspectives were scheduled to speak at the service, the event was billed as and assumed to be one promoting an inclusive brand of diversity and spirituality.

It is estimated that nearly 20% hold to a theology or worldview classifiable as Evangelical in nature. Critics might respond that is only a small percentage of the population and as such the perspective should not be catered to with a proverbial seat on the dais.

If that is the case, then why should a number of other faiths have been included that did next to nothing in laying the foundation upon which this country was built or offer little in addressing the 9/11 attack. One could argue that, at least, Islam should have been allowed on stage to offer an apology for the entire awful mess.

The number of Hindus, Buddhists and Jains in this country no doubt come in at a percentage far below that of the Evangelical Right. A number of these Eastern faiths are emphasized over that of Evangelicalism because of the tendency of these creeds of the Orient to ignore the reality of the troubles plaguing mankind rather than addressing how to really resolve them as in traditional Christianity.

Leftwing religionists, such as those organizing the memorial service sponsored by the National Cathedral, despite clinging to the Christian name do not like to admit evil manifesting in human lives known as sin exists. Pantheism — the philosophical backbone of Hinduism — denies the objective reality of sin altogether.

Popular conceptions of Hinduism further down the chain of enlightenment consist of an infinite number of gods (though adherents of a multiplicity of deities still get as jacked out of shape as a monotheistic Jew if a family member comes to Christ as Lord and Savior). However, among elites, the multitude of divinities are not so much distinct personalities but rather representations of the singular unified reality known as “Brahman”.

In fact, according to the adherents of this outlook, we ourselves are not really independent consciences distinct from the comprehensive totality (“Atman is Brahman”). What we perceive as the self is merely an illusion. This is summarized by the teaching of “maya”.

Thus, instead of grappling with the overwhelming horror of sin on such a grand scale as an objective reality such as 9/11, the Eastern perspective just glosses it all over by insisting that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon never really happened in the ultimate sense. And if by some small chance that it really did, such an act at its core couldn’t possibly be evil at its most profound depth. One of the beauties the pantheist insists upon in the All Is One mentality of philosophical monism is that at such a level everything is beyond the limited concepts of good and evil.

One religion invited to the interfaith prayer service is so obscure that it is a safe wager that the majority of Americans have likely never heard of it and even fewer understand it. It was in all likelihood selected as it represents the kind of religion Episcopalian elites would like to impose upon the masses in the future.

As a system of belief, there is very little that Jainism can provide to defend a civilization against the onslaught of terrorism. It does posses a number of tenets that are the equivalent of where liberalism ends up if followed to its logical conclusions.

For example, Jainism does not believe in a personal God as found in the monotheistic traditions. Rather, what is thought of as the ultimate has more in common with a form energy. When considering Jainism, one is reminded of Yoda in “The Empire Strikes Back” when he describes the Force of that series as “surrounds us. binds us.”

As such, a ratiocinative consciousness cannot be seen as the characteristic separating the higher order lifeforms more worthy of additional ethical concern and reflection. Since this characteristic is not possessed by what Paul Tillich would categorize as the ultimate concern of this creed now under consideration, those life forms possessing it are no more superior or much higher along the chain of being than those that do not.

The way this principle manifests itself is reminiscent of how things would operate if PETA had its way. Jainists are fanatic vegetarians. Not only do they refuse to eat meat, but they also sweep the ground in front of them so as to not inadvertently step on any bugs.

Jains also wear a cloth over their mouths and also abstain from certain vegetables so as to avoid inflicting undue harm on microorganisms. In other words, during the outbreak of a killer epidemic, if they want to remain philosophically consistent, they would have to remain no more in favor of the triumph of man over germ than germ over man in such a biological survival of the fittest.

Certain schools of Eastern thought construed through a Western New Age mindset hold that we create our own reality, largely through how we conceptualize the world around us. This has to be the reason to justify how the Obama administration decided to commemorate the anniversary of September 11th.

To fully appreciate what happened that tragic day, one cannot avoid who it was and what motivated these scumbags to carry out an act of such evil that the average person cannot fully grasp the magnitude of the deed’s animus. By emphasizing this act of Islamist terror, the nation would be reminded that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and that there exists those in the world whose highest goal is the destruction of that with which we have been blessed.

Instead, the Obama administration issued directives that the specifics of the attack were to be downplayed (as if the Twin Towers simply collapsed and a large gaping whole split the Pentagon all on their own). Instead, government officials and spokesmen were to present a “positive forward looking narrative” emphasizing trivialities such as community service.

However, some things that happen aren’t positive. To be historically accurate, one cannot deny or sweep under the rug that several thousand Americans died that day and who it was that killed them.

Religion and/or spirituality is one of the most important pillars embraced by an individual influencing how they will cope with what transpires in the world around them. And though the state should have virtually no say in determining what path one ultimately decides upon for oneself, it has to be admitted that some creeds optimize .

by Frederick Meekins

By Brujo Blanco

More than a few years ago I gained a great deal of experience conducting investigations of sex crimes. The victims that are particularly vulnerable are the very young. They can be victimized over and over again before anything happens to their assailant. Young victims out of fear or shame will not render a complaint. Perhaps they will not render a complaint because they are not in control of the situation. In some cases if they do their complaints fall on deaf ears. This is not because of the authorities it is because most children make their initial complaint to an adult that they trust outside the system such as a teacher or a relative. In a good number of cases the young victim tires of being mistreated and does something about it.

Child molesters can be skilled at the wrongs that they commit. They have a skill at setting up their young victims. A good number of these predators become friendly with the single parent or parents of their target. They create a strong element of trust with these parent(s) so that they can do sexual things with their targets. When they are abusing the children they may use play, fear, or even gifts to have their way with children. In a child molesters mind they are not doing anything wrong. One common comment they make is, “I would never harm a child.” When I would hear this coming out of their mouths it made no sense. Of course they would not harm a child because they already have. I also noted that many of the perverts that I had contact with were arrogant and argumentative.

There is an element of denial with the people around these animals such as their friends, spouse, and people they do business with. Sometimes even in the face of absolute proof that the suspect is a predatory sex offender who assaults children they will not believe it and they will continue to associate with the pervert.

There was a story in the Baltimore City Paper regarding one such suspect who has allegedly evaded the finality of the courts by claiming to be mentally ill. (Seen link below Keeping Secrets). At least that is what his attorney alleges. One curious thing about this article is that one of the alleged victims has made entries in the blog regarding this situation.

Let us consider the aspect of denial. There is kind of a rule in interrogations to the effect, “If the subject does not answer the question then the subject has answered the question.” If a mother asks her child if he was the one that took the cookies out of the cookie jar when she was not looking a non-deceptive answer would be the word “no.” If the child says something to the effect, “Why are you asking me? When something happens why do you ask me and not my brother or sister?” The subject in this case has not answered the question about the cookies and he has not lied. Those who make lying denials in many cases have a tendency to want to infuse as much truth in their denials as they possibly can. In the Baltimore case the suspect has apparently not yet denied molesting his alleged victims. In other words it appears as though he has not stated that he did not do it. I hold back on any speculation when a suspect invokes his right to be silent and simply says nothing. If he invokes this is not an indication of guilt or innocence.

I recall questioning a young molester who had several victims. I had occasion to question him about two of his victims. During the interrogation he of course stated that he did not do it. I confronted him with the fact that in another situation he had confessed to molesting a little girl. He then told me that he did confess but he had a reason for having sex with her. His reason was that it was the 8-year old girl’s fault because she enticed him. This comment did not help him at trial.

Organized child molesters and their supporters in the American Psychological Association (APA) are contenting that children should be allowed by law to consent to having sex with an adult. It is claimed by some mental health professionals that if the child consents to the sex it is possible that there is no damage done to the child. This is another example of people who are educated beyond their own intelligence. As far as I am concerned child does not have the mental capacity to consent to walking across the street much less having a sexual experience with an adult. We need to leave the law as it is and that is a child cannot consent. If there is a sex act between a child and an adult it is an act of force in and of itself because of the child’s age. There is another link representative of certain groups that wish to legalize adult/child sexual relations. Some like to minimize this type of sexual activity with terms such as “inter-generational sex.” Maybe they believe it sounds better if we do not use terms such as pervert or child molester.

One thing that I would like to add in and that is some molesters have several hundred sexual contacts with children before they are caught once.

The suspect in this case was found incompetent to stand trial which in crass terms means he is too goofy to be tried. This is based on the premise that he either does not understand what he did and he cannot assist in his own defense. I always have questions about this and in this particular case the suspect is up and moving around. He is not locked up. If one commits a murder or a rape can this be done by any sane person. Perhaps we need a change in the legal system wherein a person can be found guilty and insane. There are some people who are truly nuts and should be in an institution. Pedophiles in particular are suffering from an incurable pathology and should always be in line for being either in jail or an institution.

If you have an interest in this case read the link below. It is enlightening. I do not assume that this man is guilty until a judge says so. I recommend it be read with objectivity. We must assume that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The problem with untimely (late) reports of any sex crime is that the proof is hindered regarding innocence and/or guilt.

by Anthony Watts

Who Are You Going To Believe – The Government Climate Scientists or The Data?

By Dr David M.W. Evans

We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message – here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.
What the Government Climate Scientists Say

Figure 1: The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 3 = 3.3°C.i

The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.ii

Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models.iii The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.

The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.
What the Skeptics Say

image

Figure 2: The skeptic’s view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 ? 0.6°C.iv

The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.

The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half.v The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.

There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable— it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.
What the Data Says

The climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2even while they got more detailed with more computer power.

* How well have the climate models predicted the temperature?
* Does the data better support the climate models or the skeptic’s view?

Air Temperatures

One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the “father of global warming”:
(more…)

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
(more…)

By Brujo Blanco

It is becoming more and more apparent that either Obama is out of touch with reality or he is not and he wants to destroy us. Reading the article one should gain insight into this man’s way of thinking or the lack thereof. His idea is that if you cannot afford to buy gas then buy a car that gets 55 miles per hour. Now of course the real problem is that these cars are not, according to the all knowing Obama, will not be available until 2025. Just think of it only a few years from now. This man has no idea what it means to maintain a personal budget in that he has been taken care of by others his entire life. The problem with this renewable energy mantra that if it is possible we have to deal with the situation now. Today or tomorrow we will need gas to go to work or to do our work to get our money. Those tht want renewable sources of energy seem to have this idea that it can be done overnight. They believe also that it will happen because they say so. It is apparent to me that Obama is well on his way to destroying the middle class. This country is on the verge of having either very rich people or very poor people and nothing in between. I call this communism. John Adams once said something to the effect that a nation can be destroyed by war or debt. Think about it. If Obama had any genuine concern for the people of this country he would allow drilling to take place. Good luck with that concept.

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama says vehicle fuel economy standards set under his administration and better cars built by a resurgent U.S. auto industry will save money at the gas pump over the long term, a counterpoint to Republican criticism of his energy policy.

In his weekly radio and online address Saturday, Obama said Detroit automakers are on track to build cars that average nearly 55 miles per gallon by 2025, doubling current mileage standards.

“That means folks will be able to fill up every two weeks instead of every week, saving the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump over time,” he said. “That’s a big deal, especially as families are yet again feeling the pinch from rising gas prices.”

During the past several weeks, Obama has been eager to appear aggressive in the face of rising gasoline prices even as he reminds audiences that there is no simple, immediate solution that will reverse the current spike in prices.

“What’s happening in Detroit will make a difference. But it won’t solve everything,” Obama said. “There’s no silver bullet for avoiding spikes in gas prices every year.”

By drawing attention to the auto industry, Obama looked to highlight both his efforts to improve fuel efficiency as well as his role in helping rescue General Motors and Chrysler. He also reiterated his call to end oil and gas company tax breaks and government subsidies that average about $4 billion a year.

Rising oil prices have become a concern at the White House, where Obama aides worry they could hurt an economic recovery that has been improving and also harm the president’s re-election prospects.

Oil prices typical rise in the spring, but they have spiked to heights unseen at this this time of year, hastened by increased tensions over Iran’s nuclear program. Gasoline prices reached $3.74 a gallon on Friday, a record at this point in the calendar but still shy of the high point of $4.11 hit in July 2008.

In Saturday’s Republican address, Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington said a meeting this week among Obama and House and Senate leaders from both parties “provided a glimmer of new hope that the president and the Democratic-controlled Senate may finally act on some bipartisan energy bills” already passed by the Republican-controlled House.

Still, Hastings, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, faulted Obama for not doing more to increase domestic oil and gas production, for opposing drilling on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for blocking a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline and for imposing regulations on energy producers.

“The president, who campaigned on a promise to address rising gas prices, now talks as if they’re largely beyond his control,” Hastings said.

Obama: Gas prices too high? Buy a new car!,

Rick Moran

“Muzzling” might not be the correct term. But they are certainly micro-managing access to government scientists by the press.

BBC:

The allegation of “muzzling” came up at a session of the AAAS meeting to discuss the impact of a media protocol introduced by the Conservative government shortly after it was elected in 2008.

The protocol requires that all interview requests for scientists employed by the government must first be cleared by officials. A decision as to whether to allow the interview can take several days, which can prevent government scientists commenting on breaking news stories.

Sources say that requests are often refused and when interviews are granted, government media relations officials can and do ask for written questions to be submitted in advance and elect to sit in on the interview.

[...]

The most notorious case is of that of Dr Kristi Miller, who is head of molecular genetics for the Department for Fisheries and Oceans. Dr Miller had been investigating why salmon populations in western Canada were declining.

The investigation, which was published in one of the leading scientific journals in the world, Science, seemed to suggest that fish might have been exposed to a virus associated with cancer.

The suggestion raised many questions, including whether the virus might have been imported by the local aquaculture industry.

The journal felt this to be an important study and put out a press release, which it sent out to thousands of journalists across the world. Dr Miller was named as the principal contact.

However, the government declined all requests to interview Dr Miller. It said it was because she was due to give evidence to a judicial inquiry on the issue of falling fish stocks.

If the testimony was so important, why allow the scientist to publish in an important journal in the first place? The government may have a case, but the cat was already out of the bag on falling fish stocks and it seems a little ridiculous that they forbade the scientist from being interviewed about her paper.

This goes to the heart of the politicization of science in both Canada and the US. All scientific findings by taxpayer supported scientists should be published and discussed in the press. Let the people draw their own conclusions – if conclusions are to be drawn – about global warming, causes of environmental degradation, and the like. Using science to advance a political agenda – be it the conservatives in Canada or liberals in the US – does a tremendous disservice to both science and the public.
(more…)

by Tina Korbe

The Department of Health and Human Services has states spooked. At least, legislators in Kansas cited the administration’s contraception mandate as a reason to expedite passage of a bill to protect religious freedoms:

Supporters of a proposal in Kansas that’s described as an attempt to protect religious freedoms told state legislators Tuesday that President Obama’s ill-fated mandate for insurance coverage of birth control is a compelling example of why the measure is needed. …

The state House Judiciary Committee had a hearing on the proposed Preservation of Religious Freedom Act and is expected to vote on it by Monday. State Rep. Lance Kinzer, a Republican who is committee chairman, contends the measure simply writes into state law language from past Kansas court decisions for determining when government policies place too much of a burden on practicing religion. …

The bill would declare that state- and local-government policies shall not “substantially burden” people’s right to exercise their religious beliefs without showing a compelling interest and imposing the burden in the least restrictive way possible. It also would declare that people have the right to sue state and local government agencies if they feel their religious freedoms have been abridged.

Liberal activists in the state are not happy about this statute — but not because they support the president’s mandate (although they probably do). No, they’re worried that the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act will be used to nullify local and state laws to prevent bias — not just discrimination, but bias — against gays. The bill specifically says that the prevention of discriminatory practices — as outlined by Kansas state law and the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions — is a compelling interest for which the state might burden the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about local anti-bias ordinances that seek to make up for the fact that Kansas state law does nothing to prevent discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

The response of these gay activists is instructive. It’s a further indication that some gay advocates think the free exercise of religion — when it reveals a bias against gay behavior — should itself be construed as discrimination. It underscores that an overlap exists between the purported rights of gays to marry and the long-acknowledged, constitutionally-enshrined right to religious freedom. Someday, for example, might the state not compel churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies or compel landlords to rent to gay couples even if they’re religiously opposed to gay behavior? I know a landlord who won’t rent to cohabiting couples because she’s religiously opposed. Should she not have the right to rent her property to whomever she wishes? The battle for state-recognized same-sex marriage is thorny precisely because of the way in which it eventually touches on religious freedom.

Incidentally, this Kansas statute sounds a little like the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed the House of Representatives unanimously, passed the Senate by a vote of 97-3 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. That statute says the federal government may “substantially burden” a person’s “exercise of religion” only if it “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering” that interest. The existence of the federal law doesn’t obviate the need for similar laws at a state level, but it is worth noting in this post that the federal law exists — and the HHS contraception mandate is in clear violation of it.

By Regina Sztajer

When I heard Mitt Romney make a speech to a very conservative audience saying over and over again that he was a conservative, a very serious conservative I winced. Whenever you must be that desperate you can,t possibly be sincere.

That is what,s wrong with Romney he doubts himself. He may mess his
Perfectly groomed hair a bit but he can,t change who he isn,t. You should debate your rivals to prove your the better candidate not to seek to destroy them with money.

He has lost the respect of the conservative base playing dirty. Why did he and Rick Santorum drop out of a debate leaving Newt Gingrich holding the bag because Gingrich would wipe the floor up with them in a debate, COWARDS!

The only true conservative that can defeat Barack Obama is Gingrich because he has the guts and know how to drown him out. He has his two daughters working for him and I predict he will rise up again and make saps out of the rest.

For obvious and justifiable reasons, a number of Evangelical leaders often cast a suspicious gaze at Mormon figures in American public life. After all, though the two systems of belief share a similar vocabulary at certain points and often both hold to traditionalist assumptions regarding social morality, these perspectives differ considerably regarding the nature of God as well as the origins and destiny of man.

However, the least that the orthodox Christian commenting on public affairs ought to do is to try and maintain some kind of consistent policy towards those advocating what could be considered a doctrinally questionable religious viewpoint. It seems that instead of basing such characterizations solely upon the beliefs such voices claim must take precedence above all other considerations, such analysis is often skewered in favor of those most likely to ensure that the particular pundit in question can retain a position as the water carrier of the entrenched political establishment.

For example, in his 9/16/11 commentary transcript, Cal Thomas mentions Rick Perry presenting his testimony before an audience at Liberty University. Thomas closes his brief analysis by concluding Perry’s testimony isn’t all that important beyond its existential value as it is more important how one’s faith works itself out in a President’s policies. Thomas astutely observers that believers have had the wool pulled over our eyes numerous times in terms of politicians saying one thing and doing another.

Thomas concludes, “But if Mitt Romney, a Mormon turns out to be better to defeat the President and advance policies with which most Evangelicals agree, then he should be the one the President’s opponents get behind.”

From the standpoint of an objective political calculation, Thomas is correct. However, since the publication of “Blinded By Might: Why The Religious Right Can’t Save America” in which he and co-author Ed Dobson heaped criticism upon the Religious Right by exposing the shortcomings of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority (an organization both men saw from the inside), Thomas has gone out of his way to downplay the role conservative Christians ought to play in politics.

Since Thomas’s coauthor went from a standpoint of being apolitical to losing his marbles by taking on the less than kept grooming habits of an Old Testament prophet insisting that the Scriptures insist that the only properly cast ballot had to be for Barack Obama, you’d think Thomas might have realized he might have been duped into castigating conservative Christians into a state of hyperpious quietism. However, it seems Thomas continues advocating this perspective selectively whenever he thinks doing so might win him a few scraps of dwindling recognition from media and Republican elites.

For whereas we are suppose to gleefully march behind Romney (Thomas no doubt in part so he can ask the former Massachusetts governor who does the candidate’s cranial dye job), his tone regarding Glenn Beck, another prominent Mormon, is markedly different.

In the transcript of the 4/11/11 Cal Thomas commentary, the columnist warns, “Beck is not only a Mormon, he frequently drifts into universalism.” Writing in particular to the news of Beck’s ouster from Fox News, Thomas muses, “They come and they go in this business…and eventually flame out..Put not your trust in princes and kings. That goes for show hosts, too.”

This from the very same media figure that just a few paragraphs back was getting all aboard the Romney express.

Evangelicals do need to be cautious regarding Mormon theology. For example, in his book “The Real America: Early Writings From The Heart & Heartland”, Beck said a number of things that would make a true believer’s hair stand on with goosebumps had it come from the lips of anyone else.

In one passage, Beck said that he thought the Trinity, the idea that the Godhead is composed of the three distinct personages of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, was laughable and that there was no such thing as Hell.

Which brings us to another point. It is interesting how Beck can ridicule the most profound belied and mystery of the greatest number of Christians in the world (that being those that grant assent to the ecumenical creeds such as the Nicene) but the entire Republican Party stands ready to burn at the stake a single pastor that dared enunciate as to why he would not be endorsing Mitt Romney for the nomination.

What the pastor said was technically correct. If Americans inclined themselves a bit more towards religious reflection, they would know that the word “cult” does not necessarily denote a sect that ultimately meets with a violent end as a result of authoritarian leadership as in the cases of Johnstown, Heaven’s Gate, and the Branch Davidians.

A cult can be any group that splits off from one of the larger world religions and is distinct from the parental creed it has separated itself from by either renouncing the more orthodox formulations of a doctrine or by promulgating a new dogma or revelation that the more orthodox adherents of the larger faith cannot embrace in good conscience.

For example, Mormonism holds that God was once a man not all that different than the rest of us who worked his way up to that status and that we too can also one day become deities over our own little planets as well. Traditional Christianity holds to the idea, that Beck snidely derided, that God exists externally from everlasting to everlasting in the form of three distinct unified persons. God is complete in Himself and does not grow or learn over time as claimed by the Later Day Saints.

The prominence played by Mormonism in the 2012 election cycle has presented American Christians in general and Evangelicals in particular with a unique set of challenges. On the one hand, believers are obligated by Scripture to speak in a firm but loving manner in defense of their own beliefs while pointing out distinctively where that faith is incompatible with Mormonism. And on the other, in a constitutional republic recognizing the freedom of religion we each posses as individuals created in the image of God, Mormon citizens have every right to engage in the same forms of civic participation that all Americans enjoy and sense a profound duty towards.

by Frederick Meekins

by Raymond Ibrahim

The beginning of the New Year saw only an increase in the oppression of Christians under Islam, from Nigeria, where an all-out jihad has been declared in an effort to eradicate the Muslim north of all Christians, to Europe, where Muslim converts to Christianity are still hounded and attacked as apostates. According to the Chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, “The flight of Christians out of the region is unprecedented and it’s increasing year by year”; in our life time alone, he predicts “Christians might disappear altogether from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt.”

An international report found that Muslim nations make up nine out of the top ten countries where Christians face the “most severe” persecution. In response to these findings, a Vatican spokesman said that “Among the most serious concerns, the increase in Islamic extremism merits special attention. Persons and organizations dedicated to extremist Islamic ideology perpetrate terrible acts of violence in many places throughout the world: the Boko Haram sect in Nigeria is but one example. Then there is the climate of insecurity that unfortunately in some countries accompanies the so-called “Arab spring”—a climate that drives many Christians to flee and even to emigrate.”

Categorized by theme, January’s batch of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is not limited to) the following accounts, listed in alphabetical order by country, not severity of anecdote.

APOSTASY

Iran: A Christian convert who was arrested in her home has been sentenced to two years in prison. Previously she endured five months of uncertainty detained in the notorious Evin prison, where the government hoped she would come to her senses and renounce Christianity. She was convicted of “broad anti-Islamic propaganda, deceiving citizens by formation of what is called a house church, insulting sacred figures and action against national security.” Likewise, Iranian Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani continues to suffer in prison. Most recently, he rejected an offer to be released if he publicly acknowledged Islam’s prophet Muhammad as “a messenger sent by God,” which would amount to rejecting Christianity, as Muhammad/Koran reject it.

Kenya: Muslim apostates seeking refuge in Kenya are being tracked and attacked by Muslims from their countries of origin: An Ethiopian who, upon converting to Christianity, was shot by his father, kidnapped and almost killed, is now receiving threatening text messages. Likewise, a Ugandan convert to Christianity is in hiding, his movements severely restricted since “the Muslims are looking to kill me. I need protection and help.”

Kuwait: A royal prince who openly declared that he has converted to Christianity, confirmed the reality that he now might be targeted for killing as an apostate.

Norway: While out for a walk, two Iranian converts to Christianity were stabbed with knives by masked men shouting “infidels!” One of the men stabbed had converted in Iran, was threatened there, and immigrated to Norway, thinking he could escape persecution there.

Somalia: A female convert to Christianity was paraded before a cheering crowd and publicly flogged as punishment for embracing a “foreign religion.” Imprisoned since November, “the public whipping was meant to mark her release.” She received 40 lashes as hundreds of Muslim spectators jeered. An eyewitness said: “I saw her faint. I thought she had died, but soon she regained consciousness and her family took her away.” Likewise, “Somali Islamists arrested a Muslim father after two of his children converted to Christianity” and fled. He is accused of “failing to raise his sons as good Muslims, because “good Muslims cannot convert to Christianity.”

Zanzibar: After being robbed, a Muslim convert to Christianity called police to his house; they discovered a Bible during their inspection. The course of inquiry immediately changed from searching for the thieves to asking why he “was practicing a forbidden faith.” He was imprisoned for eight months without trial, and, since being released, has been rejected by his family and is now homeless and diseased.

CHURCH ATTACKS

Azerbaijan: A pastor has been threatened with criminal proceedings following a raid on his church during Sunday service. Earlier, he was told that “a criminal case had been launched over religious literature arousing incitement over other faiths,” and was pressured by authorities to leave the area, which he did, traveling great distances each week to lead church services.

Egypt: Before a bishop was going to inaugurate the incomplete Abu Makka church and celebrate the Epiphany mass, a large number of Salafis and Muslim Brotherhood members entered the building, asserting that the church had no license and so no one should pray in it. One Muslim remarked that the building would be suitable for a mosque and a hospital.

Indonesia: A sticker on the back of the car of a member of the beleaguered Yasmin church saying “We need a friendly Islam, not an angry Islam,” distributed by the family of the late Muslim president, prompted another Islamic attack on the church: scores of Muslims “terrorized the congregation and attacked several church members.” Since 2008, the congregation has been forced to hold Sunday services on the sidewalk outside the church and then later in the home of parishioners. Not satisfied, hundreds of Muslims later searched and found the private home where members were congregating and holding service and prevented them from worshiping there as well: “It crosses the line now. The protesters now come to the residential area, which is not a public place.” A new report notes that anti-Christian attacks have nearly doubled in the last year.
(more…)

By Regina Sztajer

Mitt Romney seemed to have a problem with the word the poor. He doesn,t seem to be especially compassionate and has fumbled around trying to get his real feelings out. The Republicans and Democrats must make an effort to embrace compassion.

The Republicans in general in order to be successful must be concerned with the growing gulf between the haves and have -nots. Mitt Romney doesn,t seem to understand greed is not being addressed and compassion isn,t his top priority.
Greed only divides us! While compassion unites Americans.

Conservative anger should be tied only at government policies that perpetuate poverty. They aren’t directing their anger at the poor and disadvantaged as claimed by Democrats. Rather Republicans concerned about poverty set up programs to help them find employment and while short term aid may be essential it,s important to provide education in order to get the poor off government life support.

People are angry because we don,t try to solve our problems and are $ 15 trillion in debt. We are dependent on foreign oil. In order to be successful our prejudices must be put aside and the government has to become efficient and accountable.

People who don,t work hard compared to those who do everything right seem to get special breaks and it can be discouraging. Good work habit should always be rewarded.
Compassion isn,t rewarding generation after generation on public assistance. Telling the poor they aren,t smart enough to pull themselves up or to make their own decisions is in-American.

Remember Americans are CanDo, pick yourselves up and battle your way to success.

By Brujo Blanco

It is curious that when illegals come to this country the politically correct and other commies feel there is this responsibility on those who are here in our country legally to support them. These people are here but they are not really part of this country. They do not pay taxes. Keep this in mind that they do not pay taxes.

The IRS is allowing these illegals to obtain a taxpayer identification number which appears to be a social security card. This allows them to file for tax credits. Based on this they may be provided with up to $1800.00.

There are Republicans who are proposing legislation that when one applies for such tax credits that one must prove that one is here legally.

There are those that comment that they want these illegals to have a way of obtaining citizenship. They believe that this will turn them into taxpayers and everything will be all right. If the illegals are working and being paid cash and not paying taxes why would they want to change just because they have attained citizenship? As it stands now they do not pay taxes and they are provided with free healthcare. In fact under Obamacare there are certain groups exempted from paying into this new healthcare system and these are some of them: Muslims, Amish, and illegals. Therefore if an illegal changes to a legal they can still maintain their status financially with the only difference being they have lowered their prospects of being deported because some amnesty program rendered them legal residents.

From what I can glean if one gets caught entering the country illegally one is taken into custody and eventually deported. If one succeeds at evading the border enforcement officials then one can stay in this country. I suspect that that is what they want. Once they are in this country if they are stopped by the cops for speeding or some other criminal act the cops will not be allowed to check their status in this country or their country of origin.

There is a solution to this problem and I call it expedited deportation. If it can be established that someone entered our country illegally then they are deported. If they admit they are illegals they run them through a court expeditiously and send them home. We cannot afford to take care of ourselves thanks to Obama and crew. How can we be expected to take care of others?

The illegals and other entitled groups receiving government funds and benefits without paying into the system can end up being the death of our country as we know it. Once the entitlement groups have a voting majority they likely will vote to provide more funds to themselves from government coffers. What if the government defaults on supporting them because the government runs out of money? Let us consider the violence taking place in Greece. The government cannot pay so now they have to fight their own citizens in the street. To the Greeks in general they believe that they are entitled and that government is holding back on payments.

You must understand to these entitled groups in the USA and the world government has money. If government does not provide money they are simply holding back. They will not want to even consider that government can run out of money. These people believe that government payouts are a right.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/08/republicans-target-child-tax-break-for-illegal-immigrants/

from Powerline

Hard on the story noted here the other day of new doubts about catastrophic global warming from the scientific mainstream comes the news from Britain’s MET office, which is one of the primary nodes of the global warming establishment, that global temperatures have now been essentially flat for the last 15 years. The UK Daily Mail’s story notes:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. . .

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

The problem for the warmenists is growing, as the actual temperature trend is starting to undershoot even the low end bound of most of the climate models. A few years of flat temperatures could be written off to the chaotic noise of random year-to-year variation, but after two decades (1980-1998) of a more or less steady rise of nearly 0.4 degrees C that seemed to validate the models and the projections, it looks like the warmist case is falling apart rather quickly.

Keep your eyes out to see whether this news is reported anywhere in the American media.

t
Posted by Jim Hoft

Last week Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan lashed out at the Obama Administration for forcing religious organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. The rule would force Christian organizations to provide free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion drugs to workers even though this violates Catholic Church teaching. The new rules are so strict that most Catholic institutions will not qualify for an exemption.

(The Echo)

Even Pope Benedict warned of the “grave threat” to religious freedom in United States before the Obama Administration approved the new rules.

Today Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bill to protect religious groups from Barack Obama’s HHS mandate that forces Christian organizations to provide abortion drugs, contraceptives and sterilization. The legislation pushed by Obama is clearly an assault on the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The NC Register reported:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 today, marking the GOP’s first legislative response to the Obama administration’s regulation requiring coverage of contraception and sterilization for all private employer health plans.

The bill is designed to repeal the narrow religious exemption included in the federal rule. Approved on Jan. 20, it has since been denounced by Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and more than 100 bishops throughout the nation.

In a statement released Jan. 31 marking his sponsorship of the legislation, the freshman senator described the contraception mandate issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as a violation of “the conscience rights and religious liberties of our people.”

“Under this president, we have a government that has grown too big, too costly and now even more overbearing by forcing religious entities to abandon their beliefs. This is a commonsense bill that simply says the government can’t force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith because the government says so,” Rubio said.

Richard Doerflinger, the associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the USCCB, said that the conference was still “studying” the new bill.

“We first saw the bill introduced by Senator Rubio today,” said Doerflinger, the USCCB’s chief lobbyist on life issues. “Our present focus regarding the HHS ‘preventive services’ mandate is the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179, S. 1467), which has over 135 co-sponsors in Congress [including Rubio] and would ensure that no coverage mandate in the new health-care reform act is used to violate conscience.”

“The Rubio bill relates only to religious objections to contraception and sterilization, and so would not address other problematic mandates issued under this act or any objection based solely on moral grounds. At present, our efforts to advance the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act are continuing and growing,” said Doerflinger.

by Ed Morrissey

The hearing today on Operation Fast and Furious by the House Oversight Committee produced a curious moment during a confrontation between its chair, Rep. Darrell Issa, and Attorney General Eric Holder, caught by The Right Scoop. Issa asks when Holder will start holding his team accountable for the mistakes made during Operation Fast and Furious, especially since the wiretap applications involved in the operation appear to show that Assistant AG Lanny Breuer and other high-ranking officials in the DoJ and ATF had knowledge of the gunwalking techniques employed. Will any action on accountability from Holder come after the Inspector General report on OF&F, Issa asks, “because you haven’t done any so far, as far as we can tell.”

Holder responds that he’s prepared to hold people in his organization accountable right now … for whistleblowing on the wiretap applications:

Er, really? The ATF sent thousands of high-powered weapons across the border into the hands of the cartel, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds, including a US Border Patrol agent, and Holder is ready to act right now against the people informing Congress of what actually took place in Holder’s organization? Well, it is accountability of a sort, I suppose, but it’s more useful as a peek into Holder’s priorities.

Speaking of priorities, it looks like whistleblowing trumps bribery, too:

A U.S. Justice Department source has told The Daily Caller that at least two DOJ prosecutors accepted cash bribes from allegedly corrupt finance executives who were indicted under court seal within the past 13 months, but never arrested or prosecuted.

The sitting governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, his attorney general and an unspecified number of Virgin Islands legislators also accepted bribes, the source said, adding that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is aware prosecutors and elected officials were bribed and otherwise compromised, but has not held anyone accountable.

The bribed officials, an attorney with knowledge of the investigation told TheDC, remain on the taxpayers’ payroll at the Justice Department without any accountability. The DOJ source said Holder does not want to admit public officials accepted bribes while under his leadership.

That source said that until the summer of 2011, the two compromised prosecutors were part of a team of more than 25 federal prosecutors pursuing a financial crime ring, and at least five other prosecutors tasked to the case were also compromised by the criminal suspects they were investigating, without being bribed.

But I’ll bet Holder will fire the official who leaked this information right freakin’ now, just to show us his commitment to accountability.