your hands and feet are mangos..

o hai!

2011-06-06T10:36:00.003-05:00

what do you know.... this blog works again.

i guess several years of not posting makes things work better! the other blog: http://fieldsoflollipops.blogspot.com/

Just a reminder..

2007-06-27T12:55:00.000-05:00

The Bible doesn't say that you'll get into heaven by being good. It's not going to happen by us trying, because we all fall short. Jesus would not have suffered and died on a cross if all roads lead to God..

For this, I am forever thankful.

The Right Fight..

2007-05-25T14:50:00.000-05:00

while the dems position to try to take a position that will get them the most votes(irrespective of principle) our soldiers are on the front lines of reality, not lost in the swells of nonsense in the beltway.. the longer we keep our eye off the ball, the more certain another attack on our soil becomes.

-------------------------------
The Right Fight
By Jacob Laksin

Few today are receptive to the idea of a “war on terror.” From a war-weary public, to a political commentariat impatient with such supposedly simple-minded slogans, the country seems determined to move beyond the notion that the fighting underway in Iraq is in any significant way connected to the global terrorist threat to national security. So it is to President Bush’s credit that he used his commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy this week to reacquaint a disaffected nation with a stubborn fact: Iraq remains the central theater in the fight against al-Qaeda and its jihadist brethren.

To illustrate the point, Bush adduced newly declassified intelligence that confirms what many are disinclined to hear: that al-Qaeda views Iraq as the ultimate showdown between its brand of fanatical Islam and the Western world, and that it seeks to turn the country into a staging ground for further attacks against the United States.

By way of example, Bush pointed to a 2005 plot, apparently hatched by Osama bin Laden himself, to coordinate attacks against the U.S. with al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. According to details presented by the president, bin Laden instructed an intermediary, Hamza Rabi, to relay plans for such attacks to al-Qaeda’s then-senior leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. “Our intelligence community reports that a senior al-Qaeda leader, Abu Faraj al-Libi, went further and suggested that bin Laden actually send Rabia, himself, to Iraq to help plan external operations,” Bush explained. "Abu Faraj later speculated that if this effort proved successful, al-Qaeda might one day prepare the majority of its external operations from Iraq.” Reflecting on the import of these findings, Bush sensibly concluded that “war on terror” remained a useful concept: “This notion about how this isn't a war on terror, in my view, is naïve,” he said. “It doesn't reflect the true nature of the world in which we live.”

Where the president erred is in assuming that his critics -- especially among the Democratic Party’s leadership -- actually live in the same world. In reality, at the level of foreign policy, Democrats and their allies on the anti-war Left have long inhabited an alternate universe.

Capitol Hill this week embodied that political disconnect. Going into full bullying mode, Congressional Democrats repeatedly threatened to block war funding unless the appropriations bill for the war also included timelines for withdrawal -- a clear encroachment on the executive’s war-making powers. Finally they agreed, grudgingly, to fund the troops. Detracting from the solemnity of the Democratic opposition, however, is the fact that legislators nonetheless managed to muscle billions of dollars in earmarks into the $120-billion legislation.

For the anti-war base, even reluctant support for the war effort is apostasy punishable by political death. Far-left activist network MoveOn.org has already demanded that “every single Democrat must oppose this bill.” The marching orders are clear: Vote for defeat in Iraq, or face it at home. Accordingly, MoveOn has vowed to mount primary challenges to any Democrat who dares to show independence on Iraq.

It will please these ideological enforcers to know that no such independence is to be found within the current field of Democratic presidential hopefuls. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the latter reportedly the most hawkish of the contenders, supported a symbolic measure to cut all funding for the war by next spring. (It was unclear, as of this writing, whether the Senators would vote for this week’s funding bill.)

Among candidates in serious contention, John Edwards has staked out the hardest anti-war line. In laying out his foreign policy vision before the Council on Foreign Relations this week, the onetime vice presidential aspirant assailed the notion of a war on terror as one of President Bush‘s “discredited ideological pursuits.” Unveiling his own plan for combating terrorism, Edwards called for a new humility, and proposed “to educate every child in the world.” How that mission could be reconciled with his call for humility in foreign affairs, and why an education campaign would stop the next generation of al-Qaeda recruits -- who, as it happens, are uniformly well-educated -- were among the many questions Edwards left unanswered.

Far from the demagoguery of the presidential campaign, the hard work of actually fighting terrorism falls to the U.S. troops and their Iraqi allies. Although violence -- in the form of suicide attacks, car bombings, and gangland-style murders -- remains a constant, the “surge” of American troop strength begun in February is showing modest signs of success. For one thing, sectarian violence appears to be in decline, especially in Baghdad. For another, Iraqis, including in Sunni Arab strongholds like Anbar province, are joining the fight against al-Qaeda terrorists.

Moreover, and contrary to the popular refrain that Iraq is a “distraction” from the true fight against terrorism, al-Qaeda has in recent years suffered serious defeats. Consider that of the operatives that bin Laden hoped to involve in his plot to attack the United States, al-Libi was captured and is now out of commission in much-maligned Guantanamo Bay; al-Rabia was killed in 2005 in Pakistan; and al-Zarqawi met his unlamented end in a June 2006 strike by the U.S. military in Diyala province. For a distraction from al-Qaeda, Iraq is proving to be remarkably on-target.

Not that you will hear this from the war’s critics. To acknowledge success would require them to concede that Iraq is in fact the frontline in the global war on terror -- and, furthermore, that the war is not a White House scheme to scare American voters. In short, it would require an admission that, on the question of Iraq’s centrality to the war against al-Qaeda, President Bush is right.

Iraqis are more forthright. Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander overseeing the security plan, told the Washington Post this week that while sectarian violence is the leading problem in the country, it cannot be understood apart from al-Qaeda‘s involvement. Observing that al-Qaeda often incites the violence that draws reprisals from sectarian Shiite militias, he said: “Terrorists of al-Qaeda and the enemies of Iraq, they want to start a crisis. The objective behind this is to incite sectarian strife.” Coming just ahead of Memorial Day, it was a fitting reminder that the sacrifices of American forces in Iraq have not been in vain. Just don’t tell Congress.

The Wingate plan..

2007-05-25T10:07:00.000-05:00

i read this on debka and thought it was good. Hal has a good commentary on it. the world will continue to call bad good and good bad, those who know good from bad should continue the march toward the light irrespective of world opinion..
---------------------------------------------
Israel to give terrorists own medicine?
Hal Lindsey

After two consecutive weeks of incessant pounding of Israeli cities by Palestinian missile attacks – more than 150 in one six-day period – Israeli Defense Forces are back on the offensive. The IDF stepped up air attacks in the Gaza Strip, and promised to target the Hamas leadership in an effort to stem the wave of attacks on its cities.

National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer defended the action. He told Israel Radio, "I don't distinguish between those who carry out the attacks and those who give the orders. I say we have to put them all in the crosshairs." Thousands of Hamas supporters took to the streets of Gaza City vowing revenge one day after an Israeli air strike on the home of Hamas politician Khalil al-Hayya.

Seven members of Hayya's family were killed in the strike, though al-Hayya himself escaped. The Palestinian press made much of the fact that al-Hayya's family was killed, but no one seemed to begrudge the fact that al-Hayya went underground beforehand, leaving his family in harm's way while he protected himself.

At the funeral service, Palestinian Prime Minister and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, said, "We will keep to the same path until we win one of two goals: victory or martyrdom." Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas planned a trip to Gaza Thursday to speak to leaders about maintaining law and order. Maintaining law and order? How can they maintain what doesn't exist? He should talk to them about Establishing law and order!

Even more ridiculous is Abbas' effort to blame Israel for the conduct of his government. He told reporters in Ramallah: "The Israelis are required to exercise restraint to stop their aggression against the Palestinian people or else they will be held accountable and responsible for the deterioration of the security situation in Gaza. " Is he kidding?

It would be laughable had the media not duly reported his comments as if they made sense. In another incident, at least four members of Islamic Jihad, on their way to launch rockets at Israel, were killed in an air strike that destroyed their car near the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya. Abu Ahmed, the spokesman for Islamic Jihad, didn't deny what the so-called victims were up to when they were killed.

Instead, he told reporters, "The Zionist attack will not stop rocket fire against Zionist towns. Leaders of the Zionist enemy will pay a price." Once again, this illogical nonsense was repeated by the Western press without question. Let's stop for a moment and make a few of the observations the journalists should have made. Since the Palestinians vow to attack Israeli towns anyway, what further price can Ahmed possibly be talking about?

Put another way, Ahmed is simply saying, "We vow to attack you at every opportunity." But if you defend yourself, we'll get so angry that we will attack you even more furiously because your defense causes conflict among us. And causing conflict among us will trigger more attacks. I've heard this kind of convoluted logic firsthand. Yet the vehemence with which such hatred-driven, illogical thinking is presented still staggers my mind. It also makes me question the qualifications or objectivity of the members of the mainstream media who repeat this stuff without question.

The Israeli online magazine DEBKAfile recently published a report by its military experts. They proposed that Israel must now revert to "unorthodox military tactics" against the Gaza-based terror organizations to halt the deluge of Qassam rocket attacks raining down on its civilian population. "Conventional warfare" is no longer an option in light of the massive amount of modern weaponry smuggled into Gaza since Israel's withdrawal. It would be impossible for the IDF to effectively combat the huge store of weapons, ammunition, lethal anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles stored in and fired from the cover of a heavy civilian population without the use of massive firepower.

Those tactics and overwhelming firepower would result in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in a conventional war. To complicate matters even further, Gaza is now swarming with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and al-Qaida operatives that have all mingled in the midst of the civilian population. Taken together, these factors make conventional war unacceptable in Israel's present situation.

Furthermore, the Israelis themselves would never sanction such perceived brutality – even though their enemies would wipe out every Jewish man, woman and child without a second thought if they could. Debka intelligence sources report, "Iranian and Hezbollah advisers are telling them (Hamas) how to combat a substantial Israeli ground-tank incursion. They must go underground and wage a guerrilla-terrorist war equivalent to the Iraqi insurgent campaign against U.S. troops."

This dilemma has caused some veteran Israeli military leaders to once again reach for help from a little-known Englishman. This British military figure from the past did more to develop the leaders and tactics of the IDF than any other person.

Debka quotes Israeli military sources: "Israelis have defeated Arab terror before. In the 1930s, the English military genius Orde Charles Wingate taught Jewish paramilitary defenders his Special Night Squads tactics for turning Arab guerrilla methods against them. Nothing much has changed in 71 years, except for the fact that today, Israel has a strong army of its own and does not need British or other international force to defend its sovereign territory. All that is needed is a government with resolve that lets the military do its job."

Israeli military intelligence is reportedly using Wingate's guerilla training doctrine to turn Hamas' tactics against them. The plans call for inserting small, highly trained guerilla squads behind Palestinian lines on lightening-like hit-and-run missions.

These squads will use guerilla tactics adapted to a number of new, sophisticated technical weapons developed for this purpose. They will destroy ammunition dumps, weapons workshops, bomb-making facilities, missile manufacturing plants and command centers. The plans also call for around-the-clock ambushes against Palestinian fighters and their commanders.

The goal is to make them confused, anxious and exhausted. Fighting and decisively winning a conventional battle in Gaza now would result in massive civilian casualties. Israeli society will not accept that. That's an object lesson in the difference between the moral integrity of the God of Israel and the god of Islam. The only other option available is to fight fire with fire – or in this case, guerrilla tactics with guerilla tactics. Hamas and its allies have opened Pandora's Box. I'm afraid they're not going to like what they find inside.

When I read DEBKAfile's reference to British Maj. Gen. Orde Charles Wingate's help to the Jews, I was immediately intrigued. He was a person who apparently greatly helped the Palestinian Jews at a critical time in their history. So I ran a search on his personal life. It proved to be a fascinating surprise.

I am indebted to Joseph M. Hochstein and Ami Isseroff's excellent summary of his biography. I first wanted to know why Wingate helped the Jews at a time when the vast majority of British military officers and Foreign Ministry officials were pro-Arab and almost outright anti-Jewish. Here is the key I found to his incredible life.

Wingate was born Feb. 26, 1903 in India. His father was a British officer and his mother came from a missionary family. Both parents were members of the non-denominational Plymouth Brethren Church, founded by J.N. Darby. This was a movement – originating in Ireland and England during the 1820s and 1830s – that recovered the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. Thus they firmly believed that all the unconditional covenants to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants were still binding and could not be given to the Church.

This refuted the doctrine that had been taught in the churches for more than 1,400 years – that Israel had forfeited its covenants and God had given them to the Church. Wingate was thoroughly schooled in these truths and believed in the restoration of the Jewish people to their land in the last days – as predicted by Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel and most of the other prophets.
This movement also had a profound influence on some members of the British Parliament, including Lords Lindsay and Balfour. They introduced a motion to provide the Jews with a homeland in Palestine. In 1936, then-Capt. Wingate was assigned to Palestine as an intelligence officer. His first task was to seek to settle the Arab campaign of riots, massacres and attacks against both British Mandate officials and Jewish communities, known later as the "Palestine Arab Revolt. "

He discovered that Grand Mufti Haj Amin El-Husseini, a friend of Adolf Hitler, instigated these. Because of his faith, he sought out the Zionist leaders and offered to help them. At first they were suspicious of him because of the traditional British disdain for the Jews. Wingate became fluent in Hebrew and finally convinced the Jews that he was a true and valuable ally. His genius as a military tactician soon impressed them.

He proposed and later received approval for a plan to create small and mobile units of elite volunteers. He wrote, "There is only one way to deal with the situation, to persuade the gangs that, in their predatory raids, there is every chance of their running into a government gang which is determined to destroy them. " The units would carry the offensive to the enemy, take away his initiative and keep him off-balance – "and produce in their minds the belief government forces will move at night and can and will surprise them either in villages or across country."

He planned a mix of British and Jewish commandos. Night operations would give them the advantages of shock and surprise. He would base his force in Jewish communities rather than at British bases. The Jewish police and the Haganah had good intelligence contacts and knew the land. The British had the formal training, the equipment and official support. In many respects his plan dovetailed with what the Haganah was already attempting to do.

After considerable resistance by other British officers, the brilliant Gen. Archibald Wavell approved his plan. Wingate's guerrillas, known as the "Special Night Squads," immediately had great success and destroyed the grand mufti's terror campaign. Wingate trained such later Israeli generals as Moshe Dayan and Yigal Yadin. Perhaps his contribution to Israel can best be appreciated by the praises given him by leaders on the occasion of his untimely death at the age of 41 in a 1944 plane crash in Burma.

By the way, though a British officer, his accomplishments in the Asian theater in World War II earned him great respect in America, too. In fact, he is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Winston Churchill said, "There was a man of genius who might well have become also a man of destiny. " Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote, "Wingate would have been Israel's first military chief of staff, if he had lived. "

Heroic Gen. Moshe Dayan said, "Wingate taught us everything we know. " Gen. Yigal Yadin said of Wingate, "His basic contribution – and it was a great one – was to teach us that warfare is a science and an art at the same time. He was the perfect example of the military man. …"
Gen. Orde Charles Wingate is recognized for laying the foundation for the Israeli Defense Force. Until his death, Wingate kept a Bible with him at all times.

As one Jewish observer said, "He seemed focused on defending the Jews with an intensity that the Zionists usually did not understand." This man remains a great example of faith to us all.
He did not compromise his beliefs for personal advancement, and his military genius is still helping God's chosen people, more than 60 years after his death.

Happy Birthday

2007-05-15T15:14:00.000-05:00

Truth in the Bible..

2007-05-14T11:58:00.000-05:00

once again, archeology confirms the veracity of the Bible..
----------------------------------------------
For This They Were Willfully Ignorant. . .
Jack Kinsella

After searching for half his lifetime, Ehud Netzer, an archeologist from Hebrew University, claims to have found, to an historical certainty, the tomb of Herod the Great, ruled Judea from 37 BC to 4 BC.The tomb was located at the base of Herodium, a man-made mountain on which Herod had build one of his most ornate summer palaces. The tomb is located nine miles south of Jerusalem and east of Bethlehem.

Herod was the king who, according to Matthew, ordered the "Massacre of the Innocents." Herod had been elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate in 40 BC, so the Magi's claims were news to him.

When the Babylonian astrologers (the Magi) went to Herod to enquire about the birthplace of the "King of the Jews", he ordered all male children under the age of two years in Bethlehem to be slaughtered, hoping, in the process, to kill this possible challenger to his rule.
The Bible says that Mary and Joseph fled into Egypt to avoid the slaughter, taking the infant Jesus with them.

Like all New Testament accounts, the Massacre of the Innocents is hotly disputed by 'scholars' who grow increasingly desperate in their efforts to discount the New Testament as a book of fables.

Many denied the existence of Herod the Great, despite eyewitness accounts of his life, his bloody reign and his slow, miserable and painful death.

Historical accounts by 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus indicated that Herod was buried at Herodium, and Netzer had been excavating there since 1972.

He finally found the grave midway between the upper part of Herodium and the lower palaces, an area not previously studied.

Herod was also the king credited with expanding the second Jewish Temple atop Temple Mount, which was known to history as "Herod's Temple". (The Arabs -- and in particular, the "Palestinians" continue to deny any such Temple ever existed.)

The Palestinian Ministry of Tourism declined to comment until the site could be examined by a team of Arab archeologists.

It is almost painful to watch the skeptics' efforts to deconstruct this latest in the long list of archeological finds confirming the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament accounts.
I read through some of the reader's comments on the story at the website of Canada's Globe and Mail.

Writing under such names as "Just the Truth From Canada" and "Truth Seeker" one finds comments like, "Ancient Israel, as described in biblical accounts, complete with magnificent gilt palaces, and huge, conquering armies, etc., etc. . . . is not historically accurate, but is folklore, a bunch of tribal fantasies."

Note that this comment was attached to a story about the discovery of Herod's tomb in EXACTLY such an 'magnificent gilt palace'.

Writes another: "Israeli archaeologists probably have no right to dig in the occupied Palestinian West Bank ." To this writer, the discovery is irrelevant to history.

The West Bank is Palestinian, and no stupid historical facts are going to change his mind.
The facts are these, and they ARE facts, even if someone doesn't like them. There has never been an archeological find that disputes any Bible account. Not a single one.

Pontius Pilate was once deemed by those claiming to be 'scholars' to be a New Testament myth. Why? Because there was no archeological confirmation. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, the absence of evidence was universally accepted by liberal 'scholars' as evidence of absence.

But in 1962, an inscription was found in the town of Caesarea that said, "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans."

Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archeologists in history, was a confirmed atheist when set out on a quest to disprove the historical accuracy of Luke. What he discovered was that Luke was historically accurate to the tiniest detail. His conclusions?

"I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth."
Consequently, Ramsay wrote, "Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."
Sir William Ramsay died a Christian.

Dr. William F. Albright, initially as skeptical as Dr. Ramsay, eventually came to write;
"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details."

Caiaphas, the High Priest of the Sanhedrin who ordered the execution of Jesus, was another such New Testament myth until the Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a park just south of the Old City of Jerusalem.

Other recent archeological digs have uncovered:
1) The synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus cured a man with an unclean spirit and delivered the sermon on the bread of life.
2) The house of Peter at Capernaum where Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and others.
3) Jacob's well where Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman.
4) The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem, where Jesus healed a crippled man.
5) The Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, where Jesus healed a blind man.
6) The tribunal at Corinth where Paul was tried.
7) The theater at Ephesus where the riot of silversmiths occurred.
8) Herod's palace at Caesarea where Paul was kept under guard.
9) An Egyptian parchment confirming the census order that brought Mary and Joseph out of Egypt to Bethlehem to be taxed.

There are at least thirty-nine verifiable extra-Biblical accounts, (including 17 non-Christian sources, that bear witness from outside the New Testament to over 100 details about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Apart from archeology, there is the question of logic. Dr. Ramsay and Dr. Albright both confirm, using scientific, archeological and historical evidences, Luke's accuracy as an historian.

It is not logical to assume that, although accurate in every possible confirmable aspect, Luke lied about Jesus and then permitted himself to be martyred for that lie.

Neither is it logical to assume that, since Luke confirms the rest of the Gospel writers, they also allowed themselves to be put to death to preserve a lie.

It is illogical to argue that they were sincere, but that they were deceived about Who Jesus was.
Each recorded more or less identical events, under more or less identical circumstances. If it were one witness, one might assume he was mentally unbalanced, or hallucinating.
But twelve? (Plus the uncounted multitudes who, within living memory of Jesus, gladly embraced martyrdom at Roman hands for their witness?)

The discovery of Herod's Tomb is just one more rock atop a mountain of overwhelming evidence confirming the reliability of the New Testament accounts. Keep in mind that in every case, (every single solitary case) where evidence DOES exist, it confirms the Bible account.

Not one shred of archeological evidence disputes a single point of the Gospel account. At worst, there remain unconfirmed details.

It is upon such thin suppositions as the absence of confirmatory evidence that Bible skeptics build their argument that the Bible is an unreliable book of myths.

As each new piece of evidence is uncovered, they scurry to seek some other unconfirmed detail to replace it as the bedrock of their argument.

Peter predicted that "there shall come in the last days, scoffers," explaining the motive for their skepticism as "walking after their own lusts."

Paul, in describing the 'strong delusion' gave as the motivation for their rejection of the truth the fact that they 'had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2nd Thessalonians 2:11)

The skeptic delights in arguing that a righteous God would never condemn someone to eternal damnation just because they were unable to believe. I agree. God doesn't condemn unbelievers because they CAN'T believe. They condemn themselves because they WON'T believe. Peter called them "willingly ignorant."

There is more historical and documentary evidence attesting to the life and times of Jesus Christ than there is of Julius Caesar. But there are no skeptics of whom I am aware that have dedicated their lives and fortunes to denying the existence of Julius Caesar.

It takes conscious, deliberate effort -- and a lot of it -- to convince oneself, especially in the face of such overwhelming evidence, that Jesus Christ was less an historical figure than Julius Caesar.
There is no price, real or perceived, attached to belief in Julius Ceasar.
Belief in Jesus Christ, however, demands a change in perspective. Logically, if one believes in eternal accountability before a Righteous Judge, it therefore follows that it would throw a damper on the 'pleasure of unrighteousness'.

In the final analysis, there is but one sin for which the unbeliever will stand convicted.
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (Matthew 12:31)

The term 'blasphemy' can best be understood as 'defiant irreverence'. It is a state of defiant unbelief, despite the evidence. Or, as Peter describes it, "willful ignorance."

"Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" can be understood as a continued and persistently stubborn rejection of the gospel of salvation. This would be THE "unpardonable sin" because as long as a person remains in unbelief, he voluntarily excludes himself from forgiveness of sin.

It isn't God that condemns the unbeliever to eternal separation in the Lake of Fire.

The unbeliever condemns himself by his choice to believe a lie, preferring instead, as Peter noted, to walk after their own lusts, thus ignoring the evidence out of willful ignorance.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)

The same choice faces us all

damascus

2007-05-03T11:22:00.000-05:00

things are setting up to be interesting this summer..

"See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with no one to make them afraid." (Isaiah 17:1-2)
---------------------------------------------------
Despite Syrian military border build-up, Israel has no plans to attack but stands ready to ward off a surprise Syrian strike
May 3, 2007

Reporting that this message had been relayed from Jerusalem to Damascus, Israeli Ambassador to US Salai Meridor said in Washington Wednesday night that Syria has amassed on Israel’s borders strength and missiles capable of reaching every part of the country. On April 30, DEBKAfile reported exclusively that Bashar Assad had shifted units from the Iraqi to the Lebanese border shortly after the Winograd panel had slammed the Olmert government for its mishandling of the Lebanon War. Our military sources specified that an infantry brigade had been relocated from the Iraqi border to beef up the Syrian 14th Commando Division deployed opposite Golan and the sensitive Mt. Hermon- Shabaa Farms sector where the Lebanese, Syrian and Israeli borders converge. A source in Israel’s northern command says the stationing of an infantry brigade on the forward line with Israel stiffens Syrian defenses and frees up Syrian command units for operational duties.

A careful watch is trained on these movements to ascertain whether Assad is engaging in mere muscle flexing, or trying to capitalize on the Israeli government’s weakness for a military move on the Golan Heights.

a prayer for death..

2007-05-01T09:46:00.000-05:00

when we are told this to our faces and we ignore it, we risk our values and the future of our society..
-----------------
On Palestinian television last week, Dr. Ahmad Bahar (acting Speaker, Palestinian Legislative Council) delivered this sermon:

“This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our people was afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation. Be certain that America is on its way to disappear, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine. Make us victorious over the infidel people. Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies. Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.” [PA TV, April 20, 2007]

Hat tip: Palestinian Media Watch. http://www.pmw.org/

common sense from fred thompson..

2007-05-01T09:31:00.000-05:00

i'm not sure if he's going to run or not, but i enjoy his straight forward, fact based writing style. the world will get their cup of life without america soon enough.. i suppose the present time is just to allow their mouths to foam just a little more before getting what they ultimately want.. how does the old saying go, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sticks and Stones
Fred Thompson

It bothers Americans when we're told how unpopular we are with the rest of the world. For some of us, at least, it gets our back up -- and our natural tendency is to tell the French, for example, that we'd rather not hear from them until the day when they need us to bail them out again.

But we cool off. We're big boys and girls, after all, and we don't really bruise that easily. We're also hopeful that, eventually, our ostrich-headed allies will realize there's a World War going on out there and they need to pick a side -- the choice being between the forces of civilization and the forces of anarchy. Considering the fact that the latter team is growing stronger and bolder daily, while most of our European Union friends continue to dismantle their defenses, that day may not be too long in coming.

In the meantime, let's be realistic about the world we live in. Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about US immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.

Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They're not doing anything shady, they say. They can’t help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet.

The hundreds of demonstrators the Kremlin has had beaten and arrested in the last few weeks alone, we are told, were not pro-democracy activists but common criminals -- like world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Demonstrating without a permit is a serious crime and, luckily for the Kremlin, it turns out that pro-government youth groups seem always to have permits for rallies at the exact times and places that anti-government protesters gather.

Another group that seems to be having trouble with permits is the media. Newspapers and television stations that aren't smart enough to know that America is the enemy and that things are great in Russia can't seem to get their paperwork in order. It’s some sort of IQ test, I guess.
President Vladimir Putin, though, shows no sign that he feels defensive about his remarkable string of luck. He knows who's really to blame for "meddling" in Russian "internal affairs." It's the United States.

He's lambasting us for yielding too much power. One example of this excessive power is the missile defense radar system we want to install in Poland and the Czech Republic -- to give the free world early warning of a missile attack by terrorists or a rogue nation like Iran. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the Russians have been supplying Iran with both nuclear and missile technology while using their UN veto to block sanctions that would force Tehran to back down. Regardless, we're clearly at fault, he says, for putting a defense system close to Mother Russia.
So I wouldn't worry too much about the criticisms we receive. We make mistakes and at times the "carping" may even be on target, but it seems to me that we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.

]

crop circles explained..

2007-04-26T17:15:00.000-05:00

it's the damn capitalists

ham sandwich hate crime..

2007-04-26T16:01:00.000-05:00

i can't wait til they have pizza day.. damn the pepperoni! (or should it be somali sausage?)

------------------------------
When Ham Sandwiches Attack
Jack Kinsella

Generally speaking, ham sandwiches are quiet and unassuming and don't really seem to have much of an opinion on any given subject.Indeed, a ham sandwich can be a welcome friend, it can be a traveling companion, eventually, it can even be lunch, but there is no recorded incident in which a ham sandwich has ever exhibited any malevolence.

The last time a ham sandwich gave society a major problem was the Mama Cass Affair. When Cass Elliot (Mama Cass of the Mamas and the Papas -- in case you were out of town for the 70's) died in 1974, her death was popularly ascribed to having choked to death on a ham sandwich.
The ham sandwich was innocent. There was a ham sandwich and a Coke found by her bedside, but the sandwich was untouched. The coroner eventually ruled that Cass Elliot died of a heart attack brought on by obesity.

Blaming the ham sandwich was a bad beef. . .

Actually, the only thing a ham sandwich has ever been guilty of, in my experience, was bad judgment. Who can forget the time that a ham sandwich incorrectly assumed two packages would not get mailed unless somebody took them to the Post Office? Or how humiliated that same ham sandwich was when the Post Office Lady picked the packages up?

(Come to think of it, that particular ham sandwich had a Jewish accent. Hmmmm)

Now, sadly, another ham sandwich is back in the news. This time, however, it isn't charged with murder, or parodied in a TV commercial for its bad judgment.

In this latest incident, the ham sandwich is charged with committing a hate crime.
Once again, however, it appears that the ham sandwich is getting a bum wrap. Allow me to explain. . .

A middle school student in Lewiston, Maine is being investigated by police for a possible hate crime because he placed a bag containing a ham sandwich on a cafeteria table where Muslim students from Somalia were eating their lunch.

Why Muslims students from Somalia were in a middle school in Maine eating lunch is grist for a different mill. Don't they have cafeterias in Somalia? But I digress.

Anyway, the school superintended took prompt action, ordering the student who brought the ham sandwich to school suspended, and promising more disciplinary action, should the investigation prove the ham sandwich was guilty as charged.

"Placing ham where Muslim students were eating as an awful thing," said Stephen Wessler, the executive director of the Center for Prevention of Hate Violence. "It's extraordinarily hurtful and degrading. They probably felt like they were back in Mogadishu starving and being shot at."
(Images of ham sandwiches running amok with high-powered automatic weapons flash across my mind at this point. No wonder Clinton pulled us out of Somalia in the 1990's.)

Continued Wessler, "No child, Muslim or normal, should have to endure touching a ham sandwich."

But wait! Isn't there some other rule about not touching somebody else's lunch in a cafeteria?
Evidently, THAT'S kosher -- provided one isn't actually IN Somalia, where touching somebody else's lunch can be a capital crime punishable by death -- depending on how well-armed the owner of that lunch is at the time.

And what does the guy mean by, "No child, Muslim or NORMAL?" Surely Stephen Wessler, as executive director of the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence, wasn't suggesting that Muslim children aren't 'normal', was he?

Wessler continued, "Incidents like this that involve degrading language or conduct are often said by the perpetrator as a joke. But unfortunately we don't live in a world where young children try to be funny, we live in a society in which these types of actions always escalate into violence against minorities."

"If people think insulting Muslims with ham is okay, more degrading acts will follow. The Jews had to go through the same thing when the Nazis would force-feed them bacon; do we really want our schools to become concentration camps?"

To which I reply with a hearty, "Heck, NO!" I can see Wessler's point. First, some kid brings a ham sandwich to school . . . and the next thing you know, Jewish kids in middle schools all over America will be forced by Nazis to eat bacon.

A joke??? I'm not laughing. And neither is the Executive Director of the Ham Sandwich Anti-Defamation League.

According to Porky Pig, "H--h-ham s-s-sandwiches are r-r-r-routinely t-t-t-t-targeted f-f-for m-m-m-m-m-m-mal-l-l-l-icous p-pprosecution. How mmmmany t-t-times have you heard that a prosecutor c--c-can g-get a g-g-g-grand jury to indict a h-h-h-ham s-s-s-sandwich?"

The middle school principle, Leon Levesque, assured Somali parents throughout Maine, "the incident does not reflect the moral values of the school staff and students. We need to take a look at this and review how a careless act is degrading and causes hurt to other people. All our students should feel welcome in our schools, knowing that they are safe from attacks with ham, bacon, porkchops, or any other delicious meat that comes from pigs."

You probably think that I'm making this up. (Ok. I admit I made up the Porky Pig quote.) But the story was reported by both Boston. com and the Lewiston Sun-Journal -- it's on the level.
According to the Sun-Journal, its been a rough week for Somalis in Maine.

"A lot of anger and hate has been flying around," said Steve Wessler of the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence. In the days after last Thursday's report of a hate incident at Lewiston Middle School involving a ham steak left at a lunch table to insult Somali students, a Sun Journal newspaper forum was so filled with hostility it was shut down.

Wessler said he received hate e-mail and two phone messages in which a man threatened to commit violence against him." The poor guy. What should be done? That is the question that has Pine Tree Staters all a'twitter.

Noted the Sun-Journal; "For years, Catholics suffered prejudice before being accepted." (But, as everybody knows, it is harder to use a ham sandwich to commit a hate crime against a Catholic. He would be just as likely to eat the weapon, destroying the evidence in the process.)

But change is in the works. Last year, a local man named Brent Matthews rolled a pig's head into a local mosque. Last Saturday, perhaps driven to despair by angry falafels, Matthews committed suicide in the local Marsden's parking lot.

As one local, Edward Boucher, told the paper, "Eventually these things work themselves out."
"But does it make it right?" the Sun-Journal quoted Zamzam Mohamud, 32, the mother of one traumatized victim. "Then does it just keep going? Where does it stop? There isn't much of a community if we don't make a change."

And THAT is where the laughter stops.

America's reputation was built around the concept of the Great American Melting Pot. In happier times, new immigrants would come to America to become Americans. The idea was to melt all the various cultures of all the various immigrants into a single, uniquely American culture.

Under that concept, Americans were not required to adopt the culture of its immigrants, but rather, immigrants were expected to adopt the culture of America. What made it a 'community' was that immigrants made 'the change' to conform to the existing culture.

The concept of "multiculturalism" -- the Holy Grail of the liberal Left -- insists that immigrants refuse to assimilate into American culture, forcing immigrants into cultural 'ghettos' where liberal politicians can pander to concentrated special interest lobbies.

One can't win in Florida without the Cuban vote. One can't win in Texas or California without the Mexican vote. One can't win in the Northeast without the black vote, or in New York without the Jewish vote. And one can't win in certain parts of Michigan without the Muslim vote.

So a liberal need only pander to the demands of the various concentrations of minorities to win public office -- from which he can strengthen his base by bashing America as a whole as a collection of hateful xenophobes.

One can't engage in class warfare without some underprivileged class to champion. And the best way to ensure that is to keep immigrants concentrated in ethnic ghettos as exiles from their home countries, rather than as immigrants to the New World.

Zamzan Mahamud's solution was quoteworthy because her solution fits the liberal agenda -- that America that must change its culture to conform to that of its immigrants.

Since America is made up of immigrants from every country in the world, there will always be more changes to demand, more immigrant groups to pander to, and more elections to be won.
Today, the ham sandwich. Tomorrow, Sharia law. Eventually, pictures of Osama bin Laden festooning American cities and towns.

Sound far-fetched? No more so than the fear of Nazis force-feeding bacon to Jewish kids in American concentration camps -- cleverly disguised as middle-schools.

When a ham sandwich is a hate crime, NOTHING is too far-fetched.

faces of death..

2007-04-26T15:37:00.000-05:00

nuts in the crosshairs..

2007-04-26T13:37:00.000-05:00

i supposed the right is called right for a reason..

---------------------------------

Nuts in the Crosshairs
By Ann Coulter

For cranky right-wingers who think politicians don't listen to them, this week I give you elected Democrats running like scared schoolgirls from the media's demand that they enact new gun control laws in response to the Virginia Tech shooting.

Instead, Democrats are promoting a mental health exception to the right to bear arms. We've banned mass murder and that hasn't seemed to work. So now we're going to ban mass murderers. Yes, that will do the trick!

This is a feel-good measure that is both wildly under-inclusive (the vast majority of nutcases receive no formal court adjudication of their nuttiness) and wildly over-inclusive (the vast majority of nuts don't kill people). The worst thing most nuts do is irritate everybody else by driving their electric cars on the highway.

As lovely as it would be, we cannot identify mass murderers before they have broken any law, and mass murder is often the first serious crime they commit. No one can be locked up permanently for being potentially dangerous.

Even stalking laws can put away a person known to be dangerous for only a few years – at best – which is generally not worth spending a day sitting in court, facing your stalker and then waiting a month for the court order.

So on one hand, the mental health exception is a feel-good measure that would be largely pointless. But on the other hand, it's no skin off my back. Liberals go to therapy. Conservatives go to church. And I think we'd all sleep better knowing that David Brock could not buy a gun.
In fact, I think we should expand the mental illness exception to cover First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.

I note that before mass murder, the only harassment the Virginia Tech killer was guilty of involved speech: creepy e-mails, creepy short stories, creepy phone calls. Stalkers, too, engage in frightening speech – but that is protected. Revealing a stalking victim's address is "speech" but is little different from being the one to pull the trigger.

This small measure would have taken Dan "What's the Frequency, Kenneth" Rather off the airwaves years ago, preventing him from presenting doctored National Guard documents to the American people to try to throw a presidential election. A mental illness bar would deal a quick blow to Air America and both its remaining listeners. It would also free up about 90 percent of the Internet.

And it would end the public lunacy of Jim Wallis, the Democrats' Christian. Wallis' first remark on the massacre at Virginia Tech last week was to hail the remarkable "diversity" of the victims. True, Cho murdered 32 people in cold blood. But at least he achieved diversity!

Anyone who thinks a single-minded fixation on diversity must be the ultimate goal of every human endeavor, including mass murder, is not the sort of person who should be able to buy a gun or to publish his daft ruminations in public forums.

But just to get this straight: Democrats are saying we should be able to jail "strange" or "angry" people, but we can't deplane imams who demand extra-length seatbelts after boarding?
Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the public expressions of shame and contrition from the Korean-American community after the Virginia Tech shooting? Of course, no one blames this exemplary community for the actions of one nut. The Koreans are manifestly law-abiding and decent – nipping at the heels of Italians as the greatest Americans and tied for second with the Cubans.

Indeed, I believe this marks the first time a Korean has killed anyone in the United States, not involving an automobile. Nonetheless, Korean congregations, community groups and the family members themselves are issuing statements of sorrow. Not "pleas for tolerance." But sorrow. Remorse. Remember those? They were big back in the day.

If the Koreans can do it, why can't the Muslims? What explains the lack of a Muslim guilt impulse – so normal, as seen in the case of the saddened Koreans – after dozens of terrorist attacks on Americans?

How about a Muslim exception to the Second Amendment? That would have prevented the Virginia snipers from killing 10 people within three weeks in 2002. But most important: It would help us achieve "diversity" in our gun law prohibitions.

eloquence from the president..

2007-04-25T10:03:00.000-05:00

bush isn't the best communicator in the world, but his speech at VA Tech was a highlight.. speaking from the heart, he gets it right.

"People who have never met you are praying for you. They're praying for your friends who have fallen and who are injured. There's a power in these prayers. Real power. In times like this we can find comfort in the grace and guidance of a loving God. "
-- President Bush, at Virginia Tech.

democratic victory = american defeat

2007-04-25T09:55:00.000-05:00

i'm not sold on Giuliani as the candidate for me, but he sure has it right on the war against islamic terror.. since the dems are invested in our defeat - meaning they lose if we win, it's more and more important people point this out. the dems are so out of bounds and out of touch and power mad.. harry reid is focused on senate seats, not what's best for america. pelosi too busy to meet with the general in charge in iraq, but speaks as if she's the expert on the subject..
----------------------------------------
Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win
By: Roger Simon

MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.
But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: “America will be safer with a Republican president.”

Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans.

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”

The crowd thundered its approval.

Giuliani also said that America had been naive about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.

“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”

for the gun control crowd..

2007-04-25T09:16:00.000-05:00

a reminder for the bleeding heart do-gooders. while you pay for your armed bodyguards and lobby against the constitutional right of citizens to be armed, you once again ignore the facts and push forward with your self absorbed agenda.
----------------------------------------
They Never Learn
By Robert A. Levy

"What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." So said the New York Times in its predictable but wrongheaded editorial the day after the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Anti-gun advocates, however noble their motives, help create the environment in which horrors like Virginia Tech occur.

Possession and use of guns on the Tech campus violated state-imposed restrictions. But crazed fanatics, undeterred by laws against murder, will not be dissuaded by laws against guns. More such laws will accomplish nothing. Indeed, liberalized laws might have enabled responsible, armed citizens on campus to defend the hapless victims. It took two hours for the killer methodically to massacre 32 people and injure another 15. Why did nobody intervene sooner to stop the killer?

For one possible explanation, consider this report from a Roanoke Times article: A bill, introduced on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, would have given properly licensed public college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus. The bill died on January 30, 2006 in the Virginia General Assembly. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was pleased with the outcome. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Tell that to the ill-fated victims of April 16 and their families.

The article goes on to relate that most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security on entering campus. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that requirement for anyone who possessed a valid concealed handgun permit. Ironically, Tech's governing board had approved in June 2005 a violence prevention policy reiterating the school's ban on students, employees, or visitors -- even those properly licensed -- from bringing handguns onto campus.

At the Virginia Tech press conference after the slaughter of 32 defenseless people, the university's president cautioned that it wouldn't be possible to have police guard every classroom and dorm. What he omitted was this cold, hard fact: By making the university a "gun free zone," his administration and the state legislature had fostered a climate in which ubiquitous police would be necessary. Without a means to protect themselves, Virginia Tech students, faculty, and other employees were more likely to be victimized by the only people on campus who had readily available guns: killers and lunatics.

Meanwhile, the New York Times, the Brady Center, and the rest of the usual suspects continue their clamor for more gun regulations -- apparently oblivious to the destructive effects of their own proposals. The evidence is clear: more guns in the hands of responsible owners yield lower rates of violent crime. Gun control does not work. It just prevents weaker people from defending themselves against stronger predators.

Here are the numbers, as summarized by legal scholar Don B. Kates: Over the 30-year period from 1974 to 2003, guns in circulation doubled, but murder rates declined by a third. On a state-by-state basis, a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlates with a 4.1 percent lower rate of violent crime. Each year, approximately 460,000 gun crimes are committed in the United States. But guns are also used to ward off gun criminals. Estimates of defensive gun use range from 1.3 million to 2.5 million times per year -- and usually the weapons are merely brandished, not fired. That means defensive uses occur about 3-to-5 times as often as violent gun crimes. Just as important, armed victims who resist gun criminals get injured less frequently than unarmed victims who submit. In more than 8 out of 10 cases where the victim pulls a gun, the criminal turns and flees, even if he's armed. "So much for the quasi-religious faith that more guns mean more murder."

Finally, two federal government agencies recently examined gun control laws and found no statistically significant evidence to support their effectiveness. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence.

When will the gun controllers learn?

as in the times of Noah..

2007-04-24T09:27:00.000-05:00

i felt this was a well written summary of the last week.. it's overwhelming, really. when you stop to think of the constant senseless bloodshed over issues so small, it reminds you that time is short. these are the birth pangs Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24.. and they will increase in frequency and intensity leading up to the rapture of the church.

as a Christian, it's an exciting time to be alive, the promises to generations of people are unfolding before our very eyes. but we are also reminded that we have friends and neighbors who haven't accepted the pardon Christ provides.. and for that, time is short indeed.
------------------------
The Days of Noe
Jack Kinsella

I was watching Glenn Beck's program on CNN the other day. He said something that bothered me when I first heard it, and it bothers me even more today. He mentioned how devastated he had been following the Columbine shooting in 1999.

But then he noted that the Virginia Tech massacre didn't seem to have such a devastating effect on him. Or, it seemed, on most of America. Not because it wasn't as terrible as Columbine-- the VT massacre claimed more than twice as many lives -- but because it isn't as shocking as it used to be.

Shortly after the crazy little whack-job in Virginia (I refuse to honor him by repeating his name -- he's gotten enough publicity) murdered thirty-two students at Virginia Tech, some guy at NASA shot his boss because he thought he might lose his job.

Afterwards, the guy shot himself in the head while the police 'closed in'. (I set that off in quotes because it seems the police no longer 'close in' until AFTER the gunfire stops.

There was a murder/suicide in Woodland, California (that you probably didn't hear about) where a 54 year-old guy shot his 52 year-old girlfriend and then killed himself.

Fifteen hundred miles away, another guy shot his girlfriend to death and then killed himself in Houston. There was another three days ago in Portland, Texas. Two more the next day, one in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and one in Murrieta, California.

In Queens, NY, Jimmie Dawkins killed his mother, her boyfriend and his health care attendant before putting the barrel of his .40 cal pistol in his mouth and pulling the trigger.

Another murder suicide in Michigan the same day also claimed four lives. And yet another; a man in Lake Havasu City, Arizone killed his girlfriend, his baby, and then himself.

This morning, I heard of a truck bomb that went off in Baghdad that killed 25 Iraqi policemen and wounded 125 Iraqi bystanders. Twenty-one members of a religious minority in Mosul, Iraq were dragged off a bus and shot dead, execution style.

In Laguna Beach, a woman and her husband were shot dead during a confrontation with police. At press time, the police weren't sure if they killed the couple, or if it were yet another murder-suicide.

One week's time. Rivers and rivers of blood.

Seriously, how did the news that 32 students were murdered at VT affect you? Or the news of the 125 people maimed by an Iraqi car bomb? Or the 21 Iraqis in Mosul pulled from a bus and executed? What about the litany of murder-suicides across the US in the past seven days that you just read about?

That list is by no means a comprehensive one -- those were just the murder suicide cases that popped up on Google's first page when I queried it. Are you shocked?

I wish that I were, but I am not. Not particularly. I thought about what Glenn Beck said about it on his program, and I realized that the calluses on my soul were even thicker than his.

The last time I can remember being truly shocked was the OKC bombing of the Murrah Building back in 1995. And I was less troubled by that event than I was the destruction of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco two years before that.

I was moved by the horror that must have permeated the Waco compound as the flames claimed the lives of 83 men, women and children. By the time of the OKC bombing, the horror was mixed with a sort of clinical detachment.

By the time the Columbine killers went on their rampage, I had already become desensitized to the evil of children murdering children. Eight blood-soaked years later, I realized my first thought at hearing of the VT shootings wasn't horror.

The first thing that came to my mind was the logistics. How did one guy carrying only two pistols manage to kill that many people? It wasn't until I caught Glenn Beck's program that I realized just how scarred my soul has become.

I used to be shocked by evil. My reaction has morphed from, "How could anybody do such a thing?" to "Not again!" to musing about the logistics involved in the commission of mass murder.

When asked of the signs of His return, among the signs Jesus gave was the "sign of Noe." (Noah)
"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:37)
"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." (Luke 17:26)
Genesis 6:5-6 give us the Lord's perspective on the 'days of Noah':

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

When we aren't confronting actual evil in the form of crazy little gunmen and rivers of blood on our campuses, we seek it out for entertainment. Television and movies can rightly be called "the imagination of thoughts of our hearts" -- indeed, what is a movie if not our imagination brought to life?

And the more violence and sex a movie contains, the more popular it is. No wonder we are so desensitized to evil.

The most popular video games are also the most violent. I confess that enjoy the WWII action games like "Medal of Honor" and "Call of Duty" and even admit to downloading the latest 'blood patch' to make the game even more gory. What in the world is wrong with ME?

"And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." (Matthew 24:12)

The more acceptable iniquity and sin becomes, the colder our love of righteousness gets.

The Bible teaches that the Tribulation Period is a period set aside for the judgment of a Christ-rejecting world and to effect the national redemption of Israel. But what of the Church?

In the days of Noah, God decided to judge sinful man, but he saved Noah and his family alive out of the flood by making a way of escape via the ark. Jesus said His return would be like the days of Noah. Wickedness, evil and the promise of judgment.

Genesis 6:8 says that "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." The Bible also says that the Church is the recipient of God's grace.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" (Ephesians 2:8)

"Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:" (Romans 3:22)

Noah was found righteous in the eyes of the Lord and he was spared the judgment that came upon the whole earth. Later, when God purposed to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham pleaded with God not to destroy the cities if even five righteous men could be found within.

Only Lot was found righteous, and a way was made for he and his family to escape the judgment that was reserved for the unrighteous.

Of His return, Jesus also said;
"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." (Luke 17:28-30)

The Church, like Noah and Lot, have found grace in the eyes of the Lord and we are clothed in the imputed righteousness of Christ. God views the imputed righteousness of Christ as being no different than that of Noah or Lot. (Romans 3:22)

God didn't judge Noah for the sins of his neighbors. Neither did He judge Lot for the sins of his neighbors. And since the Church is clothed in the righteousness of Christ, it follows that He will not judge the Church for the sins of a Christ-rejecting world.

I can find no other understanding of these passages that makes logical sense, apart from the promise that the Lord will return for His Church BEFORE the judgment of the Tribulation Period.

If the Church goes through the Tribulation Period, then the Lord's references to Noah and Lot are puzzling. Why refer to the only two historical instances in which God saved the righteous from being included in mass judgment in conjunction with the events that lead up to His second coming?

The only logical answer is that provided by the Apostle Paul:

"For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1st Thessalonians 4:16-17)

As we wade through rivers of blood, our souls callused over by a constant barrage of unspeakable evil, it seems only logical that either judgment is due this old world, or God owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Bible promises "there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing." (2nd Timothy 4:8)

If His appearing comes at the conclusion of seven years of judgment and death for the Church, then "loving His appearing" is an act of spiritual perfection that is unfortunately a bit above my paygrade. If that is to be the case, I'd prefer that He'd tarry.

And Paul's final words about the Lord's return for those who are 'alive and remain' would seem to make little sense.

"Wherefore, comfort one another with these words." (1st Thessalonians 4:18)

loser..

2007-04-20T11:27:00.000-05:00

a once proud nation reduced by the whims of the pathetic...

guns in the gun free zone..

2007-04-19T16:52:00.000-05:00

i'm in favor of sad-free..
----------------------------------------
Let's Make America a "Sad-Free Zone"
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com April 19, 2007

From the attacks of 9-11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.
Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy – in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing – as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.
Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, IL, in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, CA, in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, PA, last year.

Oh, by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone – at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.
Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

war posturing..

2007-04-17T16:19:00.000-05:00

the looming Israeli, iranian showdown is heating up.. it could be that Israel and US forces strike a serious setback to the iranian nuclear plan, killing invested soviet engineers, creating the stage for a larger escalation.. we could certainly see a 2 front war opened up on Israel from the north and south, allowing iran to use it's proxy hizballah and puppet syria to inflict losses on Israel. Israel will more than likely be less inclined to offer a disorganized response as they did last summer, which could result in significant losses for both hizballah and syria.. it would not be out of the question to see syria use chemical/biological weapons on Israel, eliciting a nuclear response.

the summer could be rocky..

Espionage Galore under a Middle East Nuclear Cloud
DEBKAfile Special Analysis
April 17, 2007, 9:19 PM (GMT+02:00)

It sounded like a contest.
On Tuesday, April 17, the Shin Bet intelligence service reported Iranian intelligence had intensified its efforts to recruit Israelis as spies, targeting former Iranians applying for visas to visit their families. One young man had been snared and paid “expenses” for enlisting a friend in security and collecting information. The Shin Bet detained him on landing home, before he did any harm.

Two hours later, in Cairo, a nuclear engineer Mohammed Gaber, was accused by Prosecutor-General Abdul-Maquid Mahmoud of spying on Egypt’s nuclear program on behalf of the Mossad, which was said to have paid him $17,000. An Irishman and Japanese were sought in connection with the affair. Israel dismissed the charge as another of Cairo’s unfounded spy myths, whose dissemination was not conducive to good relations.

Neither case is isolated. Two days earlier, the Israeli-Arab parliamentarian Azmi Beshara admitted from a safe distance to the Qatar-based al Jazeera TV channel that he was under suspicion of spying for Hizballah during its war with Israel and would not be returning home any time soon.

Add on the US defense secretary Robert Gates’ visits to Jordan, Israel and Egypt this week reportedly to coordinate and oversee preparations connected to a potential military operation against Iran and, in the view of DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources, these espionage rumbles denote a far greater upheaval boililng up below ground.

Most can be traced one way or another to the mysterious disappearance of the Iranian general Ali Reza Asgari from Istanbul in February. Tehran’s job description of the missing general – a former deputy defense minister, who also worked with the Lebanese Hizballah in the 1980 - is correct as far as it goes. But the failure to bring it up to date is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that, at the time of his disappearance, he headed Iran’s Middle East spy networks.
The cases disclosed Tuesday may be just the tip of the iceberg, with more spy dramas on the way. But even at this early stage of a potential intelligence earthquake, certain conclusions are indicated.

Firstly, Israeli will soon have no choice but to declare Iran an enemy state and ban Israeli travel to the Islamic Republic for the first time in the 28 years since Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution. Surprisingly, Israelis are still legally permitted to visit Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran.

The Shin Bet did not need to publicize Iran’s intense hunt for Israeli spies in order to stop those visits; there are other ways. The espionage case would not have been brought out in the open without the knowledge of the relevant ministers – certainly not a graphic account of how the Iranian consulate in Istanbul, whence Gen. Asgari vanished, doubles as the distribution center for visas to Iran and a recruiting center for spies. Israelis applying for visas are obliged to deposit their Israeli passports there and issued with travel documents which gain them entry to Tehran. This process is drawn out to enable Iranian intelligence agents to make their first pitch to the targeted Israeli. It is followed up after he enters Iran.

The Shin Bet’s sudden outburst of transparency indicates that the scene is being set for a major diplomatic, military or intelligence step in the summer. This time, the Israeli government will not repeat at least one of the mistakes committed in July 2006, when it refused to declare that Israel was at war and the Hizballah an enemy, even after its forces crossed in to northern Israel, kidnapped two soldiers and let loose with a Katyusha barrage.

Israel is now putting the horse before the cart and declaring Iran an enemy country before the event.

It is therefore vital to deter Israeli nationals from visiting Iran in advance of potential Middle East hostilities. If Iran is involved, even through its allies or the Hizballah, Israelis in the Islamic Republic would be in danger of being taken captive or hostage.

Israel’s latest posture and precautions are likely to have the dual effect of raising Middle East tensions and placing Iran’s ancient Jewish community, reduced now to 25,000, in jeopardy.

“Israeli spy rings” may soon be “uncovered” by Iranian security agents.

Second, the Middle East has embarked on a nuclear arms race. It is no secret that at last month’s Arab summit in Riyadh, the Saudi ruler strongly urged his fellows to unite their national nuclear programs under a single roof. Though played down, this was the summit’s most important decision – not the so-called Saudi peace plan, although it made the most waves. It was a step intended to produce an Arab nuclear option versus the Iranian weapons program.

Every aspect of the unified Arab nuclear program is therefore extraordinarily sensitive and hemmed in with exceptional security measures. Each has become a prime intelligence target - and not only for Israel. Hence the song and dance the Egyptian prosecutor general made Tuesday of an alleged Israeli spy network said to operate out of Hong Kong, with an Irish and a Japanese agent charged with planting Israeli espionage software in Egyptian nuclear program’s computers, together with an Egyptian engineer. Egyptian intelligence was making sure to warn off any Egyptian tempted to work for Israeli intelligence, just as the Shin Bet was cautioning Israelis to beware of falling into Iranian intelligence traps.

The events of a single day brought Iran and its nuclear threat into sharp relief as the most pressing issues for Israel. Relations with the Palestinians and Syria, on which so many words are poured day by day, pale in comparison.

2007-04-17T13:18:00.000-05:00

the continuing evolution of the axis among iran, syria and russia falls right in to place with the words of Ezekiel 38.. what a very interesting time to be alive.
_______________________________
Israel's Next War
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com April 17, 2007

Ze’ev Schiff—left-of-center, not a hawk, and considered by many to be Israel’s foremost military analyst—cites security sources as saying those Qassams that Islamic Jihad has been raining on Gaza-bordering communities during the “ceasefire” with Hamas are in fact supplied by Hamas.
Hamas, the sources said, while “maintaining a front of abiding by the ceasefire,” is actually “emerging as the lynchpin of Palestinian terrorist activities against Israel.” That is believed to include providing Islamic Jihad with Russian-made 16-kilometer-range Grad rockets, already used last year to target the town of Ashkelon with its strategic facilities.
An analysis last month already warned that Hamas is “improving its rocket capabilities” while “seeking to build anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems that will neutralize Israel’s current ability to easily penetrate Gaza.”
The deteriorating situation in the south led Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Tzvika Fogel, formerly chief of staff for Southern Command, to warn on Israel’s Channel 10 that Israel faces two choices: to “continue its ostrich-like stance” until the Gaza terror forces mount a surprise attack, or to launch a full-scale preemptive attack of its own.

Meanwhile, shifting the lens to the north, last week the head of Israeli Military Intelligence, Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, reported to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Syria is “purchasing massive amounts of ground-to-ground and anti-tank missiles from Russia”—a country whose name tends to turn up in these contexts—and that, while “there is a low probability that Syria will initiate a war against Israel,” Syria could launch attacks in the Golan Heights even though it could lead to war.

Another report gave an even more ominous picture of an “unprecedented military buildup in Syria,” including the deployment of 300 home-manufactured Scud missiles just north of the Golan Heights, the establishment of new commando units, and a spike in training for urban and guerrilla warfare.

A source in IDF Northern Command said that “Syria saw the difficulty the IDF had during the fighting inside the southern Lebanese villages [last summer] and now . . . wants to draw us—in the event of a war—into battles in built-up areas where they think they will have the upper hand.”

And over in Lebanon itself, the fallout from last summer’s war is just as negative and the prognosis no better. In his same testimony to the Knesset committee last week, Maj.-Gen. Yadlin noted that up to several hundred Al Qaeda members have arrived in Lebanon with the aim of attacking UNIFIL and other Western targets; and that Hezbollah remains entrenched in southern Lebanon and keeps amassing large quantities of arms from Syria and Iran.

Rounding out the circle by returning to the south, Yadlin also said some Al Qaeda operatives have infiltrated Gaza as well, and that Hamas is gaining financial and political strength while its members receive training in Syria and Iran.

Overall, “the MI chief stressed that Iran continues to provide funding and weapons to Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and has close military and intelligence coordination with Syria.” Add Russia to the mix and the picture is complete: a Shiite-Sunni-Russian terror-military axis seeking to surround, pressure, and harass Israel and ultimately eradicate it.

Tragically, this is happening at a time when Israel has a government hobbled by incompetence, unpopularity, scandals, infighting, and delusory dovishness, and that, apart from stepped-up training for some IDF units, is essentially doing nothing about the growing threats. It does not help that Israel’s U.S. ally keeps obsessively choreographing diplomatic dances with the likes of PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Saudis, and the Arab League with which Israel dutifully complies—achieving nothing except to further project weakness to Israel’s enemies and lull the parts of the Israeli public that are eager to be lulled.

As Schiff points out in another analysis, it was the reluctance to enter a two-front war that led Israel to allow Hezbollah’s major military buildup in southern Lebanon in the first place. After Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon in 2000 against the advice of most of the IDF top brass, Prime Minister Ehud Barak and then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon found themselves facing a Palestinian terror onslaught mounted from the West Bank and Gaza and did not want to further complicate matters by doing something about Hezbollah in Lebanon.

So Israel, Schiff notes, “never once struck at the convoys transferring the missiles to Lebanon, and never struck even one Hezbollah missile warehouse, or even the short-range rockets near the border.” The end result was that Israel found itself at war on two fronts anyway—when Hamas attacked from Gaza and kidnapped a soldier last June, and Hezbollah followed suit the next month with an attack and kidnapping from Lebanon; and now faces the prospect of a further two-front war against enemies with enhanced capabilities.

Hope resides mainly in the interim report later this month of the Winograd Committee, set up to investigate the failures in last summer’s war and also expected to address the whole period of 2000-2006. Sufficiently harsh conclusions against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could lead him to resign or cause other political ferment leading to new elections. As time goes on and Israel, aside from antiterror policing work in the West Bank, remains almost entirely passive against the growing threats, it does not appear that Olmert’s government has the will or ability to do anything about them, and its continued tenure appears to spell disaster.

If there is a chance—apart from a strike on Iran that would alter the region’s strategic balance—for Israel to avoid another two-front entanglement, it lies mainly in regaining its deterrence by making an effective move in Gaza. A hard-enough blow to Hamas and its friends there could make Hezbollah and Syria think twice about starting more trouble in the north. But there may be little time left, and such an outcome requires a functioning government in Jerusalem. It also calls for a Washington able to look past short-term diplomatic concerns and give Israel the backing it needs.

imus(t) post this..

2007-04-16T16:25:00.000-05:00

another well written piece on the imus fiasco..

----------------------
Imus go down to the idiocy again
April 15, 2007
MARK STEYN

I was at LaGuardia the other day. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just the usual four-hour delay brought on by yet another of these April snowstorms Al Gore has arranged as a savvy marketing gimmick for his global warming documentary. Anyway, as always when you're at the gate for hours on end, there's nothing to do but watch CNN. I gather air traffic delays now account for 87 percent of CNN's audience. If it's just a routine holdup of two or three hours because the gate agent hasn't shown up, you know you'll be out of there before Wolf Blitzer's said goodnight. But, if it's something serious, like a light breeze at O'Hare, you know you'll be watching Larry King right through to the plug for tomorrow night's full hour with Tina Louise.

So I had the pleasure of sampling a typical evening's lineup of Don Imus coverage, from Wolf bringing us up to speed on the various networks that have fired him to Paula Zahn hosting a balanced panel of three African Americans and a guilt-ridden honky. It would have been a bad day for Ahmadinejad to drop the big one because nothing was going to prize CNN from their Imus-In-the-Morning-Noon-and-Night coverage.

Pundits are supposed to have opinions on everything, but to be honest I had no strong views on the scandal roiling the nation. I've never listened to the Imus show. The closest I get is if I happen to be driving around of an afternoon listening to WXZO from Burlington, Vt., and I hear one of their promos for the show, usually consisting of a 60-second highlight. In all the years of that condensed acquaintanceship with Imus, no "highlight" has ever struck me as funny or insightful. But I assumed that was simply because I'd left it too late: As with "Days of Our Lives" or "As the World Turns," if you've missed the first seven or eight decades it's hard to get into it.

So I don't know whether calling the Rutgers basketball ladies "nappy-headed hos" is a mean old white guy's racist slur or an artful parodic jest on the way black women are talked about by black men -- or at least by the ones on the record charts. After all, the only way mean old white folks know the expressions "nappy" or "ho" is because they heard 'em from hip young black folks. Indeed, one could argue it's a tribute to how non-racist America is that an elderly Caucasian would wish to talk like a gangsta rapper. What was it Martin Luther King dreamed of? A nation where men would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their characterizations?

Alas, it's not that simple. Apparently, when two hip-hoppers are up on stage doing their "Who was that ho I saw you with last night?"/"That was no ho, that was my bitch" shtick, they're just keepin' it real. When a white guy does it, he's just keepin' it real unlikely he'll find gainful employment again. Unless, of course, the networks are now proposing to apply the Imus standard to all performers, in which case the Grammy Awards will last 10 minutes (Best Liner Notes on a Polka Album and Best Tony Bennett Celebrity Duets CD of the Last Two Months).

It's a good rule of thumb in American scandals that, no matter how big an idiot someone is, the outrage over him will always be more idiotic. Let us take the easiest ones first. "I've received hundreds, if not thousands of e-mails, both internal and external, from people with very strong views about what should happen," said Steve Capus, president of NBC News. "And many of them are people who have worked at NBC News for decades, people who put their lives on the line covering wars and things like that." Is that a lobby group yet? War Correspondents Against Racism? Capus was taking no chances. "This decision was made after listening to the people who work for NBC News, who have placed a trust and respect the trust that America has given us."

Is it written somewhere in the Media Code of Ethics that you're not allowed to fire anyone without sounding like a pompous self-regarding bore? Playing catch-up and terminating Imus 24 hours after MSNBC, CBS chairman Les Moonves left NBC's "trust" and "respect" and "respect for the trust" in the dust: "We are now presented with a significant opportunity to expand on our record on issues of diversity, race and gender. We intend to seize that opportunity as we move forward together." That sounds like a helluva morning show you're developing there, Mr. Chairman. Unless it's just off-the-peg meaningless pap to be forgotten as soon as the press release is shoved in the filing cabinet.

Needless to say, Moonves fired Imus after first meeting with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton. I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where a white guy can be fired for racist remarks without his employers having to prostrate themselves before clapped out professional grievance mongers and shakedown artists. But dream on. Two men who slandered the Duke lacrosse players not just as racists but as rapists (by the way, has the Rev. Jackson come through on his promise to pay for the "victim" to go to college?) are the go-to guys when it comes to judging rhetorical excess in respect of varsity sports teams. Surely even a network president isn't such a craven squish he can go through a meeting like that with a straight face?

And saddest of all were the Rutgers basketball gals themselves. Almost a century and a half after the abolition of slavery, 40 years after the civil rights era, a group of young black women who've achieved great success went on TV and teared up because of a cheap crack by an over-the-hill shock jock. As a female correspondent to the Powerline Web site commented:
"Here are these tough women on top of the world and they are so fragile that a remark knocks them down. Hey, why wouldn't they have said 'F--- you? Who the heck is this fool Imus? We are queens of national basketball and there is no stopping us now. We can be and do anything we choose to be or do. . . . We don't need Al Sharpton to protect us. . . . ' But no, they look devastated and say they are damaged irreparably.''

Only in America: a team of champions who think they're victims, an old white fool who talks like a gangsta rapper and multi-millionaires grown rich on race-baiting who promote themselves as guardians of civility. Good thing there are no real problems to worry about.

afraid of the truth..

2007-04-11T10:04:00.000-05:00

a great read.. absolutely spot on.
------------------------------------------------------
Imus isn’t the real bad guy
Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.
JASON WHITLOCK

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.
You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.
You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.
Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.
The bigots win again.
While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.
I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.
It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.
Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.
It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.
I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.
But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.
I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.
Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.
Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.
But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.
In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?
I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?
When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.
No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

a world without America?

2007-01-26T13:02:00.000-06:00

the frogs are starting to realize it's not the utopia they hoped for.. (at least some of them)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
France's Pro-America Turn
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com January 26, 2007

(St. Tropez, France) – Not only in America did a presidential election cycle kick off this past week, but also in our alter-ego, France.

There were no grand debates about war and peace, however. No questions raised about this candidate trying to disguise his Muslim upbringing by joining a mainstream Christian church. No huge gambles over the fate of the free world.

This is France, after all. So the biggest “news” of the presidential campaign – just three months from the first round! – was the grammatical error Socialist Segolene Royal made during a trip to China. Or again, an offhand comment she made in Paris this week in support of a visiting separatist leader from Quebec.

France has become a profoundly frivolous nation, dedicated to pleasure, and that suits many French men and women very well.

In St. Tropez this week, the movie stars and the sun-bathers have gone home. Now as the mistral whips the port into a chilly froth, the local clothing boutiques are well into their annual half-price sale, and nearly everyone one of them is staffed by wannabe teenage beauty queens or by ever-tanned women in the 50s who can still wear skin-tight jeans and boots and look stunning..

Disco Volante of James Bond fame looked positively tiny parked down the quai from two 135 foot Mangousta yachts registered in Nassau and the Cayman Islands (one of them called, appropriately, Don’t Touch!). How many of you have ever seen a 135 foot yacht? It’s the maritime equivalent of a ten carat diamond. – and about as expensive.

The biggest gripe among locals this week was the outrageous price of fresh truffles. Alas, they’ve quadrupled from last year and are going for 1,000 euros a kilo – that’s $650 a pound. What is the world coming to?

Nicholas Sarkozy is widely touted as the front-runner for president, and that is good news for America. He is smart, he is conservative, and he understands that the protector of French prosperity is in Washington, not Brussels.

No French president is going to increase French defense spending to the level where the French could actually deploy an army overseas any time in the near future. Unlike the other candidates, however, Sarkozy doesn’t just know this, he says it openly with realism and clarity.

He came to Washington this past autumn – none of the locals there noticed him much, but his visit was widely commented upon here in France. Sarkozy the pro-American, his enemies call him. And to his credit, he finds that title just fine.

Sarkozy began his political career three decades ago as the protégé of Jacques Chirac. At one point, he was even dating Chirac’s daughter. He fell out first with one, then the other, and became a fierce critic of Chirac’s silly (and at times, dangerous) anti-Americanism during the Iraq war.

Two years ago, Chirac was hoping to put an end to Sarkozy’s career once and for all, as allegations floated in the media that he had a secret (and illegal) overseas bank account. This perfidious deed came to light when a list of these secret accounts, held with Clearstream in Luxembourg, surfaced in the French press.

To Chirac’s surprise, Sarkozy didn’t just bow down and surrender; he fought back, filing a civil lawsuit for defamation. That turned the matter over to a French investigative magistrate, who bit by bit began interrogating witnesses under oath until – mince, alors! – he discovered that the whole business appeared to have begun in 2004 in the private office of Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin, Chirac’s swashbuckling foreign minister.

Sarkozy came out the winner, and it was Villepin’s career that took a fatal tumble. Instead of rushing to battle on his white charger, a fanion with Napolean’s eagle waving in the breeze, the overwrought Prime Minister plunged to his political death at under 20% in the polls. He recently pledged fealty to Sarkozy, for the few centimes his support is still worth.

A very pleasant man named François Bayrou has also joined the presidential steeple chase, and the press is falling over themselves to push him forward. He hails from the centrist party of former president Valery Giscard d’Estaign, and is a very sensible, honorable professional politician.

But French politics can get serious, and it can get ugly. And it can have a decided negative impact on the United States, as the 2002 election showed. Faced with neo-fascist leader Jean-Marie LePen in the second round, Chirac rallied the left and won the run-off with a resounding 82% of the vote. That led him to believe – mistakenly – that he had a mandate to transform France into America’s strategic adversary and save the Middle East for French banks, oil companies and arms merchants.

The press would love Mr. François Bayrou to become the spoiler, and knock out Sarkozy in the first round so their real favorite, the Socialist Segolene Royal, will face the ageing LePen in the run-off.

That’s the scenario, folks. And unlike America’s elections, we’ll know how it plays out soon enough.

Meanwhile, the French have begun to see the downside of a weakened George W. Bush. Just last week, political commentator Bernard Guetta was reviewing the Latin American tour of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where he was squired around by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

The two of them pledged to try to convince OPEC to lower production quotos, so oil prices would return to record highs. Ah, but why didn’t America do anything about all this, Monsieur Guetta wondered. What did this mean? He knew the answer (after all, he is French).

“It means we are seeing the weakening of America,” he moaned.

When America is too strong, too self-confident, and too rich, the French worry they will become insignificant and do everything they can to hold us in check (as Chirac did in Iraq).

But when America becomes weak, the French start to fear for their own safety.

America is still the guarantor of freedom in this fallen, imperfect world of ours. And we should never forget it.

the boy love of the taliban

2006-12-29T12:19:00.000-06:00

maybe this tells us all we really need to know about radical islam..

------------------

Boys of the Taliban
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com December 29, 2006

Just recently, the Taliban issued a new set of 30 rules to its fighters.
Many of the instructions were to be expected: rule No. 25 commands the murder of teachers if a warning and a beating does not dissuade them from teaching. No. 26 outlines the exquisite delicacy of burning schools and destroying anything that aid organizations might undertake -- such as the building of a new road, school or clinic. The essence of the other rules are easily left to the imagination, basically involving what militant Islam is about: vile hate, death and destruction.

But there is a curious rule that the Western media has typically ignored. Rule No. 19 instructs that Taliban fighters must not take young boys without facial hair into their private quarters.

Right.

(Cough and clearing of the throat).

Aside from the question of what is permitted if a young boy does happen to have facial hair, this new Taliban commandment brings light to a taboo pathology that underlies the structures of militant Islam. And it is crucial to deconstruct the meaning of this rule -- and the horrid reality that it represents -- because it serves as a gateway to understanding the primary causes of Islamic rage and terror.

Rule No. 19 obviously indicates that the sexual abuse of young boys is a prevalent and institutionalized phenomenon among the Taliban and that, for one reason or another, its widespread practice has become a problem.

The fact that Taliban militants’ spare time involves sodomizing young boys should by no means be any kind of surprise or eyebrow raiser. That a mass pathology such as this occurs in a culture which demonizes the female and her sexuality -- and puts her out of mind and sight -- is only to be expected. To be sure, it is a simple given that the religious male fanatic who flies into a violent rage even at the thought of an exposed woman’s ankle will also be, in some other dysfunctional and dark secret compartment of his fractured life, the person who leads some poor helpless young boy into his private chambers.

The key issue here is that the demented sickness that underlies Rule No. 19 is by no means exclusive to the Taliban; it is a widespread phenomenon throughout Islamic-Arab culture and it lies, among other factors, at the root of that culture’s addiction to rage and its lust for violence, terror and suicide.

There is a basic and common sense empirical human reality: wherever humans construct and perpetuate an environment in which females and their sexuality are demonized and are pushed into invisibility, homosexual behaviour among men and the sexual abuse of young boys by older men always increases. Islamic-Arab culture serves as a perfect example of this paradigm, seeing that gender apartheid, fear of female sexuality and a vicious misogyny are the structures on which the whole society functions.

It is no surprise that John Racy, a psychiatrist with much experience in Arab societies, has noted that homosexuality is “extremely common” in many parts of the Arab world. [1] Indeed, even though homosexuality is officially despised in this culture and strictly prohibited and punishable by imprisonment, incarceration and/or death, having sex with boys or effeminate men is actually a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The key is this: the male who does the penetrating is not considered to be homosexual or emasculated any more than if he were to have sex with his wife, while the male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not considered to be emasculated since he is not yet considered to be a man. A man who has sex with boys is simply doing what many men (especially unmarried ones) do. [2] And this reality is connected to the fact that, as scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic-Arab societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination. [3]

While secrecy and taboo surround this phenomenon, some courageous Arabs have dared to discuss and expose it. Walid Shoebat, for instance, a former Palestinian terrorist, has openly related the abuse of young boys in Palestinian Muslim society. He himself witnessed a line of shepherd boys waiting for their turn to sodomize a five-year-old boy. [4] Amnesty International has also reported that Afghan warlords routinely sexually victimize young boys and film the orgies. [5] (The sexual abuse of young girls in this environment is also obviously widespread). [6]

While she was in Afghanistan in 1961, author and scholar Phyllis Chesler saw homosexuals roaming the streets, holding hands in broad daylight and gazing into each other’s eyes. “One of the pair,” she writes, “might sport a flower behind his ear; another might be wearing lipstick or have rouged cheeks.” At the same time, Chesler observed that everyone, including her Arab husband, was in denial about this common social reality, refusing to admit that this widespread behaviour was, in fact, homosexuality. [7]

In the dysfunctional and morbid paradigms of this culture, the idea of love is, obviously, completely absent from men's understanding of sexuality. Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to a form of prison sex: hurting others with violence. A gigantic rupture inevitably develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist. [8]

The sexual confusion, humiliation, and repression that develop in the mindset of many males in this culture are excruciating. And it is no surprise that many of them find the only avenue for personal gratification in the act of sexually abusing young boys and, of course, in humiliating the foreign "enemy," whose masculinity must be violated at all costs -- just as theirs once was.

Islamist terror, therefore, is, in part, very much a release of the terrorists’ bottled-up sexual rage in connection to sexual frustration and desperation -- and to the humiliation connected to feelings of emasculation, which culminates in the act of striking out against “the enemy” and violating his masculinity. The inner workings of this mindset explain why Islamic terrorists consistently engage in sexual mutilation of their victims. Psychiatrist David Gutmann notes this phenomenon in the context of Arab Jew-hatred:

The Israelis perform in this Arab psychodrama of gender as a potent, destabilizing threat: to begin with, as a people they broke out of the deprecated but tolerated status of Dhimmi - a kind of submissive "woman" - to the "masculine" status of pioneer, rebel, warrior and nation builder. In retaliation, in their wars and Intifadas the Arabs strive to castrate the uppity masculinizing Jew -- and this project is carried out quite literally on the battlefield, where the bodies of fallen Jews have been mutilated in the most obscene ways. [9]

This lust for violence against “the enemy” and the accompanying yearning to die in the process are fuelled by the morbid earthly existence that is engendered by militant Islam. Indeed, there exists very few reasons for males to value their time on earth; their freedom of action and ability to experience joy and pleasure are extremely limited in terms of what is allowed. To be sure, most young men have absolutely no experience in love, sex, affection or friendship with females, and they have no outlet for their libido, which, to further pathologize the mindset, they regard as evil temptation. Killing and dying, therefore, become the only areas where free will can be exercised.

This lust for death is further compounded by the theological underpinnings of Islam itself, which promises the Muslim male sexual treats in the afterlife which are forbidden to him on earth. Indeed, if a Muslim male dies in the cause of jihad, he will enjoy a blissful union with virgins in paradise (Suras 78:31, 37:40-48, 44:51-55). And for those Muslim warriors for whom women are not of interest, there will be young pre-pubescent boys at their service -- and they will be like “scattered pearls” of “perpetual freshness” (Suras 52:24, 56:17, 76:19).

Thus, for the Taliban fighters who are frustrated with the new obstacles posed by Rule No. 19, there now exists an even greater incentive to get to paradise a little faster.

In essence, suicide through jihad represents a form of perverted liberty through which an individual can express himself. In so doing, the Islamic radical strikes out at what tempts him, avenges his own emasculation and, through the act of suicide, cleanses himself of his own temptation by ridding himself of his earthly existence.

Theodore Dalrymple offers a profound analysis of this phenomenon in the context of the Muslim fundamentalist’s agonizing hate and self-hate inside a Western society. Analyzing the motivations of the Pakistani suicide bombers who struck in London in June 2005, he demonstrates that they saw no way out of their confrontation with freedom and modernity except death:

What more convincing evidence of faith could there be than to die for its sake? How can a person be really attached or attracted to rap music and cricket and Mercedes cars if he is prepared to blow himself up as a means of destroying the society that produces them? Death will be the end of the illicit attachment that he cannot entirely eliminate from his heart. The two forms of jihad, the inner and the outer, the greater and the lesser, thus coalesce in one apocalyptic action. By means of suicide bombing, the bombers overcome moral impurities and religious doubts within themselves and, supposedly, strike an external blow for the propagation of the faith. [10]

All of these inter-related phenomena serve as windows of understanding for us, through which we become able to grasp the demented and psychopathic psychology that creates the need for a rule such as the Taliban’s No. 19. It is a rule that exposes a fanatic mindset that holds the sight and reality of an unveiled woman to be a horrific nightmare and the greatest sin, yet simultaneously considers the forced rape of a young prepubescent boy to be in the normal swing of things.

It is on this eerie and putrid plateau that we come to see the factors that spawn the yearning for death and suicide inside militant Islam. Circumscribed in the most vicious and sadistic of ways, the men imprisoned in these cages long to regain a masculinity and humanity that was violently robbed from them as children. In a setting where healing through contact with feminine affection is denied and considered evil, self-extinction through hurting the “enemy” -- and the tempter -- becomes the only way out.

Notes:

[1] David Pryce-Jones, The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs (Chicago: Irvin R. Dee, 2002), p.131.

[2] Bruce Dunne, “Power and Sexuality in the Middle East,” Middle East Report, Spring 1998. For a further discussion on the widespread homosexuality among men in Muslim societies in North Africa and South Asia, and how married men having sex with boys and other men is considered a social norm, and not “homosexual,” see Arno Schmitt and Jehoeda Sofer (eds.), Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Muslim Societies (New York: Harrington Park Press, 1992).

[3] Dunne.

[4] Chesler, The Death of Feminism, (Macmillan: New York , 2005), p.144.

[5] Chesler, p.144.

[6] Author Nawal El Saadawi, gives an account of the horrifying and widespread sexual abuse of young girls in the Muslim-Arab world, a crime for which the perpetrators are exonerated. See Sadawwi, The Hidden Face of Eve: Women in the Arab World, pp.12-24. While it is obvious that this abuse, as with the abuse of young boys, is connected to the unavailability of women for men in the culture at large, Chesler notes that the widespread sexual abuse of female children in the Muslim world “is one of the main ways of traumatizing and shaming girls into obedience and rendering them less capable of rebellion or resistance when they grow up.” (Chesler, p.145)

[7] Chesler, p.88 and p.144.

[8] Dunne.

[9] David Gutmann, “Symposium: Purifying Allah's Soil,” FrontPageMagazine.com, January 27, 2006.

[10] Theodore Dalrymple, “The Suicide Bombers Among Us,” City Journal, Autumn 2005.

attacking iran?

2006-12-27T15:04:00.000-06:00

sounds like the new year could be complete with some serious fireworks..

---------------------------------
Showdown
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com December 27, 2006

The nuclear crisis boiling away under the surface for the past three years with Iran has finally erupted.
Over the next three to six months, expect things to get much worse, with a very real possibility of a war that could spread far beyond the confines of the Persian Gulf.
How we got here was entirely predictable – and avoidable. So is the path to a violent future.

We got to this point because the White House essentially caved in to intense pressure from the CIA and the foreign policy establishment, and refused to do the one thing that could have headed off this crisis: that is, to support the rights of the Iranian people and their struggle for freedom against this clerical tyranny. And now, it is almost – almost – too late.

The immediate trigger for the crisis occurred on Saturday, just two days before Christmas, when the UN Security Council finally quit dithering and passed a binding resolution to impose sanctions on Iran because of its illegal nuclear program.

While far from perfect (remember: this is the UN), UNSC Resolution 1737 bans nuclear and missile-related trade with Iran, and includes a short list of Iranian government entities and individuals whose assets could be subject to seizure and who could be banned from international travel.

(The United States had wanted both to be mandatory measures in this resolution, but gave in to a Russian demand to again give Iran more leash).

The UN Security Council passed a similar, binding resolution on July 31 giving Iran one month to suspend its nuclear programs in a verifiable manner, or else…It’s taken all this time since that the earlier deadline expired for China and Russia to exhaust their formidable bag of diplomatic tricks. Now even they have come to acknowledge the obvious, that Iran is using the IAEA as a foil for acquiring all the technologies it needs to make the bomb.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded typically to the news from Turtle Bay in New York. “This resolution will not harm Iran and those who backed it will soon regret their superficial act,” he said on Christmas Eve.

“Iranians are neither worried nor uncomfortable with the resolution...we will celebrate our atomic achievements in February,” he added.

In earlier statements, he has claimed Iran would have a big nuclear “surprise” to unveil to the world by the end of the Persian year, which ends on March 20. So unless he is just blowing smoke (and I will explain shortly why I don’t believe that he is), then we will be facing very bleak choices in very short order.

Remember, just a few weeks ago, Ahmadinejad announced to the world that Iran had completed its uranium enrichment experiments and was now preparing to install 3,000 production centrifuges at its now-declared enrichment plant in Natanz, in central Iran.

His announcement fell exactly within the timeline that Israeli nuclear experts have derived from Iran’s public declarations to the IAEA, and the on-site inspections by IAEA experts in Iran.

As I wrote after interviews in Israel this past June, the Israelis projected that Iran would complete work on two 164-centrifuge experimental enrichment cascades within six months, and that installation of the 3,000 centrifuge pilot plant would take another nine months. From then, it would take Iran twelve months more to make its first bomb’s-worth of nuclear fuel.

So far, Iran is right on schedule. This will give it nuclear weapons capability by September 2008 – just in time for the U.S. presidential elections. (And remember: this timeline is not speculative. It is based on information, not intelligence.)

Once the UN Security Council resolution was passed, Ahmadinejad’s top nuclear advisor, Ali Larijani, said the regime now planned to accelerate the installation of the production centrifuges.

“From Sunday morning [December 24] , we will begin activities at Natanz – the site of 3,000-centrifuge machines – and we will drive it with full speed. It will be our immediate response to the resolution,” Iran’s Kayhan paper quoted him as saying.

How is this possible? Well, for one thing, it is likely that Iran has been producing centrifuges in factories and workshops it has not declared to the IAEA. Worse, it may be operating a clandestine enrichment facility buried deep underground already, as many in Israel and U.S. intelligence have long believed.

The Israelis told me this summer this was their “worst-worst case” scenario. But a senior Israeli intelligence official I saw recently said the likelihood of that “worst-worst case” now appeared to be far greater than he or others had previously believed. “There can be no doubt they have a clandestine program,” he said.

And because it’s clandestine, we don’t know the size or shape of it, and therefore can’t make estimates of Iran’s nuclear timeline based on speculation and fear. But now the Israelis, the Americans and the British are beginning to understand – finally – that what they don’t know about Iran could be fatal.

After all, they are facing a president in Iran who has said that the Holocaust never really occurred under Hitler, but that he intended to carry it out himself, by accomplishing Ayatollah Khomeini’s goal of “wiping Israel off the map.”

On December 21 – just two days before the UN Security Council resolution – British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave the bleakest assessment of his entire tenure at 10 Downing Street of the threat posed to the West by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Speaking in Dubai, he gave an unusually blunt speech that warned of a monumental struggle between Islamic moderates and Islamic extremists, and that labeled Iran as “the main obstacle” to hopes for peace.

For the first time, a key world leader actually uttered parts of the laundry list of Iranian regime misdeeds that people like myself and Michael Ledeen and Iranian dissidents such as Rouzbeh Farahanipour and Reza Pahlavi have been warning about for years.

Blair said there were "elements of the government of Iran, openly supporting terrorism in Iraq to stop a fledgling democratic process; trying to turn out a democratic government in Lebanon; floutting the international community's desire for peace in Palestine - at the same time as denying the Holocaust and trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.”

Blair expressed surprise that despite these overt deeds, “a large part of world opinion is frankly almost indifferent. It would be bizarre if it weren't deadly serious.”

"We must recognize the strategic challenge the government of Iran poses," Blair added. "Not its people, possibly not all its ruling elements, but those presently in charge of its policy."

While all of this is developing, the United States and Britain have begun a quiet buildup of their naval forces in the Persian Gulf, with the goal of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to international shipping.

The spark point of open military confrontation could occur in many different ways.

The Iranians, for example, might choose to get directly involved should the U.S. military aid the Iraqi government in a crackdown on the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army and the Badr brigade, two Shiite militias fueling the sectarian violence in Iraq. (A clear sign that Iran is contemplating just such a move was revealed on Christmas day, when the U.S. Acknowledged it was holding four Iranians captured during a raid on the Headquarters of Abdulaziz al-Hakim in Baghdad just three weeks after he met with President Bush in the Oval Office).

Should Iran send troops, or escalate its current level of military involvement in Iraq, the U.S. might choose to take the war into Iran, say by attacking Revolutionary Guards bases near the Iraqi border that were involved in aiding the Iraqi Shi'ite militias.

Should the United States bomb a Rev. Guards base here or there, the Iranians might choose to respond by launching “swarming” attacks against U.S. warships in the Persian gulf, or by attacking a foreign-flagged oil tanker carrying Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil, or by increasing rocket and missile supplies to Hezbollah in Lebanon to spark another diversionary war against Israel.

There are scores of ways this could happen. But where it gets us is to a direct military confrontation with Iran – an Iran which could be a nuclear power, and certainly will be a suspected nuclear power, in a matter of months, if not weeks.

And there is no easy way of walking this back. Even the insane Baker-Hamilton proposal of a direct dialogue with Iran will not get them to abandon their nuclear program, which this regime in Tehran has clearly identified as a strategic asset it is willing to make great sacrifices to develop and protect.

So fasten your seat belts. We are in for a rough ride.

throwing Israel to the wolves..

2006-12-07T13:33:00.000-06:00

sweeping in to positions of prominence are ghosts of past administrations.. administrations without regard for Israel's security and a disinterest of its continued existence.

james baker, a long time Jew hater is now suggesting that the best method to resolve our issues in the middle east is to force our sole ally in to a smaller box with indefensible borders. the fact that robert gates would come out and explicitly label Israel as a nuclear power is inexcusable. the fact that this man is now our secretary of defense should concern us greatly.

i think that george bush is a man of great faith, however, i am concerned by his judgment since re-election. the united states has been blessed more than any country in the history of the world. these blessings are from God because of our foundation in his values and in his Son's name. We have also been the lone voice of support for Israel. if we back off our support for Israel, if we force them in to giving up land granted to them by God, then i fear for the country.

it is clearly stated in Genesis 12:3, "And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." we abandon Israel at our own peril. we are already legislation and litigating God out of our day to day lives, so i suppose it only makes sense that we would finally abandon God's chosen people. unfortunately, we will be judged for our actions as a nation who claims 'in God we trust'.

it is sad that when pressed, a once great people who stood for something now choose to negotiate with terrorist and murderers rather than stand and do what is right. but anymore, doing what is right is far to difficult for some and impossible for others. for those 'others' have no sense of right and wrong, just what is convenient.
-----------------------------------------------------
DEBKAfile: Robert GatesÂ reference to an Israeli nuclear weapon was synchronized with BakerÂs exclusion of Israel from a Mid East conference. The Senate confirms Gates in defense by 95-2 vote
December 7, 2006, 5:10 PM (GMT+02:00)
The pair is pursuing a new policy line which sacrifices the traditional US-Israeli alliance for the sake of wooing Iran, Syria and IraqÂs neighbors for help in Iraq. During his senate hearings, Gates confirmed - and indirectly justified - IranÂs quest for a nuclear weapon by declaring that the Islamic Republic Iran wants the power of deterrence against Âthe nuclear countries surrounding them Â Pakistan in the east, Russia in the north, Israel in the west and the United States in the Persian Gulf.Â
Israeli vice premier Shimon Peres said Israel, backed by the US, has for decades pursued a policy of nuclear ambiguity as a powerful deterrence Âagainst enemies bent on its destruction, while threatening no other country itself.Â
DEBKAfile: The designated US defense secretary did not consult Â or even inform - Israel before a disclosure that violates a confidence long-held between the two governments.
Gates also said that ÂIf Iran obtains nuclear weapons no one can promise it would not use them against Israel.Â
He was then confirmed as defense secretary Wednesday by an overwhelming 95-2 Senate vote. The only two opposing votes were cast by two Bush allies, Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Jim Bunning, R-Ky. They cited his criticism of the war and his view that the U.S. should engage Iran as part of a solution.
The Pentagon, which has warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at IsraelÂs expense, has a new master, Robert Gates. He has already applied the broom to his predecessor Donald RumsfeldÂs senior aides.
Some Washington pundits accused the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker, as forcing President George W. Bush to resort to dealing with the Iraqi Shiite-led government for the sake of an orderly US exit from Iraq. The price offered is acceptance that Iran could go nuclear within two years at IsraelÂs expense.
The groupÂs recommendation of a Madrid-2 peace conference for a Middle East peace would pander to the Arabs and their European backers by pushing for a full Israeli withdrawal from territories captured in the 1967 war. Israel and its supporters in the United States would have no say Â ÂÂa unique opportunity for the US to strike a deal without Jewish pressure,Â as one Washington observer put it.
This sort of crude language has not been heard in WashingtonÂs top circles since George Bush the elder was president and James Baker his secretary of state.
The new-old gang has also revived the threat of an imposed Âpeace.Â It is barely veiled in the Baker-Hamilton reportÂs statement: ÂThe US cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it embarks on a renewed and sustained commitment to a comprehensive peace plan on all fronts.Â
The prime ministerÂs office in Jerusalem still clings to the now-meaningless statement that there is Âno fear of a change in US policy towards Israel.Â The statement released Thursday, Dec. 7, asserted that Ehud Olmert was assured during his Washington visit two weeks ago that Âthere was no linkage between the Iraq issue and Israel.Â
'><$BlogArchiveName$>

Christian fall, muslim rise..

2006-10-24T11:07:00.000-05:00

TAS Live
Christian Fall, Muslim Rise
By Tom Bethell
Published 10/24/2006 12:03:03 AM

FOR A LONG TIME I TRIED TO AVOID thinking about Lebanon. It seemed too marginal, not to mention too complicated. Its government, more notional than real, enjoys little more than the "trappings of sovereignty," as Fouad Ajami recently wrote. A territory more than a nation, it is a land of private militias, checkpoints, autonomous regions, and assassinations. Somehow, it degenerated into a place where the most ruthless could prevail by force, and maybe govern after a fashion. But that has long been a hallmark of government in the Arab world. Whoever seizes power can never relax the use or threat of force, lest he be overthrown by superior force.Lebanon is a microcosm, and an object lesson. It is a country where Christianity is on the wane. By one estimate, it was once over 70 percent Christian; today it is less than half that. Shi'ite Muslims alone probably outnumber Lebanese Christians (mostly Maronite). The decline may be greater than that. The Washington Post reported a few years ago that Lebanon has not conducted a census for about 50 years "out of concern that the evidence of Christian decline and Shi'ite Muslim advancement might fuel sectarian tension." A similar pattern holds across the Middle East, where the Christian downfall has been dramatic. The Catholic Archbishop of Algeria, interviewed recently by the New York Times, described "the ebbing of Christianity from North Africa's shores as Islam spreads across Europe." In 1958, there were more than 700 churches in the country where St. Augustine was born and died. Now there are about 20, and they are mostly empty. "The rest have been converted into mosques or cultural centers or have been abandoned." The archbishop says Mass for a remnant of 20 people.In The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam (1997) Bat Ye'Or wrote that 13 percent of the Middle East was Christian a century ago. Today that figure may be as low as 2 percent.Something similar is happening, although more slowly, in Europe.The English writer G.K. Chesterton feared that if Christianity ever began to disappear, "superstition would drown out all your old rationalism and skepticism." He is often quoted as saying that when people stop believing in God "they don't believe in nothing, but in anything." But no one has been able to find that famous remark in all his copious writings. He did write something similar-that your "hard-shelled materialists [are] all balanced on the very edge of belief-of belief in almost anything."Writing after the suicide attacks on the London Underground last year, the British historian Niall Ferguson drew attention to Chesterton's comment (and misquotation) and added that the "moral vacuum" left by de-Christianization seemed to be creating a "soft target for the religious fanaticism of others." Plainly, the rise of Islam in Europe is directly related to the fall of Christianity."Into the void are coming Islam and Muslims," Daniel Pipes wrote in the New York Sun two years ago. "As Christianity falters, Islam is robust, assertive and ambitious." He foresaw a time when Europe's "grand cathedrals will appear as vestiges of a prior civilization." Until they are transformed into mosques, that is.A RECENT STUDY SHOWED that the Catholic Church in Britain is facing its greatest threat since the Reformation. Its membership is in "terminal decline," much of it recent. What Henry VIII persecuted the modern world simply ignores. The faith is withering away. Meanwhile, the Church of England has devolved into a museum. Those old cathedrals are still maintained-even admired as works of art. Increasingly, however, they are venues for music festivals. As for the Church of England's Episcopalian equivalent in the U.S., it suggests nothing so much as a wounded animal beset by carnivores.How to explain this decline? Nothing less than a book-length response would suffice. But here are a few thoughts. Enfeebled bishops, selected precisely for their feebleness, preside over dwindling flocks. Bishops have lost all authority and few listen to their public comments, which almost always deal with material (not spiritual) concerns. Rome slumbers on, imagining that English Catholics must above all repair the breach with Canterbury, and that the way to do so is to stand for as little as possible. Diplomacy triumphs over conviction. There is no sign that the old pope, John Paul II, paid attention to the problem. Benedict XVI understands that Catholicism is in trouble in Europe, but has not yet shown that he has the courage to do anything about it.Christianity has been under constant attack since the time of the Enlightenment and the attacks have come from within. In recent decades, mullahs and imams have hardly needed to say a word against Christianity. All the work was being done for them by critics, reformers, apostates, defectors. In some ways Muslims are actually more respectful of Christianity than the Church's internal foes. And Islam's spiritual leaders have not lost the faith, defective though it is in key areas.Friedrich Nietzsche, the son of a Lutheran pastor, composed his nonsensical but influential work The Antichrist (better translated as "The Anti-Christian," as Walter Kaufmann noted), and proclaimed the death of God in a country still nominally Christian. His diatribes were influential not because they were cogent but because they were daring. He was thought profound merely because he had disturbed the peace. (In earlier centuries such exercises in egotism were smothered at birth.) In droves, Western intellectuals wanted to believe that they could safely defy the parson-ignore a creator perceived as more tyrannical than loving. So they disparaged the "wishful thinking" of believers, and in so doing imputed their own mindset to the faithful remnant.The Jesuits turned to liberation theology, and many have also fallen under the homosexual spell. A succession of popes has failed to mount any effective response.A likely ingredient in the Christian decline is increased material prosperity, which turns minds and hearts toward the things of this world. One could say that wealth makes materialists of us all. (But why hasn't there been an equivalent decline in the United States?) The Muslims of the Arab world, in contrast, have been unable to achieve anything beyond rudimentary levels of development. A material advance in the Middle East comparable to that of Western Europe possibly would undermine Islam. But why has it not already happened? The Muslims seem unable to achieve one of the most basic features of Western civilization-the rule of law. And they have remained largely frozen in a pre-medieval past. The strong rule by fear, force, and power replace law and consent, and property is insecure.THE MOST COMMON SECULAR RESPONSE to all this is to say: What was so great about Christianity? One blogger responded to Niall Ferguson: "I don't get it. What's wrong with, say, secular humanism filling the moral vacuum? Why does he think the Christian doctrine is irreplaceable?"It's an important question, deserving a full response. Just at the most basic level of demography, however, the secular-humanist option is not working. Sustaining a population requires each woman on average to bear 2.1 children. In the European Union, Daniel Pipes wrote, "the overall rate is one-third short, at 1.5 and falling." Should current population trends continue and immigration cease, the EU population of 375 million could fall to 275 million by 2075. Furthermore, birth rates are not lower than they already are (in France and Britain, for example, they are noticeably above the EU average) because Muslim immigrants to those countries are having more children than fallen-away Christians.As for those who imagine that the Christian legacy is one of imperialism, racism, and inquisition, and we are better off without it-legions on the left do believe that-they will have to start thinking about what will replace it. Some are already doing so. Whittaker Chambers is worth reading on these issues, even though Islam was still dormant when he wrote Witness. The attempt to reconstruct faith without God produced Communism, he wrote. And the attempt to live without any faith at all is, I believe, impossible. If faith collapses, civilization goes with it.

bbc bias..

2006-10-23T16:05:00.000-05:00

BBC admits: We are biased on religion and politics
Internal corporation memo on ‘impartiality’ summit leaked to British media exposes truth on BBC bias
Hagit Klaiman
Published:
10.23.06, 16:10

LONDON – The British Broadcasting Corporation has been struggling for several years against criticisms and claims of biased reporting concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and distorted coverage of the global fight against terror.
Following a diplomatic incident with Israel, the BBC appointed an editor known for his objective reporting, however, the true stance of the corporation’s editors remained the same.
An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.
Most executives admitted that the corporation’s representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside.

Okay to trash Bible, not Quran
A truly shocking revelation to come out of the summit was expected to invoke a storm in Britain, which has already reached the boiling point with regards to the treatment of Muslims and the issue of the veil.
For the purpose of illustration, the executives were given a scenario in which Jewish Comedian Sasha Baron Cohen would participate in a program titled ‘Room 101’, a studio program where guests would be asked for their opinions on different issues, and allowed to symbolically throw things they hated in a garbage bin.

The executives were asked what they would do if Cohen decided to throw ‘Kosher food’, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bible, and the Quran in the garbage bin.

The executives said they would allow everything to be thrown in the garbage bin, save the Quran, for fear of offending the British Muslim community.
According to the ‘Washington Times’, the BBC also reportedly revealed that its executives favored interviewing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden if the opportunity arose.

Among other issues raised in the summit was the question of whether or not veiled women should be allowed to read the news. The BBC’s diversity editor said that since news anchors were allowed to wear crosses, any news anchor should be permitted to wear anything they wished, including the veil.

One senior BBC executive admitted to the ‘Daily Express’, "There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it."

GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!!!!

2006-10-13T10:48:00.000-05:00

russian troops stationed in lebanon..

2006-10-07T19:52:00.000-05:00

DEBKA Exclusive: Moscow posts two Chechen platoons in S. Lebanon, one headed by an ex-rebel commander, “to improve Russia’s image in the Arab world”

The Muslim commandoes of the Vostok (East) and Zapad (West) battalions of the Russian Army’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) (picture) are being sent to guard the 150 Russian military engineers. They arrived in Beirut this week to restore the roads in Lebanon damaged by Israeli bombing.

DEBKAfile reports: Moscow did not consult Israel before stationing Muslim Chechen troops on its border for the first time.

Russian defense minister Sergei Ivanov said openly to Russian media that the deployment of former rebel Chechen troops in Lebanon aimed at “improving Moscow’s image in the Arab and Muslim world.”

DEBKAfile’s military sources: The Russian units are operating independently of the largely-European UN peacekeeping force. Their vehicles fly Russian and Lebanese flags. UNIFIL too was taken by surprise by the posting of Chechen troops to Lebanon. Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora was informed but omitted to notify Washington, Paris, Berlin, Rome or the UN.
The Kremlin’s rationale for making Russia the first nation to deploy a Muslim contingent in South Lebanon - albeit outside the UN force – is part of a hard-hitting foreign and domestic policy initiative, which is summed up by DEBKAfile’s sources:

1. The Putin administration wants to demonstrate to Russia’s teeming Muslim community its willingness to step into Middle East conflicts – on behalf of the Muslim-Arab interest. This straw in the wind indicates the Kremlin’s orientation on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
2. Moscow is building another bridge to Tehran through a joint, potentially interactive presence in Lebanon.
3. As a step to promote cooperation with Hizballah, with whom the Chechens, with their long record of extremist Muslim terrorist action against the Russian army, have much in common – in contrast to the European contingents of UNIFIL.
4. The Russian Chechen unit’s cooperation with Hizballah in the parts of Lebanon under its control will pave the way for a Russian Muslim military presence north of Israel which is independent of the UN and not bound by accords to which Israel is a party.

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the Israeli government and IDF high command were taken aback by the Russian step, which lends a different and inimical aspect to the international deployment on its northern border. When it signed off onto UN Security Council resolution 1701, Israel never envisaged the measure would open the door for Russian military intelligence to step in and camp on its border, using former Muslim terrorists involved in organized crime.
The Chechen Vostok and Zapad battalions are part of the 42nd Motorized Rifle Division that is permanently deployed in Chechnya, in charge of the eastern and western regions. The Zapad battalion is led by Major Said-Magomed Kakiev, the Vostok’s commander is the former rebel Sulim Yamadaev.

This same Yamadaev, the former Chechen rebel commander who won an amnesty and the Hero of Russia award in 2004, is alleged by the Russian media with leading the robbery of the Samson-K meat-processing plant in St. Petersburg on September 15. He and up to 40 of his armed men stayed in the city’s Nevsky Palace Hotel, one of the most opulent in Europe, where he was seen embracing the leader of the local organized crime gang, Vladimir Kumarin.

syria to invade israel ??

2006-10-07T19:44:00.000-05:00

DEBKAfile’s sources: Tehran and Damascus are gearing up for a pre-emptive attack on Israel to ward off a US strike on Iran’s nuclear sites

Our military and Washington sources read as preparatory justification the Syrian ruler Bashar Asad’s statement Saturday, Oct. 7, that he expects an Israeli attack.
He was speaking in an interview to Kuwaiti paper al-Anba.

Asad’s Iranian-backed war plan would serve the purpose of forcing the Americans to divide their military assets between a strike against Iran and the defense of their allies in the Persia Gulf, Israel and US forces in Iraq. Both are seriously looking at a Syrian attack on the Golan which would escalate into a full-blown Syrian-Israeli war and a second Hizballah assault from Lebanon.

Asad’s remark that during the Lebanon hostilities, he was under pressure from the Syrian population to go to war against Israel and liberate the Golan is the most direct threat of belligerency of all his four Golan statements in the last month. He is implying that he stood up to the pressure once but may not do so again. And for the benefit of the Americans, the Europeans, the Saudis and the Egyptians - all of whom are pretty fed up with him – Asad is posing as the picture of self-restraint; anyone else in his place, he implies, would have taken advantage of the Lebanon war and made a grab for the Golan. Therefore, he is saying, he deserves to be treated with the respect due to a strategic asset by Western and moderate Arab powers instead of being targeted for an ouster.

The Syrian ruler would not threaten war without guarantees from Iran. According to DEBKAfile’s sources, Asad and Iran’s supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are prompted by the following motives:

1. Tehran is not prepared to wait passively for the Americans to build up their assault force in the Gulf and strike its nuclear facilities. A pre-emptive attack would suit them better.
2. Tehran and Damascus have not missed the debilitating crisis in which Israel’s political and military leadership are sunk since the Lebanon war. They do not propose to wait until the IDF pulls itself together enough to handle fresh aggression.

3. Both accept Israel’s deputy prime minister Shimon Peres’ assessment that Israel’s cities are not prepared for missile attack. Iran and Syria take it for granted that Israeli leaders understand they cannot afford to launch missiles against either one of them for fear of reprisal in kind.

4. Syria believes that if Hizballah could stand up to the Israeli army in Lebanon, its commandoes can capture sections of the Golan and walk off with an easy victory.

5. Tehran figures that the Bush administration is coming to the end of its patience in Iraq and preparing for a major review of its position there. The influential U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, John Warner, said Friday that Iraq's government had 60 to 90 days to control the violence that threatens civil war or the United States would have to reconsider its options. This gives the Maliki government in Baghdad up to December or January to de-escalate if not halt the sectarian war engulfing the country.

Iran, Syria and Hizballah would not be averse to disrupting the American Iraq timeline by attacking Israel and putting the Bush administration on the spot, forced to address three warfronts simultaneously.

more mahdi madness..

2006-10-03T09:19:00.000-05:00

just because we think it's silly doesn't mean that millions of other people do..
---------------------
Waiting for the imam's return to Earth
THE followers of Moqtada al-Sadr believe that the US in
vaded Iraq to prevent the return to Earth of their sect’s messiah-like figure, the Mahdi, or 12th imam.

Hojatoleslam al-Sadr claims that his militia is preparing for the day when the Mahdi, the last direct descendent of the revered Shia figure Ali, reappears. Shia believe that the Mahdi, who disappeared in 868, will bring justice to Earth.

At a prayer service in the central Iraqi city of Kufa on September 15, the cleric told a crowd of thousands that the Americans were collecting a dossier on the Mahdi to prevent his return. “Did you ever ask yourself about why all of this, the bloodshed and the prisons? Why are the brothers fighting each other for a political game planned by the Americans? This all happened because they (the Americans) are waiting for the Mahdi. This planning started ten years ago. They have a big file for Imam Mahdi and they just need his picture to complete it.”

Hojatoleslam al-Sadr and his advisers are convinced that the Americans want to destroy Islam and stop the Mahdi. “The Americans are trying to hijack Islamic movements. They think that these are serving the Mahdi’s interests. Whatever they did in Afghanistan and Iraq are all attempts to hijack the Mahdi’s return.”

a prayer?

2006-09-25T14:04:00.001-05:00

"Dear Friends and Colleagues, From the beginning of time, humanity has
longed for the day when justice, peace, equality and compassion envelop the
world. All of us can contribute to the establishment of such a world. When that
day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with
the emergence of a perfect human being who is heir to all prophets and pious
men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace."

"O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last
repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that
will fill this world with justice and peace. "

for people who had a chance to read the text of mahmoud ahmadinejad's speech to the un, this should not be surprising. for those who haven't read or listened to his speech, you would be wise to pay attention to the way he closed it..

let's remember, iran's president believes in an apocolyptic view for himself. he believes he is the one to usher in the return of the 12th imam or mahdi who will bring islam to rule on earth and harken in a time of islamic ruled peace. this mahdi cannot come until there is a last great battle with the western infidels.. and ahmadinejad feels he is the one to pick this fight.

he has provided warning after warning to the world and the united states specifically.. he has asked george bush to convert to islam, which is required prior to war. and he has left the un with the prayer above.. a clear invitation to convert to islam and a call for the mahdi to come.

a prayer?

2006-09-25T14:04:00.000-05:00

"Dear Friends and Colleagues, From the beginning of time, humanity has
longed for the day when justice, peace, equality and compassion envelop the
world. All of us can contribute to the establishment of such a world. When that
day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with
the emergence of a perfect human being who is heir to all prophets and pious
men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace."

"O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last
repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that
will fill this world with justice and peace. "

deceived..

2006-09-11T11:06:00.000-05:00

i think that it's important to really look at the motivations of the people who would believe that 9/11 was an inside job facilitated by the 'inept' and 'incompetent' george w bush. a man that had been in office only months before the attack.. a man who had barely put his cabinet together in time to plan such a spectacular event.. if you recall, the bush whitehouse was still trying to find all of the missing 'w' keys from the computer keyboards and trying to determine where the doorhandles had gone at this point.. everyone conveniently forgets the state that the clintonites left the white house (porn, vandalism and other white trash indulgences.)

david kupelian hits it on the head in this article.. the mindset that it takes to believe this type of thing should tell you much about the individual who buys in to it.

And for this cause, God will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie..
2 Thessalonians 2:11
-----------------------------------------------
Anger, conspiracy and 9/11 truth
By David Kupelian

A recent Scripps Howard survey reports that one in three Americans believe or suspect their democratically elected government is guilty of the worst crime in American history – of participating in the wanton murder of thousands of its own citizens and the destruction of the national economy in order to advance some nefarious, secret agenda.

If that poll is accurate, then I think it's time for us to face some hard truths.

First, we need to understand that, when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories, the choice is not between believing that the Bush administration is as pure as the newly fallen snow or believing that the president is a murderous extraterrestrial shape-shifter (as at least one conspiracist alleges). There's a lot in between those extremes.

In fact, if you line up all the possible alternative explanations for 9/11 next to each other, you get a continuum – everything from the most eminently reasonable concerns to the most demented and moronic theories imaginable.

Questions such as whether Flight 93 was actually shot down by the U.S. military over rural Pennsylvania before it could crash into the White House or the Capitol are legitimate. Indeed, the history of clandestine government operations in our own lifetime suggests our government is not only capable of taking such an action (which might well have been the right thing to do under the circumstances), but also capable of keeping it a secret, for whatever reasons.

Likewise, all issues regarding the government's lack of preparedness before 9/11, its myriad intelligence failures, its failure to pay sufficient attention to the growing Islamist threat even after the 1993 World Trade Center car-bombing and other attacks on American interests worldwide, are legitimate.

Cover-ups, official obfuscation and other attempts at hiding past failures, ineptness and gross incompetence are all fair game. Citizens have the perfect right and duty to hold their government accountable.

However, where 9/11 conspiracy theorists cross the line into Bizarro Land is when they conclude, utterly without proof, that the Bush administration is filled with the most craven mass murderers in American history – in other words, that 9/11 was an "inside job."

Stop and think. To believe that 9/11 was an "inside job," that it was accomplished with the blessing of the U.S. government, requires that you believe not only that George W. Bush is a demonically inspired, genocidal monster, but also that dozens and perhaps hundreds of other people in the government are likewise crazed mass-murdering psychopaths.

How can bright and intelligent Americans believe such things?

Perhaps the Scripps Howard poll provides a clue. It cited two major findings:

1. More than a third of Americans believe the U.S. government somehow assisted in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, or else took no steps to stop them from occurring, so the Bush administration could launch a war in the Middle East; and

2. A record number of Americans (54 percent of respondents) claimed they "personally are more angry" at the government than in the past.

In case you're not aware, brainwashers and dictators and master manipulators of all sorts have long known and exploited the knowledge that when people are angry, emotional and upset, they are automatically more vulnerable to outside suggestion (that is, to believing nonsense) than if they were not angry. (That's why Hitler always insisted on appealing to the German population on the basis of powerful emotion, never reason and logic.)

If, in addition, the people are in denial – that is, they've rejected the truth – then they are open to believing virtually anything. Having already denied reality, they literally have a need for lies.
Let's bring this down to earth with an illustration: Have you ever wondered why so much of the Arab-Muslim world eagerly believes the wildest, most laughably absurd conspiracy theories?
Right now, for instance, Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV is broadcasting with a straight face the claim that "Zionist squads specializing in car bombs" are terrorizing Iraq. Meanwhile, Hezbollah's leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, insists that all the bombings of Christian churches in Iraq have been the work of the CIA and Mossad.

Then of course there are all the old classics – like the claim that Jews regularly murder Christian children and grind up their bodies as ingredients for their Passover matzah.
And, bringing it back to our subject, millions of Muslims to this day believe "the Jews" were responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S. (which supposedly occurred only after 4,000 Jews had been secretly ordered to stay home from the World Trade Center that day).
How can so many Muslims believe such things?

For one thing, when you're brainwashed from birth to believe Jews are the cause of all evil, you feel no need to examine your own life, culture or religion. The natural need all humans have to understand right and wrong, to solve problems, to feel like they're good people, and so on, are all satisfied by the all-consuming hatred of Jews and other "infidels." Blaming others – Jews, Christians, Americans, "crusaders," collaborators, apostates, women, whatever – feels to them exactly like righteousness and strength. It's an almost perfect illusion.

In such a state, having rejected reality and embraced self-righteous hatred, they are perfectly comfortable believing sheer madness. In fact, not only are they vulnerable to believing lies; they need lies to sustain their delusions.

But wait. Doesn't common sense ever intervene and say to them, "You're believing a lie"? Of course, for some. But you never hear about those, because if they made their realizations known they'd be beheaded as "collaborators" or "apostates." But for millions of Muslims, raised to hate infidels and especially the detested Jews, that Zionist scapegoat simply becomes the source and repository for all evil, in their minds. Thus, if something goes wrong, it just has to be because of the Jews (or sometimes the Americans).

Now, what about America's 9/11 skeptics?

If radical Muslims can drink in conspiracy theories like water in a desert because they hate Jews so intensely, then who do America's 9/11 conspiracists hate with an all-consuming passion? That's easy: George W. Bush!

They hate him so much, they see him as such an evil and detestable person that they find it easy to make the wild leap of faith whereby they see the president as terrorist-in-chief.
How is it possible that just because you dislike a president, disapprove of his politics and worldview, and even disagree with his decision to involve the nation in a controversial war, you can so easily deny his very humanity and label him a monster – not to mention condemning countless other lesser "monsters"?

You want truth? Here's some: Right now, as you read these words, Christians and Jews are being attacked by hate-filled Muslim radicals – not only in Israel and Sudan and in-the-news hot spots, but all over the world, including in Europe and even the U.S. (remember the one-man terror attack at the Seattle Jewish center recently?). Ever-increasing numbers of Muslims, inflamed by the medieval, convert-or-die jihad mandate of world domination, are raping, slashing, burning, torturing and murdering infidels. They are bombing trains in Spain, and subways in London, and schools filled with children in Russia, and rioting in France, and butchering countless innocents in Indonesia because some reporter made a comment about Miss Universe, and killing countless more because a newspaper published some cartoons depicting Muhammad, and last month were busted shortly before they carried out their long-planned campaign to blow up 10 passenger jets bound for the U.S., and – oh wait, maybe George Bush was actually responsible for all of this. Never mind.

People, in case you hadn't heard, there's a world war going on, between Western Civilization and global Islamo-fascism. This war is 14 centuries old and counting. Like the evil portrayed in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" – which, after earlier conquests, went dormant for centuries, only to re-emerge in the latter days with a newly rekindled imperative to conquer the world – so it is with radical Islam.

When we embrace wild conspiracy theories that the U.S. government, and not the global Islamic jihad, is the real enemy, not only are we accusing our leaders of committing the most despicable crimes in U.S. history, but we are also, wittingly or unwittingly, now in the service of the enemy. After all, at that point, we are literally embracing the same false reality they preach – that America is the "great Satan" behind all the evil in the world.

In fact, the rapid radicalization of Islam worldwide, with its murderous eruptions occurring ever more frequently, is being driven, more than any other single reason, by conspiracy theories!
The Aug. 10 edition of the CNN show "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees," focusing on that day's arrest in the UK of two dozen Muslims who had planned to kill thousands of innocent human beings by blowing up 10 passenger jets, included this revealing exchange between host Cooper and CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour:

Cooper: You know, Christiane, I think it's hard for a lot of us to comprehend how young men, young Muslim men, in a country like Great Britain, could turn themselves into suicide bombers.

Amanpour: And – and be so virulently against the United States. And there is some evidence that is coming out now, five years after 9/11, that many, many Muslims in England and around the world, according to documentaries that have been produced, are really succumbing to the conspiracy theories. They're really now saying that 9/11 was not al-Qaida; it was a U.S./CIA, Mossad/Israel, Zionist plot, basically designed to cause a war against Islam. This is what is in the mindset now of increasing numbers of these young people.

Get it? Sept. 11 conspiracy theories are throwing gasoline on the Islamist fire that threatens Western civilization.

The U.S. government is a lot of things, many of them bad. But it did not cause 9/11. And if we believe such a preposterous lie, we are in danger of losing history's most important war – and of contributing to that loss.

Muslim terrorists tried to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Don't you remember Ramzi Yousef and his uncle, key al-Qaida operative Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom the "9/11 Commission Report" called "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks"? They didn't bring down the buildings that time, but they did succeed in killing six Americans and injuring over 1,000. Eight years later, their al-Qaida comrades came back to finish the job.
That's the truth – if you can handle it.

UN <3 Israel

2006-08-28T14:49:00.000-05:00

as if there was any question on the impartiality of the united nations when it comes to dealing with Israel, we have this golden piece of news.. apparently the un was broadcasting Israeli troop movements in lebanon for hezbollah to read..

lets remember that the un has condemned Israel more than 320 times and has done nothing to help protect the borders of the only democracy in the region.

now, the same force that was to have removed and disarmed hezbollah in resolution 1559 and was providing Israeli troop movements during the recent month long war is once again going to be leaned on to provide the security of Israel's northern border..

the fact that the united nations still absconds with any ounce of legitimacy in the public arena is a testament to the state of world affairs..

-----------------------------------------------------------
What did you do in the war, UNIFIL?
You broadcast Israeli troop movements.
by Lori Lowenthal Marcus

DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got.

This war was fought on cable television and the Internet, and a lot of official information was available in real time. But the specific military intelligence UNIFIL posted could not be had from any non-U.N. source. The Israeli press--always eager to push the envelope--did not publish the details of troop movements and logistics. Neither the European press nor the rest of the world media, though hardly bastions of concern for the safety of Israeli troops,
provided the IDF intelligence details that UNIFIL did. A search of Israeli government websites failed to turn up the details published to the world each day by the U.N.

Inquiries made of various Israeli military and government representatives and analysts yielded near unanimous agreement that at least some of UNIFIL's postings, in the words of one retired senior military analyst, "could have exposed Israeli soldiers to grave danger." These analysts, including a current high ranking military official, noted that the same intelligence would not have been provided by the U.N. about Israel's enemies.

Sure enough, a review of every single UNIFIL web posting during the war shows that, while UNIFIL was daily revealing the towns where Israeli soldiers were located, the positions from which they were firing, and when and how they had entered Lebanese territory, it never described Hezbollah movements or locations with any specificity whatsoever.
Compare the vague "various locations" language with this UNIFIL posting from July 25:
Yesterday and during last night, the IDF moved significant reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area north toward Bint Jubayl, and south towards Yarun.

Or with the posting on July 24, in which UNIFIL revealed that the IDF stationed between Marun Al Ras and Bint Jubayl were "significantly reinforced during the night and this morning with a number of tanks and armored personnel carriers."
This partiality is inconsistent not only with UNIFIL's mission but also with its own stated policies. In a telling incident just a few years back, UNIFIL vigorously insisted on its "neutral ity"--at Israel's expense.

On October 7, 2000, three IDF soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah just yards from a UNIFIL shelter and dragged across the border into Lebanon, where they disappeared. The U.N. was thought to have videotaped the incident or its immediate aftermath. Rather than help Israel rescue its kidnapped soldiers by providing this evidence, however, the U.N. obstructed the Israeli investigation.

For months the Israeli government pleaded with the U.N. to turn over any videotape that might shed light on the location and condition of its missing men. And for nine months the U.N. stonewalled, insisting first that no such tape existed, then that just one tape existed, and eventually conceding that there were two more tapes. During those nine months, clips from the videotapes were shown on Syrian and Lebanese television.

Explaining their eventual about-face, U.N. officials said the decision had been made by the on-site commanders that it was not their responsibility to provide the material to Israel; indeed, that to do so would violate the peacekeeping mandate, which required "full impartiality and objectivity." The U.N. report on the incident was adamant that its force had "to ensure that military and other sensitive information remains in their domain and is not passed to parties to a conflict."

Stymied in its efforts to recover the men while they were still alive, Israel ultimately agreed to an exchange in January 2004: It released 429 Arab prisoners and detainees, among them convicted terrorists, and the bodies of 60 Lebanese decedents and members of Hezbollah, in exchange

for the bodies of the three soldiers. Blame for the deaths of those three Israelis can be laid, at least in part, at the feet of the U.N., which went to the wall defending its inviolable pledge never to share military intelligence about one party with another.

UNIFIL has just done what it then vowed it could never do. Once again, it has acted to shield one side in the conflict and to harm the other. Why is this permitted? For that matter, how did the U.N. obtain such detailed and timely military intelligence in the first place, before broadcasting it for Israel's enemies to see?

8/23

2006-08-23T10:45:00.000-05:00

outside of being my good friend libby's birthday today (happy birthday!) today is also the day after the much anticipated 8/22 date iran gave to respond to un demands... we're all still standing, and Israel hasn't been wiped off the map..

a good article:
-------------------------------

After August 22

By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com August 23, 2006
Iran drew concern worldwide for refusing to respond in a timely fashion to the West’s offer of an incentives package in exchange for Tehran’s abandonment of its nuclear program. Iranian officials brushed aside the June 29 deadline set by the West and said Iran would respond on August 22. Some, including Farid Ghadry of the Reform Party of Syria (as I reported several weeks ago) and Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis, suggested that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Iran’s inner circle may have chosen that date in order to establish a connection with the Islamic prophet Muhammad’s fabled Night Journey, during which Allah is said to have miraculously illuminated the night sky over Jerusalem to facilitate the prophet’s journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, and thence to Paradise. Would Iran’s answer to the West’s tribute package be to illuminate the night sky over Jerusalem again, this time with a nuclear device?

Obviously not – at least not on August 22 itself. That was a cue for some of the loudest advocates of Western appeasement and surrender to the global jihadists to condemn right-wing hysteria, despite the fact that no one who reported on this possibility had ever stated with any certainty that anything in particular would happen on August 22. Brian Whitaker, a columnist for The Guardian who once suggested that Gandhi would admire jihad, sneered: “The purpose of all this scaremongering is obviously to build up fears about an Iranian nuclear attack. The main obstacle to promoting such fears is that Iran does not possess any nuclear weapons but Lewis seems determined not to let that stand in the way and apparently believes that Iran already has a fully-prepared arsenal.” In dismissing these speculations as “scaremongering,” however, Whitaker and others neglect to consider one possibility: that they were correct.

How could this be, when doomsday did not materialize on August 22? Because the Iranian regime has made its desire to illuminate the night sky over Jerusalem abundantly clear. The fact that they first set the date for their reply as August 22, and then delivered a reply that budged not one inch toward conciliation, and made it clear that they had no plans to give up their nuclear ambitions, suggests that such an attack is still in the cards. When Whitaker and his ilk dismiss “fears about an Iranian nuclear attack” as “scaremongering,” they ignore both Iran’s present bellicose activities and clear indications it has been giving of its future plans:

* According to the Times of London, Iran “is seeking to import large consignments of bomb-making uranium from the African mining area that produced the Hiroshima bomb.”

* On August 22 itself, an Iranian warship fired upon a Romanian oil tanker moored in the Persian Gulf; Iranian troops occupied the ship.

* Lethal roadside bombs strong enough to penetrate American and British tank armor are being turned out in large numbers by three Iranian factories. A large cache of other Iranian-made weapons and materiel were discovered last Monday in the Iraqi city of Um Qasr.

* After decisively altering the balance between Hizballah and Israel by supplying military hardware to the Lebanese Shi’ite terror organization, Iran continues even after the ceasefire announcement to ship arms and materiel to Hizballah.

* Ahmadinejad continues to indulge his now well-established taste for pugnacious rhetoric, declaring last week: “If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.” Hardly a promising foundation for the negotiations that American officials so desperately want to initiate with Tehran.

* The Iranian President also threatened George W. Bush during his recent interview with Mike Wallace. Referring to the letter he sent several months ago to Bush inviting him to accept Islam, Ahmadinejad said to Wallace: “We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate.”

This is in accord with Islamic tradition. Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, tells his followers to call people to Islam before waging war against them: “Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action….Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them (Sahih Muslim 4294).” (Muhammad sent a letter much like Ahmadinejad’s to one of Ahmadinejad’s early predecessors, Chosroes, emperor of Persia – who contemptuously tore it to pieces. Muhammad, hearing of this, called upon Allah to tear the Persian emperor and his followers to pieces (Bukhari, vol. 5, book 64, no. 4424)). Ahmadinejad has followed Muhammad’s instruction to the letter both by calling Bush to Islam, and then by warning that his refusal would have bad consequences.

* Iran has in the last few days conducted large-scale military maneuvers and tested a new short-range missile.

* Ahmad Khatami of the Iranian Assembly of Experts said last week on government-controlled Iranian television that if Bush and Olmert “decided to display the slightest aggression against Islamic Iran, they should…fear the day that our missiles, with a range of 2,000 kilometers, land in the heart of Tel Aviv….They should know that playing with Islam is like playing with a lion’s tail.”

* Ahmadinejad continues to call for “elimination of Zionist regime.”

August 22 has come and gone. But the threat of Iran continues to hang over the world. Those who choose to ignore or downplay it may be in before too long for a most unpleasant surprise, courtesy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

messianic delusion

2006-08-17T17:45:00.000-05:00

it's interesting to juxtapose the current leader of iran and the coming invasion of israel by a group including russia and iran..

Ahmadinejad’s Apocalyptic Faith
By Patrick Poole
FrontPageMagazine.com August 17, 2006

When Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes recently sat down in Tehran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for an interview, perhaps the most important questions were the ones that went unasked. They talked about Hezbollah, nuclear weapons, Israel and President Bush, but the one question that ties all of these together in Ahmadinejad’s mind is his religious faith. It is the prism through which he views all of these other policy issues, which is why it is of singular importance to understand the ideology that drives this man. This was apparently lost on Mike Wallace.
No one can accuse Ahmadinejad of being circumspect about the religious views that shape his worldview. He speaks on those views quite frequently, but they are a taboo subject for Westerners unaccustomed to thinking that is self-consciously religious. The reactionary response is to dismiss it as mental instability or label it as “fundamentalist”, but facing the reality of a nuclear Iran, such a reaction is not only short-sighted and narrow minded, but possibly suicidal.

Ahmadinejad’s worldview is shaped by the radical Hojjatieh Shiism that is best represented by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the Iranian President’s ideological mentor and marja-e taqlid (object of emulation), of the popular Haqqani religious school located in Qom. The affection seems to be mutual: in the 2005 Iranian presidential campaign, Ayatollah Yazdi issued a fatwa calling on his supporters to vote for Ahmadinejad.

The Hojjatieh movement is considered to be so radical that it was banned in 1983 by the Ayatollah Khomeini and is still opposed by the majority of the Iranian clerics, including the Supreme Leader of the Supreme National Security Council, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. That should be telling in and of itself. That opposition notwithstanding, it is believed that several adherents of the Hojjatieh sect are in Cabinet-level positions in Ahmadinejad’s government.

Most Shiites await the return of the 12th Shiite Imam, Muhammad ibn Hasan, the last direct male descendent of the Prophet Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, who disappeared in 874AD and is believed to be in an invisible, deathless state of existene, or “occultation”, awaiting his return. Though it is discounted even by the most extremist clerics, a popular belief in Iran holds that the 12th Imam, also called the Mahdi or the sahib-e zaman (“the Ruler of Time”), lives at the bottom of a well in Jamkaran, just outside of Qom. Devotees drop written requests into the well to communicate with the Mahdi. His reappearance will usher in a new era of peace as Islam vanquishes all of its enemies. The Sunnis, who reject the successors of Ali, believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born.

But rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi’s reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has clearly indicated that he is a true believer in this faith. It has been reported that he has told confidants that he anticipates the immanent return of the Mahdi. When he previously served as Mayor of Tehran, he advocated for widening the roads to accommodate the Mahdi’s triumphal entry into the city. One of his first acts of office as President was to dedicate approximately $20 million to the restoration and improvement of the mosque at Jamkaran, where the Mahdi is claimed to dwell.

This personal belief directs his official policies as President. He has publicly said, “Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. We should define our economic, cultural and political policies on the policy of the Imam Mahdi’s return.”

However, Ahmadinejad’s messianism doesn’t stop with the Mahdi. In fact, he has made it clear that he believes he has personally received a divine appointment to herald the imminent arrival of the Mahdi, tacitly acknowledging his own role in setting aright the problems of the world.

His belief in a personal divine appointment was best confirmed after his speech to the United Nations last September, which was laden with references to the Mahdi. Upon his return to Iran, he met with Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli, where the two discussed an alleged paranormal occurrence while Ahmadinejad spoke wherein he related to the cleric:

On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!

As the recipient of this divine appointment, he not only a leading actor in what he believes is a divine drama taking place on the world stage, but it also feeds the Gnostic elitism inherent in Hojjatieh ideology. Not only are his acts reflective of divine inspiration, they are also above questioning. As an interview back in May with Der Spiegel, while talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this “populist” makes clear his lack of enthusiasm for popular sovereignty:

It does not make sense that a phenomenon depends on the opinions of many individuals who are free to interpret the phenomenon as they wish. You can't solve the problems of the world that way. We need a new approach. Of course we want the free will of the people to reign, but we need sustainable principles that enjoy universal acceptance - such as justice.

Another part of his divine mission is confronting infidel world leaders and inviting them to accept Islam – a necessary step in Islamic warfare before attacking an opponent. In May, Ahmadinejad sent President Bush an 18-page letter calling for a change in the Bush Administration’s foreign polices and challenging him to embrace Islam. A similar letter was sent to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Robert Spencer of JihadWatch immediately recognized Ahmadinejad’s letter as a call to accept Islam – an opinion that Ahmadinejad later confirmed – that contextualized his respective letters as a pretext for future military confrontation and escalation.

Referring to his letter in his 60 Minutes interview, Ahmadinejad made it clear that rejection of his personal invitation to Islam would invite personal destruction for President Bush:

Please give him this message, sir. Those who refuse to accept an invitation to good will not have a good ending or fate.

The confrontational approach taken by Ahmadinejad colors his official decision-making as President of the Islamic Republic. The kidnapping of the Israeli solider by Iran’s Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, resulted in the conflict between Israel and the terrorist organization that has killed more than a thousand people in Lebanon and Israel and displaced more than a million citizens in both countries. This provocative act by Hezbollah had to have the approval of Ahmadinejad and reflects the belligerence that marks virtually all of his policies related to the Middle East region and Iran’s relations with the West.

But it is the apocalyptic element to Ahmadinejad’s faith combined with Iran’s nuclear ambitions that should draw the most serious attention. He believes that a great cataclysm of bloodshed anticipates the return of the 12th Imam, in particular the destruction of infidels – Jews and Christians – that will usher in a new dawn of Islamic worldwide dominance.

With Israel in range of Iranian missiles, he has promised to “wipe Israel off the map”. Here Ahmadinejad draws from what Andrew Bostom recently identified as a theological current within the broader confines of Islam that holds that the destruction of the Jews will inaugurate the appearance of the Mahdi. Other Hojjatieh ideologues, such as one of Ayatollah Yazdi’s chief students, Mohsen Ghorourian, have openly advocated the use of nuclear weapons to assert Iranian/Islamic preeminence over Israel and the West.

In recent weeks Islam scholars have noted how Ahmadinejad’s selection of August 22nd to respond to the UN’s demand to cease the Iranian uranium enrichment program has roots in Quranic mythology. On July 27th, Robert Spencer wrote for FrontPage that this date corresponds to Muhammed’s “Night Journey” and ascension into heaven recounted in Islamic lore. Two weeks later, noted Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis reitterated these same concerns about the date chosen by Ahmadinejad’s government to respond to the UN’s demands. Could a nuclear event or other terrorist attacks directed against Israel, the West, or both, by Iran deliberately timed to coincide to utilize the perceived power of Islamic myth be in store? The scenario is not far-fetched.

Some commentators have dismissed the notion that Iran might launch an attack that would precipitate a catastrophic response from Israel and the US, relying on the Cold War logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). But yet again, the religious ideology that permeates the mind of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is extremely important to understand.

The whole structure of Shiite belief is built around a cult of martyrdom that assumes lethal retribution by the infidels against the true believers for their righteous conduct. Ahmadinejad constantly utilizes the Shiite images and slogans relating to martyrdom, as can be seen in his comments this past February in a speech reported by the IRNA:

We are all obliged to keep alive the culture of martyrdom-seeking in the society. Culture of martyrdom-seeking is our most effective weapon and best guarantee for our national security. Ruthless enemies who have a chronic enmity against our country and our nation have not succeeded in achieving their objectives so far thanks to the existence of this culture of martyrdom-seeking among our nation. He who is ready for martyrdom is always victorious. Martyrdom is the peak of mankind's perfection and the martyrs enjoy the highest status of humanity in this world and the Hereafter. People spend tough years of strenuous work in a bid to achieve the peaks of grandeur and pride, while our dear martyrs achieved those high peaks in shortest possible time.

An attack launched by Israel or the US that would kill tens or hundreds of thousands of Iranians would only serve to confirm the self-fulfilling prophecy of Shiite martyrdom and vindicate Ahmadinejad’s suicidal policies. In his mind, an apocalyptic act of self-initiated martyrdom unparalleled in Islamic history would undoubtedly serve to jump start the arrival of the Mahdi. In his religious calculus, the use of nuclear weapons is a win-win scenario. Such actions are not only entirely appropriate, but divinely sanctioned and wholly justified by the messianic and apocalyptic elements that Ahmadinejad and his ideological allies have attached to the Shiite martyrdom mythology.

We should then seriously consider the practical consequences of Ahmadinejad’s religious worldview and ask how this knowledge should help shape our foreign policy with regards to Iran and their nuclear ambitions. The political leaders in the West should understand that the Shiite and Hojjatieh beliefs play an integral role in shaping Ahmadinejad’s understanding of reality.

When he says that Iran’s nuclear development program are peaceful, he really means it. He has in mind the universal Islamic peace that will be established with the return of the Mahdi, and if rivers of infidel blood have to be shed to accomplish it, his religious faith leads him to understand that such is part of the divine plan. That is the way that ultimate “peace” will finally be achieved. And when he states that Israel will be “wiped off the map”, he unshakably believes that as well because it has been crafted into the overall religious narrative that guides his policies.

Because of this, we should understand that there is no negotiating position acceptable to them except for the complete and unconditional submission of the non-Muslim world to the rule of shari’a. Diplomacy is a vain illusion when dealing with adherents of this apocalyptic worldview. They have constructed an ideology where the most extreme actions on their part are not only justified, but divinely sanctioned; and all retributive responses by the “infidels” accounted for.

There is a glimmer of hope, however. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stands at the fringe of Iranian politics (which should illustrate how relative a term as “fringe” can actually be). Most hard line clerics do not share his vision and he is opposed by some of the leading politicians in Iran, like former President Rafsanjani. Our response should exploit those divisions. But that can only be done if we are relentless in constantly checking every move that Ahmadinejad makes. He cannot be allowed even the slightest victory. Allowing him any breathing room or agreeing to any concessions is fraught with extreme peril. A persistent escalation of hostilities between Iran and the US may force the hard line clerics to deal with Ahmadinejad on their own out of sheer self-preservation.

In conclusion, this brief examination has been intended to demonstrate that current Iranian policy is designed to vindicate the self-fulfilling prophecy of Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic and messianic beliefs. This highlights that regardless of what West chooses to believe, we are in a religious war and we must fight it as such. At some point, we will be forced to take actions designed to shake their faith – a prospect that will not be well met by the postmodern pluralistic forces in the West. But the West and Israel is not the only one threatened: the Islamic world itself, Sunni and Shiite alike, is held hostage by this extremist religious ideology. When the day of reckoning comes for Iran, may our leaders fully understand the religious dimensions of the threat and have the nerve to do what is needed to protect our interests and security in both the short and long term. In this battle, there will be no substitute for victory.

who's really riding the weaker horse?

2006-07-31T16:13:00.000-05:00

another worthy article..
-----------------------------------------------
Who's really riding the weaker horse?
Vox Day

When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the
strong horse.
– Osama bin Ladin

In examining the events of the past five years, it is increasingly apparent that Western leaders and commentators alike have fundamentally misconceived the relative positions of the primary parties in this third great wave of Islamic expansion. While there are nearly as many grand strategic recommendations floating around the Internet as there are editorialists, it is intriguing to note that virtually none of the Western analysts have grasped the basic reality that from the perspective from which a clash of civilizations must be considered, it is the West that is the weak horse.

The overwheening confidence which so often colors statements from men such as bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahimajihad always rings strange in Western ears. It stands so powerfully at variance with what we know of Western wealth, technology and military advantages that it seems to be indicative of false bravado at best, at worst, clinical insanity. The fact that this sort of thing sounds exactly like Baghdad Bob's surreal rantings only makes it that much more difficult for anyone to take it seriously.

And yet, history is rife with examples wherein a wealthy or more technogically advanced society is defeated by its lesser rival. Despite its lack of a navy, the intrepid Romans defeated Carthage on both land and sea, while the technical superiority of its machine guns, tanks, submarines, rockets and airplanes were not enough to allow the Germans to overcome the allies in World War II. The knights of Western Europe lost numerous battles and a number of wars to Mongols, Magyars, Turks and Saracens even though none of their enemies could stand before an armored cavalry charge.

Neocon ravings notwithstanding, national will, (or more accurately, cultural will), is not the issue at hand here. The majority of Americans are largely indifferent to the Bush administration's Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism while an ovewhelming majority of the rest of the West is openly against it. But most Muslims are similarly indifferent to this third round in the great clash of civilizations too. An anecdote from William Manchester's biography of Winston Churchill is most informative in this regard:

During the early 1950s, when this writer was living in Dehli as a foreign correspondent, social scientists began a comprehensive poll of Indian villages to determine how many natives knew British rule had ended in 1947. The survey was aborted when it was discovered that a majority didn't know the British had even arrived.

And while it might be tempting to dismiss those Indians as ignorant illiterates, it might be illuminating to ask your neighbor if he knows the name of his congressman, his state representative or his city councilman.

Christendom has twice previously endured periods of Islamic expansion and even managed to roll back Islamic gains with the Reconquista, and, more temporarily, during the Crusades. But that was when the Christian West saw Islam as an enemy and bitterly contested it on every side. Now, a secular West no longer sees itself as a player in the great game, but as a referee, and views Islam as being merely one of the various contestants.

The unavoidable challenge is this. In the same way that atheism provides no moral basis for an individual to resist evil, secular, religious-neutral government provides no practical foundation for opposing Islamic expansion. If Congress funds no mosques, neither can it prevent them from being constructed by militant Saudi Wahhabists. If the Supreme Court requires no one to pray towards Mecca, neither does it allow the banning of immigrants on the basis of a religious adherence to jihad. The range of options accessible to the leaders of the West are formidable; they are also irrelevant.

Bin Laden's statement about horses can perhaps be best understood thusly: Unlike its Christian predecessor, the secular West is structurally incapable of resisting an Islamic expansion due to its demographic disadvantages and philosophical weaknesses. If this is an accurate characterization, one can only conclude, unfortunately, that his statement is logically, historically and psychologically sound. Certainly the actions of the West's leaders, especially those of the Bush administration, have done nothing to disprove the assertion, the establishment of a modern-day Kingdom of Acre in Iraq notwithstanding.

None of this means that Islam cannot be turned back a third time; it does, however, suggest that the concept of Western secularism is doomed to failure one way or another. Secularism does not inspire, it enervates. The spirit which led to the sapping of British spirit and the decline of the Raj has been at work in America for decades, it should surprise no one that the lion's heir is following the mighty tracks of its predecessor.

The impotence of secularism is only the first of several realities that must be recognized if the West is to survive its third test of character. Here are some other important verities:
Democracy does not reduce radicalism or inhibit religion.

Exposure to Western culture does not eliminate radicalism. Even complete immersion in it does not guarantee its elimination.

Western shock and awe cannot impose permanant defeat upon an Eastern culture of retreat and regroup.

Technological proliferation is inevitable. This includes nuclear weapons.

Internal dissension, not external force, ends offensive expansion.
The West turned back the forces of an expansionary Islam twice before. Those hoping to see it turned back a third time would be wise to examine precisely how it was accomplished on the previous occasions.

america as a superpower = bad

2006-07-31T11:27:00.000-05:00

an article from the la times that's actually worth reading.. the last sentence really hits home, and i think we're not far from letting the world get what they want.

----------------------
Niall Ferguson: Look! Up in the sky! It's America!
Tony Blair doesn't share Europe's vision of American power, and he's right.
July 31, 2006

WHEN TONY Blair flew to the United States on Friday for his meetings with President Bush and Rupert Murdoch, I hope the in-flight entertainment was "Superman Returns." It's a film that perfectly encapsulates the British prime minister's very un-European view of America.Blair, you'll recall, was one of the few European leaders who bought the White House line that — as he told the House of Commons in September 2002 — Saddam Hussein had "existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated in 45 minutes."

An essential part of all Superman scripts is a villain — usually the dastardly Lex Luthor — who is poised to blow up the world with just such weapons of mass destruction. Needless to say, Superman alone can save the world. The question is: Can he be persuaded to?

Superman is always reluctant to exercise his powers. Although born on the planet Krypton, he has grown up as Clark Kent in the idyllic Midwestern town of Smallville, imbibing the simple, self-effacing values of the flyover states. In truth, he feels more comfortable tilling the soil than saving the planet. As the new Superman (Brandon Routh) puts it: "It's not easy for me to live my life, being who I am."

It's partly this reluctance to wield power that makes Superman, of all the superheroes, the one who exemplifies the American self-image. His other quintessentially American trait is that it takes a messianic impulse to get the better of his natural modesty. "Your father used to say that you were put here for a reason," his stepmother tells him. "Every day I hear people crying for a savior," says Superman. And if you're still missing the New Testament parallel, here's what Superman's real father told him back on Krypton: "They [meaning earthlings] could be a great people…. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason, above all — their capacity for good — I have sent them you, my only son."

This is precisely the kind of stuff for which Blair has had a lifelong weakness. When he addressed a joint session of Congress in July 2003 — at a time when the smell of victory in Iraq was still in the air — he revealed his debt to the myth of America-as-Superman: "In some small corner of this vast country … there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, 'Why me, and why us, and why America?' And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do." Unfortunately for Blair, the rest of the world has a diametrically different view.

According to a Pew Global Attitudes Project survey, even Britons regard the American presence in Iraq as a bigger danger to world peace than Iran or North Korea. A third of Britons think the U.S. invaded Iraq "to control Mideast oil." A quarter think America aims "to dominate the world." And yet it is Blair who is closer to the truth.

Take two measures of American power: the number of U.S. soldiers overseas, and the scale of U.S. transfers to foreign governments. The United States has a population in excess of 290 million, of whom nearly 75 million are men between 15 and 49 years old. Yet the number of military personnel on active duty overseas is little more than a quarter of a million — roughly 0.1% of the U.S. population. When Britain "ruled the world," that figure was six times higher.

Many Europeans imagine that Washington is in a position to dictate to the Israeli government because of the latter's dependence on U.S. economic and military aid. So when Condoleezza Rice failed to press harder for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah last week, the press here overwhelmingly assumed American bad faith: "If they really wanted to stop the fighting, they could." In fact, U.S. aid to Israel in 2004 was equivalent to just 3.2% of Israel's gross domestic product, compared with 14% in 1986. Could the harsh truth be that the present crisis in the Middle East is a symptom of American weakness rather than the reverse?

Like Superman, the United States has vast potential strength. If it wants to be, it really can be "faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound." It is richer by far than the other countries. It has mind-boggling firepower, enough to incinerate Iran and North Korea in an afternoon. And yet, as Blair understands, this Superman would really rather revert to being Clark Kent in Smallville.

Of course, the moral of "Superman Returns" is that when the messianic Man of Steel retreats into provincial isolation, the world is not the utopia of foreign imaginings. The way things are going, we shall soon find out the hard way that there are worse things than an American superpower.

obsession

2006-07-31T09:49:00.000-05:00

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

this is a must see movie for everyone. this really demonstrates the view of the islamic street. this shows the true face of islam, sad to say. it also underscores the threat that continual appeasement poses to our way of life. if you haven't seen it, see it soon.

incapable of victory

2006-07-31T09:16:00.000-05:00

after watching the world community reaction after the events of this weekend, i've come to the conclusion that the desire in the international community to rid themselves of an american unipolar world and their annoyance with this gnat of a state Israel is greater than their fear of nuclear terror states or the command of islam to be spread from iraq to spain. no, those folks in europe are more concerned with perceived american arrogance and appeasing their own islamic populations.

but europe has been anti-semetic for quite some time.. and the eu is a counterweight against american trade prowess. not to mention the corrupt governments on the take from saddam in the oil for food scandal. (france, russia, germany to name a few)

and we have our beloved american left who would have you believe that america is the source of all the trouble in the world and if they were just in power, we would not be having any of this middle east conflict..

“If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if
the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day
after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the
Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the
Palestinians.” -howard dean

talk about american arrogance - as if howard dean's party
has any moral authority or clarity. this has been going on since isaac and
ishmael but howard dean has the right idea.. how could american voters ever have
not got his party in power ??? a party that will say anything, sell anyone out,
promote any point of view just to try to get elected.

but alas, the
party of no one, yet everyone, or the party of whatever the polls may be reading
are hoping to seize control of the house and senate this year.. these are the
whims of the unprincipled. these are the people of the jimmy carter wing of
american politics.. those who continually snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
time and time again.
--------------------------------------

Jaws of Defeat
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com July 31, 2006

The United States and Israel
and every sentient being in the path of the Islamist crusade are teetering on
the brink of a massive defeat in Lebanon and thus in the war on terror. Lest it
be forgotten, this is a war that began with the Ayatollahs’ revolution in Iran
in 1979 which established the first radical Islamic state whose masters’ war cry
was “Death to America” and the establishment of a global Islamic empire. Nearly
thirty years later, Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and its
imperial war is now being waged on Iran’s Lebanese frontier by its Hezbollah
proxy. One month into the fighting which began with the attacks by Hamas and
Hezbollah on the state of Israel, the scenario for the West’s defeat in this
phase of the war is quite obvious and quite simple.

The appeasers of
Islamofascism, who have been calling for a ceasefire and bewailing “civilian
casualties” in Lebanon and Gaza, will succeed. Hezbollah will agree to turn over
its arms to the pro-Hezbollah Lebanese army. The pro-Hezbollah UN will establish
a security zone on Lebanon’s southern border to keep the area clear of
non-government militias, of which the Hezbollah “militia” is the only one. The
credulous in the Western camp will greet this as a victory for the peacemakers.
But exactly the opposite will be the case.

According to a recent
poll in Lebanon eighty percent of the Lebanese Arabs support Hezbollah. In other
words, just as Hamas, which was created by the same Muslim Brotherhood that
spawned al-Qaeda, is now the Palestinian government, so Hezbollah will emerge as
the government of Lebanon. The Lebanese army will become the new Hezbollah
“militia.” Only it won’t be a militia. It will be the terrorist army of a
sovereign power, with the right to openly negotiate its arms deals with Syria
and Iran. The next battle with Iran, in other words, will be World War III.

In fact, the next battleground in the spread of Shi’ia fascism
is already in progress and aflame. It is Iraq, where Iran’s Shi’ia armies are
already in the field under the command of the sheik of Sadr City, the
America-hating cleric Moqtadar al-Sadr. Al-Sadr, it should be noted, is alive
and in the field because the appeasers in this country, beginning with the
Democratic Party but extending into the Bush State Department, stymied the first
battle of Fallujah and the Bush offensive generally when al-Sadr was trapped in
Najaf and could have been killed and his militia destroyed. The Bush
administration had to delay the Fallujah attack until after Kerry’s defeat in
the November 2004 elections in order to avoid the political complications that
would have attended the battle in the midst of an election campaign. By then
Sistani had staged a "peace march" and going after Sadr was off the table.

But the first battle of Fallujah is only one of many defeats
inflicted by the appeasers and abettors of Islamic imperialism in the West. The
aid to the enemy within the Western camp has taken many forms, beginning with
the hysterical and reckless attacks on the commander-in-chief of America’s
forces as a liar and murderer, and the source of the terror that the Islamists
create. Are there terrorists in Iraq? There were none there before George Bush
created them. Is Hezbollah a Nazi army? It’s because the Jews “occupied”
Palestinian lands. Of course, this is two lies in one. All Israeli “occupation”
is the product of four aggressive Arab wars against Israel. When Israel
withdraws – as in Lebanon – it is attacked. The source of the terror in Lebanon,
as in Iraq, is to be found in the Koran and in the despotisms of the Arab Middle
East. But the appeasement camp cannot face the reality that its enemy is
implacable and its hatred uncaused by anything its targets – Jews, Christians,
“infidels” – have done.

The division of America is the greatest
threat to our ability to prevail in the War on Terror – and the Left knows this
and is incited by it. America is not divided enough for the American Left, which
is now in full purge mode in Connecticut, where it is attempting to bring down
the one statesman in the Democratic Party who might re-unite this country in the
face of its enemies.

Those who in the midst of these wars clamor for
ceasefires with an implacable foe, those who call for withdrawals that would
leave sovereign states in the hands of the terrorist forces, those who decry
civilian casualties caused by the only forces in this war who do not target
civilians, those Blame-America-Firsters who exploit the Abu Ghraibs on our side
and not their atrocities, those whose hysterical fear of the conflict we face
takes the form of pathological denial and projects the rabid hatred of the enemy
for us onto our own commander in the war, are destined to have a lot to answer
for before this conflict is over.

the coming burden of damascus ?

2006-07-28T11:00:00.000-05:00

"See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The
cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with
no one to make them afraid." (Isaiah 17:1-2)

i think i've gone through this once before here in blog land, but i think that with the recent events in the middle east, it's important to look at this prophesy as it relates to current events. we know that the current flare up among the muslim world and Israel is due to iran pulling strings behind the scenes. we know that iran has an apocolyptic ruler who has called for the destruction of Israel. we now also know that syria and iran have signed a defense accord and there is strong evidence that russia is now involved with syria and iran in a defense accord as well. this sets up the alliance for the gog-magog invasion of Israel and it also sets up the impending destruction of damascus (inhabited continously for over 5000 years).

DEBKAfile reports a war council in Damascus chaired by Syrian president Bashar Assad, attended by Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah and senior Iranian official Ali Larijani

Iran‘s state news agency confirmed Nasrallah’s presence in the Syrian capital “for consultations.”
DEBKAfile’s military sources note that Nasrallah crossed over despite the heavy Israeli air bombardment of Lebanese-Syrian border regions. The war conference is attended also by Hamas leaders Khaled Meshaal and Mussa Abu Marzouk as well as the Palestinian Jihad Islami chief Abdallah Ramadan Shelah. The Palestinian terrorist leaders were invited in their capacity as commanders of the second front against Israel in Gaza.

This anti-Israel coalition will no doubt decide on the two fronts’ next steps in their war against the “Zionist enemy.” The fact that Assad is there and the consultation is taking place in his capital indicates that he and the other participants feel confident enough to decide on a further escalation of the violence.

The conference began hours after the Israeli cabinet decided against broadening the campaign against Hizballah or attacking Syria indicating that Tehran, Damascus, Hizballah and the Palestinian terrorists sensed a weakening of Israel’s resolve to fight back. This sort of soft talk from Jerusalem is not taken on trust but makes the Syrians suspect that Israel is playing a double game. Their response will be to redouble their hostilities in the very near future.

---------------------------------------------------------------

add to that syria's current war footing

additionally, hizballah has threatened 'surprises' for Israel.. interestingly, many rumors have surfaced that russian special forces moved the WMD from iraq to lebanon's bekaa valley prior to the us lead invasion of iraq. this valley is under the control of syria and hizballah and if they have WMDs at their disposal and aim them at Israel, i think we would have a smoldering, ruined damascus on our hands..

it's a very interesting time to be alive and to be a student of Bible prophesy.. it's coming to life on the top stories of the news each and every day. there is not a single thing that has to happen before the church is raptured out.. thank Christ for the gift we've been given every day! and if you haven't accepted that gift, there is no better time to do it than now!

The End of Israel's "Peace Through Weakness"

2006-07-20T10:14:00.000-05:00

The End of Israel's "Peace Through Weakness"
By Michael Reagan
FrontPageMagazine.com July 20, 2006

We were right all along, and that gives us the right to say “we told you so.”

Nobody wanted to listen when former Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and a lot of American conservatives warned that you cannot negotiate with terrorists such as Arafat, Hezbollah, and Hamas, or their sponsors in Syria and Iran. We were accused of being warmongers and told that the future of Israel lay not in defending itself, but in making concession after concession to an enemy sworn to demolish the Jewish state and drive its people into the sea.

Goaded by the peace-at-any-price crowd who can never recognize evil when it stares them in the face (because they don’t recognize that evil exists), Israel attempted to mollify the anti-Israel United Nations and the hand-wringing leftists here and abroad by playing nice with their sworn enemies.

Israel withdrew from Gaza, driving their own people – who had settled there with Israel’s approval and encouragement – out of their homes and land. In return for this magnanimous gesture, the terrorists showered missiles on Israeli territory almost daily.

Undaunted by this display of the real and vicious nature of the enemy, Israeli’s government pushed on with plans to evacuate the West Bank, and hand it over to what purports to be a Palestinian state aborning.

The response: more missiles raining down on innocent Israeli citizens and more threats to destroy Israel.

When it finally dawned on the Israeli government that appeasement does not work when the enemy refuses to be appeased with anything less than total victory and the total destruction of the state of Israel, one would have thought that the international left-wing appeasement movement would have applauded Israel for going all-out to defend its people.

It’s obvious that this was not to be – the appeasers merely stepped up their rhetoric, demanding that the international community intervene and force Israel to sit down and negotiate with Hezbollah and Hamas. There is now a great hue and cry demanding diplomacy and negotiations, all aimed at preventing Israel from finally putting an end to the terrorism that they have for so long endured. Nobody echoes Douglas MacArthur’s warning that there is no substitute for victory.

You’d think the appeasers would learn from what happened when MacArthur was prevented from achieving victory in the Korean War. The reality of a crazed North Korea would not exist as a nuclear-armed communist dictatorship had MacArthur been listened to.

The international community, which is content to let the United States and Britain shoulder the burden of fighting the war on Islamic terrorism, stands on the sidelines. Instead of cheering us on, it condemns us for defending them against the terrorism that threatens them as much as it does us.

They whine about the need to accommodate the displaced Palestinians by allowing them to have a state of their own, side-by-side with Israel, but ignore the fact that the Palestinians could have their state for the asking, but are prevented from doing so by Hamas and Hezbollah and their sponsors in Iran and Syria who will accept nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

It really irks me to hear the networks give time to the likes of Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State and one of those demanding diplomacy as the only means of dealing with the Mideast crisis. The administration she served sat idly by in the face of such outrages as the first World Trade Center bombing and the bombing of the USS Cole. In return for their patience we got 9/11. In return for their efforts to broker peace between Israel and the PLO, all we got was continued tension and unrest in the Middle East. In return for her submission to North Korea we got missiles aimed at the U.S. and Japan.

Newt Gingrich is right. We are in the midst of World War III, and you don’t win wars by courting the enemy; you win them by doing what Israel is doing: fighting back with everything you’ve got. God help the Israelis if they listen to the siren song of peace through weakness, of victory through negotiation.

We were right all along, and we have a right to crow.

August 22, 2006

2006-07-07T09:22:00.000-05:00

the western powers that be have given iran a deadline for an answer to their proposal to appease the iranians to cease their rogue nuclear ambitions... that deadline was june 29th. iran countered with an august 22nd date and has since offered up rhetoric about being afraid of traveling to europe because of assassination attempts..

so, i'm out browsing my daily reading sites and i run across a headline.. the headline reads: Apocalyptic signals from Iran worry U.S. intelligence

some chatter about the us intelligence community being concerned with why 8/22 seemed to be arbitrarily chosen by the iranian government.. well, seeing as it takes a subscription to find out what they were going to say, i went to the internet to figure out what the heck 8/22/06 is on the islamic calendar..

so, this is obviously something worth looking up !!! *grin*

well, come to find out, 8/22/06 is the anniversary of the day that mohammed ascended to heaven according to islamic tradition.. so, now, we've put the pieces of the puzzle together. western intelligence has concern that iran is planning some sort of event timed with mohammed's magic carpet ride. and to boot, you now have this out of iran today:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned on Friday that continued Israeli strikes against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip could lead to an "explosion" in the Islamic world that would target Israel and its supporters in the West.

Again, Ahmadinejad questioned Israel's right to exist. "This is a fake regime ... it won't be able to survive. I think the only way (forward) is that those who created it (the West) take it away themselves," the president told a rally in Teheran in support of Palestinians.

it will be interesting to see what the summer brings.. what a great time to be alive!

hating on canada

2006-07-05T11:23:00.000-05:00

this is an interesting piece that outlines what the mindset of the militant muslim looks like. canada, the most pc country on earth, ever conscious to not offend anyone has made friends in the islamic community... and i think this further points out the lack of understanding that most people have about what we are facing.

it's interesting, i often have discussions with some of my hippy friends who call the united states a 'Christian theocracy' and that our rights are being trampled by the evil Christians in power.. yet, they claim the plight of the palesinians as their own, talking about how they have been trampled by the zionist crusaders (interesting term).

it would almost be entertaining to see a community of hippies and their free wheeling subculture juxtaposed with shari'ah law.. but i digress. anyway, take a read and think about the implications.

-------------------------------------
"We Hate Canada"
By Robert Spencer
July 5, 2006

Investigators have recently uncovered a series of Internet postings made by the wives of a group of suspected jihad terrorists. They include these comments (all spelling and punctuation is as it was written):

“Know what you will face one day. Let them call you a terrorist, let them make you look like a savage, but know that THIS [the American military] is the filth of the earth, the uncivilised destroyer of humanity.”

“[And] if [my husband] ever refuses a clear opportunity to leave for jihad, then i want the choice of divorce.”

“All muslim politicians are corrupt. There's no one out there willing to rule the country by the laws of Allah, rather they fight to rule the country by the laws of democracy.”

“Are you accepting a system that separates religion and state? Are you gonna give your pledge of allegiance to a party that puts secular laws above the laws of Allah? Are you gonna worship that which they worship? Are you going to throw away the most important thing that makes you a muslim?”

“May Allah crush these jews, bring them down to their kneees, humuliate them. Ya Allah make their women widows and their children orphans.”

“May Allah curse the jews.. Ameen”

These posts and others like them were written not in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Yemen. They were written in Canada by several of the wives of the jihad terror plotters recently arrested there: Mariya, the wife of the suspected plot ringleader, Fahim Ahmad; Nada Farooq, wife of Zakariya Amara, who is thought to have been Ahmad’s second-in-command; Rana, the wife of another suspect, Ahmad Ghany; and Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal, a convert to Islam and the wife of Qayyum Abdul Jamal, who is alleged to have stirred the others to act with his fiery sermons preaching jihad and hatred of Christians, Jews, and the West – and whose violent exhortations were tolerated by mosque officials because he took out the garbage.

Leftist analysts who explain Islamic jihad as a reaction to Western atrocities and oppression, as well as those on the Left and the Right who assume that education and exposure to Western culture and values will blunt the force of that jihad, are hard-pressed to explain the phenomenon of jihadists and jihad sympathizers who are born and raised in Western countries. Of course, the Council on American Islamic Relations and other advocacy groups attempt to fill this gap with their largely trumped-up reports of hate crimes against Muslims in Western countries, but when the best they can come up with are some insults at a supermarket, it’s hard to build a case for large-scale oppression of Muslims.

But if they are not oppressed, what would possibly have inspired the hatred and contempt these women feel for their own country? When asked what she thought was unique about Canada, Nada Farooq replied, “Who cares? We hate Canada.”

Why would someone who lives in Canada and benefits from its freedom and prosperity hate Canada? Almost certainly because she has been taught to do so. Nada Farooq and the other women who wrote the comments above have no doubt been taught that all non-Muslim society and culture is jahiliyya – ignorance or barbarism, worthless and to be despised.

The Egyptian Qur’an commentator and Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), whose writings are popular today among Muslims in the West, emphasized this: “It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya [the society of unbelievers] which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system….Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah. Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah; no half-half situation is possible. Command belongs to Allah, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; Allah’s Shari’ah [law] will prevail, or else people’s desires: “And if they do not respond to you, then know that they only follow their own lusts. And who is more astray than one who follows his own lusts, without guidance from Allah? Verily! Allah guides not the people who are disobedient.”[Qur’an 28:50]…The foremost duty of Islam is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man, with the intention of raising human beings to that high position which Allah has chosen for him.”[1]

Likewise, Syed Abul Ala Maududi (1903-1979), founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami, which is still the largest exponent of political Islam in Pakistan, declared that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”[2]

This is a matter of religious conviction. These ideas will not be dislodged by education about Western values, which are all part of the jahiliyya these women and their husbands despise, or by better access to jobs or housing. One primary lesson that authorities should draw from these Internet postings is that Islamic terror is not a problem that can be solved by social engineering. It cannot be assuaged by gestures of good will, negotiations or concessions. There is in Western countries today a large and growing population of Muslims, among whom are many who have no intention of assimilating or adopting Western values and perspectives, and who regard the West with as much or more disdain and contempt as these women show in their Internet postings. The jihad ideology as such must be confronted and combated, or it will continue to spread, and breed terrorists and subversives.

But for authorities to understand this and take positive steps to deal with it, they would first have to admit that Islam has anything to do with terrorism at all – something they have taken great pride in denying. And that denial only ensures that there will be many more jihad cells in Canada and Western countries, with the wives of the plotters cheering from the sidelines.

palestinian folly

2006-06-26T09:36:00.000-05:00

i think the article below is notable.. while the bush haters in the united states continue their chant of bush lied, Israel is faced with a legitimate threat with WMD's. even in the face of the evidence of WMD's found in iraq, the power hungry left wing of american politics plays their dangerous game of abandoning the truth and principal to forward their quest for office.

this is also important as it relates to the forthcoming palestinian civil war and the effect on Israel that will have. i can see Israel making good on it's promise to eliminate the hamas leadership if they do not return the IDF soldier being held hostage. this would work to unify the palestinian cause and you really wouldn't be surprised to see hizbullah launch attacks in the north against Israel. since hizbullah is financed by iran and syria, and with the recent defense accord between those two countries any action by Israel would likely be responded to by factions loyal to both groups, if not from both directly.

if a terrorist group attacks Israel with WMD's, then i anticipate Israel's response to be overwhelming in scope.

An interesting prophesy.. Isaiah 17:1 - The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city and it shall be a ruinous heap..

*Damascus is the oldest continually inhabited city in the world - it's never been destroyed in recorded history.
-----------------------------
Al-Aksa claims chemical capabilities
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

The Aksa Martyrs Brigades announced on Sunday that its members have succeeded in manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.

In a leaflet distributed in the Gaza Strip, the group, which belongs to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah Party, said the weapons were the result of a three-year effort.

According to the statement, the first of its kind, the group has managed to manufacture and develop at least 20 different types of biological and chemical weapons.

The group said its members would not hesitate to add the new weapons to Kassam rockets that are being fired at Israeli communities almost every day. It also threatened to use the weapons against IDF soldiers if Israel carried out its threats to invade the Gaza Strip.

"We want to tell [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert and [Defense Minister Amir] Peretz that your threats don't frighten us," the leaflet said.

"We will surprise you with our new weapons the moment the first soldier sets foot in the Gaza Strip."

for the record..

2006-06-25T01:04:00.000-05:00

just because i've had this discussion a few times already tonight..

there is one path to salvation. one path to eternity. that path is through the blood of Jesus Christ. there is no one singualar event in history i am more grateful for. i am not worthy for the gift i've been given and for that i am forever thankful.

i am one happy child, you should be too :-)

apostate

2006-06-21T10:12:00.000-05:00

2 Timothy 4:3-4

3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
--------------------------------------------------
the recent discussions by the episcopal church as it relates to gay clergy and salvation through Jesus Christ are telling indeed. the below article describes the inner workings of an apostate church. one that will die on the vine as it's faith in Jesus has faded.

Episcopalians refuse affirmation of Christ
By Hans Zeiger
COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/20/06)
The House of Deputies of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today overwhelmingly refused to even consider a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved."

"This type of language was used in 1920s and 1930s to alienate the type of people who were executed. It was called the Holocaust. I understand the intent, but I ask you to allow the discharge to stay," said the Rev. Eugene C. McDowell, a graduate of Yale Divinity School and Canon Theologian for the Diocese of North Carolina.

The convention's Committee on Evangelism first heard the resolution and discharged it to the chagrin of that committee's chairman, the Rev. Colenzo Hubbard, a noted evangelist and director of Emmanuel Episcopal Center in the Diocese of West Tennessee. The Rev. Hubbard motioned to lift the resolution from the discharge list, but after heated debate, more than seven tenths of the House of Deputies rejected the motion.

Drafted by the Rev. Guido Verbeck, rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Western Louisiana, Resolution D058 declared the Episcopal Church's belief in an "unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved," and it acknowledged evangelism as "the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me' (John 14:6).

" The resolution further affirmed "the substitutionary essence of the Cross and the manifestation of God's unlimited and unending love for all persons," while calling on the Episcopal Church to renew its Scripture-based witness to "all persons."

The Rev. Hubbard said that he voted for the resolution in committee because of his simple responsibility as a Christian. Hubbard quoted several verses of Scripture to demonstrate his conviction. "I do agree that Jesus Christ is both the substitutionary essence of the Cross and the manifestation of God's unlimited and unending love for all persons," said Hubbard, once a star on the University of Alabama football team.

Echoing Hubbard, Canon Dr. Kendall Harmon, a leading conservative in the denomination, argued for a "reaffirmation of what some have called 'the scandal of particularity' of the Cross."

Judy Mayo from the Diocese of Fort Worth also opposed discharge. "My friends, this is a church convention, and this is the very essence of our faith. This may be the most important thing we deal with at this entire convention...Surely we can say together that Jesus Christ is Lord. And if we can't, we have no reason to be here."

But liberals outnumbered Hubbard, Harman, and Mayo by far.

The Rev. McDowell of the Diocese of North Carolina told VirtueOnline after the floor vote, "In the Episcopal Church we don't do up and down votes on Jesus Christ as Lord, and to do so is potentially a mean-spirited approach, to ask questions that aren't meant to be questions."

McDowell explained that how one lives his life is the more important issue than whether one affirms Jesus as Lord. To place a statement of belief over actions is the essence of "self-righteousness," he said. "Actions speak louder than proclamations...What Jesus calls us to do is to live our lives."

McDowell outlined his basic theology of grace: "Salvation by grace is remembering that we are the children of a living God. Grace is already there. And salvation is realizing we now live into that salvation. And sanctification is the transforming of my life from one that's me-centered to one that's God-centered."

But to acknowledge the exclusive Lordship of Christ in a resolution would be too much for McDowell and the majority of deputies at the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church.

The Rev. Robert Certain of the Diocese of San Diego told the House of Deputies that he refused to consider the resolution because the General Convention of 1982 had endorsed salvation through Christ alone, and a resolution was unnecessary.

But the message was clear to the Rev. Donald Perschall, rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in Centralia, Illinois, as he left the convention hall Tuesday, shocked by the events of the day. "On top of leaving the Anglican Communion, we've decided to leave Jesus Christ behind as well."

It was not a surprise vote though; the liberalization of the Episcopal Church predates 1982. Episcopalians have made it clear by their rejection of traditional marriage and other recent innovations that a new set of principles now dominate the Episcopal Church. Though the trend toward liberalism in the Episcopal Church has been ongoing for decades, it was in 2003 that the consecration of a homosexual as Bishop of New Hampshire crystallized the departure of the denomination from its bearings in classical Anglicanism.

Dr. Michael Howell of the Diocese of Southwestern Florida and a member of the Special Committee that deliberated the Convention's response to the global Anglican Communion's Windsor Report, told VirtueOnline that the discharge of Resolution D058 is "very much related" to the failure of Resolution A161 moments earlier.

A161 would place a moratorium on the consecration of homosexual bishops and the blessing of homosexual unions in a minimal effort to comply with the Windsor Report. It was soundly defeated on the floor of the House of Deputies Tuesday.

"If we cannot affirm the unique salvific power of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we are no longer a Christian church." Switching to a sarcastic tone, Howell declared, "We have no need for a Creed. Why do again what we did in the past?"

"This clearly shows that we are of a mind that does not affirm Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And we should not be surprised that our church is dying spiritually," said Howell.

The final tally on the electronic vote was 70.5 percent for discharge (675 votes) and just 29.5 (242 votes) to consider the resolution affirming Jesus Christ as Lord.

FULL TEXT RESOLUTION D058 SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST ALONE Discharged in committee. Discharge upheld by House of Deputies, 75th General Convention.

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church declares its unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved (Article XVIII); and be it further Resolved, That we acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

No-one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6); and be it further Resolved, That we affirm that in Christ there is both the substitutionary essence of the Cross and the manifestation of God's unlimited and unending love for all persons; and be it further Resolved, That we renew our dedication to be faithful witnesses to all persons of the saving love of God perfectly and uniquely revealed in Jesus and upheld by the full testimony of Holy Scripture.

----------------------------------------
2 Timothy 3
1 But know this, that in the last days, grievous times will come.
2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good,
4 traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God;
5 holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof. Turn away from these, also
6 For of these are those who creep into houses, and take captive gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
7 always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Even as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so do these also oppose the truth; men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they will proceed no further. For their folly will be evident to all men, as theirs also came to be.
10 But you did follow my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, steadfastness,
11 persecutions, and sufferings: those things that happened to me at Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. I endured those persecutions. Out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
14 But you remain in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them.
15 From infancy, you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus.
16 Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 3-4
3 knowing this first, that in the last days mockers will come, walking after their own lusts,
4 and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

inconvenient indeed..

2006-06-14T10:49:00.000-05:00

not a lot of time to write lately, but i found this article entertaining..

------------------------
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom HarrisMonday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

a belief in islam and the clerics..

2006-05-30T11:34:00.000-05:00

tragic, yet telling.. the best picture in to the mind of people that do this type of thing in the name of allah is the statement:

"When I asked how he could do this to me, he said that he believed in only
two things - Islam and the rule of the clerics.."
----------------------
Child Abuse - Mullah Style
By Philip Sherwell Telegraph.co.uk May 30, 2006

A leading Iranian pro-democracy and
women's activist, who was jailed on trumped-up charges last year, has revealed
how the clerical regime cynically deploys systemic sexual violence against
female dissidents in the name of Islam.
Roya Tolouee, 40, was beaten up by Iranian intelligence agents and subjected to a horrific sexual assault when she refused to sign forced confessions. It was only when they threatened to burn her two children to death in front of her that she agreed to put her name to the documents.

Perhaps just as shocking as the physical abuse were the chilling words of the man who led the attack. "When I asked how he could do this to me, he said that he believed in only two things - Islam and the rule of the clerics," Miss Tolouee told The Sunday Telegraph last week in an interview in Washington after she fled Iran.

"But I know of no religious morality that can justify what they did to me, or other women. For these people, religion is only a tool for dictatorship and abuse. It is a regime of prejudice against women, against other regimes, against other ethnic groups, against anybody who thinks differently from them." Miss Tolouee's account of her ordeal confirms recent reports from opposition groups that Iranian intelligence officials use sexual abuse against female prisoners as an interrogation technique and even rape young women before execution so that they cannot reach heaven as virgins.

Few women from the Islamic world are willing to discuss such matters, even with each other, but Miss Tolouee said that the regime routinely committed sexual attacks against female detainees.
She dropped her voice to a whisper and sobbed quietly as she described her experience, hoping not to upset her six-year-old son, Nima, as he picked at a piece of pizza in a hotel restaurant.
But he tried to comfort her. "I don't like it when my mummy talks about prison. It makes her cry," he said sadly. Miss Tolouee, who founded a women's group in Iranian Kurdistan and then launched a monthly magazine that was closed down by the judiciary last summer, was detained in the city of Sanandaj in August after taking part in anti-regime demonstrations that spread across Kurdish areas.
"Four armed men and three armed women barged into my house at night and took me away," she said. "My kids were terrified and crying. I was questioned all night by different interrogators and then thrown alone into a cell."

She was held in solitary confinement in the prison of the feared internal intelligence service, with only a blanket and a cup that often had to serve as a lavatory.
For the first six nights, she was taken to a basement where interrogators demanded that she admit to organising the protests, and also that she identify co-conspirators on a list of names they put to her.

"When I wouldn't do what they wanted, they slapped me. But after the sixth night, the routine changed. I was left alone in a small dark room with two men. One was the assistant prosecutor and called himself Amiri. The other had a filthy mouth and said terrible things. They started slapping me again. For the rest of the night they did to me what no woman should ever experience. Amiri said, 'I'm going to hang you, but before I hang you, I will make an example of you so that no woman will dare to open her mouth here again'." He then sexually assaulted her.
When she asked Amiri how he could act like that, he told her that only Islam and clerical rule were important to him. The attack left her badly bruised and bleeding internally, but she refused to sign the papers they put before her. To her assailants' fury, she demanded to see a lawyer and cited international treaties on human rights.

The following night they did not sexually molest her again as she was still bleeding - and hence "unclean". Instead, they told her that they would kill her children by setting them on fire before her eyes.

Finally, she admits, she cracked. "I threw myself at Amiri's feet and begged him not to harm my children. I said I'd do anything they wanted. Whatever they wanted, I would sign." She admitted to conspiring against the regime by giving interviews to the foreign media and leading the protests, but said that she did not implicate others.

After several more nights in solitary confinement, Miss Tolouee was moved to a general women's prison, where she saw horrendous festering wounds inflicted by lashings on other detainees.
Trying to maintain her dignity and strength, she taught the women about their basic human rights and helped to secure the provision of sanitary supplies for the first time. "We had a great feeling of camaraderie," she recalled.

Miss Tolouee was released on bail after 66 days in jail because, she said, "The regime had got what it wanted". But she still feared for her children's lives and decided to flee. She made it first to neighbouring Turkey with Nima and then her daughter Shima, 14, was smuggled out to join them.

Fearful of the reach of regime agents, who have killed exiled dissidents, an opposition group called the Alliance of Iranian Women helped them to reach the United States last month.
Miss Tolouee has been granted political asylum and intends to maintain her campaign against Teheran. She still has relatives in Iran - she does not want to go into details for reasons of security - but says that they have given her their blessing to speak out, despite the possible consequences.

The world's attention is currently focused on Iran's nuclear ambitions under its hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who came to office while Miss Tolouee was in prison. But inside Iran, she says, little has changed.

"Sometimes the regime seems a bit better, sometimes a bit worse, but for the people of Iran, the suffering continues," she said.

interesting perspective..

2006-05-23T17:51:00.000-05:00

"The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a
few decades."

---Libyan ruler Khaddafy says Europe and America will either turn Muslim or
declare war on Islam.

de facto censorship..

2006-05-23T11:08:00.000-05:00

very, very interesting..
-------------------------------------
Google dumps news sites that criticize radical Islam Search giant axes another news page, calls terrorism discussion 'hate content'

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam – the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered.

Frank Salvato, who began the agreement with Google News last September, said he received a reply from the company's help desk Friday indicating there had been complaints of "hate speech" on his site, as first reported by media watchdog Newsbusters.org.

The e-mail, which cited three articles that dealt with radical Islam and its relationship to terrorism, read:

Hi Frank,
Thanks for writing. We received numerous reports about hate content on your site, and after reviewing these reports, decided to remove your site from Google News. We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google News (although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable).
For example, a number of the complaints we looked at on your site were found to be hate content:
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/peck/05102006.htm
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/stock/05082006.htm
http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/imani/04222006.htm

We hope this helps you understand our position.

Regards,
The Google Team

Newsbusters says it has observed a pattern of intolerance toward conservative sites that deal with radical Islam and terrorism.

Rusty Shackleford, owner of The Jawa Report, received a similar e-mail message March 29 informing him: "Upon recent review, we've found that your site contains hate speech, and we will no longer be including it in Google News."

Two weeks later, Jim Sesi's MichNews.com was cut off, with Google providing three examples of "hate speech" by conservative writer J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Newsbusters commented: "At first blush, one can easily ignore such business decisions by the most powerful company on the Internet as being routine. However, on closer examination, such behavior could give one relatively small technological corporation (when measured by the size of its workforce) a degree of political might that frankly dwarfs its current financial prowess."

The media watchdog noted columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin wrote in February 2005 her difficulties in becoming part of Google News. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs had a similar complaint.

When Google News launched its beta site in April 2002, it said its mission was to construct an unbiased news engine free of human intervention using new methods of aggregating news from sources worldwide.

According to the April Nielsen/NetRatings report, 49 percent of all searches conducted in the U.S. in March 2006 were carried out on Google.
Along with the dropping of conservative news providers, Google has received other complaints of liberal bias.

Last June, a conservative book publisher said Google rejected his ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes.

Eric Jackson, CEO of World Ahead, said his ads for "Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine" were rejected, without further explanation, due to "unacceptable content."
As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats.

CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.

Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton, whose role in helping her husband intimidate his female accusers is addressed in the new book.

In May 2005, Google rejected an attempt by the conservative activist group RightMarch.com to run ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against besieged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Also, Google agreed to allow the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy."

In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision to rank news articles in search results by "quality," giving preferential placement to large and predominately liberal media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over conservative news sources, even if they are more recent or pertinent.

things that are silly..

2006-05-16T23:47:00.000-05:00

ok, so it's late.. and i'm tired and my eyes are weary..

that being said, i thought i'd put a few thoughts on paper.. thoughts especially important to me with the da vinci code buzz that is going on..

this life we hang on to so dearly to is simply a temporary stop in the rest of forever. if i were not a Christian, you'd think i was a hindu or that i subscribed to a eastern philosophy of some sort.. but the reality is that what we do here that we consider important is, in a large reguard, insignificant.. you might think you would come back as a cow, or as a moth, depending on what you believe.. but at the end of the day, there is only one set of beliefs that make sense to me..

Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind .. you can take that or leave it.. in your own well educated mind, this may be a fantastic tale of fiction and lore.. however, regardless of how smart you are or how many degrees you have earned, your only path to immortality, and that is what you desire, is from a God that knows that you are imperfect (which you are) and that his Son is the only path to what you desire..

yet, you rebel. you have it figured out.. trust me, i have it figured out. and i'm far smarter than you.. or am i ?? or are you ?? you give up your eternity to indulge your pride and your simple worldly pleasures.. and i indulge those too.. the difference ? i don't wait for another man to tell me it's ok, to confirm my behavior as acceptable.. i wait for the judgement and reward of a patient, yet just God. a God that loves me for who i am yet hates my sin. a God that sent his Son to die for my sins.. yet i abuse that.. i sin with impunity.. with no concern for me or him or anyone... i am simply a consumer. i take large bites out of the world i live in, while taking for granted the one that will save me from it.

so, at the end of the day, i sometimes find myself inspiring imperfect people that i would convict for reasons i am myself guilty.. i find myself unwilling to release a worldly love for the love of eternity because i'm weak..

but, every day.. when i walk in to my house alone, when i want to share that moment that i should share with the love of my life, i now do just that.. i've just realized that the love of my life isn't who i thought it was.. it is who has always been there for me, yet i've taken for granted..

life is short here.. live it right. even if i don't.. you should.

i miss those who i loved unconditionally.. but my love is far from cold. thank you for loving me so much that you provided your Son to save my sorry butt.. much love and many thanks.

more truth than we care to believe...

2006-05-11T14:58:00.000-05:00

this is exactly what i was thinking when the contents of the letter were published.. follows the outline perfectly and this guy is enough of a nut to start it up..

interesting to watch the world powers line up just as they should..
-------------------------------------------
Iran letter precursor to war?
Analysts say it follows Muhammad's instructions for jihad

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Some Middle East observers believe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush could be a precursor to war, based on a traditional Muslim pattern of offering acceptance of Islam before establishing it by force.

Robert Spencer, editor of Jihad Watch, says Ahmadinejad appears to be following the teachings of Muhammad, who gave specific instructions to followers as they engage in "holy war" against "those who disbelieve in Allah."

In a Hadith, regarded by Muslims as sacred writings about Muhammad, the Islamic prophet says a series of offers should be made to "enemies" to embrace Islam, or at least accept Islamic rule, and if they are rejected, "seek Allah's help and fight them."

In his letter, Ahmadinejad argues only Islam can "overcome the present problems of the world" and asks Bush, "Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets? Mr President, History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive."

Another observer of Islam, journalist Stephen Adams, said the letter seems to parallel a missive from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden to Americans prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Interviewed on the Michael Medved radio show yesterday, Adams noted bin Laden stated his grievances against the United States and gave Americans the opportunity to "repent."

Based on precedent, Adams continued, he expects the next step will be for Iran to make the invitation public. Then the "crimes" of the U.S. will be published and the grievances will be cited at Friday prayers in mosques. Finally, comes a fatwa, amounting to a declaration of war.
Adams, associate editor of Citizen magazine, said it's possible this scenario could unfold in a matter of weeks.

In a column for WorldNetDaily, Middle East analyst Laura Mansfield said she believes the letter could be a "last warning."

Mansfield says the question must be asked: "Why deliver such a letter when there is little chance it will result in policy changes for either country?"

Like Spencer and Adams, she points out: "Islamic theology documents that no attack can be carried out in jihad without first offering the 'unbelievers' the opportunity to 'repent' and accept Islam. Only when that overture is rejected can an attack occur."

The Iranian president has made clear, at least to audiences at home, Tehran's ultimate intentions.

As WorldNetDaily reported in January, Ahmadinejad told a crowd of theological students in Iran's holy city of Qom that Islam must prepare to rule the world.

"We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice," Ahmadinejad said Jan. 5, according to Mehran Riazaty, a former Iran analyst for the Central Command of the Coalition Forces in Baghdad.

Ahmadinejad, who drew global attention for his contention the Holocaust was a "myth," said: "We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world." Two months earlier, he threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"

Riazaty, in a post on the website Regime Change Iran, said the Iranian president emphasized his current theme that the return of the Shiite messiah, the Mahdi, is not far away, and Muslims must prepare for it.

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West.

"We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return," Ahmadinejad said. "If we work on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the Mahdi], all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined and the administration of the country will become easier."

Israel can only lose once..

2006-05-09T17:37:00.000-05:00

''Israel Can Only Lose Once''
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."
"Teheran is making a mockery of the international community's efforts to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program," Peres told Reuters, adding that "Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us."

If all world powers are united against Iran, military action can be avoided, Peres said.
"We can prevent all of this threat, without weapons, if there will be unity," Peres said, adding that the Security Council had to act on the matter. "If the crucial moment comes and they are incapable of taking [action] or making a policy...then they endanger their existence as an important world body," he said.

History records the main reason that the Jews decided, after almost two millennia after being exiled, that the continued survival of the Jewish race demanded a homeland. Israel's Founding Fathers summed it up in two words: "Never again!"

"Never again!" is so indelibly linked to the Holocaust and the attempted destruction of the Jewish people that the phrase has become a synonym for unimpeded genocide.
It was the slogan of Kofi Annan's special ten-year celebration of the Rwandan genocide in which the ruling Rwanda Hutu tribe set out to exterminate their traditional enemies, the Tutsi tribe.
When the bloodletting was finally exhausted, almost a million Tutsis had been slaughtered, in full view of the United Nations.

At the time, Kofi Annan was the head of UN peacekeeping operations, including the one in Rwanda that he ordered out of the country -- after ten Belgian peacekeepers were killed in an attack.

According to a 1998 article in the New Yorker magazine, Kofi Annan was told by the commander of peacekeeping forces in Rwanda of a plan by the then-government of Rwanda to exterminate the Tutsis, some three months BEFORE the slaughter began.

After the deaths of the Belgian peacekeepers, the magazine reported that Annan gave orders not to intervene. Full details of the commander's cable were reportedly forwarded to the American, French and Belgian ambassadors in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, the day after the report was sent to New York.

On the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan slaughter, Kofi Annan, now Secretary-General, designated April 7 as the "International Day of Reflection on the Genocide in Rwanda." Kofi urged the world to set aside a 'moment of silence' so that "such a tragedy can never happen again."

At the time of Kofi's 'never again speech' in 2004, at least THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND people had already been butchered at the hands of the Islamic Republic of Sudan's Janjaweed Militia.

Two years later, despite having declared the slaughter of the mainly Christian and non-Islamics in the south to be 'genocide' -- the slaughter continues.
In full view of the UN peacekeepers -- who eventually turned supervision of the slaughter over to the totally inept, under-funded and under-equipped African Union.
(Until one of the African Union's helicopters got shot down, that is. THEN the AU suspended all aircraft flights that were assigned to monitor a 'ceasefire'.)
That is what 'never again' means to the world community. It means 'never again' -- until next time, after which the UN will dedicate an 'annual' moment of silence and reflection that will be observed exactly once.

Israel was founded on the 'never again' principle, which means something different to them than it does to the rest of the world.

For two millennia, Jews were systematically rounded up and slaughtered in regional pogroms -- but it wasn't until the rise of Adolf Hitler that the wholesale slaughter of Jews threatened to wipe them from the face of the earth.

The Jews who survived the world's acquiescence to their slaughter declared that 'never again' would they trust the world community to ensure their survival.
Adolf Hitler had clearly and unambiguously outlined his planned extermination of the Jewish people some twenty years before in his political manifesto, "Mein Kampf" ("My Struggle").
And, while part of the world sat idly by (and the rest helped) Hitler imposed his 'Final Solution to the Question of the Jewish People' on almost six million of them.

THAT is what 'never again' means to Israel. Israel's foundational principle is that it would never again entrust its survival to global good will.

Israel's establishment as a Jewish State was an indictment to the world community that let the Holocaust happen, despite Hitler's having made his intentions perfectly clear -- and that it would never happen again because Israel wouldn't let it.

The establishment of Israel prevented the wholesale slaughter of Jews under the principle of collective security, but 'collective' has become a two-edged sword.

Jews were slaughtered indiscriminately throughout history, but the Jewish people survived, mainly because they were scattered throughout the world.

The Diaspora that ended the existence of the Jewish state in AD 70 also prevented the concentration of Jews in one place where they could be annihilated.
Israel's re-establishment in 1948 brought them all back into one place at precisely the moment in history when it is possible to annihilate the tiny Jewish state in a single, blinding, nuclear flash.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir famously observed during the Yom Kippur War that, "the Arabs can fight, and lose, and return to fight another day. Israel can only lose once."

In 1973, it was a rallying cry. Hitler's successors see it as a battle strategy.

Former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani outlined it recently, telling the world that, "the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam."

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it clear that his goal is the annihilation of Israel, an event that he described as Israel 'being eliminated by one storm'.

Revolutionary Guards commander General Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani made global headlines with his declaration: "We have announced that wherever [in Iran] America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel."

Noted Charles Krauthammer, "The logic is impeccable, the intention clear: A nuclear attack would effectively destroy tiny Israel, while any retaliation launched by a dying Israel would have no major effect on an Islamic civilization of a billion people stretching from Mauritania to Indonesia."

When viewed through the prism of Bible prophecy, things continue to develop precisely as outlined some twenty-five hundred years ago -- without deviating one iota from the original script.

We find Russia, Iran and the Islamic world on one side; Israel (and the 'Christian Crusaders') on the other.

The United Nations has already established a precedent for sitting on its hands in the face of slow, systematic, genocide.

"Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?" (Ezekiel 38:13)
Iran is talking about genocide in 'one storm'. "Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee." (Ezekiel 38:9)

But, as Shimon Peres noted, "Iran can also be wiped off the map."

"And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone." (Ezekiel 38:22)

"And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." (Luke 21:28)

comedy, if it weren't so sad..

2006-03-29T16:04:00.000-06:00

http://www.aztlan.net/

take a peek at what the american southwest has in store.. a bunch of jew hating, anti-american mexican nationalists who want to take back texas, new mexico, california and arizona..

neat.

worth 1000 words..

2006-03-29T15:51:00.000-06:00

immigration spaghetti

2006-03-29T12:32:00.000-06:00

i found this article and thought i was worth sharing. it's apparent that the politicians are out of touch with the citizens of this country. first it was the democrats who lost touch with the common man.. now, it's the republicans. it really makes you wonder who these folks are listening to to come up with the things they do..

------------------------------------
Mexican illegals vs. American voters
By Tony BlankleyMarch 29, 2006

It is lucky America has more than two centuries of mostly calm experience with self-government. We are going to need to fall back on that invaluable patrimony if the immigration debate continues as it has started this season. The Senate is attempting to legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public. The Senate Judiciary Committeemen — and probably a majority of the Senate — are convinced that they know that the American people don't know what is best for them. National polling data could not be more emphatic — and has been so for decades. Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80 percent of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72 percent in that poll don't even want illegals to be permitted to have driver's licenses). Time Magazine's recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75 percent favor "major penalties" on employers of illegals, 70 percent believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57 percent would use military force at the Mexican-American border. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59 percent opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71 percent would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls.

An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92 percent saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress. Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73 percent of Republican and 77 percent of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation.

I commend to all those presumptuous senators and congressmen the sardonic and wise words of Edmund Burke in his 1792 letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe: "No man will assert seriously, that when people are of a turbulent spirit, the best way to keep them in order is to furnish them with something substantial to complain of." The senators should remember that they are American senators, not Roman proconsuls. Nor is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee some latter-day Praetor Maximus.

But if they would be dictators, it would be nice if they could at least be wise (until such time as the people can electorally forcefully project with a violent pedal thrust their regrettable backsides out of town). It was gut-wrenching (which in my case is a substantial event) to watch the senators prattle on in their idle ignorance concerning the manifold economic benefits that will accrue to the body politic if we can just cram a few million more uneducated illegals into the country. ( I guess ignorance loves company.) Beyond the Senate last week, in a remarkable example of intellectual integrity (in the face of the editorial positions of their newspapers) the chief economic columnists for the New York Times and The Washington Post — Paul Krugman and Robert Samuelson, respectively — laid out the sad facts regarding the economics of the matter. Senators, congressmen and Mr. President, please take note.

Regarding the Senate's and the president's guest-worker proposals, The Post's Robert Samuelson writes: "Gosh, they're all bad ideas ... We'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking, many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate, many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished ... [It] is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico ... The most lunatic notion is that admitting more poor Latino workers would ease the labor market strains of retiring baby boomers ? Far from softening the social problems of an aging society, more poor immigrants might aggravate them by pitting older retirees against younger Hispanics for limited government benefits ... [Moreover], [i]t's a myth that the U.S. economy 'needs' more poor immigrants.

"The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force." (For all Mr. Samuelson's supporting statistics, see his Washington Post column of March 22, from which this is taken.) Likewise, a few days later, the very liberal and often partisan Paul Krugman of the New York Times courageously wrote : "Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the [government] benefits they receive ? As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, 'We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.' " Mr. Krugman also observed — citing a leading Harvard study — "that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration. That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants 'do jobs that Americans will not do.' The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants." Thusly do the two leading economic writers for the nation's two leading liberal newspapers summarily debunk the economic underpinning of the president's and the Senate's immigration proposals.

Under such circumstances, advocates of guest-worker/amnesty bills will find it frustratingly hard to defend their arrogant plans by their preferred tactic of slandering those who disagree with them as racist, nativist and xenophobic.

When the slandered ones include not only The Washington Post and the New York Times, but about 70 percent of the public, it is not only bad manners, but bad politics. The public demand to protect our borders will triumph sooner or later. And, the more brazen the opposing politicians, the sooner will come the triumph.

So legislate on, you proud and foolish senators — and hasten your political demise.
----------------------------------------

in the name of religious tolerance

2006-03-20T10:28:00.000-06:00

it is interesting to watch the growing love by the lefties out there for the religion of islam.. it's one of those situations where the motto of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' really seems to fit. we know that the left hates george bush.. they hate him with such passion that it almost totally consumes their every waking moment. we also know that the radical islamists hate george bush too.. he's taken the fight to them in their homeland and they don't like it. america is just a bunch of Jew loving zionists that need to be killed.. ok, we get the idea.

that brings me to this story i found.. a really sobering look at what life is like under islamic law.

----------------------------------------------
Man faces death penalty for becoming ChristianDespite ouster of Taliban by U.S., court still prosecutes ex-Muslim
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Despite the fact the hardline Taliban regime is no longer in power, an Afghan man faces possible execution for allegedly abandoning his Islamic roots and becoming a Christian.

"Yes that's true, a man has converted to Christianity. He's being tried in one of our courts," Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada told the Middle East Times.

The case centers on Abdul Rahman, believed to be 41, who converted from Islam to Christianity some 16 years ago. His relatives reportedly notified authorities about the conversion.

The constitution in Afghanistan is based on Shariah law, which states any Muslim who rejects his or her religion should be sentenced to death.

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge told the Associated Press. "It is an attack on Islam. ... The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty."

If he indeed is sentenced, Rahman would be the first person punished for leaving Islam since the Taliban was ousted by American-led forces in late 2001, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Prosecutor Abdul Wasi says he offered to drop the charges if Rahman made the switch back to Islam, but the defendant is maintaining his Christian beliefs. The judge is expected to rule within two months.

About 99 percent of Afghanistan's 28 million people are Muslims, with the rest mostly Hindus.
---------------------------------------

'a religion of peace.'

iran putting troops in to iraq..

2006-03-13T09:35:00.000-06:00

it looks like iran is purposely placing troops in iraq to confront us forces. obviously, this adds suspense to the unfolding drama in that part of the world. rumsfeld doesn't seem amused..

interestingly the president's trip to india, pakistan, afghanistan and iraq would also have been a good time to inform our allies in that region of an impending attack on iran..

from world tribune:
-----------------------------------------
Rumsfeld: Iran has deployed elite forces in Iraq
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, March 10, 2006
WASHINGTON — Iran has deployed elite forces to confront the U.S. military in Iraq in what has been termed a major escalation, the Pentagon says.

"They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. "It is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment."

Officials said Iran has deployed members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iraq in early 2006. They said the IRGC operatives helped foment unrest and bolster Shi'ite militias in Iraq amid sectarian violence triggered by the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samara on Feb. 22.

In a Pentagon briefing on Tuesday, Rumsfeld said Iran was deploying members of the Quds Brigade of the IRGC. The Quds Brigade has been regarded as the special operations forces and specialized in insurgencies abroad.

The brigade has been identified as the trainer and controller of Hizbullah in Lebanon. In February, National Intelligence director John Negroponte reported Iranian attempts to strike U.S. forces in Iraq.

"The Revolutionary Guard doesn't go milling around willy-nilly, one would think," Rumsfeld said. "Is it possible some more Iraqi civilians will be killed? Sure."

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the reports of the Quds Brigade infiltration in Iraq marked the most recent of developments that stemmed from Iran. Pace said the military has assessed the number of IRGC fighters in Iraq, but would not elaborate.

Officials said the Quds Brigade was also believed to have brought weapons and relayed expertise for the assembly of improvised explosive devices. They said the Iranian-origin IEDs were shaped charges that could rip through U.S.-origin main battle tanks and armored personnel carriers.

"There have been some IEDs and some weapons that we believe are traceable back to Iran," Pace said.

Officials said the military has captured IEDs manufactured along the Iranian-Iraqi border in 2006. The IEDs were said to have been aimed at U.S. and British troops in a drive by Teheran to force an early coalition withdrawal from Iraq.

"We're working with the Iraqi government to enhance the capacity, the total numbers dedicated to border control, and also their capacity," Pace said.

olives & discourse, valleys & bones..

2006-03-08T13:49:00.000-06:00

so, i've been having conversations with some of my friends about current events and the times we live in.. i tend to have a biblical worldview on things, as many of the events that are taking place today are direct fulfillment of Biblical prophecy..

now, a lot of people get the hair up on their neck when anyone mentions the word prophecy.. they seem to picture of some sort of comet cult or branch davidian in their mind.. i think that those who haven't read the Bible might think that, but those who are well read would think just the opposite. as a matter of fact Jesus predicts those types of people specifically in his olivet discourse..

anyway, i don't fancy myself as anything other than a reader of God's word and i put forth here the way i see it. i take it in a pretty common sense fashion.. i don't think a lot of it is as complicated as many would make it out to be..

you can ask my friends, i'm far from being a preacher, but i do have beliefs that i won't be moved in and i am more than happy to talk about them.

so, i'm gonna use this blog to walk through the olivet discourse and items relating to Israel and the return of the Jews to their God promised land..
---------------------------------------------------
here is the text in the Bible relating to the olivet discourse.. this was given by Jesus to his disciples on the mount of olives.. (NIV)

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
interestingly, this prophecy was fulfilled in 70AD when titus' legion tore apart the temple brick by brick to get the gold flowing between the cracks after burning it..

3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.
birth pains or pangs is important to note -- as with childbirth, Jesus is saying these pangs will be more frequent and more intense leading up to his return.

9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
not only was this true for the early Christian church, it is true today - look at www.persecution.com, and it will certainly be true after the rapture and during the tribulation..

15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.
Jesus references Daniel's prophecy relating to the antichrist here.. after the first 3.5 years of the 7 year tribulation, the anti-christ will step in to the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and declare himself god. this is the 'abomination that causes desolation.'

26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

29"Immediately after the distress of those days " 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
the fig tree parable is one of the more common ones associated with the rebirth of Israel. Jesus says (using Israel as the fig tree), the generation that sees the rebirth of the nation of Israel will not pass until his return.

some important dates to remember:
May 14, 1948 - Establishment of the State of Israel.
June 7, 1967 - Israel captured Jerusalem.

the other passage, as it relates to Israel coming back from the diaspora is in Ezekiel 37: (written 2600 years ago or so)

1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. 3 He asked me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" I said, "O Sovereign LORD, you alone know."

4 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! 5 This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath [a] enter you, and you will come to life. 6 I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.' "

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

9 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.' " 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

11 Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.' 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.' "

15 The word of the LORD came to me: 16 "Son of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, 'Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him.' Then take another stick of wood, and write on it, 'Ephraim's stick, belonging to Joseph and all the house of Israel associated with him.' 17 Join them together into one stick so that they will become one in your hand.

18 "When your countrymen ask you, 'Won't you tell us what you mean by this?' 19 say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph—which is in Ephraim's hand—and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah's stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.' 20 Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on 21 and say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms. 23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, [b] and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
there has been literal fulfillment of much of this. Israel was almost called 'zion' when they declared their homeland in 1948. It was changed to Israel at the last moment. additionally, it's important to remember that Israel and Judah existed in a split sense for a very long time in Biblical times.. clearly God states that when he gathers the Jews from the 4 corners of the earth, it will be to a single Israel.. as it is today.

24 " 'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.' "
this is relating to the the time after the tribulation when Jesus returns and sets his reign from Jerusalem. After that 1000 year period, we will see the face of God as he sets up shop aside his son in a new Jerusalem. Remember, the lineage of Jesus was clearly outlined in the Bible before his birth

*From the Shemite branch of humanity (Genesis 9:26).
Through Abraham (Genesis 12:3).
Through Abraham's son, Isaac (Genesis 17:21).
Through Isaac's son, Jacob (Genesis 28:14).
Through the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:8).
Through the family of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1).
Through the house of David (Jeremiah 23:5).

this genealogic outline of the birth of Jesus was fulfilled to every detail when he was born in Bethlehem. also confirming the house of david ruling Israel through Jesus.

*Other prophecies related to the birth of the Messiah include the place of His birth (Micah 5:2), His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14); His divine name (Isaiah 7:14); the presentation of gifts to Him (Psalm 72:10-11); the massacre of children after His birth (Jeremiah 31:15); His escape into Egypt (Hosea 11:1); His residence in Nazareth (Matthew 2:23); His childhood poverty (Isaiah 53:2); and His Spirit-filled nature from birth (Isaiah 1:1-2). (*thanks to David Reagan for this info)
---------------------------------------------------------
ok, obviously, this is a lot to digest, but these are 2 of the most common passages relating to the rebirth of Israel and the soon return of Jesus. there are many, many more.. and i will get in to those at some point in the future.. just right now, i'm out of time.

the whole point of this is that we are indeed living in interesting times.. but i can't imagine a more exciting time to be alive!

neville chaimberlain, where art thou ??

2006-03-06T09:19:00.000-06:00

if iran is willing to come out and clearly state their nuclear program is no longer 'peaceful,' it's just a matter of time before they use it or they are taken down a notch by the us and israel.

from worldnetdaily.com

---------------
Iran negotiator announces:We duped West on nukes

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, in a speech to the nation's leading Islamic clerics and academics, has admitted what many in U.S. intelligence have been saying all along – namely, Tehran duped the West on its nuclear program by continuing its development while using diplomatic talks to lull the Europeans into inaction.

Hassan Rowhani led talks with the EU3 – Germany, France and the UK – until last year and part of his job, reports the London Telegraph, was to play for time after Iran's nuclear program was exposed by dissidents in 2002.

At the closed meeting of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Rowhani boasted that during talks to forestall Iran's nuclear program, which intelligence sources in the U.S. saw as part of an effort to build nuclear weapons, Tehran completed the installation of equipment needed to convert yellowcake at its Isfahan plant. The Europeans, he said, were convinced nothing was occurring at the plant.

"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.

Rowhani's frankness, it appears, was motivated by internal criticisms from hardliners that he had negotiated away too much in recent talks with the Europeans. His comments, published in a journal available to the regime's elite, seem designed to defend his performance.

"When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Teheran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site," he said. "There was plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."
Rowhani's diplomatic skills were severely tested in September 2003 when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demanded a "complete picture" of Iran's program.

"The dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the U.N. Security Council," he said. "And not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have been referred to the Security Council for not implementing the resolution."

He also revealed two occasions where the IAEA learned of secret experiments from academic papers published by Iranian scientists.

Libya's decision to negotiate with the U.S. and Britain to end its own nuclear program brought to light the proliferation network run by Pakistan atomic scientist A.Q. Khan. Khan's role in supplying nuclear-related equipment to Libya, revealed in surrendered documents, also exposed the fact he had supplied advanced centrifuges to Iran.

Revelations of Rowhani's candor come on the eve of tomorrow's IAEA meeting to reassess Iran's banned nuclear operations. According to U.N. protocol, the IAEA review is the final step before Tehran's case is forwarded to the Security Council, where, if the facts dictate, sanctions may be imposed. Iran has just completed failed talks with Russia, which opposes U.N. sanctions, to find a way around the impasse.

On another matter, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an opposition group responsible for many of the revelations about Iran's secret program, has obtained a confidential parliamentary report revealing that Iran's legislators were unaware of the nuclear project and that it was funded off the books.

"Rowhani's remarks show that the mullahs wanted to deceive the international community from the onset of negotiations with EU3," said Mohammad Mohaddessin, the NCRI's foreign affairs chief, "and that the mullahs were fully aware that if they were transparent, the regime's nuclear file would be referred to the U.N. immediately."

quotes to die by..

2006-03-03T10:28:00.000-06:00

when you think of the situation the world is forcing Israel in to, it fits right in with God's plan for the Jews..

---------------------------------------------------------------------
“We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state.” — Yasser Arafat on Palestine Radio in November 1995.

“We won’t rest until we have Tel Aviv, Haifa, and all of Palestine, and the Jews are back in Poland.” — Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority.

“We do not and will not recognize a state called Israel . . . This land is the property of all Muslims in all parts of the world . . . Let Israel die!” — Mahmoud al-Zahar, senior Hamas leader.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
these are quotes from palesinian 'leadership'. these are the folks we're forcing Israel to deal with in the name of peace.

and today, from debka:

Hamas leaders on arrival in Moscow Friday announce they will not recognize Israel
March 3, 2006, 2:04 PM (GMT+02:00)

The six-man delegation led by Damascus-based politburo chief Khaled Meshaal was receied by Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on day one of the three-day visit initiated by President Vladimir Putin. Mohammed Nazzal said: “The issue of recognition is a done issue. Meshaal added: The ball is now in Israel’s court. They have to first recognize the national rights of the Palestinians and then we will determine our position.”

Hamas, which will lead the next Palestinian government, has masterminded some 60 deadly suicide bombings against Israelis. The Islamist terrorist group is willing to consider a long-term ceasefire against unacceptable Israeli concessions but not renounce its vow to destroy the Jewish state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
and as the iranian's, syrians and palestinians ratchet up their anti-Israel rhetoric.. we see the russians cozying up to all 3 more and more.. setting the stage for the eventual gog-magog invasion of israel..

Ezekiel 38-39 describes a Russian-led invasion of Israel in the"latter days" of history..

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him 3 and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. 4 I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army—your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. 5 Persia, Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, 6 also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops—the many nations with you.

7 " 'Get ready; be prepared, you and all the hordes gathered about you, and take command of them. 8 After many days you will be called to arms. In future years you will invade a land that has recovered from war, whose people were gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate. They had been brought out from the nations, and now all of them live in safety. 9 You and all your troops and the many nations with you will go up, advancing like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land.
10 "

'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: On that day thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil scheme. 11 You will say, "I will invade a land of unwalled villages; I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people—all of them living without walls and without gates and bars. 12 I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people gathered from the nations, rich in livestock and goods, living at the center of the land." 13 Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish and all her villages will say to you, "Have you come to plunder? Have you gathered your hordes to loot, to carry off silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods and to seize much plunder?" '

14 "Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say to Gog: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In that day, when my people Israel are living in safety, will you not take notice of it? 15 You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army. 16 You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land. In days to come, O Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.

17 " 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Are you not the one I spoke of in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel? At that time they prophesied for years that I would bring you against them. 18 This is what will happen in that day: When Gog attacks the land of Israel, my hot anger will be aroused, declares the Sovereign LORD. 19 In my zeal and fiery wrath I declare that at that time there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. 20 The fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, every creature that moves along the ground, and all the people on the face of the earth will tremble at my presence. The mountains will be overturned, the cliffs will crumble and every wall will fall to the ground. 21 I will summon a sword against Gog on all my mountains, declares the Sovereign LORD. Every man's sword will be against his brother. 22 I will execute judgment upon him with plague and bloodshed; I will pour down torrents of rain, hailstones and burning sulfur on him and on his troops and on the many nations with him. 23 And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD.'

interestingly, from a passage writted 2600 years ago, we have the fulfilled prophesy of Israel and the Jews being regathered from the 4 corners of the earth.. we have the specific mention of russia and persia (modern day iran) along with a host of other islamic countries.. we have mention of the indecisive euro's asking 'why would you do such a thing?' -- all of this is in place.

ezekiel 39 goes on:

1 "Son of man, prophesy against Gog and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. 2 I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. 3 Then I will strike your bow from your left hand and make your arrows drop from your right hand. 4 On the mountains of Israel you will fall, you and all your troops and the nations with you. I will give you as food to all kinds of carrion birds and to the wild animals. 5 You will fall in the open field, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. 6 I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in safety in the coastlands, and they will know that I am the LORD.

7 " 'I will make known my holy name among my people Israel. I will no longer let my holy name be profaned, and the nations will know that I the LORD am the Holy One in Israel. 8 It is coming! It will surely take place, declares the Sovereign LORD. This is the day I have spoken of.

the players are in place... the only odd exclusion is the united states of america. interestingly, the Bible talks about china - the kings of the east w/ a 200,000,000 man army.. russia - gog & magog invasion.. europe - the antichrist and reformed roman empire.. islamic countries - edom & persia, cush, put, etc.. and obviously Israel.. but no mention of the only superpower the world knows right now.. there are several options, the most alluring of which would be the rapture would take out the believers, leaving a nation crippled by the loss of many of it's leaders, military and business people.. the less appealing is a nation left ravaged by the results of terrorist attacks, financial collapse and/or internal moral decay.. nevertheless, all speculation aside, there is no mention of the united states or anything resembling the united states.

...may you live in interesting times.

signs of the times..

2006-03-03T10:16:00.000-06:00

well, i've been away skiing.. my body is now rejecting my lungs since they were exposed to clean mountain air.. how dare i take my body away from this land of pollution and expose it to such pristine places !?!?

i found this article on hal lindsey's website..

i had some interesting discussions while skiing with some of my friends who aren't believers about the pertinence of bible prophesy in the times we live in.. so i think this is worth posting.

i'll probably be posting a few more of these items soon as well.. i need to document it all in one spot and this seems as good as any. we're living in interesting times as we watch literal fulfillment of Biblical prophesy before our eyes..

time is short, friend.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Science Notes Unprecedented Pestlience
''There is something very unusual about the present time. . . ''

According to this week's London Sunday Times, 'deadly viruses are mutating to infect humans at rate never seen before' according to one headline.

At least thirty-eight new killer human pathogens have emerged in the past twenty-five years. Three quarters of those, including AIDS, avian flu, SARS and new variant CJD, originated as animal diseases.

A new survey from the University of Edinburgh identified 1400 pathogens that can infect humans. More than half crossed the species barrier from animals to man.

Mark Woolhouse, the study's author, said it was impossible that human beings had ever been exposed to so many new pathogens in such a short period of time in all of past history.
Woolhouse told The American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in St Louis; “The rate of accumulation we are seeing now is too fast to be supported over an evolutionary timescale. We would be overrun with pathogens. Either many of these pathogens will not persist in humans, or there is something very unusual about the present time.”

Indeed there is. In Jesus last great prophetic message, His disciples asked, "What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?"

Jesus predicted that shortly before His return, there would be signs of wars, rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, global weather changes producing monster storms, and pestilence, which means deadly infectious diseases.

All these are part of today's headline news.

The Lord Jesus forewarned that in the last seven years before His Return there would be unprecedented catastrophe. Jesus warned that times would become so bad that, if the days were not shortened no one would be left alive.

We aren't in the Tribulation yet, but we can see the signs that indicate it is just around the corner. The Apostle John, in his apocalyptic vision of the breaking of the fourth seal judgment, wrote,

“And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the BEASTS OF THE EARTH.” (Revelation 6:8)

I have often puzzled over just what God meant by the prediction of “beast of the earth” causing tremendous death among mankind. I believe that the trans-mutation of virulent viruses from the animal kingdom now at least explains in part what was meant.
You know, I believe Dr. Woolhouse is right. There is something very unusual about this present time. The trans-mutation rate at which viruses are crossing over from animals to humans is unique and unprecedented.

This is another one of those “birth pangs” Jesus predicted would increase in frequency and intensity shortly before His Return.
Keep looking up.

fatwa authorizing use of nukes..

2006-02-17T18:52:00.000-06:00

On February 16, 2006, the reformist Internet daily Rooz (www.roozonline.com ) reported for the first time that extremist clerics from Qom had issued what the daily called "a new fatwa," which states that "shari'a does not forbid the use of nuclear weapons."
The following are excerpts from the Rooz report by Shahram Rafizadeh: [1]
"When the Entire World is Armed With Nuclear Weapons, it is Permissible to Use These Weapons as a Counter-[Measure]"

"The spiritual leaders of the ultra-conservatives [in Iran] have accepted the use of nuclear weapons as lawful in the eyes of shari'a. Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of [Ayatollah] Mesbah Yazdi [who is Iranian President Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor], has spoken for the first time of using nuclear weapons as a counter-measure. He stated that 'in terms of shari'a, it all depends on the goal.'

"The religious leadership of the Islamic Republic [of Iran], which has until now regarded the use of nuclear weapons as opposed to shari'a, and has repeated this point again and again, has so far kept silent about this. In spite of the fact that, in the last few weeks, some of the senior [leaders] of the Islamic Republic have tried to reduce the pressure [exerted by] the radical [conservatives], the radicals nevertheless seem to have complete control over the [political] arena.

"[Iranian National Security Council Secretary] Ali Larijani, who is in charge of the nuclear dossier, has spoken to reporters only once since the [IAEA] Board of Governors approved its resolution - and his silence is significant. [2] But yesterday, the IraNews news agency published recent remarks by Mohsen Gharavian regarding the nuclear issue. Gharavian is a lecturer at the religious schools of Qom, and is a disciple of [Ayatollah] Mesbah Yazdi. In his recent remarks, he said for the first time that the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem according to shari'a. He further said that 'when the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-[measure]. According to shari'a, too, only the goal is important...'

"[Gharavian] said that he sees no problem with the military use of nuclear weapons [sic]: 'One must say that when the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is only natural that, as a counter-measure, it is necessary to be able to use these weapons. However, what is important is what goal they may be used for."

"The Ultra-[Conservatives] in Iran Have Launched a New Effort to Prepare the Religious Grounds for Use of These Weapons"

"This cleric, who is close to the government, also referred to the nuclear talks and to the future phases of the negotiations. He called the 'reporting' - rather than 'referring' - of the Iranian nuclear dossier [to the Security Council] playing with semantics, and said: 'The main goal of the West has been to put pressure on the Islamic Republic regime of Iran in order to generate fear. However, we will wait [to see] the future behavior of Europe and America, and then make the best decision.'

"Gharavian's statement is the first public statement by the Mesbah Yazdi group on the nuclear issue. Until now, none of the top-ranking religious [leaders] have authorized, on religious grounds, the use of nuclear weapons. But now it seems that the ultra-[conservatives] in Iran have launched a new effort to prepare the religious grounds for use of these weapons..."

"Mr. Ahmadinejad Has Managed to Take the Place of Bin Laden"

"Within the six months [of Ahmadinejad's presidency], all the achievements of former president Khatami in the international arena have been lost. Through strange proposals and radical approaches, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad managed, in a very short time, to get the world to forget all about bin Laden. Now all eyes are on the Islamic Republic, and everyone is talking about the danger it [poses]. Two weeks ago, the strategy of assaulting [foreign] embassies was formed as well. America regards Iran and Syria as being behind the recent violent incidents, including the setting fire to embassies in Islamic countries. Mr. Ahmadinejad has managed to take the place of bin Laden..."

iran + russia = love

2006-02-08T11:44:00.000-06:00

Some late breaking news on the growing iran & russian cuddle puddle..

MOSCOW [MENL] -- Iran has quietly acquired three fighter-jets from Russia.
Russian industry sources said Teheran has procured three Su-25UBT twin-seat attack aircraft from Moscow. The sources said the contract was concluded in 2005 and deliveries would take place in 2006.
The deal marked the first Iranian purchase of the Su-25. In 2001, Iran negotiated with Georgia for surplus MiG-25s, but the two countries failed to reach agreement.
The sources said the Su-25UBT marked the most advanced model of the attack aircraft. They said the fighters received new electronic warfare and jamming systems.
-------------------------------------------------
i think that we will see a stronger and stronger relationship grow between these two nations. russia is in deep with iran on the nuclear front and the money front. iran has money to spend, russia needs money.. add those 2 things together and you've got yourself a deal. ultimately we know that iran and russia will lead an attack against israel at some point.. whether that is after israel deals with iran's nukes or before, is yet to be seen. but as we see iran and syria develop closer and closer ties.. as well as the iranian backing of hamas and the muslim brotherhood in egypt, the table is set for the biblical gog-magog invasion of israel.. it's also set for the destruction of damascus.

interestingly, there are many people who feel israel is on the cusp of a major oil discovery which would propel israel on to the world market as an oil producer and make the state wildly affluent. this remains to be seen, however, zion oil (who is taking the lead on this) feels pretty strongly about their exploration efforts.

i can imagine nothing more insulting to the arabs (other than a cartoon) than israel finding oil wealth and being able to control the energy marketplace to a certain extent. this would incite israel's neighbors, who rely solely on oil revenue, to take measures to push israel out of the marketplace. that feeling would be exacerbated by a preemtive strike against iran and/or syria..

piss christ v. toon jihad

2006-02-06T12:19:00.000-06:00

very well written & i thought i should share...
----------------------------------------------
Piss Christ vs. Cartoon Jihad
By Rocco DiPippo
FrontPageMagazine.com February 6, 2006

Back in 1988, Andres Serrano submerged a crucifix in a vat of his urine, photographed the result and called it “art.”

Naturally, many of the world's two billion Christians were bothered by his antics. Members of the U.S. Congress called for a hard look at the National Endowment for the Arts, which had helped fund Serrano. Public outcry against Serrano was vocal and widespread.

As the uproar grew, numerous editorials in defense of Piss Christ, Serrano's controversial creation, were printed in U.S. and European newspapers and the Western cultural elite quickly sprang to his defense. For months, the New York Times beat the “freedom of expression” drum for all its worth, publishing numerous articles and opinion pieces sympathetic to Serrano and depicting him as courageous. In New York City, where Serrano lived, 400 New York artists held a public rally in support of his work and his right to create and display it. Serrano became a celebrated art world hero.

Though some criticisms of Piss Christ, and the man who created it, were intemperate, Serrano's art was never forced underground, nor was his life seriously threatened, nor was he forced into hiding a la Salman Rushdie or placed in protective custody. Violence-prone packs of Christians did not roam the streets of Paris, or London, or Frankfurt, or Madrid, or New York calling for the head of Piss Christ's creator.

Serrano as “art star,” soon faded like the controversy caused by his tasteless creation. Today, as in the 1980s, he freely and openly produces provocative, blasphemous and often pornographic art including that which reflects the cultural elite's unending obsessions with, and deification of, homosexuality, transgenderism, and bodily mutilation. He never has, nor will he likely ever, push the outer limit of controversial artistic expression by creating work critical of, or disrespectful towards Islam.

Contrast the Christian reaction to Serrano's openly blasphemous Piss Christ, with that of the Muslim reaction to a series of cartoons recently published in the Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper.

Late last year, the Jyllands-Posten decided to test the limits of free speech by publishing a series of cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. Politicized and radicalized Muslims have reacted to their publication by calling for the deaths of the cartoonists, by beating up shopkeepers who sell Danish products and by holding vocal, and often violent, demonstrations.

Members of the terrorist Islamist “Glory Brigades” now threaten Denmark with homicide bombing. The murderous savages comprising Palestinian Islamic Jihad marched on the UN headquarters in Gaza, Palestinian thugs took over Gaza's European Union office to protest the cartoons and demand their removal. Danish flags are being torched and shops selling Danish products are being boycotted and vandalized all over the Arab and Muslim world. Even Libya got in on the act, closing its embassy in Copenhagen to protest the Danish government's refusal to force Jillyand-Posten to remove the cartoons.

Christianity is routinely mocked and vilified in most counties where Islam is the dominant religion. Countless thousands of Christians have, in recent years, paid the ultimate price for practicing their faith among Muslims, including three young Indonesian girls butchered by Muslim psychopaths as they walked to Christian school. Hate-filled anti-Semitic cartoons pepper the pages of Arab and Muslim newspapers. Programs meant to incite hatred of Judaism and violence against Jews are regularly featured on Arab Muslim television networks. And yet, politicized Muslims, who rarely, if ever, categorically condemn the barbarous acts of their co-religionists and often cheer those same acts, behave as if they desire to see “infidel” blood spilled over a series of provocative drawings. Is their religion not strong enough to withstand the cartoon assault on it?

The response to all this, from the appeasement-prone Western cultural elite, has been a predictable, Theo van Gogh-like silence. The response from the American main-stream media, a virtual news blackout.

In spite of the glaring lack of support by, ironically, those in America ideally positioned to suffer from any restrictions on free expression, Denmark and its government refuse to cave in and apologize to the Muslim cultural police, even as the leftwing government of Denmark's pathologically “tolerant” neighbor, Norway, stumbles down the path of dhimmitude by doing exactly what Denmark will not.

How can one support the Danes in their critical fight for freedom of expression? Easily: Contact the major American media outlets and ask them to publicly get behind the Danes. Urge them to defend the Jillyand-Posten's right to free expression as vigorously as they once defended the same rights of Andres Serrano.

A list of some MsM contact points and e-mail links follows:
Arthur Sulzberger, NY Times Washington Post and Newsweek CBS News ABC News NBC Nightly News National Public Radio

Another thing you can do to show solidarity with Denmark is to purchase Danish products. Go to the History News Network for a listing of some outlets where you can buy fine Danish goods.

Most importantly, directly send the Jillyand-Posten a letter of support by clicking here.

Tell those who work there that you stand with them, and with all of Denmark, against anti-free speech Muslim radicals, whose ultimate goal is to dictate what the world sees, hears, and believes.
----------------------------------------

lesser danish toon

2006-02-02T10:48:00.000-06:00

we've already seen the islamic street's tolerance for any type of art that could be considered anti-islamic. so it should be of no surprise that after a danish cartoon depicting muhammed as a terrorist, the islamic street has erupted in protest & violence.. saudi arabia recalled it's ambassador from denmark, gunmen raided the EU office in gaza.. all of this over a cartoon.

i would really appreciate the same type of reaction from the islamic community over the genocide in Darfur.. a genocide perpetrated by islamic arabs against Christian and animist africans.. since Feb 2003, over 400,000 people have died at the hands of these muslims.. yet, there is silence on this topic in the islamic community.. just like there is silence when major terrorist attacks occur. 1.3 BILLION people, and not a word to say about the actions of the people who represent them in the name of allah.

HOWEVER, should there be a film or a cartoon or an essay about anything anti-islam, there are protests, CAIR statements, KILLINGS.. saudi arabia will recall it's ambassador, yet in it's embarassment of riches, will do nothing to prevent the genocide at the hands of islamists across the red sea..

so, in short, there is a double standard. the prosepect of a koran touching the ground seems to be far more important for news headlines than the death of hundreds of thousands in the name of allah.. its either that people don't care or they're too PC to call a spade a spade..

black market love..

2006-01-30T12:25:00.000-06:00

from middle east newsline:
------------------------------------------------
ABU DHABI [MENL] -- Iran was said to have acquired a nuclear bomb.
A leading U.S. nuclear proliferation expert said Teheran obtained an atomic bomb about a decade ago from the nuclear black market. The expert said Iran sought to produce additional nuclear weapons through technology from Pakistan and other countries.

"The one functional device Iran has," Mansoor Ijaz, a U.S. nuclear scientist, said, "is the result of clandestine transfers from Pakistan's rogue black market nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who sold the Iranians antiquated but highly effective Chinese bomb designs and parts, including spherical shell casings, spherical Krytron detonation switches and empirical software testing modules."

On Saturday, Iran threatened to launch a missile strike against the West. The commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Maj. Gen. Rahim Safavi, said Teheran could retaliate with the Shihab-3 intermediate-range missile against what he termed was British efforts to foment unrest in western Iran.

finding those pesky WMD's

2006-01-30T10:30:00.000-06:00

time for some news you won't read or see in the mainstream media.. the united nations has found that iraq sent wmd's out of town leading up to the second iraq war.. did you read that right ?? the UNITED NATIONS found this to be the case..
------------------------------------------
from world tribune:

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.
The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared..
----------------------------------------

obviously, the notion that bush didn't lie and people died doesn't play well with the peaceniks out there.. i doubt seriously this UN report will get much coverage in the mainstream media..

then there is this little diddy in the Jerusalem post about saddam wanting to launch a WMD attack on israel in gulf war I..

The former deputy of the Iraqi air force, General Georges Sada, revealed on Saturday that that former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, ordered him during the first Gulf War to bomb Israeli population centers with chemical weapons.

The ousted dictator, said Sada in recently published book, Saddam's secret's, ordered 96 Russian fighter jets to be armed with chemical weapons and sent to bomb Israel...

-----------------------
kinda interesting how a man without WMD was planning to use the WMD's he didn't have on Israel..

Seasonal Crudites with Hamas and Baba Ganoush

2006-01-26T10:46:00.000-06:00

"You won't believe that this sophisticated spread is also perfect for phase 1. Asparagus, bell peppers and broccoli are arranged on a platter with your choice of hamas and baba ganoush for dipping."
Original recipe yield: 2 servings.
-----------------------
mmmMMMmmm just makes you long for a healthy lunch, doesn't it ??

HAMAS WINS !! HAMAS WINS !! HAMAS WINS !!
so suicide bombing and jew hatred will get you elected in the muslim world.. this should be no surprise. israel is facing a bad situation gone worse.. the now 'legitimized' hamas, who still calls for the total destruction of israel, is in charge of the PA. washington will now be in the unique position to negotiate with terrorists if they want to continue the 'road map' to peace.. but, of course, we already know that the bush doctrine does not apply to israel's terrorist neighbors.. we'll hunt them down and root them out all over the world, unless the terror is against israel. then, we'll tell them to give up land and keep taking it and taking it and taking it until our goals are complete in the middle east.. how anyone can take the bush doctrine seriously is beyond me..

but here we are - facing a world with a terrorist led PA.. a group sworn to the destruction of israel as a state - and yet, will be at the negotiating table trying to convince us otherwise (just wait and see) the world will embrace these terrorists turned politicians, just like they embraced the father of terrorism himself, yasser arafag. i mean arafat. (he didn't REALLY die of AIDS, we're told)

let's remember yasser's favorite motto: "We shall hold talks as though there is no terror and wage terror as though there are no talks. "

look for more of the same.

this does, however, possibly shake up the kadima party in israel. the israeli public may not be as anxious for 'peace' with people who outwardly call for their destruction.. so this may bring the likud party back in to power.. which would be interesting indeed. that being said, anything the israeli government wants to do has to be ok'd by washington.. and washington doesn't seem to have the appetite to do what is best for israel.

so, sit back and watch it all unfold.. remember this picture:

it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood..

and iran.. iran so far away..

2006-01-23T17:03:00.000-06:00

2006 is stinkin' busy in the working world.. i haven't had a lot of time to sit around and blog.. been running around working to and fro.. often thinking that i'm burning up the prime years of my life working hard to accomplish little for people who seem to care even less.. but i digress..

we care a lot.

speaking of caring.. it's interesting that the 3 blogs i've got this year all have to do with iran.. last year it was the tsunami taking the headlines.. this year, it's iran.. we've got some serious trouble brewing over in that part of the world and it looks like the posturing is being taken to an even higher level. israel is sabre rattling.. france is now saying they will nuke anyone who launches a terrorist attack against them. (that will be interesting since the terrorist attacks coming their way will be from within - but maybe france nuking themselves is poetic justice) the united states is saying that the time for talking has passed.. the russians and chinese are strangely quiet on the topic.. russians wanna help iran enrich uranium in russia.. the chinese want iran's energy resources for it's soon to be epic energy crisis.. europe has taken the lead on this one.. and as with anything that europe takes the lead on, it has turned in to a disaster.

while the aclu and friends decry the united states as a theocracy on the rise, they ignore a theocracy in practice in ancient persia. they ignore a man who has called for israel to be wiped off the map.. they ignore a man with such messianic visions that he has said that his government's purpose is to facilitate the arrival of the 12th prophet, or mahdi. they ignore a man who apparently is planning a nuclear weapon test before march, all the while claiming the program to be peaceful..

iran is going to be a serious problem.. and a problem for some time. messianic visions and atomic weapons don't make a good match. i anticipate israel will take unilateral action against iran sooner than later. i anticipate an attempted terrorist attack on us soil related to this.. i don't think it is just a coincidence that the timing of bin laden's message and iran's threats are similar.. i don't think the growing relationship among iran, syria and russia is accidental either..

it will be very interesting to see how this all unfolds.. as the people within the united states bicker and fight over NSA spying, judicial candidates and abramoff scandals, the rest of the world gets just a little more dangerous..

the price of unintended consequences..

2006-01-16T11:50:00.000-06:00

the united states, already deeply involved in the reconstruction of 2 islamic states, deferred the iran issue to the europeans for resolution. given the european history in dealing with potential (and current) threats, this move may have damning consequences felt world wide.

i'm a firm believer that when you are a leader, you cannot take time off from being a leader. even when you feel taxed and stretched, people look to leaders for leadership.. there are no off days.

one of george bush's apparent miscalculations was to allow the iranian issue to fester under the watchful eye of the europeans. while the united states took time to shore up efforts in iraq and afghanistan, the iranians put more moves on the euro's than barry sanders on sunday.

the iranians are following the north korean playbook to a tee. it appears as if they have had discussions, not only on arms, but on strategy as well. everyone knows that the iranian missile program is based on the north korean one.. now, their strategy in dealing with the world community is a copy as well.. a copy with one major twist.

the new iranian president has an apolcalyptic view of his nation's role in the return of the 12th prophet, or mahdi. he has taken a more aggressive stance - threatening israel, threatening the global oil markets and his neighbors.

israel cannot stand for a nuclear iran.. it would not surprise me at all to see a strike against iran in the next couple of months. iran may make the assumption that with the sharon stroke, israel may not be in a position to make such a strike, but i think that line of thinking is folly. israel, most assuredly has been training and planning such a strike for years. israel, more than any country on earth, knows what to take from the empty words and demands on the euro's.

the only country on earth that can lead right now is the united states, but will that happen ?? will israel have to act alone and withstand the global outcry and condemnation ? will israel utilize nuclear weapons of their own to neutralize the iranian threat ??

none of these options seem palatable, but that's what happens when the one country that is capable of leading decides to defer to those who cannot.