Saturday, February 25, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
- It's an election year and republicans need to distance themselves from him
- Bush is a failed President and no one wants to stand with a failure
- The secrecy of the Bush Whitehouse backfired
- This is a cronyism ploy
- Bush needs this to make friends he doesn't have.
I have had a hard time conversing with liberal friends about how I come to the views I do. They are mine, they are clear and they are not Republican. I am a Republican voter but I am more like a great number of conservatives. We are emerging from the woodwork.
I have for a long time been very critical of Wal-Mart. That has been criticized by some of my Republican and conservative friends. I have other views that are counter to conventional thinking on the part of republicans. For instance, I am against the capitalist concept that it is OK to pay people the least amount you can to increase profits. There is a price for low wages.
I am not afraid to speak out against thing that my President does when I think he is wrong; like the port deal, the Prescription Drug Plan, parts of the Patriot act, and trying to save a failing public school system (it should be abolished) . On the other hand, he is right about so many things and I trust him so much to do right things like his Health Care proposals and the war on terrorism so that he merits my trust.
I have been interested to read reviews of a book and a philosophy about conservatives like me who do not follow lock step with the mainstream. I have for a long time thought we would take over ultimately. I believe we will.
I dont shop at health food stores much, I dont wear Birkenstocks except in summer, and I seldom hesitate to use fertilizers or chemical sprays. But I am conservative and I do not resemble some of the suits who occupy power in our country. So, unless you mistake me for who I am, I am a big fan of Edmund Burke. So maybe I am a Birkenstock Burkean.
Look out Republicans. We are everywhere, and were taking over.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jim Rutz
I thought you might be ready for some encouraging words about Islam and its deadly branch, radical Islamism. So here it is:
The whole religion is heading toward collapse.
Actually, it's crumbling already. Take, for example, two hardcore Muslim countries, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Since 1997, by our count, 522,000 Bangladeshi Muslims have turned to Isa, the No. 2 Islamic prophet we know as Jesus. This is often a difficult step to take in a highly repressive Muslim culture. Currently, about 10,000 a month in Bangladesh are becoming Christians. That doesn't sound like a lot in a nation of 144 million, but it's a rising number, multiplying geometrically.
Also: Just in the last year, 500,000 Pakistani Muslims have recognized Isa as Lord and become His followers. Some 240,000 of them made decisions for Him in only three days of a crusade in Lahore, the capital, in November. (In fact, the government agency that officially counts crowds stated that it wasn't 240,000, but 300,000!) Again, half a million is not an impressive proportion of a nation of 162 million, but hey, that's in just one year!
If you lack a reference point for these numbers, consider that until now, three or four Muslim converts a year was par for the course for most missionaries.
However, the Pakistan numbers aren't coming from traditional "methods." They're coming from a mind-boggling array of supernatural healings. In the large meetings in November, quite a few blind people were healed, which impressed the Pakistanis immensely. Also, some wheelchair-bound people were abruptly freed. One woman had been in a wheelchair for 40 years, and the crowd was blown away when she suddenly stood up and ran back and forth across the stage, waving her hands and shouting in joy.
The mission leader told me that very few of the healings came as a result of anyone laying hands on people. In other words, God is doing this, we aren't.
(If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribution to their future crusades, just write me at firstname.lastname@example.org.)
Guns and roses are just a stopgap
Even though this long-term trend is accelerating, we still have a pressing need for short-term relief from attacks by al-Qaida, Wahhabi/Saudi-financed terrorists, Abu Sayyaf guerrillas, Hamas suicide bombers, etc. So on the military front, we absolutely must hang tough in places like Iraq and Iran.
I'm also supportive of Condi Rice and our platoons of diplomats and operatives around the world, wobbly though they may be. Talk-talk is better than bang-bang any day. And way cheaper.
But I feel that in the long run, the spiritual salvation of large numbers of Muslims is our only hope. As one reader wrote me:
- Islamic peoples drove nearly all the Christians out of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe.
- Islamic peoples drove nearly all the Buddhists or Confucians out of Central Asia, back into China and Southeast Asia.
- Islamic peoples have sought to destroy Israel from the beginning. They have run the Christians out of Palestine, even those in Bethlehem.
- Islamic peoples are slaughtering the few remaining Christians in northern Africa, in Egypt and the Sudan.
- Islamic peoples are killing Catholic and/or Dutch Reformed Christians in Indonesia.
- Islamic peoples are killing Chaldean Christians in Iraq.
- Islamic peoples in Lebanon killed or drove off Lebanon's Christians.
- Islamic peoples in the Caucasus Mountains are killing off Christians and atheists.
- Islamic peoples in southeastern Asia are killing Buddhists in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
- Islamic peoples in Nigeria are attempting to impose Sharia and kill Christians and tribals.
- Islamic peoples killed 3,000 people from many nations in New York City.
His list was longer than that, but you get the idea. The one-eighth of the Muslim world that accepts militant Islam must be stopped ... and then changed to the depth of their hearts.
Neither guns nor roses can do that they can change the behavior of the peaceful seven-eighths to a great extent, but that doesn't get down to the root issue, which was prophesied so succinctly of Ishmael ("father of the Arabs") 3,900 years ago:
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.
Those words have proven true in spades, but they do not constitute an eternal destiny. As Christians, let us reach out to Islamists, returning love for hate, and reverse 1,400 years of history.
This article appeared in World Net Daily this week. Its worth reading.
If you have struggled with the idea that an intelligent educated person is automatically assumed to believe in evolution you need to read this. I am fairly smart and biologically educated and dont believe in evolution as the origin of our species. But, so you understand, I dont stand alone, here is another oh, 500 PhD's who are not convinced. How about you?
500 doctoral scientists skeptical of Darwin
Growing list of signatories challenges claims about support for theory
More than 500 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution.
The list include 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists. They hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science and related disciplines.
Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, University of California at Berkeley, Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, Ohio State University, University of Georgia and University of Washington.
The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.
The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory," said John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
The institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
West said Darwinist "efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list."
The statement, signed by 514 scientists, reads:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
West said the Discovery Institute was encouraged to launch a website for the list because of the growing number of scientific dissenters.
"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought," said David Berlinski, a signatory and mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. "It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe."
Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell, American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen, evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and researcher at the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg, editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum the oldest still published biology journal in the world Giuseppe Sermonti and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.
SO, it was firmed up today when I heard the news. Jimmy Carter thinks selling the ports to the UAE is a good plan. That seals it for me. If for no other reason than that. I'll bet Kofi Annan thinks it's a good idea too.
Beloved President Bush, you now have an out. You can now say the fact that Jimmy Carter came out for it and since we know he don't have a lick of sense we have withdrawn our support of this transaction.
That's your out Magnificent One.
Monday, February 20, 2006
I know some apostate churches ordain and marry homosexuals. That doesn't mean they are Christian. Church leaders are no more Christian than the anticorruption department in Chicago's Daley administration is uncorrupted.
I feel bad that they (Homosexuals) are trapped in a delusion.
Lots of us are. Kleptomanics believe they can't help it. Embezzlers always plan to pay it back. People that solicit prostitutes always believe that this time is the last. Same with a person getting drunk, stoned, or abusing his wife.
All sin. I sin. You sin (or you lie). But I don't expect my Christian friends to stand by and watch me commit adultery (I'm not) and not say anything because they want to be sensitive.
There is a branch in Christianity that has been suckered into the gay agenda. They believe that sensitivity will win homosexuals into the Kingdom of God. Jesus was sensitive to the woman at the well wasn't he? He called her out in 2 minutes flat. She responded. Repented.
So don't hand me that. I'll befriend people in sin but then try hard not to be their buddy but to help them see Jesus.
Another really stupid Christian who is just as deluded is Jimmy Carter. I won't call him a fool since there is biblical prohibition against that. But He is a lot like the man in a sunday school class who saw a gray animal with a bushy tail running up a tree with a nut in it's mouth. He knew the right answer was Jesus, but it looked a lot like a squirrel to him.
Read this. You decide if Carter is a squirrel. I know he is as deluded as anyone ever has been in the world. John Q Adams recommended that after being President of the United States, in order to avoid this kind of embarrassment Ex-Presidents should be deported and stripped of their citizenship.
Mostly that's a dumb idea, but, in Carter's case, I'm not so sure. He's the limit. How do we get him deported.
This piece that follows is from Ankle Biting Pundits. Read it all. It will help you understand just how stupid good well meaning christians can be in their attempt to be "Sensitive".
Is Jimmy Carter On The Hamas Payroll?
Well what else could explain his latest finger-wagging at America and Israel?
It is not surprising that Jimmy Carter has penned a Washington Post Op-Ed demanding that the US and Israel give Hamas a chance. Yet no matter how many times Jimmy Carter steps forward to defend terrorists and enemies of this country it still manages to cause a visceral reaction of disgust, anger and shame at this disgraceful excuse for an American, let alone an ex-President.
For years Carter has basically abused what is normally a respected status as an ex-President by becoming the mouthpiece for dictatorships spanning the globe and enemies of America. What's worse, he always seems to make America or its allies the bad guy in every situation, and complaining that if we only understood the plight of these maniacs we could alllive in harmony.
Before we get to his latest apologia for terrorist monsters, let's look at just a smattering of the man's actions since leaving office. He's managed to do the following:
- In 1984, visited the home of then Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. According to Dobryning Carter was concerned about Reagan's defense build-up and explained that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."
- In 1991, wrote a letter to the UN asking them to stop President Bush 41 from removing Saddam from Kuwait
- Stymied the attempt of President Clinton to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, saying of Kim Jong Il: " I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country." As for the North Koreans, Carter said the "people were very friendly and open." The capital, Pyongyang, is a "bustling city," where customers "pack the department stores," which looked like "Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia."
-Told Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country."
- Vouched for Fidel Castro's statement that Cuba did not have the capability to produce biological weapons.
- Backed Hugo Chavez's claim that the Venezuelan elections were fair in the face of numerous reports to the contrary by respected election monitors and polling companies
Keep in mind also that while President, Jimmy lectured Americans about an "irrational fear of communism, as well said that Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito was "a man who believed in human rights", called him "a great and courageous leader" who had led his people and protected their freedom."
With that background, let's turn to the issue at hand - Jimmy Carter's plea of acceptance for a terrorist organization.
Today's Op-Ed is so full of distortions, outrageous statements and ignorance it's hard to know where to start. Let's try from the beginning.
(Former PM) Mahmood Abbas also has the power to select and remove the prime minister, to issue decrees with the force of law when parliament is not in session, and to declare a state of emergency. As commander in chief, he also retains ultimate influence over the National Security Force and Palestinian intelligence.
What Carter fails to realize is that when he was PM Abbas didn't have control of these organizations, so why in hell would he think Abbas, who is now out of power, would have more power. Well, I guess it's easy to rationalize anything when you are an apologist for terrorists.
Carter continues and explains the genius of the Palestinian system:
After the first session of the new legislature, which was Saturday, the members will elect a speaker, two deputies and a secretary. These legislative officials are not permitted to hold any position in the executive branch, so top Hamas leaders may choose to concentrate their influence in the parliament and propose moderates or technocrats for prime minister and cabinet posts.
Don't you just love that one? Hamas, "may" choose to propose "moderates" for some posts. What is their definition of "moderate"? Someone who only wants to blow up 100 Jews and infidels at a time rather than 1,000? And how typical is it of Jimmy Carter to place his trust in a bunch of terrorists with a long history of killing to get their way?
But Carter's trust doesn't end there:
Abbas has announced that he will not choose a prime minister who does not recognize Israel or adhere to the basic principles of the "road map." This could result in a stalemated process, but my conversations with representatives of both sides indicate that they wish to avoid such an imbroglio. The spokesman for Hamas claimed, "We want a peaceful unity government." If this is a truthful statement, it needs to be given a chance.
What in the hell has Hamas ever done that would cause any sane person to "give them a chance". Funny how Carter takes the assurances of Hamas leaders who when sworn in said that negotiations with Israel "do not figure in to their plans.
Carter also warns the US and Israel to not do anything that would cause the Hamas government to fail.
Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences.
More devastating than giving tacit and overt approval to a government whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is already aligned with Iran's madman President and other enemies of freedom like Hugo Chavez and Bashir Assad?
Carter is angry that funds to these terrorists will be cut off and proposes a solution.
Abbas informed me after the election that the Palestinian Authority was $900 million in debt and that he would be unable to meet payrolls during February. Knowing that Hamas would inherit a bankrupt government, U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel. So far they have not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services.
This of course is the same UN that gave us the Oil For Food scandal, and has been running refugee camps in the area for over 50 years which have become havens for terrorists. Only Jimmy Carter could look at the UN's history of scandal, corruption, ineffectiveness and anti-Semitism and think that's the answer to anything but more of the same.
But, Carter says, we must have some sympathy for the poor Palestinians.
This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies.
No offense, but the Palestinians have made their bed, elected these terrorists with their eyes wide open and knowing the repercussions of their actions. Elections have consequences, and it's not as if many of these people have taken the Gandhi route over the past 6 decades. Why Carter ignorantly hopes that Palestinians will "moderate" their cause given that their radical views won the election is beyond me. I wonder what color the sky is in Jimmy Carter's world.
But what follows is perhaps the single most idiotic piece of garbage I've heard, perhaps ever.
A negotiated agreement is the only path to a permanent two-state solution, providing peace for Israel and justice for the Palestinians. In fact, if Israel is willing to include the Palestinians in the process, Abbas can still play this unique negotiating role as the unchallenged leader of the PLO (not the government that includes Hamas).
It was under this umbrella and not the Palestinian Authority that Arafat negotiated with Israeli leaders to conclude the Oslo peace agreement. Abbas has sought peace talks with Israel since his election a year ago, and there is nothing to prevent direct talks with him, even if Hamas does not soon take the ultimately inevitable steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist.
It would not violate any political principles to at least give the Palestinians their own money; let humanitarian assistance continue through U.N. and private agencies; encourage Russia, Egypt and other nations to exert maximum influence on Hamas to moderate its negative policies; and support President Abbas in his efforts to ease tension, avoid violence and explore steps toward a lasting peace.
Read that again. He thinks that Israel can have talks with Abbas even if Hamas won't talk. Keep in mind that Abbas has bargaining power or leverage.
And why in God's name does Carter think that Hamas will "inevitably" renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist. Perhaps Carter is clairvoyant because, as stated above, they refused today to even talk to Israel.
What's even more telling is how he describes Hamas' stated policy of driving Israel off the map and ridding the whole area of Jews. He calls it a "negative" policy. These people convince mothers and fathers to allow their sons and daughters to strap explosives to themselves to blow up innocent men, women, and children and all the outrage this embarrassing excuse for a man can offer is to call in it a "negative policy".
This coming from a man who is more afraid of giant rabbits than genocidal maniacs.
We're often told that Carter is not a "dumb" person. I agree with that. It's impossible for him to be so stupid as to think that Hamas is ever going to change, so you have to wonder why he's lending his name and alleged prestige (all of which is outside this country, because Americans have rightfully rejected him as a hapless, cowardly self-absorbed egomaniac) to these murderous thugs who wish the destruction of our way of life.
It's really too bad that President Bush doesn't call Carter on the carpet publicly for the harm he has caused and continues to cause to this country. That's OK, we'll do it for him.
And let's keep one final thing in mind, this is the person that the Democrat party featured prominently at their convention, even allowing Michael Moore to share to VIP box with him.
When will someone in the Democrat party have a "Sister Souljah moment" and call out Carter for what he is - a friend to America's enemies? Could it be because the base of the Democrat party today shares the same beliefs as Carter? How sad is it that a Democrat wanting to be President can't stand up to the lunacy of Jimmy Carter for fear of alienating the party faithful? I think that in and of itself explains why the American people don't trust Democrats on national security.