New York Post-Updated: Tue., Aug. 24, 2010, 5:07 AM
HS test 'slams' Christianity, lauds Islam
By YOAV GONEN Education Reporter
Last Updated: 5:07 AM, August 24, 2010
Posted: 2:33 AM, August 24, 2010
State testmakers played favorites when quizzing high-schoolers on world religions -- giving Islam and Buddhism the kid-gloves treatment while socking it to Christianity, critics say.
Teachers complain that the reading selections from the Regents exam in global history and geography given last week featured glowing passages pertaining to Muslim society but much more critical essay excerpts on the subject of Christianity.
"There should have been a little balance in there," said one Brooklyn teacher who administered the exam but did not want to be identified.
"To me, this was offensive because it's just so inappropriate and the timing of it was piss-poor," he added, referring to the debate over the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero.
The most troubling passage came from Daniel Roselle's "A World History: A Cultural Approach," observers said.
The passage reads: "Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom."
Meanwhile, an excerpt listing the common procedures used by Christian friars to introduce the religion in Latin America stated that "idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism [were] destroyed," and "Christian buildings [were] often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples" -- and built with free Indian labor, to boot.
"I can see why some people might see these questions as skewed," said Mark MacWilliams, a religious-studies professor at St. Lawrence University in upstate Canton. "Why does the exam seem to have only documents that portray Islam as a religion of peace, civilization and refinement, while it includes documents about Christianity that show it was anything but peaceful in the Spanish conquest of the Americas?"
At the same time, MacWilliams criticized the presentation of Hernando Cortes' conquest of Mexico -- which he said portrayed him as a "choirboy" rather than a "conquistador."
"It's quite a whitewash," he said.
Some other religious-studies experts contacted by The Post said they didn't see what the fuss was all about.
"[The] selections seem about equal in terms of being historically/culturally focused, all relatively positive about the contributions made by each religion as it was introduced into various societies," wrote Barbara Sproul, an associate professor of religion at Hunter College in Manhattan.
Yet Michael Dobkowski, chair of Religious Studies at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in upstate Geneva, asserted that it was only Christianity for which both positive and negative aspects were highlighted.
"Some [essays] suggest a kind of Christian triumphalism and the desire to convert the other that is not present in the treatment of Islam," he said. "My impression is that there is certainly a divergence of approaches and impressions that should not appear in a Regents exam of this caliber."
State education officials said that every effort had been made to present accurate historical information through the excerpts.
They said the questions had been developed over a four-year period and require students to use their own knowledge of social studies to produce answers.
They added that they weren't aware of any complaints about the exam.
The Muslim reading:
* “Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom.
* “Some of the finest centers of Moslem life were established in Spain. In Cordova, the streets were solidly paved, while at the same time in Paris people waded ankle-deep in mud after a rain. Cordovan public lamps lighted roads for as far as ten miles; yet seven hundred years later there was still not a single public lamp in London!”
Source: Daniel Roselle, A World History: A Cultural Approach
The Christian reading:
Common Procedures used by Friars in Converting Areas in Spanish America:
* “Idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism destroyed.”
* “Christian buildings often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples in order to symbolize and emphasize the substitution of one religion by the other.”
* “Indians supplied construction labor without receiving payment.”
* “In a converted community, services and fiestas were regularly held in the church building.”
Source: Based on information from Charles Gibson, Spain in America
Additional reporting by Chuck Bennett
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Let This Blow Your Mind! STIMULUS SERMON
RECENT VIRGINIA CHURCH SERVICE -
STIMULUS SERMON
Genesis 47:13-27
I would love to give the Pastor of this predominantly black church in Virginia a hug and a high five. This guy is obviously a leader. Perhaps we should each decide who our real leader is....It is amazing to see that very little has changed in 4,000 years:
"Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will to the 47th chapter of Genesis, we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27.
Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us? ....(reading)...
Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray... So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt , and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.
So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock -their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year..
But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.
What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters? That turning to the government
instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master?
Yes. But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen .. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as He always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions! But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth "once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.
What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"?
Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh. Bow with me in prayer, if you will.
Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters.
Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.
In God We Trust...No REALLY!-Author Unknown
STIMULUS SERMON
Genesis 47:13-27
I would love to give the Pastor of this predominantly black church in Virginia a hug and a high five. This guy is obviously a leader. Perhaps we should each decide who our real leader is....It is amazing to see that very little has changed in 4,000 years:
"Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will to the 47th chapter of Genesis, we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27.
Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us? ....(reading)...
Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray... So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt , and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.
So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock -their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year..
But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.
What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters? That turning to the government
instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master?
Yes. But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen .. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as He always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions! But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth "once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.
What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"?
Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh. Bow with me in prayer, if you will.
Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters.
Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.
In God We Trust...No REALLY!-Author Unknown
The Ant and the Grasshopper
The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
This one is a little different ...
Two Different Versions ...
Two Different Morals
OLD VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house
and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be
allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant
in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall overcome.”
Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for thegrasshopper's sake.
President Obama condems the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope
for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper,
and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his
home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because thegrasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.
The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in 2010.
I’ve sent this to you because I believe that you are an ant – not a grasshopper!
Make sure that you pass this on to other ants.
Don’t bother sending it on to any grasshoppers
because they wouldn’t understand it, anyway.-Author Unknown
This one is a little different ...
Two Different Versions ...
Two Different Morals
OLD VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house
and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be
allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant
in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall overcome.”
Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for thegrasshopper's sake.
President Obama condems the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope
for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper,
and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his
home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because thegrasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.
The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in 2010.
I’ve sent this to you because I believe that you are an ant – not a grasshopper!
Make sure that you pass this on to other ants.
Don’t bother sending it on to any grasshoppers
because they wouldn’t understand it, anyway.-Author Unknown
Friday, August 27, 2010
Samuel Adams
“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. ”
—Samuel Adams
—Samuel Adams
Sharia Law For Dummies
Big Peace, Aug 26th 2010
Sharia for Dummies
By Nonie Darwish
Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the U.S. Constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:
1 - Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.
2 - A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.
3 - A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.
4 - A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.
5 - It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
6 - A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.
7 - The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.
8 - A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9 - A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.
10 - A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.
11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.
12 - Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
13 - Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.
14 - It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.
15 - A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
16 - Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.
17 - No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low-level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.
18 - A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.
19 - H***sexuality is punishable by death.
20 - There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place any time after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.
21 - Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.
22 - Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.
23 - There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.
24 - A woman inherits half what a man inherits.
25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.
26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.
27 - A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.
28 - The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.
29- A woman loses custody if she remarries.
30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.
31 - A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
32 - A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.
33 - A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”
The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?
From ACT
Sharia for Dummies
By Nonie Darwish
Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf
1 - Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.
2 - A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.
3 - A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.
4 - A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.
5 - It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
6 - A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.
7 - The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.
8 - A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9 - A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.
10 - A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.
11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.
12 - Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
13 - Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.
14 - It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.
15 - A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
16 - Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.
17 - No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low-level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.
18 - A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.
19 - H***sexuality is punishable by death.
20 - There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place any time after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.
21 - Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.
22 - Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.
23 - There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.
24 - A woman inherits half what a man inherits.
25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.
26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.
27 - A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.
28 - The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.
29- A woman loses custody if she remarries.
30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.
31 - A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
32 - A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.
33 - A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”
The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?
From ACT
The Left Still Claiming they Advocate "Science"
Whose War on Science?
The Left regularly bashed conservatives for their alleged “war on science.” But from manmade global warming and energy issues to stem cell research, it’s the Left that is allowing politics to trump science. And now, despite numerous recent studies in peer-reviewed journals showing that abstinence education can have a significant effect on teenagers’ sexual decisions, the Obama administration and congressional liberals have cut abstinence education funds from the FY 2010 budget.
Valerie Huber, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Education Association, told LifeNews.com about the effects of the funding cuts. "This means that nearly two million students will return to school without the skill-building lessons they have come to expect in their abstinence education classes," she said. I understand that drastic cuts need to be made to the federal budget. But I don’t understand why they need to be made to one of our most effective tools in combating soaring rates of teen and un-wed pregnancy.-Gary Bauer
The Left regularly bashed conservatives for their alleged “war on science.” But from manmade global warming and energy issues to stem cell research, it’s the Left that is allowing politics to trump science. And now, despite numerous recent studies in peer-reviewed journals showing that abstinence education can have a significant effect on teenagers’ sexual decisions, the Obama administration and congressional liberals have cut abstinence education funds from the FY 2010 budget.
Valerie Huber, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Education Association, told LifeNews.com about the effects of the funding cuts. "This means that nearly two million students will return to school without the skill-building lessons they have come to expect in their abstinence education classes," she said. I understand that drastic cuts need to be made to the federal budget. But I don’t understand why they need to be made to one of our most effective tools in combating soaring rates of teen and un-wed pregnancy.-Gary Bauer
Administration HALTS Prosecution of USS COLE BOMBER
(Submitted by Larry Cosgriff)
THE WASHINGTON POST
Administration halts prosecution of alleged USS Cole bomber
By Peter Finn
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.
The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. And it comes practically on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attack, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens when a boat packed with explosives ripped a hole in the side of the warship in the port of Aden.
In a filing this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said that "no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future."
The statement, tucked into a motion to dismiss a petition by Nashiri's attorneys, suggests that the prospect of further military trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has all but ground to a halt, much as the administration's plan to try the accused plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in federal court has stalled.
Only two cases are moving forward at Guantanamo Bay, and both were sworn and referred for trial by the time Obama took office. In January 2009, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates directed the Convening Authority for Military Commissions to stop referring cases for trial, an order that 20 months later has not been rescinded.
Military officials said a team of prosecutors in the Nashiri case has been ready go to trial for some time. And several months ago, military officials seemed confident that Nashiri would be arraigned this summer.
"It's politics at this point," said one military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy. He said he thinks the administration does not want to proceed against a high-value detainee without some prospect of civilian trials for other major figures at Guantanamo Bay.
A White House official disputed that.
"We are confident that the reformed military commissions are a lawful, fair and effective prosecutorial forum and that the Department of Defense will handle the referrals in an appropriate manner consistent with the interests of justice," said the official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The Defense Department issued a statement Thursday saying the case is not stalled. "Prosecutors in the Office of Military Commissions are actively investigating the case against Mr. al-Nashiri and are developing charges against him," the statement said.
With the 10th anniversary of the Cole bombing approaching on Oct. 12, relatives of those killed in the attack expressed deep frustration with the delay.
"After 10 years, it seems like nobody really cares," said Gloria Clodfelter, whose 21-year-old son, Kenneth, was killed on the Cole.
Military prosecutors allege that Nashiri, a Saudi national, was a senior al-Qaeda operative and close associate of Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the suicide attack on the Cole. Nashiri was scheduled to be arraigned in February 2009 but the new administration instructed military prosecutors to suspend legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay. The charges against Nashiri were withdrawn.
In November 2009, however, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. appeared to revive the case when he announced that the military would prosecute Nashiri, one of at least 36 detainees who could be tired in federal court or a military commission.
"With regard to the Cole bombing, that was an attack on a United States warship, and that, I think, is appropriately placed into the military commission setting," Holder said.
But critics of military commissions say the Nashiri case exemplifies the system's flaws, particularly the ability to introduce certain evidence such as hearsay statements that probably would not be admitted in federal court. The prosecution is expected to rely heavily on statements made to the FBI by two Yemenis who allegedly implicated Nashiri. Neither witness is expected at trial, but the FBI agents who interviewed them will testify, said Nashiri's military attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes. "Unlike in federal court, you don't have the right to confront the witnesses against you," he said.
Such indirect testimony could be critical to a conviction because any incriminating statements Nashiri might have made are probably inadmissible under the 2009 Military Commissions Act, which bars the use of evidence obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Nashiri, 45, was captured in the United Arab Emirates in November 2002, and immediately placed in CIA custody. He was among three detainees held by the agency who was water-boarded, and a report by the CIA's inspector general found that Nashiri was threatened with a gun and a power drill.
"I am very confident, based upon what I have heard, that there is more than sufficient evidence linking him to the attack on Cole directly, and that they do not need any of the information that may have come from black site interviews and interrogations," said Kirk S. Lippold, who was commander of the Cole when it was attacked.
Reyes said Nashiri's treatment at the hands of the CIA will be part of any proceeding and will be relevant to any sentence he receives if he is found guilty. The government is expected to seek the death penalty.
"I'm not admitting to guilty, but his treatment is absolutely relevant in a death case and can be used in mitigation to lessen the sentence," Reyes said.
Nashiri, who has been held at Camp 7 at Guantanamo Bay since September 2006, has never appeared in court. But according to the transcript of a 2007 Combatant Status Review Tribunal, he said that he had nothing to do with the Cole bombing and that his connections to those involved in the explosion, including the purchase of the suicide boat, were unwitting. "We were planning to be involved in a fishing project," he said.
THE WASHINGTON POST
Administration halts prosecution of alleged USS Cole bomber
By Peter Finn
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.
The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. And it comes practically on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attack, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens when a boat packed with explosives ripped a hole in the side of the warship in the port of Aden.
In a filing this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said that "no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future."
The statement, tucked into a motion to dismiss a petition by Nashiri's attorneys, suggests that the prospect of further military trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has all but ground to a halt, much as the administration's plan to try the accused plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in federal court has stalled.
Only two cases are moving forward at Guantanamo Bay, and both were sworn and referred for trial by the time Obama took office. In January 2009, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates directed the Convening Authority for Military Commissions to stop referring cases for trial, an order that 20 months later has not been rescinded.
Military officials said a team of prosecutors in the Nashiri case has been ready go to trial for some time. And several months ago, military officials seemed confident that Nashiri would be arraigned this summer.
"It's politics at this point," said one military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy. He said he thinks the administration does not want to proceed against a high-value detainee without some prospect of civilian trials for other major figures at Guantanamo Bay.
A White House official disputed that.
"We are confident that the reformed military commissions are a lawful, fair and effective prosecutorial forum and that the Department of Defense will handle the referrals in an appropriate manner consistent with the interests of justice," said the official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The Defense Department issued a statement Thursday saying the case is not stalled. "Prosecutors in the Office of Military Commissions are actively investigating the case against Mr. al-Nashiri and are developing charges against him," the statement said.
With the 10th anniversary of the Cole bombing approaching on Oct. 12, relatives of those killed in the attack expressed deep frustration with the delay.
"After 10 years, it seems like nobody really cares," said Gloria Clodfelter, whose 21-year-old son, Kenneth, was killed on the Cole.
Military prosecutors allege that Nashiri, a Saudi national, was a senior al-Qaeda operative and close associate of Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the suicide attack on the Cole. Nashiri was scheduled to be arraigned in February 2009 but the new administration instructed military prosecutors to suspend legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay. The charges against Nashiri were withdrawn.
In November 2009, however, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. appeared to revive the case when he announced that the military would prosecute Nashiri, one of at least 36 detainees who could be tired in federal court or a military commission.
"With regard to the Cole bombing, that was an attack on a United States warship, and that, I think, is appropriately placed into the military commission setting," Holder said.
But critics of military commissions say the Nashiri case exemplifies the system's flaws, particularly the ability to introduce certain evidence such as hearsay statements that probably would not be admitted in federal court. The prosecution is expected to rely heavily on statements made to the FBI by two Yemenis who allegedly implicated Nashiri. Neither witness is expected at trial, but the FBI agents who interviewed them will testify, said Nashiri's military attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes. "Unlike in federal court, you don't have the right to confront the witnesses against you," he said.
Such indirect testimony could be critical to a conviction because any incriminating statements Nashiri might have made are probably inadmissible under the 2009 Military Commissions Act, which bars the use of evidence obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Nashiri, 45, was captured in the United Arab Emirates in November 2002, and immediately placed in CIA custody. He was among three detainees held by the agency who was water-boarded, and a report by the CIA's inspector general found that Nashiri was threatened with a gun and a power drill.
"I am very confident, based upon what I have heard, that there is more than sufficient evidence linking him to the attack on Cole directly, and that they do not need any of the information that may have come from black site interviews and interrogations," said Kirk S. Lippold, who was commander of the Cole when it was attacked.
Reyes said Nashiri's treatment at the hands of the CIA will be part of any proceeding and will be relevant to any sentence he receives if he is found guilty. The government is expected to seek the death penalty.
"I'm not admitting to guilty, but his treatment is absolutely relevant in a death case and can be used in mitigation to lessen the sentence," Reyes said.
Nashiri, who has been held at Camp 7 at Guantanamo Bay since September 2006, has never appeared in court. But according to the transcript of a 2007 Combatant Status Review Tribunal, he said that he had nothing to do with the Cole bombing and that his connections to those involved in the explosion, including the purchase of the suicide boat, were unwitting. "We were planning to be involved in a fishing project," he said.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Thomas Jefferson
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. ”
—Thomas Jefferson
—Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
RE: Governor Race
Let's just hope that if we have Tea Party and Conservative Party candidates that it doesn't do the same thing to the Republicans on a national level.
From: Pete Robberson [mailto:homeinspections@pcisys.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 5:29 PM
To: 'Brooks'; Kaiser, Richard S
Cc: theamericancafecs.cafe@blogger.com; 'Adrienne'
Subject: FW: Governor Race
The American Café,
I just received this from one of our field informantsJ Please let this motivate you to place a call to Taking Back America on behalf of Victory in Colorado. I am sure that Tancredo arranged this long before he left the Party and became a competitor against victory of the conservative in November.
Please call.
Peter Robberson
719-573-2193
(Header deleted to protect privacy)
All,
I was reading World Net Daily, they are hosting a "Taking Back America" Conference Sep 16-18. Guess who one of their guest speakers is…Tom Tancredo. I called them at 1-877-768-2784 ext. 105. I asked them if they were aware that Tom Tancredo is running for governor in the state of
I went on to explain that Tom decided to get into the race 2 weeks before the Primary on August 10th. If Tom had wanted to be the governor he should have made the decision a year ago.
Tom is a one trick pony-immigration.
We have a strong candidate DAN MAES who did it the right way through our Caucus, State Assembly and Primary and won each. He can beat the Democrat John Hickenlooper.
-He is a successful businessman
-he plans to reduce the size of government
-he plans to bring energy jobs back to
-he is strong on immigration, by enforcing the law already on the books and working with ICE
-he is strong on education through competition between public, homeschooling and charter schools
Tom Tancredo needs to get out of this race or you should drop him from your Taking Back America Conference.
Maybe if a few of us call with this message, WND will take some action. See attached flyer.
Beth R
Liberty, once lost, is lost Forever-John Adams
“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
—John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
—John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
FW: Governor Race
The American Café,
I just received this from one of our field informantsJ Please let this motivate you to place a call to Taking Back America on behalf of Victory in Colorado. I am sure that Tancredo arranged this long before he left the Party and became a competitor against victory of the conservative in November.
Please call.
Peter Robberson
(Header deleted to protect privacy)
All,
I was reading World Net Daily, they are hosting a “Taking Back America” Conference Sep 16-18. Guess who one of their guest speakers is…Tom Tancredo. I called them at 1-877-768-2784 ext. 105. I asked them if they were aware that Tom Tancredo is running for governor in the state of
I went on to explain that Tom decided to get into the race 2 weeks before the Primary on August 10th. If Tom had wanted to be the governor he should have made the decision a year ago.
Tom is a one trick pony-immigration.
We have a strong candidate DAN MAES who did it the right way through our Caucus, State Assembly and Primary and won each. He can beat the Democrat John Hickenlooper.
-He is a successful businessman
-he plans to reduce the size of government
-he plans to bring energy jobs back to
-he is strong on immigration, by enforcing the law already on the books and working with ICE
-he is strong on education through competition between public, homeschooling and charter schools
Tom Tancredo needs to get out of this race or you should drop him from your Taking Back America Conference.
Maybe if a few of us call with this message, WND will take some action. See attached flyer.
Beth R
Monday, August 23, 2010
The DISCLOSE ACT is back...Take Action!
-from "Tea Party Patriots"
Remember the DISCLOSE Act? Or, as we like to call it, the DISGRACE Act; the one in which the Reid-Pelosi-Obama team attempted to silence small, grassroots groups during elections, including the ones this November. Though it failed to pass in the Senate last month, Harry Reid has decided that he is going to try again. The only thing that stopped it before were the three usual suspects: Senators' Snowe, Collins, and Brown. Reid and Obama are pressuring them hard to change their votes to Yes. We must pressure them harder to continue voting NO.
Here is a refresher course on the DISCLOSE Act:
From our friends at Freedom Action about this speech violating bill-
Even if somehow the speech restrictions in this bill were constitutional, their uneven application would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection under the law. Even the left-leaning Sierra Club has labeled the DISCLOSE Act a two-tiered system that is "unfair and undemocratic" and that smaller grass-roots organizations would be disadvantaged because they lack the resources to cope with "the additional disclosure burdens." The unions and the big non-profit groups get to keep their free speech given to them in the January Supreme Court decision, but the corporations and small non-profits lose theirs under DISCLOSE.
Also, President Obama and some Democrats are dishonestly stating that the Court's decision would "open the floodgates for special interest, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." However, current federal law and Federal Election Commission regulations already ban foreign corporations from participating directly or indirectly in American elections. (see 2 U.S.C. § 441e and 2 U.S.C. 437g).
An example of how this bill could affect your tea party group:
Exampleville, Ohio has two people running for U.S. Congress-Mr. A and Mr. B-in what promises to be a close race. Exampleville's local Tea Party believes in Mr. B. The Tea Party wants to run ads highlighting Mr. B's stance on cap and trade, federal spending, increased taxation, etc, but they don't have enough money to fulfill the new highly complex reporting requirements from DISCLOSE. And DISCLOSE would force them to list their top donors, even if they are not necessarily the specific donors to the ads, in their ads. Besides, the disclaimers required could take up to 14 of a 30 second ad. The Tea Party gives up trying to run ads to support Mr. Republican.
In contrast, Mr. A has some well-funded unions who want to see Exampleville's factories unionized, so the unions run ads against Mr. B and ads for Mr. A. Also, the Sierra Club and the ACLU (groups actually opposed to DISCLOSE) want Mr. A to support their issues, so they also run ads for Mr. A. None of these ads are subject to DISCLOSE's requirements.
Guess who wins?
(For those interested, here's a good link with information on the actual language and problems with the DISCLOSE bill, click here: http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr5175)
Remind them that the DISCLOSE Act exempts unions and very large special interest groups!! And the little guy is left without a voice.
We must start putting pressure on these three Senators, and tell them to vote NO.
This is SO important as the Left is running scared and are trying to minimize our efforts and impact this November. Please call the following Senators:
Scott Brown (R-MA)
http://scottbrown.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactme
Washington DC: (T) (202) 224-4543, (F) (202) 228-2646
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email
Washington DC: (T) (202) 224-5344, Toll free (800) 432-1599, (F) (202) 224-1946
Susan Collins (R-ME)
http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.EmailIssue&CFID=42880122&CFTOKEN=39747274
Washington DC: (T) (202) 224-2523, (F) (202) 224-2693
Remember the DISCLOSE Act? Or, as we like to call it, the DISGRACE Act; the one in which the Reid-Pelosi-Obama team attempted to silence small, grassroots groups during elections, including the ones this November. Though it failed to pass in the Senate last month, Harry Reid has decided that he is going to try again. The only thing that stopped it before were the three usual suspects: Senators' Snowe, Collins, and Brown. Reid and Obama are pressuring them hard to change their votes to Yes. We must pressure them harder to continue voting NO.
Here is a refresher course on the DISCLOSE Act:
From our friends at Freedom Action about this speech violating bill-
Even if somehow the speech restrictions in this bill were constitutional, their uneven application would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection under the law. Even the left-leaning Sierra Club has labeled the DISCLOSE Act a two-tiered system that is "unfair and undemocratic" and that smaller grass-roots organizations would be disadvantaged because they lack the resources to cope with "the additional disclosure burdens." The unions and the big non-profit groups get to keep their free speech given to them in the January Supreme Court decision, but the corporations and small non-profits lose theirs under DISCLOSE.
Also, President Obama and some Democrats are dishonestly stating that the Court's decision would "open the floodgates for special interest, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." However, current federal law and Federal Election Commission regulations already ban foreign corporations from participating directly or indirectly in American elections. (see 2 U.S.C. § 441e and 2 U.S.C. 437g).
An example of how this bill could affect your tea party group:
Exampleville, Ohio has two people running for U.S. Congress-Mr. A and Mr. B-in what promises to be a close race. Exampleville's local Tea Party believes in Mr. B. The Tea Party wants to run ads highlighting Mr. B's stance on cap and trade, federal spending, increased taxation, etc, but they don't have enough money to fulfill the new highly complex reporting requirements from DISCLOSE. And DISCLOSE would force them to list their top donors, even if they are not necessarily the specific donors to the ads, in their ads. Besides, the disclaimers required could take up to 14 of a 30 second ad. The Tea Party gives up trying to run ads to support Mr. Republican.
In contrast, Mr. A has some well-funded unions who want to see Exampleville's factories unionized, so the unions run ads against Mr. B and ads for Mr. A. Also, the Sierra Club and the ACLU (groups actually opposed to DISCLOSE) want Mr. A to support their issues, so they also run ads for Mr. A. None of these ads are subject to DISCLOSE's requirements.
Guess who wins?
(For those interested, here's a good link with information on the actual language and problems with the DISCLOSE bill, click here: http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr5175)
Remind them that the DISCLOSE Act exempts unions and very large special interest groups!! And the little guy is left without a voice.
We must start putting pressure on these three Senators, and tell them to vote NO.
This is SO important as the Left is running scared and are trying to minimize our efforts and impact this November. Please call the following Senators:
Scott Brown (R-MA)
http://scottbrown.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactme
Washington DC: (T) (202) 224-4543, (F) (202) 228-2646
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email
Washington DC: (T) (202) 224-5344, Toll free (800) 432-1599, (F) (202) 224-1946
Susan Collins (R-ME)
http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.EmailIssue&CFID=42880122&CFTOKEN=39747274
Washington DC: (T) (202) 224-2523, (F) (202) 224-2693
The Home Depot says AFA is lying - Here's proof we're not
Guys,
If you have missed this we have switched to Lowes. We are not interested in using profit for our purchases used to Advocate against our Values for a fringe, minority and horribly destructive lifestyle-trying to Mainstream it.
Pete
From: AFA Action Alert [mailto:contact@afa.net]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:26 AM
To: homeinspections@pcisys.net
Subject: The Home Depot says AFA is lying - Here's proof we're not
|
| |||||
| | |||||
| | |||||
The Home Depot says AFA is lying - Here's proof we're not August 23, 2010 In responding to those who are calling The Home Depot, company representatives are telling AFA supporters that AFA is lying. Here is proof we are telling the truth AND the facts accurately. Clicking the thumbnail picture will take you to the larger, online version of the photo.
TAKE ACTION It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.
| |||||
| | |||||
| | |||||
| | |||||
| This e-mail message was sent to homeinspections@pcisys.net. Peter signed up to receive e-mail from AFA. Unsubscribe from our List | Change your E-mail Address
American Family Association | P O Drawer 2440 | |
Share on Facebook 
Share on Twitter 
Online Version 
Friday, August 20, 2010
American Cafe Group Fall Kick-Off
The American Café and Tax Day Tea Partiers,
Well we hope you have all had a good summer. For many of us it was not the break we’d hoped for with the run-up to the Primaries. I trust you were each involved with your time, talents and money; giving, walking and working the phone banks for the Candidate you believed would stand firm for our Constitutional values of Individual Freedom, Limited Government and the Free Market. We worked hard for Ken Buck and for Dan Maes (although not as an official American Café endorsement.)
This Thursday, August 26th at 6:30 we’ll have a Meet-n-Greet at our house. At this time we will not be running our Liberty Kids Program. We have fabulous curriculum and a wonderful momentum but have been unable so far to find a person to volunteer to teach for us. We’ll keep you posted on that.
Please bring a snack to share with the group. We will be going over some orientation items and bringing some Encouraging news to the group. (There is never a shortage of frustrating developments in the political realm.) We will have weekly sign-ups for snacks and will have a baby-sitting “puppy” (vs a “Kitty”) to cover the cost of an eventual baby-sitter. (I am pretty down on cats right now.)
Anyway this is your invitation! If you would like to be a part of our Prayer and Political Action weekly home group this Fall please come. Just getting engaged makes a HUGE difference to beat back the feeling of helplessness that creeps over us Christians when thinking of Politics.
Also:
Our group has been invited by the Focus on the Family Bookstore to hand out Constitutions at the store for their September 11th and 12th patriotic remembrance of our fallen, fellow Americans. We will want quite a few of you to help out if you can make the time. Please RSVP to me to let me know how much you can be there.
Lastly,
Please RSVP to let us know your interest in being a part of the Fall, home-group. We will adjust as needed to accommodate the needs of the most people. In addition if you would like to host this meeting at your home or have use help you start your own we’d love to have you.
Happy Birthday to The American Café-1 Year Old!
Peter and Adrienne Robberson
The American Café
Prayer and Action Home Groups
719-573-2193
*PS. You are on this mailing list because you have asked to be. If you wish to be removed please send an email reply and I will remove you immediately.
Obama’s Growing Problem
Barack Obama has a growing problem on his hands, and it’s not Iran. It’s much closer to home, but it’s not unemployment either. It’s more personal – a matter of faith to be precise.
A new poll by the respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life finds that after 19 months on the job, more Americans now think Obama is a Muslim. That’s a big problem – one that suggests the president is grossly disconnected from the American people.
If this disconnect -- or as one commentator suggested, this sense that Obama’s “default setting is in opposition to the general sensibilities of the American people” -- is allowed to grow, it risks undermining the president’s legitimacy much like the Left’s claim that “Bush lied” about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq undermined the previous administration.
But what amazes me is the media’s astonishment that many Americans would question the president’s professed faith. The talking heads denounce this as an example of bigoted and extremist fringe thinking. But it is a much bigger problem than they care to admit.
How bad is this problem? Here’s a clue: a plurality of Americans don’t know what the president’s faith is! According to the Pew poll, 18% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in 2009; just 34% believe he is a Christian, down from 48%; while 43% have no idea what Barack Obama believes.
This comes in spite of all the fawning and sympathetic press Obama received over the past several years. Why is this problem getting worse, rather than better, the longer we are exposed to Barack Obama? It is a problem entirely of Obama’s making. For example:
Obama gave his first television interview as president not to an American network, but to an Arab language satellite network, Al-Arabiya. In that interview, Obama said he felt his “job” was to communicate “to the Muslim world … that the Americans are not your enemy.”
He has apologized for America’s “arrogance,” repeatedly reached out to the Muslim world, including the Holocaust-denying regime in Iran, and even pressed NASA into his Islamic outreach mission.
He bowed to the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia, but made the Dali Lama exit the White House through the back door.
He wrote fondly about his Muslim cultural background in his two autobiographies. In a 2007 New York Times interview, he “recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. …Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’”
Yes, Barack Obama says he is a Christian, but he attended a church whose pastor routinely condemned America, gave Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan an award and permitted the distribution of Hamas propaganda.
He condemned the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem but endorsed the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero.
His administration dismissed charges against the Muslim New Black Panthers, but it prosecutes the state of Arizona.
He cancelled National Day of Prayer events at the White House but hosted an Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan.
Given all this and more during the past 19 months, the average American could be forgiven for thinking that Obama is at least deferential, if not predisposed, toward Islam.
So while the media elites may see the Pew poll as evidence of right-wing bigotry, it should be more worrying to them that not even a majority of the president’s staunchest supporters -- Democrats (46%) or blacks (43%) -- could say that Obama is a Christian.
For its part, however, the White House seemingly recognizes the problem and felt compelled to issue a statement reaffirming the president’s Christian faith. Here is an excerpt:
“President Obama is a committed Christian, and his faith is an important part of his daily life. He prays every day, he seeks a small circle of Christian pastors to give him spiritual advice and counseling, he even receives a daily devotional that he uses each morning. The President's Christian faith is a part of who he is, but not a part of what the public or the media is focused on everyday.”-Gary Bauer
A new poll by the respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life finds that after 19 months on the job, more Americans now think Obama is a Muslim. That’s a big problem – one that suggests the president is grossly disconnected from the American people.
If this disconnect -- or as one commentator suggested, this sense that Obama’s “default setting is in opposition to the general sensibilities of the American people” -- is allowed to grow, it risks undermining the president’s legitimacy much like the Left’s claim that “Bush lied” about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq undermined the previous administration.
But what amazes me is the media’s astonishment that many Americans would question the president’s professed faith. The talking heads denounce this as an example of bigoted and extremist fringe thinking. But it is a much bigger problem than they care to admit.
How bad is this problem? Here’s a clue: a plurality of Americans don’t know what the president’s faith is! According to the Pew poll, 18% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in 2009; just 34% believe he is a Christian, down from 48%; while 43% have no idea what Barack Obama believes.
This comes in spite of all the fawning and sympathetic press Obama received over the past several years. Why is this problem getting worse, rather than better, the longer we are exposed to Barack Obama? It is a problem entirely of Obama’s making. For example:
Obama gave his first television interview as president not to an American network, but to an Arab language satellite network, Al-Arabiya. In that interview, Obama said he felt his “job” was to communicate “to the Muslim world … that the Americans are not your enemy.”
He has apologized for America’s “arrogance,” repeatedly reached out to the Muslim world, including the Holocaust-denying regime in Iran, and even pressed NASA into his Islamic outreach mission.
He bowed to the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia, but made the Dali Lama exit the White House through the back door.
He wrote fondly about his Muslim cultural background in his two autobiographies. In a 2007 New York Times interview, he “recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. …Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’”
Yes, Barack Obama says he is a Christian, but he attended a church whose pastor routinely condemned America, gave Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan an award and permitted the distribution of Hamas propaganda.
He condemned the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem but endorsed the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero.
His administration dismissed charges against the Muslim New Black Panthers, but it prosecutes the state of Arizona.
He cancelled National Day of Prayer events at the White House but hosted an Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan.
Given all this and more during the past 19 months, the average American could be forgiven for thinking that Obama is at least deferential, if not predisposed, toward Islam.
So while the media elites may see the Pew poll as evidence of right-wing bigotry, it should be more worrying to them that not even a majority of the president’s staunchest supporters -- Democrats (46%) or blacks (43%) -- could say that Obama is a Christian.
For its part, however, the White House seemingly recognizes the problem and felt compelled to issue a statement reaffirming the president’s Christian faith. Here is an excerpt:
“President Obama is a committed Christian, and his faith is an important part of his daily life. He prays every day, he seeks a small circle of Christian pastors to give him spiritual advice and counseling, he even receives a daily devotional that he uses each morning. The President's Christian faith is a part of who he is, but not a part of what the public or the media is focused on everyday.”-Gary Bauer
American Values-Gary Bauer-MOSQUE MONEY
Perhaps the most important unanswered question about the Ground Zero mosque just got answered. ABC News reported yesterday that Oz Sultan, a spokesman for the Ground Zero mosque, refused to rule out funding from Saudi Arabia or Iran to build the planned $100 million mega-mosque. That ought to raise red flags – even for those who support the mosque.
As I have outlined in this daily report, there is a lot of concern about just how moderate Imam Feisal Rauf truly is. He refuses to condemn the terrorist group Hamas. He blamed America for the 9/11 attacks, saying, “Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.” And there’s more.
The New York Post reported this week that Rauf’s late father, Mohammed Rauf, raised millions of dollars from “individuals and governments in 46 nations” to build New York’s first mosque. What was taught in that mosque? Consider this from the Post’s report:
“In October 2001, the mosque’s imam, Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, blamed the 9/11 attacks on Jews. He then immediately resigned and returned to his native Egypt. The next month, his replacement, Imam Omar Saleem Abu-Namous, said he needed proof that Islamic extremists were behind the attack.”
Feisal Rauf, who leads a mosque 12 blocks away from Ground Zero, has served on the board of his father’s mosque for years. His spokesman won’t categorically reject money from the extremists in Saudi Arabia or the Holocaust-denying regime in Iran.
The Left insists this debate is about tolerance and religious freedom. But should America’s freedom of religion tolerate a foreign power building religious sites at places of honor? For most Americans, the instinctive answer is “NO!”
The Bi-Partisan Opposition Grows
Speaker Nancy Pelosi can add two more names to her list of mosque critics to investigate. Yesterday, Governor Pat Quinn (D-IL) was asked about the Ground Zero mosque. He said:
“I’ve been to Pearl Harbor. I laid a wreath at Pearl Harbor. I’ve been to Auschwitz. I laid a wreath at Auschwitz. I’ve been to Ground Zero, and I laid a wreath there. I do believe that there are special places on Earth that should have a zone of solemnity around them. I would strongly urge those who are thinking of putting a mosque within that zone to rethink their position.”
Quinn was joined in his opposition by former Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who told WABC Radio, “We have to understand that [the mosque] is a real affront to people who lost [loved ones]… I think another site would be a better idea.”
As I have outlined in this daily report, there is a lot of concern about just how moderate Imam Feisal Rauf truly is. He refuses to condemn the terrorist group Hamas. He blamed America for the 9/11 attacks, saying, “Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.” And there’s more.
The New York Post reported this week that Rauf’s late father, Mohammed Rauf, raised millions of dollars from “individuals and governments in 46 nations” to build New York’s first mosque. What was taught in that mosque? Consider this from the Post’s report:
“In October 2001, the mosque’s imam, Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, blamed the 9/11 attacks on Jews. He then immediately resigned and returned to his native Egypt. The next month, his replacement, Imam Omar Saleem Abu-Namous, said he needed proof that Islamic extremists were behind the attack.”
Feisal Rauf, who leads a mosque 12 blocks away from Ground Zero, has served on the board of his father’s mosque for years. His spokesman won’t categorically reject money from the extremists in Saudi Arabia or the Holocaust-denying regime in Iran.
The Left insists this debate is about tolerance and religious freedom. But should America’s freedom of religion tolerate a foreign power building religious sites at places of honor? For most Americans, the instinctive answer is “NO!”
The Bi-Partisan Opposition Grows
Speaker Nancy Pelosi can add two more names to her list of mosque critics to investigate. Yesterday, Governor Pat Quinn (D-IL) was asked about the Ground Zero mosque. He said:
“I’ve been to Pearl Harbor. I laid a wreath at Pearl Harbor. I’ve been to Auschwitz. I laid a wreath at Auschwitz. I’ve been to Ground Zero, and I laid a wreath there. I do believe that there are special places on Earth that should have a zone of solemnity around them. I would strongly urge those who are thinking of putting a mosque within that zone to rethink their position.”
Quinn was joined in his opposition by former Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who told WABC Radio, “We have to understand that [the mosque] is a real affront to people who lost [loved ones]… I think another site would be a better idea.”
ObamaCare - A Serious Health Risk for Seniors
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
