VICTORY: Motion to Proceed with Defense Bill Defeated

A timely post from www.numbersusa.com about the Dream ACT. This follows this previous post about the Dream Act and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


VICTORY: Motion to Proceed with Defense Bill Defeated
Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 2:54 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA

S.729/H.R.1751 A cloture motion to begin debate of the Defense Authorization bill (S.3454) was defeated in the Senate today, 43-to-56. Majority Leader Harry Reid planned to attach the Dream Act Amnesty to the bill as an amendment. The vote went along party lines with three Democrats voting against cloture, including Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) who is the lead sponsor of the SAVE Act.

In addition to Sen. Pryor, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who is in a battle to retain her Senate seat this fall, also voted against the motion. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also voted against the motion, but his no vote was a procedural move that allowed him to offer a motion to send the bill back to committee.

Just before the vote, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered a motion that the Republicans would unanimously support the motion to proceed with the bill if Sen. Reid agreed to first allow at least 20 non-immigration, defense related amendments.

In response to McConnell's motion, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is the lead sponsor for the Dream Act Amnesty, gave a floor speech in which he said today's vote was a vote against the Dream Act. Sen. Reid promised to bring the Dream Act back to the floor for a vote in the future.

See the Senate website for the roll call.

Here's the text from Minority Leader McConnell's motion...

Mr. President, I've indicated to my friend, the Majority Leader, I was going to propound a consent agreement and I'll do that at this time. I ask consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of the Defense Authorization bill provided further that amendments be offered in an alternating fashion between this aisle and that, that the first 20 amendments offered be defense-related amendments within the jurisdiction of the armed services committee, with no amendment related to immigration in order during the first 20 amendments. And before the chair rules, this is an important bill that the senate should consider the way we have done it every year. There are many controversial issues related to the underlying bill that need to be debated and voted on by the Senate. Our view is that we should start work on this bill and tackle the relevant defense issues before we divert into unrelated matters.

Republicans Block Repeal of Military Gay, Abortion Bans

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about about Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military. This follows this post about extremes in abortion practices. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Republicans Block Repeal of Military Gay, Abortion Bans


By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 21, 2010 (www.LifeSiteNews.com) – Republicans were successful in their efforts Tuesday to block debate on a defense authorization bill that would have repealed both the law prohibiting homosexuals from serving openly in the military and the law banning abortion on military bases.

Democrats failed to muster the 60 votes needed for cloture as all members of the GOP caucus held together, and two Arkansas Democrats, Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, also crossed party lines to join the Republican-led filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also voted against the bill, but only as a procedural tactic. Under the Senate rules, this gives him the opportunity to bring up the matter at a later time. It is anticipated that Reid will reintroduce the measure sometime during the Congressional lame-duck session in December.

The $726 billion Defense Authorization Bill has one amendment, originally sponsored by Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), that strikes a section of the U.S. Code, which has prohibited Department of Defense facilities from being used to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and risk to the life of the mother.

Top conservative groups including the Family Research Council (FRC), the Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List, and the American Family Association are warning that the FY2011 Defense Authorization bill, if passed, would "turn every U.S. military hospital in the world into an abortion clinic."

FRC president Tony Perkins noted that, because it is not an appropriations bill, the controversial authorization measure is "not necessary to fund our military.”

Also at stake was the 1993 law banning homosexuals from military service, a law that is commonly, but erroneously identified as the Pentagon policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) led the charge to block the repeal of the 1993 law and DADT.

Heavy pressure was put on Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to buck the GOP filibuster and vote for cloture. However Collins, who supports a repeal of the 1993 law, and voted for it in committee, said she would not help advance the bill unless Reid would allow the GOP to submit their own amendments, adding they “deserve to have a civil, fair and open debate.”

“I will defend the right of my colleagues to offer amendments on this issue, and other issues that are being brought up in connection with the defense authorization bill,” Collins said on the Senate floor.

Snowe expressed similar reservations, but added that since DADT had been in place for 17 years, Congress deserved a chance to review the Defense Department’s upcoming December report on the issue first.

Earlier today, Marine Gen. James Amos, President Obama’s nominee to replace Gen. James Conway as Marine Corps Commandant, testified before the Senate that most Marines oppose repeal of DADT.

“I've heard at the Marine bases and the Marine input for the online survey has been predominantly negative,” Amos told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Spencer: The Muslim Brotherhood's Congressman

A very interesting post from www.jihadwatch.org about a Muslim traitorous congressman.. This follows this previous post about a treasonous congressman from New York and this article about the recent news about the ban offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.

Spencer: The Muslim Brotherhood's Congressman
In Human Events this morning I discuss how Congressman Ellison has just defamed the huge majority of Americans who oppose the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D.-Minn.), (Blogger's note: E-mail him HERE to show displeasure with this and use ZIP code 55411) the first Muslim in the House of Representatives, has weighed in on the Ground Zero mosque controversy, and in the process defamed the 70% of Americans who oppose the mosque.
After the November elections, Ellison predicted, the controversy will "die down" but not "go away," because "the people who are struck by fear and who are creating a climate of fear with the thought of this Islamic center are not going away."

He compared this "climate of fear" to "people scapegoating Catholics" in the early 1960s, and added: "We have a long history of racial discrimination and scapegoating," naming Jews, welfare queens, black men and Latinos as victims of this scapegoating.

This is the same dishonest narrative we have seen recently from Nicholas Kristof and many others: that Muslims in America today are facing a resurgence of the nativism that earlier targeted Catholics and others.

In the first place, there is no such scapegoating: Hate crimes against Muslims are actually quite rare. But also, the comparison is entirely fallacious because none of the groups Ellison names as previous "scapegoats" were carrying out terror attacks against Americans and others worldwide.

They weren't justifying violence and hatred by reference to Catholic or Jewish teaching. The people who were worried about the pope running the country could point to no action by the pope to try to achieve such power. The Muslim Brotherhood, in contrast, is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within" so that Islam "is victorious over other religions."

The idea that non-Muslims are suspicious of Muslims out of bigotry, rather than out of a legitimate concern for both jihad terror and the utterly supine and often disingenuous response to it from peaceful and ostensibly moderate Muslims is nonsense of such an outstanding character that I wonder if Ellison himself even believes it, rather than simply seeing it as a useful line he can use to bamboozle the besotted leftists who elected him to Congress.

It is rich for Ellison to complain about scapegoating when so many mass murderers and would-be mass murderers point to Islamic teaching as the motivation and justification for their actions.

Think of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist; Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden on 9/11; the London jihad bombers of July 7, 2005; and so many, many others. How long will non-Muslims continue to swallow the increasingly less convincing line that none of this violence has anything to do with Islam?...

There is more.

A Change of Course in Cuba and Venezuela?

A very interesting post from http://www.stratfor.com/ about Cuba and Venezuela. This follows this post about a treasonous congressman from New York and this article about the recent news about the ban offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.


A Change of Course in Cuba and Venezuela?

By George Friedman and Reva Bhalla

Strange statements are coming out of Cuba these days. Fidel Castro, in the course of a five-hour interview in late August, reportedly told Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic and Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations that “the Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore.”

Once that statement hit the headlines, Castro backtracked. Dressed in military uniform for the first time in four years (which we suspect was his way of signaling that he was not abandoning the revolution), he delivered a rare, 35-minute speech Sept. 3 to students at the University of Havana. In addition to spending several minutes on STRATFOR’s Iran analysis, Castro addressed his earlier statement on the Cuban model, saying he was “accurately quoted but misinterpreted” and suggesting that the economic model doesn’t work anymore but that the revolution lives on.

Castro, now 84, may be old, but he still seems to have his wits about him. We don’t know whether he was grossly misinterpreted by the reporter during the earlier interview, was acknowledging the futility of the Cuban model and/or was dropping hints of a policy shift. Regardless of what he did or did not say, Castro’s reported statement on the weakness of the revolution was by no means revolutionary.


Sustaining the Revolution

There is little hiding the fact that Cuba’s socialist economy has run out of steam. The more interesting question is whether the Cuban leader is prepared to acknowledge this fact and what he is prepared to do about it. Castro wants his revolution to outlive him. To do so, he must maintain a balance between power and wealth. For decades, his method of maintaining power has been to monopolize the island’s sources of wealth. All foreign direct investment in Cuba must be authorized by the government, the most important sectors of the economy are off-limits to investors, foreign investors cannot actually own the land or facilities in which they invest, the state has the right to seize foreign assets at any time and foreign investors must turn to the government for decisions on hiring, firing and paying workers. Under such conditions, the Cuban leadership has the ultimate say on the social welfare of its citizens and has used that control to secure loyalty and, more important, neutralize political dissent.

But that control has come at a cost: For the revolution to survive — and maintain both a large security apparatus and an expensive and inefficient social welfare system — it must have sufficient private investment that the state can control. That private investment has not been forthcoming, and so the state, unable to cope with the stresses of the economy, has had to increasingly concern itself with the viability of the regime. Since Soviet subsidies for Cuba (roughly $5 billion per year) expired in the early 1990s, Cuba has been seeking an injection of capital to generate income while still trying to leave the capitalists out of the equation in order to maintain control. There is no easy way to resolve this paradox, and the problem for Castro in his advanced age is that he is running out of time.

Many Cubans, including Castro, blame the island’s economic turmoil on the U.S. embargo, a politically charged vestige of the Cold War days when Cuba, under Soviet patronage, actually posed a clear and present danger to the United States. There is a great irony built into this complaint. Castro’s revolution was built on the foundation that trade with the imperialists was responsible for Cuba’s economic turmoil. Now, it is the supposed lack of such trade that is paralyzing the Cuban economy. History can be glossed over at politically opportune times, but it cannot so easily be forgotten.

What many seem to overlook is how Cuba, in spite of the embargo, is still able to receive goods from Europe, Canada, Latin America and elsewhere — it is the state-run system at home that remains crippled and unable to supply the island’s 11 million inhabitants. And even if U.S.-Cuban trade were to be restored, there is no guarantee that Cuba’s economic wounds would be healed. There are a host of other tourist resorts and sugar and tobacco exporters lining the Caribbean coastlines aside from Cuba, which has largely missed the boat in realizing its economic potential. In other words, the roots of Cuba’s economic troubles lie in Cuba, not the United States.

But Cuba is in the midst of a political transition, and Fidel will eventually pass the revolution on to his (not much) younger brother, Raul. If Fidel is the charismatic revolutionary, able to sustain a romanticized political ideology for decades in spite of its inherent contradictions, Raul is the bureaucratic functionary whose primary purpose at this point is to preserve the regime that his brother founded. This poses a serious dilemma for 79-year-old Raul. Not only does he lack the charisma of his older brother, he also lacks a strong external patron to make Cuba relevant beyond Cuba itself.

It must be remembered that the geographic location of Cuba, which straddles both the Yucatan Channel and Straits of Florida, gives it the potential to cripple the Port of New Orleans, the United States’ historical economic outlet to the world. If these two trade avenues were blocked, Gulf Coast ports like New Orleans and Houston would be, too, and U.S. agricultural and mineral exports and imports would plummet.

Cuba has been able to pose such a threat and thus carry geopolitical weight only when under the influence of a more powerful U.S. adversary such as the Soviet Union. Though the Castros maintain relations with many of their Cold War allies, there is no middle, much less great, power right now with the attention span or the will to subsidize Cuba. Havana is thus largely on its own, and in its loneliness it now appears to be reaching out to the United States for a solution that may not hold much promise.

While Fidel has been making statements, Raul has been fleshing out a new economic strategy for Cuba, one that will lay off 500,000 workers — 10 percent of the island’s workforce. The idea is to develop private cooperatives to ease a tremendous burden on the state and have implementation of this plan in progress by March 2011. This is an ambitious deadline considering that Cuba has little to no private industry to speak of to absorb these state workers. The feasibility of the proposed reforms, however, is not as interesting as the message of political reconciliation embedded in the plan. Alongside talk of Raul’s economic reforms, Cuba has been making what appear to be political gestures to Washington through the release of political prisoners. But these gestures are unlikely to be enough to capture Washington’s attention, especially when Cuba is neither a significant geopolitical threat nor a great economic opportunity in the eyes of the United States. Cuba needs something more, and that something could be found in Venezuela.


The Cuban-Venezuelan Relationship

Cuba and Venezuela face very similar geographic constraints. Both are relatively small countries with long Caribbean coastlines and primarily resource-extractive economies. While Venezuela’s mountainous and jungle-covered borderlands to the south largely deny the country any meaningful economic integration with its neighbors, Cuba sits in a sea of small economies similar to its own. As a result, neither country has good options in its immediate neighborhood for meaningful economic integration save for the dominant Atlantic power, i.e., the United States. In dealing with the United States, Cuba and Venezuela basically have two options: either align with the United States or seek out an alliance with a more powerful, external adversary to the United States.

Both countries have swung between these two extremes. Prior to the 1959 revolution, the United States dominated Cuba politically and economically, and although relations between the two countries began to deteriorate shortly thereafter, there were still notable attempts to cooperate until Soviet subsidies took hold and episodes like the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco sunk the relationship. Likewise, until the 2002 coup attempt against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela had long maintained a close, mutually beneficial relationship with the United States. With U.S. urging, Venezuela flooded the markets with oil and busted the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, helping bring about the fall of the Soviet Union. That energy cooperation continued with the U.S. sale of Citgo in the 1990s to Venezuela’s state oil firm PDVSA, a deal designed to hardwire Venezuela into the U.S. energy markets. Venezuela obtained a guaranteed market for its low-grade crude, which it couldn’t sell to other countries, while the United States acquired an energy source close to home.

For most of the past decade, Cuba and Venezuela have found themselves in a unique position. Both now have adversarial relationships with the United States, and both lack strong allies to help them fend off the United States. As a result, Cuba and Venezuela have drawn closer together, with Cuba relying on Venezuela primarily for energy and Venezuela turning to Cuba for its security expertise.

In trying to rebuild its stature in the region, Cuba has taken advantage of the Venezuelan regime’s rising political and economic insecurities as it set about entrenching itself in nearly all sectors of the Venezuelan state. Cuban advisers, trainers and protectors can be found everywhere from the upper echelons of Venezuela’s military and intelligence apparatus to the ports and factories. Therefore, Cuba has significant influence over a Venezuela that is currently struggling under the weight of stagflation, a precarious economic condition that has been fueled by an elaborate money-laundering racket now gripping the key sectors of the state-run economy. With the country’s electricity, food, energy and metals sectors in the most critical shape, power outages, food shortages and alarmingly low production levels overall are becoming more difficult for the regime to both contain and conceal. This might explain why we are now seeing reports of the Venezuelan regime deploying military and militia forces with greater frequency, not only to the streets but also to the dams, power plants, warehouses, food silos and distribution centers.

Venezuela’s open-door policy to Cuba was intended to bolster the regime’s security, but Cuba’s pervasiveness in Venezuela’s government, security apparatus and economy can also become a threat, especially if Cuba shifts its orientation back toward the United States. Cuba may now be in a position to use its influence in Venezuela to gain leverage in its relationship with the United States.


Washington’s Venezuela Problem

The list of U.S. complaints against Venezuela goes well beyond Chavez’s diatribes against Washington. Venezuela’s aggressive nationalization drive, contributions to narco-trafficking (in alleged negligence and complicity) and suspected support for Colombian rebel groups have all factored into the United States’ soured relationship with Venezuela. More recently, the United States has watched with growing concern as Venezuela has enhanced its relationships with Russia, China and, especially, Iran. Venezuela is believed to have served as a haven of sorts for the Iranians to circumvent sanctions, launder money and facilitate the movement of militant proxies. The important thing to note here is that, while Cuba lacks allies that are adversarial to the United States, Venezuela has them in abundance.

For the United States to take a real interest in signals from Havana, it will likely want to see Cuba exercise its influence in Venezuela. More precisely, it will want to see whether Cuba can influence Venezuela’s relationship with Iran.

We therefore find it interesting that Fidel Castro has been making moves recently that portray him as an advocate for the Jews in opposition to the Iranian regime. Castro invited Goldberg, an influential member of the Jewish lobby in the United States, to his hacienda for an interview in which he spent a great deal of time criticizing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his insensitivity to the Jewish people and their history. “I don’t think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews,” Castro said. “I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything.” He added: “The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust.” Then, Castro asked Goldberg and Sweig to accompany him to a private dolphin show at the National Aquarium of Cuba in Havana. They were joined by local Jewish leader Adela Dworin, whom Castro kissed in front of the cameras.

Following Fidel’s uncharacteristically pro-Jewish remarks, Chavez, who has echoed his Iranian ally’s vituperative stance against Israel, held a meeting with leaders of Venezuela’s Jewish community on Sept. 18 in which he reportedly discussed their concerns about anti-Semitic remarks in the media and their request for Venezuela to re-establish diplomatic relations with Israel. That same week, Venezuela’s state-run Conviasa Airlines, which has had an unusually high number of accidents and engine failures in recent days, cancelled its popular Tuesday roundtrip flight route from Caracas to Damascus to Tehran. This is a flight route frequented by Iranian, Lebanese, Syrian and Venezuelan businessmen and officials (along with other sorts trying to appear as ordinary businessmen). The route has come under heavy scrutiny by the United States due to a reinvigorated U.S. sanctions campaign against Iran and U.S. concerns over Hezbollah transit through Latin America. When STRATFOR inquired about the flight cancellations, we were told by the airline that the cancellations were due to maintenance issues but that flights from Caracas to Damascus would be re-routed through Madrid. The Iran leg of the route, at least for now, is out of operation. Whether Cuba is intending to reshape Venezuela’s relationship with Iran and whether these Venezuelan moves were taken from Cuban cues is unknown to us, but we find them notable nonetheless.


A Chinese Lifeline for Caracas?

Each of these seemingly disparate developments does not make much sense on its own. When looked at together, however, a complex picture begins to form, one in which Cuba, slowly and carefully, is trying to shift its orientation toward the United States while the Venezuelan regime’s vulnerabilities increase as a result. An insecure and economically troubled Venezuela will need strong allies looking for levers against the United States. Russia will sign a defense deal here and there with Venezuela, but it has much bigger priorities in Eurasia. Iran is useful for hurling threats against the United States, but it has serious economic troubles of its own that rival even those of Venezuela. China so far appears to be the most promising fit, although that relationship carries its fair share of complications.

China and Venezuela have signed a deal for Beijing to lend $20 billion to Caracas in exchange for crude-oil shipments and stakes in Venezuelan oil fields. The two are also discussing multibillion-dollar deals that would entail China investing in critical areas, such as Venezuela’s dilapidated electricity grid. China doesn’t have much interest in paying the exorbitant cost of shipping low-grade Venezuelan crude halfway around the world, but it is interested in technology to develop and produce low-grade crude. In many ways, China is presenting itself as the lifeline to the Venezuelan regime. Whether all these deals reach fruition remains a big question, and how far Beijing intends to go in this relationship with Caracas will matter greatly to the United States. A Chinese willingness to go beyond quid pro quo deals and subsidize Venezuela could lead to Chinese investments threatening existing U.S. energy assets in Venezuela, potentially giving Beijing leverage against Washington in the U.S. backyard. But subsidizing countries is not cheap, and China has not yet shown a willingness to take a more confrontational stance with the United States over Venezuela.

After claiming to have received the first $4 billion installment of the $20 billion loan from China, Chavez said China is lending the money because “China knows that this revolution is here to stay.” Like Cuba, Venezuela may not have the economic heft to back up its revolutionary zeal, but it is finding useful friends of the revolution in China. In this time of need, Venezuela’s challenge lies in finding allies willing to cross the threshold from economic partner to strategic patron.

God's Festivals in the New Testament

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Christian Holy Days. This follows this post about Stephen Hawking's book on atheism. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

God's Festivals in the New Testament
1. Passover
Commanded in Old Testament:
Leviticus 23:5

Observed by Jesus Christ, the apostles or the Church in the New Testament:
Matthew 26:2, 17-19
Mark 14:12-16
Luke 2:41-42; 22:1, 7-20
John 2:13, 23; 6:4; 13:1-30
1 Corinthians 11:23-29

2. Feast of Unleavened Bread
Commanded in Old Testament:
Leviticus 23:6-8

Observed by Jesus Christ, the apostles or the Church in the New Testament:
Matthew 26:17
Mark 14:12
Luke 2:41-42, 22:1,7
Acts 20:6
1 Corinthians 5:6-8

3. Feast of Pentecost
Commanded in Old Testament:
Leviticus 23:15-22

Observed by Jesus Christ, the apostles or the Church in the New Testament:
Acts 2:1-21; 20:16
1 Corinthians 16:8

4. Feast of Trumpets*
Commanded in Old Testament:
Leviticus 23:23-25

Observed by Jesus Christ, the apostles or the Church in the New Testament:
Matthew 24:30-31
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
Revelation 11:15

5. Day of Atonement
Commanded in Old Testament:
Leviticus 23:26-32

Observed by Jesus Christ, the apostles or the Church in the New Testament:
Acts 27:9

6. Feast of Tabernacles
Commanded in Old Testament:
Leviticus 23:33-43

Observed by Jesus Christ, the apostles or the Church in the New Testament:
John 7:1-2, 8, 10, 14

7. The Eighth Day (sometimes called the Last Great Day)
Commanded in Old Testament:
Leviticus 23:36

Observed by Jesus Christ, the apostles or the Church in the New Testament:
John chapters 7-9



*Although the Feast of Trumpets is not mentioned by name in the New Testament, the theme of the day—the sounding of trumpets announcing Jesus Christ's return—is mentioned by several New Testament authors as noted in the references.

U.S. General: Don't Like Homosexuality? Leave the Army

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military. This follows this post about extremes in abortion practices. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

U.S. General: Don't Like Homosexuality? Leave the Army
Controversy erupts as DADT repeal teeters on brink


By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 20, 2010 (www.LifeSiteNews.com) - As Senate Democrats eye a repeal of the military’s "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy Tuesday(Blogger's note, Contact your two Senators here to voice your opposition), the Washington Times is standing by potentially explosive comments it published from an Army general, calling service members opposed to open homosexuality in the military "bigots" that "need to get out."

"Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them," said Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, deputy chief of staff for personnel matters, as quoted in a Times editorial Thursday.

"But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out," Bostick told U.S. troops, referring to DADT. "No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you're always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today."

Bostick was reported to have given the remarks at the European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The Times noted that "the strong words take additional significance from Lt. Gen. Bostick's direct involvement with a Pentagon panel charged with shaping military policy on this issue."

The Department of Defense issued a statement by Bostick to reporters Friday, in which the general stated that he "simply did not make those statements," and has "been extremely careful" not to express opinions that might influence the Pentagon panel, of which he is a member, currently reviewing the DADT repeal. Bostick also called the statements attributed to him "personally reprehensible."

However, the Times staff has stood by the quotations.

"He either forgot what he said, is confused, or is lying," Washington Times editorial page editor Brett Decker said of Bostick, adding that the quotation came from "a member of the military who was there" and was verified by several sources. He said he would not reveal the source for fear of retribution.

Meanwhile, the Senate is scheduled to take up a vote on repealing DADT on Tuesday at 2:15 pm. Although Democrat leaders have expressed confidence in repealing the policy, it is unclear whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has gathered the 60 votes needed to overturn a GOP filibuster over the issue. Vice President Joe Biden said last week that at least 55 votes have been secured.

Elaine Donnelly of the pro-family Center for Military Readiness (CMR) noted that, if a filibuster were to succeed, the chances of a DADT repeal "will diminish and possibly be ended for good."

"The four military service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have asked Congress not to vote for this legislation before the Pentagon releases a report on what repeal would mean," noted Donnelly in a letter to supporters. "The opinions of active duty military men and women have not been heard, and Congress should heed the professional advice of our military leadership before taking any legislative action, as they have requested."

Dale O'Leary, an internationally recognized pro-family researcher and author, said Monday that any DADT repeal should be accompanied by amendments rejecting homosexual "affirmative action" programs in the military, and the freedom of Christian members of the military from being "censored, disciplined, demoted, denied promotion, or in any way discriminated against for voicing opposition to homosexual behavior, voicing the opinion that same-sex attraction is a developmental disorder that can be treated, or defending traditional marriage."

Also, said O'Leary, officers must be explicitly allowed to discipline or discharge a homosexual service member in connection with physical or mental disorder associated with homosexuality.

"Because a number of large, well-designed studies have found that persons who self-identify as GLBTQ are more likely than the general public to suffer from psychological disorders, substance abuse problems, suicidal ideation, and sexually transmitted diseases, it can be expected that a significant percentage of GLBTQ persons will be rejected for service, disciplined for certain violations, or discharged for cause," she wrote. "Therefore, no officer shall be charged with discrimination against self-identified GLBTQ persons for rejecting, disciplining, or discharging such persons for cause."

New York Congressman helped Islamic scholar linked to Al-Qaeda avoid legal scrutiny

A very interesting post from http://www.jihadwatch.org/ about a treasonous congressman from New York. This follows this post about modern Barbary Pirates and this article about the recent news about the ban offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.

New York Congressman helped Islamic scholar linked to Al-Qaeda avoid legal scrutiny
Useful idiot. "Rep. Meeks helped 'jihad' flier," by Isabel Vincent and Melissa Klein in the New York Post, September 19:

US Rep. Gregory Meeks (Blogger's note: Contact him HERE and use zip code 11432-3826)scolded immigration officials for questioning a Muslim scholar whose nonprofits have been linked to financing terrorism.
The Queens Democrat contacted federal agencies -- finally appealing to then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff -- asking why Anwar Hajjaj faced "unwarranted scrutiny" when he returned to the United States from trips abroad through JFK Airport.

Meeks described Hajjaj as a "highly regarded" professor of Islamic studies who leads Friday Muslim prayers at the Capitol.

Meeks said Hajjaj was "a pioneer in distance-based learning of Islam" through the American Open University in Virginia, according to a copy of the Sept. 30, 2006, letter to Chertoff, which was obtained by The Post under a Freedom of Information Act request.

But The Post has learned Hajjaj also headed the Taibah International Aid Association, a charity that has been accused of funding Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The group was co-founded by Abdullah A. bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's nephew, who has been investigated for his ties to groups that have funded al Qaeda and Hamas.

Hajjaj is also director of another Virginia-based nonprofit, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth International, or WAMY. It was also founded by bin Laden's nephew and said to support al Qaeda. The group's 2005 federal tax form, the most recent available, is signed by Hajjaj, who is listed as director.

Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said WAMY has been a financial and ideological supporter of Islamic terrorist organizations. A WAMY publication lists people who have attacked Israelis as "heroes of Palestine" and referred to Jews as "humanity's enemies," according to a 2003 affidavit by a customs special agent. [...]

Hajjaj, 65, told The Post that he was routinely harassed and sometimes missed flights when he traveled to and from Saudi Arabia for the pilgrimage to Mecca.

"It was an awful experience under the Bush administration," he said. "Now under Obama, I have no complaints."

He said he asked Meeks to write a letter on his behalf. He said he knew the Democratic lawmaker through Jameel Aalim-Johnson, Meeks' chief of staff from 2006 to early 2008.

Posted by Robert

PRESSURE SENATOR HUTCHISON TO STOP THE DREAM ACT

A timely post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about the Dream ACT. This follows this previous post about the Dream Act and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

PRESSURE SENATOR HUTCHISON TO STOP THE DREAM ACT

Activists, we don't yet have the 41 sure NO votes that we must have to stop the DREAM Act amnesty in the Senate next week.

Senator Hutchison is turning out to be one of the six most critical linchpins in whether the DREAM Act amnesty passes next week.

Pro-amnesty activists are targeting your state and Senator Hutchison and trying to force her to support the DREAM Act. We need our Texas activists to step up in a big way to make sure she hears loud and clear that her constituents SAY NO TO THE DREAM ACT.

The pro-amnesty forces are throwing everything they have into beating us. And I'm talking tens of millions of dollars that are backing the nation's top union, religious, ethnic and academic leaders who are storming the offices of Congress with their last-minute, desperation push for this amnesty for an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens.

ACTION:

MONDAY, SEPT. 20:

Fill out this WEBFORM and tell Senator Hutchison to BLOCK the DREAM Act.
http://hutchison.senate.gov/contact.cfm

MONDAY, SEPT. 20:

Call Senator Hutchisons DC office and Office closest to you and tell her to
OPPOSE Senator Reids plan to sneak the DREAM Act into the Defense Bill next week
BLOCK any attempt to pass the DREAM Act.

DC Office: (202) 224-5592

MONDAY, SEPT. 20 & TUESDAY, SEPT. 21::

Visit the Office Closest to you:

AUSTIN
961 Federal Building
300 East 8th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
512-916-5834

DALLAS
10440 N. Central Expressway
Suite 1160
Dallas, Texas 75231
214-361-3500

HOUSTON
1919 Smith Street
Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77002
713-653-3456

SAN ANTONIO
3133 General Hudnell Drive
Suite 120
San Antonio, Texas 78226
210-340-2885

ABILENE
500 Chestnut Street
Suite 1570
Abilene, Texas 79602
325-676-2839

HARLINGTON
1906 G East Tyler St
Harlingen, Texas 78550
956-425-2253

As always, check www.NumbersUSA.com and your Action Board for more actions you can take to STOP Amnesty.

Please review our DREAM Act Fact Sheet. http://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/DREAM_1pager.pdf

Please continue to fax and phone. We need to make sure we are heard!

Forward this email to all Texas Activists you can. The other side is mobilizing to call your Senator. We need her to hear more from our side.

TALKING POINTS:

1. Bill is open to gigantic fraud.
The bill is written so that the 2, 3 or 4 million illegal-alien applicants only have to CLAIM to meet the criteria. They don't have to PROVE anything.
The government has to build a case, one illegal at a time, and prove the claims on the application are false in order for the illegal alien to lose the amnesty. Can you imagine how many times that is likely to happen?
2. DREAM does nothing to stop the behavior that put teenagers into their situation. It leaves the jobs magnet in place.
This amnesty has no enforcement measures at all. It allows employers to continue to hire illegal aliens, enticing millions more parents to bring their children here illegally and stay long enough for them to become high school students and demand another amnesty in a few years.
3. DREAM leaves intact the chain migration system that will allow these 2.1 million illegal aliens to eventually send for millions more relatives.
Rather quickly, the amnestied illegal aliens would be able to get green cards for their parents. And millions of additional relatives would be able to start planning their applications and getting in line. This starts with adult siblings and moves on to aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.
A large percentage of the illegal aliens in the U.S. today are extended family members of the illegal aliens who got amnesty in 1986 and also those in the six more-limited amnesties in the 1990s.

Thank you in advance.

The Grand Design of Stephen Hawking's Universe

An interesting article from www.ucg.org/commentary about Stephen Hawking's book on atheism. This follows this post about unemployment. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

The Grand Design of Stephen Hawking's Universe
A commentary by Randy Stiver

One hot summer afternoon at a church youth campout I asked about a dozen and a half thoughtful teenagers in my congregation to consider a key point from legendary physicist Stephen Hawking's most recent book The Grand Design.

I read the following excerpts from the London Telegraph of Sept. 2 for their analysis:

"Hawking said: 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist...'

"In June this year Prof Hawking told a Channel 4 series that he didn't believe that a 'personal' God existed. He told Genius of Britain: 'The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second.'"

I asked the teens to analyze those statements. To be fair, I had to read them twice. It was hot and they'd stayed up late the night before sitting around the campfire, visiting and admiring the constellations that are impossible to see from their own backyards in the city. Their mental wheels were turning, but they needed one more reading, emphasizing the key phrases—"Because there is a law such as gravity" and "the universe...was...determined by a law of science."

Suddenly they had it! One of the girls articulated the problem first. Although the great professor understood the amazing complexity of modern scientific thinking, he was presupposing the existence of the natural laws of physics that govern the universe. (Or, instead of universe, shall we say "multiverse" to reflect the current "M-theory" that conjectures we live in one of many existing universes?)

Smart kids
Another of the teens chimed in, voicing the real killer question that defeats modern atheistic thinking: "Where did the laws of physics come from?"

Stephen Hawking and his coauthor and leading Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow reason from the premise that those laws do exist. We expected that because that's where most of modern science starts thinking. Based on the laws of physics, they can envision things like the Big Bang origin of the—or at least our—universe.

So Professor Hawking said, "Because there is such a law as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing." But as Julie Andrews, playing Maria in The Sound of Music, sang with remarkable scientific veracity, "Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could"!

The point is, the laws of physics are not nothing. Even our tired teenagers knew that.

The law gap
This is a great gap in atheistic thinking: the existence of physical law.

So where do laws come from?

Consider the specific evidence of the laws of society. National and local laws do not simply generate themselves, nor can we claim that they have always existed. They originate with people.

Likewise, where did the laws of physics that intricately govern the universe come from? Because these physical laws are so powerful and constant, they must come from a transcendently powerful lawmaker and sustainer (law enforcer). It's ludicrous to simply claim that the laws of physics, mathematics, chemistry and other sciences have just always existed.

What's the conclusion? In spite of and with respect for Professors Hawking's and Mlodinow's credentials and expertise, there is a God. That God is the great Lawmaker and Sustainer who created the laws of physics that govern the universe of His making.

Turtle laws of physics
Stephen Hawking included a wonderful story with an unexpected lesson on the first page of his 1988 best-seller, A Brief History of Time.

"A well-known scientist...once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady...said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.' The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on?' 'You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down!'"

For modern science to claim that the laws of physics have always existed with no Lawmaker is like saying, "It's turtles all the way back."

Yet at the same time Professor Hawking was absolutely correct to choose as the title for his book The Grand Design, because, in fact, there was and is a grand design being worked out here below and you can be a part of it!

To learn more, please read our freshly rewritten free booklet What Is Your Destiny?

Pro-amnesty phoners catching up -- here are new Senate targets‏

A timely post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about the Dream ACT. This follows this post about national immigration policy and this post about the MURDER of ROBERT KRENTZ, who the protestors and boycotters won't give a solution for, but will call Americans racist for trying to prevent another MURDER, and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


SENATE SWITCHBOARD -- 202-224-3121

PHONE THESE SENATORS TO VOTE 'NO'
-- OR DREAM AMNESTY WILL PASS NEXT WEEK

Friends, we don't yet have the 41 sure NO votes that we must have to stop the DREAM Act amnesty in the Senate next week.

Scroll down to see the lists of the top phoning targets today. And don't put off your calls. They are desperately needed today.

Pro-amnesty forces claim that their super-expensive, special toll-free telephone system processed 5,000 pro-amnesty phone calls to Senators yesterday.

They brag that they expect to be handling 10,000 pro-amnesty calls a day until the DREAM Act amnesty passes!

Friends, we have to match them.

Please look at the target lists below and start phoning some Senators.

The pro-amnesty forces are throwing everything they have into beating us. And I'm talking tens of millions of dollars that are backing the nation's top union, religious, ethnic and academic leaders who are storming the offices of Congress with their last-minute, desperation push for this amnesty for an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens.

YOU'VE ALREADY TALKED SEVERAL SENATORS
INTO OPPOSING THE 'DREAM' AMNESTY

You are making in-roads with your faxes and your phone calls since Tuesday.

Some Senators who previously have supported the DREAM Act amnesty have now publicly stated that they oppose DREAM as part of the Defense bill! Congratulations to all of you for these turnarounds:

Nelson (D-Neb.)

Hagan (D-N.C.)

McCain (R-Ariz.)

Graham (R-S.C.)

Bennett [R-Utah)

Hatch (R-Utah)
Hooray for all of you who made the calls and sent the faxes!

ACTION: If you live in those states, call their offices and take just a moment to thank them for their pledge to oppose the DREAM Act.

SENATE SWITCHBOARD -- 202-224-3121

Nelson's and Hagan's stated opposition, though, is not complete. It not clear if they will vote to kill the entire Defense bill in order to stop the amnesty. At present, it looks like there won't be a direct vote on the amnesty, requiring Senators to stop the whole Defense bill and force leaders to bring a new, clean bill back to the floor.

So, push for a full pledge when you call to thank Hagan and Ben Nelson.

TOP FENCE-SITTING PROSPECTS WHO NEED YOUR PHONE CALL BEFORE THEY WILL PLEDGE AMNESTY OPPOSITION

As far as we know, none of the following Senators has committed either to oppose or support the DREAM Act amnesty as part of the Defense authorization bill next week.

For a number of mixed reasons, we believe these Senators are the ones of the uncommitted who are most likely to listen to reasonable persuasion from constituents asking for a NO vote.

ACTION: Call the DC office of these Senators (the 202 number). Of calling the local offices (the number on the second line) will be most helpful, as well.

If you've never called a Senate office, it isn't hard. Just state your name to the staffer and quickly say you are calling to ask the Senator to OPPOSE the DREAM Act amnesty. Then give one reason for your opposition, say thank you and good-bye.

Find talking points in my blog.

DEMOCRATS ON THE FENCE WHO ARE GOOD PROSPECTS

Sen. Pryor of Arkansas 202-224-2353
501-324-6336

Sen. Landrieu of Louisiana 202-224-5824
225-389-0395

Sen. Stabenow of Michigan 202-224-4822
313-961-4330

Sen. McCaskill of Missouri 202-224-6154
314-367-1364

Sen. Baucus of Montana 202-224-2651
406-657-6790

Sen. Tester of Montana 202-224-2644
406-449-5401

Sen. Conrad of North Dakota 202-224-2043
701-258-4648

Sen. Dorgan of North Dakota 202-224-2551
701-239-5389

REPUBLICANS ON THE FENCE WHO ARE GOOD PROSPECTS

Sen. LeMeiux of Florida 202-224-3041
904-398-8586

Sen. Collins of Maine 202-224-2523
207-945-0417

Sen. Snowe of Maine 202-224-5344
207-874-0883

Sen. Brown of Massachusetts 202-224-4543
617-565-3170

Sen. Johanns of Nebraska 202-224-4224
402-758-8981

Sen. Gregg of New Hampshire 202-224-3324
603-225-7115

Sen. Hutchison of Texas 202-224-5922
214-361-3500

TOUGHER UNCOMMITTED TARGETS
-- CAN YOU PERSUADE THEM?

Your first and most important phone calls are to the Senators above.

ACTION: The following list is of Senators who have shown a real proclivity toward amnesty but seem to have remained uncommitted. Under the pressure of the impending November elections, some of these Senators could be persuaded to vote NO.

I would emphasize with them that a controversial bill like this has no business being put inside a Defense bill, regardless of how they may feel about the amnesty itself.

REPUBLICANS

Sen. Murkowski of Alaska 202-224-6665
907-271-3735

Sen. Lugar of Indiana 202-224-4814
317-226-5555

Sen. Brownback of Kansas 202-224-6521
785-233-2503

Sen. Voinovich of Ohio 202-224-3353
614-469-6697

DEMOCRATS

Sen. Begich of Alaska 202-224-3004
907-271-5915

Sen. Shaheen of New Hampshire 202-224-2841
603-647-7500

Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico 202-224-6621
505-346-6791

Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio 202-224-2315
216-522-7272

Sen. Wyden of Oregon 202-224-5244
503-326-7525

Sen. Casey of Pennsylvania 202-224-6324
412-803-7370

Sen. Johnson of South Dakota 202-224-5842
605-332-8896

Sen. Warner of Virginia 202-224-2023
804-775-2314

Sen. Webb of Virginia 202-224-4024
703-573-7090

Sen. Goodwin of West Virginia 202-224-3954
304-342-5855

Sen. Rockefeller of West Virginia 202-224-6472
304-347-5372

SENATORS WHO ARE CO-SPONSORING THE 'DREAM' AMNESTY

Once you have done what you can with phone calls to the Senators on the lists above, you should look through this list to see who is causing all this problem by pushing so hard to give 2 million more permanent work permits to illegal aliens to compete with 22 million American and legal immigrant workers who can't find a job.

You can reach these through the Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or in our Congress directory (I apologize that this directory is loading sluggishly today).

Give special attention to Boxer, Gillibrand, Lincoln and Mikulski, all of whom are running for re-election in November.

(AR) Lincoln

(CA) Boxer
(CA) Feinstein
(CO) Bennet (not Bennett of Utah)
(CO) Udall (not Udall of New Mexico)
(CT) Dodd
(CT) Lieberman

(DE) Carper
(DE) Kaufman

(FL) Nelson

(HI) Akaka
(HI) Inouye

(IL) Burris
(IL) Durbin
(IN) Bayh
(IN) Lugar
(IA) Harkin

(MD) Cardin
(MD) Mikulski
(MA) Kerry
(MI) Levin
(MN) Franken
(MN) Klobuchar

(NV) Reid
(NJ) Lautenberg
(NJ) Menendez
(NM) Bingaman
(NY) Gillibrand
(NY) Schumer

(OR) Merkley

(PA) Specter

(RI) Reed
(RI) Whitehouse

(VT) Leahy
(VT) Sanders

(WA) Cantwell
(WA) Murray
(WI) Feingold

THANKS FOR CALLING TODAY.

WE CAN'T STOP CALLING . . . BECAUSE THE PRO-AMNESTY FORCES WON'T.

Obama Shocks International Community by Unapologetically Defending American Interests!

A timely post from http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com about national immigration policy. This follows this post about opposing the DREAM ACTand this post about the MURDER of ROBERT KRENTZ, who the protestors and boycotters won't give a solution for, but will call Americans racist for trying to prevent another MURDER, and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Obama Shocks International Community by Unapologetically Defending American Interests!

Refuses to take insults to America lying down.

By Nicholas Stix

New York (AP) – U.S. President Barack Obama upended a U.N. summit to defend his own nation's honor, vowing Thursday to keep deporting undocumented immigrants, despite accusations that the U.S. is being racist and unfairly targets Latinos.

The summit was supposed to be a forum for molding a unifying, international policy regarding undocumented peoples, but it turned into a drama of discord—with the outspoken Obama usurping the podium to preach his policies and lash out at his critics.

Obama said that comments by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that linked the expulsions to the mass deportations of World War II were "disgusting."

"Let me be clear. I am the chief executive of the American state. I cannot let my nation be insulted," Obama told reporters.

The wartime comparison stung many in the U.S. The U.S. deported some one million undocumented Mexican immigrants during the unfortunately named Operation Wetback, undertaken in 1954 by conservative Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, and interned thousands of Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps in the U.S. during the Second World War II.

Obama insisted France's expulsions of unauthorized immigrants are a matter of security and said the U.S. doesn't have to take lessons from anyone, as long as it respects human rights. He called the sanctuary cities and federal lands that ICE raids had disrupted and cleared in the U.S. in recent weeks havens of crime and undignified living conditions.

"Let me be clear. We will continue to end the sanctuary cities and retake public lands, whoever is there," Obama said. "The U.S. government cannot close its eyes to millions of people riding roughshod over our democratically enacted laws, and causing a whole host of additional, far-reaching problems…."

Alright, I know. You smell a rat. And indeed, your nose did not err.

I took an AP story and made some slight changes, while tweaking the phrasing. In the real story, at a European Union summit, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding of Luxembourg condemned France for expelling illegal alien Gypsies, aka Romas, an ethnicity which maintains a centuries-long tradition of living off of stealing from everyone else. French President Nicolas Sarkozy went ballistic, and defended the honor of France against Reding. Sarkozy has also offered to let Luxembourg provide a haven to the Gypsies.

In reality, of course, the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” is loyal to illegal aliens, and anyone else seeking to destroy America, irredeemably hostile toward the historic American people, and never defends the nation whose honor he is supposed to be defending, and whose interests and laws he has sworn to uphold.

The excerpt from the original AP story follows.


BRUSSELS (AP) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy upended a European Union summit to defend his own nation's honor, vowing Thursday to keep clearing out illegal immigrant camps despite accusations that France is being racist and unfairly targets Gypsies.

The summit was supposed to be a forum for molding a unifying European foreign policy, but it turned into a drama of discord _ with the outspoken Sarkozy usurping the podium to preach his policies and lash out at his critics.
Sarkozy said comments by EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding that linked the expulsions to the mass deportations of World War II were "disgusting."

"I am head of the French state. I cannot let my nation be insulted," Sarkozy told reporters.

The wartime comparison stung many in France and other members of a bloc designed to overcome and prevent the kind of hostilities that divided Europe in the past. France deported some 76,000 Jews from France to Nazi concentration camps, and interned thousands of Gypsies in camps in France during the war.

Sarkozy insisted France's expulsions of Gypsies, or Roma, are a matter of security and said France doesn't have to take lessons from anyone, as long as it respects human rights. He called more than 100 Roma camps dismantled in France in recent weeks havens of crime and undignified living conditions.

"We will continue to dismantle the illegal camps, whoever is there," Sarkozy said. "Europe cannot close its eyes to illegal camps…."

Why can't America have a leader like that?!

Barbary Pirates: the Next Generation

A very interesting post from http://bigpeace.com/ about modern Barbary Pirates. This follows this post about Muslim Treason and this article about the recent news about the ban offshore drilling which would encourage American energy independence This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.

Barbary Pirates: the Next Generation
Posted by Ben Barrack
At the turn of the 19th century, American ships in the Mediterranean were under constant threat of piracy from four Islamic states in Northern Africa. As president, Thomas Jefferson refused to be intimdated and sent naval squadrons in response to one of those states – Tripoli – which declared war on the United States for not paying tribute (extortion) in order to prevent theft of our merchant vessels or enslavement of their crews.

At the time, a primary concern of the United States was the potential alliance between the other Barbary states and Tripoli if we engaged the latter in battle. Nonetheless, Jefferson was determined not to give the descendants of the Ottoman Empire’s proxy in the region, Barbarossa, what they wanted. Not all that dissimilar from the concern then is the worry today that America’s actions abroad – and now, apparently at home too – could enflame the entire Muslim world.

Barbarossa, his descendant “Barbary Pirates,” and the Muslim Brotherhood of today all share a common thread; they each fought for the Ottoman Empire, which was dismantled in 1924, after World War I. The difference is that the first two fought to support an existent Ottoman Empire while the Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1928 – and operates in the United States today – to restore it.

In 1786, Jefferson wrote the following about the Barbary states:

“The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some…of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both.”

Our second president’s words portended one of the problems we face as a nation today. America’s enemies have reached our shores in the form of countless Islamic groups belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood. While claiming to be defenders of the civil rights and other causes of Muslims, these groups have shown to be more interested in suppressing the rights of non-Muslim Americans.

During an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf let his mask slip a bit when he implied that if his mosque wasn’t built near Ground Zero, America would be under threat by radicals. The subsequent stench was that of extortion:

“The concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. If we do move (the mosque), it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, ability to recruit and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.”

Though stealthier than his ideological ancestors on the Barbary coast, the Imam’s tactics are similar, and much more sophisticated. He is trying to convince Americans that his mosque must be built for our own good and safety. It is 21st century tribute in a virtual age. He wants us to view him as our protector from an enemy we refuse to identify. This is the tactic of hostage-takers. It is what gives birth to Stockholm Syndrome in hostages who seek refuge in their captors for fear of the alternative. Rauf enunciated that perfectly, if not intentionally.

In an Egyptian radio interview from February of 2010, Rauf told the audience how to best deal with Christians and Jews:

“…deal with them as one courts a pretty girl he wants to date; stop thinking like a typical Muslim. Then you can engage.”

In part, unbeknownst to him, Jefferson warned his countrymen that a land force of Barbary pirates would endanger our liberties and lead to bloodshed two centuries hence. The next generation of Barbary pirates has made it to our shores – and thrived – by exchanging the sword for charm. They have fooled a significant cross-section of Americans into welcoming them with open arms.

From the grave, Jefferson may be handing the baton to those not fooled.

Ben Barrack is a talk show host on KTEM 1400 in Texas and maintains a website at http://www.benbarrack.com/

Eurabia: A Voice Cries Out in Defense of Europe's Heritage

An interesting article from www.wnponline.org about Islam in Europe. This follows this post about unemployment statistics. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Eurabia: A Voice Cries Out in Defense of Europe's Heritage
With birthrates among traditional Europeans in decline while population growth in Europe's Muslim communities soar, one European voice asks whether Europe wants to preserve its cultural and religious identity.
by Paul Kieffer
Members of Western democratic parliaments are known to voice concerns on issues beyond their own national borders. Topics like human rights, poverty, AIDS in the developing world and other issues sometimes echo from the halls of Congress, the British Parliament, Germany's Bundestag and elsewhere.

Perhaps the most memorable example of a member of parliament (MP) speaking out on a perceived danger abroad was British MP Winston Churchill during the 1930s. On numerous occasions Churchill warned his country of the danger it faced from the ascent of German dictator Adolf Hitler. Accused of "scaremongering," Churchill did not relent. When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned as a hero from his 1938 meeting in Munich with Hitler, proclaiming "peace in our time," Churchill predicted a future "day of reckoning."

The rest of the story is history.

For the last six years a Western European politician has made it his mission in life to warn his own countrymen—and anyone else in Europe who will listen—about a threat staring Europe in the face within its own continental borders. The threat he perceives is the demise of Europe's traditional cultural and religious identity as a result of the gradual Islamization of Europe.

Who is he? He is Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament and a vocal opponent of "Eurabia."

Who is Geert Wilders?
Some readers of World News and Prophecy may not recognize Geert Wilders' name. After all, the Netherlands is not one of the world's larger countries and most people—even in Europe—do not follow the Dutch domestic political scene closely. Wilders is 47 years old and was born in the city of Venlo on the Dutch-German border. He was raised a Roman Catholic but left the church upon reaching adulthood. Despite leaving the Catholic Church, Wilders supports what he calls "Judeo-Christian values."

After completing his education, Wilders traveled to the Middle East, where he lived in Israel for a time and also visited some of the neighboring Arab countries. The impressions he took home from those visits have shaped his personal assessment of Islam, which he says is similar to the viewpoint of none other than Winston Churchill. Churchill, as a young man, served as a soldier and war correspondent in the late 1890s in British India (in what is today Pakistan) and the Sudan.

Churchill summed up his perception of Islam's effects on its adherents: "The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist...Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities—but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it."

And Churchill concluded: "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world" (The River War, 1899).

At the beginning of his political career, Wilders worked as a speechwriter for the conservative-liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). He moved to Utrecht in 1996 and was elected to the city council and in 2002 to the lower house of the Dutch parliament.

Wilders had problems with his party's position on admitting Turkey as a member of the European Union, leading him to form his own party in 2004, now called the Party for Freedom (PVV). EU membership for Turkey would eventually mean more Muslims living elsewhere in Europe, although Wilders already sees Europe's cultural and religious heritage threatened by the current Muslim population of Europe. Wilders points out that 100 years ago there were fewer than 100 Muslims living in the Netherlands, compared to nearly 1 million today out of a total population of some 16 million.

Wilders pulls no punches about his desire to see limits placed on the influence of Islam in the Netherlands and Europe. He is against the use of any language but Dutch in mosques located in the Netherlands. He also opposes the construction of new mosques in his country.

Speaking in the Dutch parliament, he once said that the Koran should be banned in the Netherlands, adding that if Islam's holy book were to be stripped of passages proclaiming violence, it would be reduced to the size of a comic book.

With this opinion, Wilders is on the same page as Pope Benedict XVI. In a speech given in Regensburg in September 2006, Benedict quoted a medieval Christian emperor who equated Islam with violence: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Accused of being a racist, Wilders counters by saying that he does not hate Muslims. Instead, he just hates Islam. On his own blog, Wilders summarizes that viewpoint: "The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model."

Growing popularity and power
Geert Wilders is typically characterized by the mainstream media as being a right-wing populist, an anti-Islam agitator or xenophobic. And yet twice in annual public opinion surveys he was rated the second-most-popular politician in the Netherlands. In order to remain independent, his PVV refuses to accept a government subsidy available during election campaigns (all other Dutch parties accept the government subsidy).

In June's parliamentary elections, Geert Wilders' party, the PVV, won 24 of the 150 seats in the lower house, a remarkable increase over its previous result of nine seats in 2006. Wilders has agreed to support a minority coalition government formed by two other conservative parties, which will give him considerable leverage in the new government.

Wilders has had to pay a price for his stance on Islam, however. He has received numerous death threats and has been constantly accompanied by six bodyguards since a letter threatening his death was found in the apartment of the Islamic fanatic who assassinated Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in broad daylight on a street in Amsterdam in November 2004. His bodyguards "stand outside the door when I go to the bathroom," he once said.

Wilders never sleeps two nights in a row in the same location. Because of these security restrictions, he is able to see his wife only once every two weeks. Wilders has described his life as "essentially living in a prison."

Muslim population growth in Europe
Wilders sees the increasing Muslim population in Europe as one of the most serious threats to the preservation of Europe's traditional cultural and religious heritage. It comes as no surprise that he opposes continued immigration from Islamic countries and Turkey's bid for full EU membership, which would eventually open Europe's gates to unrestricted Turkish immigration.

Muslims currently account for about 5 percent of the European Union's population. If Turkey's bid for EU membership is successful, on the day Turkey becomes a member the percentage of Muslims living in the EU will increase to 20 percent. But current population numbers are only part of the story. Turkey would also soon be the EU's largest country. Based on current population trends, Turkey will surpass Germany's 82 million inhabitants by the year 2020 and may have as many as 100 million people by the year 2050.

However, even if Turkey does not become a full member of the European Union, the percentage of Muslims living in Europe will double within 15 years. Europe's Islamic community is experiencing a population explosion. At the same time, the traditional non-Muslim population of Europe will decline by an estimated 3.5 percent. Europe's traditional non-Islamic population is slowly but surely dying out.

Germany's birthrate is a prime example of the population decline among Europe's traditional nationalities. Statistically each woman in Germany currently has 1.36 live births during her childbearing years, far below the 2.1 average considered necessary to maintain a country's population. Given current trends, the research by the private Institute for Population and Development in Berlin indicates that the number of children born in Germany will drop 50 percent by the year 2050.

The declining birthrate is most acute in the former East Germany, where the average birthrate since the unification of Germany in 1990 is 0.77 live births. Reiner Klingholz, the director of the private Berlin Institute for Population and Development, summarized the situation with some humor: "With the Vatican as the exception, that's the lowest birthrate anywhere in the world."

If this situation continues unhindered, it is only a matter of time before the Islamic community in Europe becomes a sizable minority and even a majority of Europe's total population. In 2005, for example, there were more children of Islamic parentage born in France than people of a traditional French background.

Although not directly related to Europe's declining birthrate, it is also interesting to note that the number of Europeans who profess to be Christians has declined noticeably in the last 100 years. In 1900 approximately 95 percent of Europeans were members of the Christian faith. At the beginning of the 21st century that percentage had dropped to 75 percent, with a sharp increase in the decline just in the last 25 years.

For example, since 1980 the population segment that identifies itself as Christian in Belgium declined by 20 percent; in the Netherlands, by 18 percent; and in France, by 16 percent. Today's Europe is also the only continent witnessing a decline in the number of Catholics. The annual number of infant baptisms in the Philippines is now more than the combined annual total for France, Italy, Poland and Spain.

If the present trends continue, Europe will slowly become what Geert Wilders calls "Eurabia"—a continent whose traditional heritage becomes drowned out by a fast-growing Muslim community—now a minority, but possibly a majority of Europe's population in the future.

Europe's religious future
Bible prophecy shows that Europe's traditional religious heritage will wield considerable influence in the future, but in a way not imagined by Dutch MP Geert Wilders. The book of Revelation contains a prophecy about 10 kings who collectively form a "beast" that Jesus Christ will conquer and destroy upon His return to the earth.

We read about them in Revelation 17:12-14: "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast... These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them" (emphasis added).

Those 10 horns are part of a "beast" described in verse 3 as having "seven heads and ten horns," with the 10 horns—the final 10 kings who will fight against Christ—apparently representing one of the seven heads. Each of the seven heads is a "mountain"—biblical symbolism for a kingdom or empire—with its king (verses 9-10). Verse 10 clarifies that the heads appear in chronological sequence, and the final "head," or king (verse 10), will appear as the 10 kings symbolized by 10 horns (verse 12).

This sequence of rulers is dominated by a religious system called "Babylon the Great" that emanates from "the great harlot [city] who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication" (Revelation 17:1-2). The true Church of God is pictured in the Bible as a chaste bride waiting to be married to Christ. The harlot of Revelation 17 is a deceptive religious system masquerading as a true system of worship.

As the modern heir of ancient Babylon's mystery religion, the city of Rome is described as "drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (Revelation 17:6). It is a historical fact that Rome, more than any other city, under the influence of a great religious system, has orchestrated the persecution and martyrdom of "those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (Revelation 14:12). Even early church writers recognized the connection between Babylon and Rome by interpreting Peter's use of the word "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13 to mean the city of Rome.

Pictured as a harlot sitting astride the "beast" of which she is the cultural and spiritual center, this infamous city has exerted a vast influence over the earth's "peoples, multitudes, nations and languages" (Revelation 17:15, New International Version). For a while she has enjoyed the status and fame of being the city that "reigns over the kings of the earth" (verse 18).

In other words, it appears that the composite "beast" of Revelation 17 is the so-called Holy Roman Empire—the resurrected Roman Empire dominated by the modern descendant of the ancient Babylonian mystery religion. The final resurrection of that empire will not be influenced by Islam, but by the same religious system that has dominated it since A.D. 554.

Geert Wilders and Europe's future
While no one can predict what course Geert Wilders' political future may take, it is interesting that his position on Muslim population growth in Europe is consistent with Bible prophecy. Islam has never been the religion of the Holy Roman Empire, nor will it be in the future. Since the "great harlot" of Revelation 17 is pictured as continually being the dominant influence on the "beast" system, the Islamic minority in Europe apparently will not grow to such an extent that it will prevent the traditional religious system of the Holy Roman Empire from exerting its influence in the end-time "beast" power.

With the fast-growing Islamic minority in Europe, what are the implications for Europe's future vis-à-vis the Islamic community and Islamic immigration? There would appear to be several possibilities—all of which could be listed as action points for Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom. They include the following:

• Immigration from non-EU, Islamic countries may be restricted at some point in the future.

• Residency for some—perhaps a majority—of non-EU Islamic people living in Europe may be revoked at some point in the future.

In the current liberal atmosphere in Europe, restricting immigration for people of the Islamic faith, or even deporting some of those who are already here, seems unlikely. However, the violent reaction in the Netherlands to the murder in broad daylight of Dutch movie producer Theo van Gogh by a Moroccan in November 2004 shows what can happen in a tense confrontation. Any restrictions placed on immigration from Islamic countries would certainly strain relations between the European Union and the Islamic world.

Meanwhile, Geert Wilders continues his efforts to preserve Europe's heritage from Islamic influence. In July Wilders announced an international "freedom alliance" to spread his anti-Islam message across the West.

He told the Associated Press in an interview that he will launch the international movement later this year, initially in five countries: the United States, Canada, Britain, France and Germany. This "is not just a Dutch problem...it is a problem for the entire free West," he said. Wilders has been invited to speak in Berlin on Oct. 2, 2010, to launch his movement in Germany. It is the first invitation he has received to speak in Germany since he founded his Party for Freedom, and Wilders plans to give his presentation in German.

With his effort to defend Europe's traditional heritage against growing Islamic influence, Geert Wilders is a man to watch. He would be surprised to learn what kind of resurgence of traditional religious fervor lies in Europe's future.

Despite the current demographic trends in Europe, Bible prophecy indicates that the dominant religious influence on the final resurrection of the Roman Empire will not be Islam. Instead, it will be the same one that has existed for centuries in previous revivals of the Holy Roman Empire—that of "Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and of the abominations of the earth" (Revelation 17:5).

With the Muslim population explosion in Europe, the final configuration of that last resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire may occur sooner than some people think, while Europeans of a traditional heritage are still the obvious majority in Europe. WNP

Tea Party Triumphs: American Patriots Are Stirring

Tea Party Triumphs: The White Giant Is Stirring

By Peter Brimelow

It's hard not to laugh out loud while watching the ruling class's extraordinary temper tantrum over the nomination victories of so many Tea Party candidates on Tuesday night, above all that of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. Karl Rove, who for some reason is now employed as a political commentator, complained she's said "nutty" things and can't be elected—this is the Karl Rove who abandoned the Reagan coalition and navigated the GOP to utter disaster? What more do O'Donnell, and many disgruntled donors around the country, need?

At VDARE.COM, we've long been interested in late Reagan aide Lynn Nofziger's argument that the arrogant refusal of both party Establishments to reduce immigration could well spark a successful Third Party. It now looks like the Tea Partiers, with their very conscious contempt for the GOP leadership, are emerging as a sort of Third Party within the Second Party. (In Colorado, of course, Tom Tancredo has circumvented the local GOP Establishment with an actual Third Party bid).

Generally Tea Partiers say little about immigration and National Question issues, although their activists are reported to be enthusiastic and O'Donnell advocates employer sanctions for hiring illegals and English as the official language. But it's obvious to everyone that the movement is overwhelmingly white. The Daily Beast's Will Bunch, noticing this, attributes it to

"sweeping cultural anxiety in predominantly white, middle-class sectors of the nation about social change—the gradual march of America moving toward a non-white majority by the mid-21st century, which was so abruptly punctuated for many by the sudden arrival of a non-white president in 2008."

The Tea Party's True Power, September 13, 2010

Bunch seems to think this is a bad thing. Our take: it's a good, entirely legitimate, thing. Whites—who until the 1965 immigration disaster were called "Americans"—have interests too. They are entitled to defend them and, as immigration policy drives them into a minority, they will have to. Get used to it.

As Jim Antle argued in the London Guardian

"The conventional wisdom is that the Tea Party movement has foisted upon the Republican party a group of ideological nominees who cannot win in November. This narrative is convenient but, for the most part, false…"

Christine O'Donnell: a Tea Party too far, September 15 2010,

I agree, for reasons I outlined after the GOP Establishment blew NY-23 last year: After NY-23: Goldwater, Reagan, And The Mirage Of "Moderation", Nov 4 2009. That conventional wisdom holds that political opinion in the US is distributed in a Bell Curve, with most people in the "moderate" center. But it's actually more like a wedge, with the thick end, almost a half, identifying as "conservatives" and the thin end, barely a fifth and mostly minorities of one sort of another, identifying as liberals.

To put it another way, VDARE.COM has long argued that simple arithmetic indicates the GOP should focus, not on outreach to unappeasable minorities, but on what we call "The Sailer Strategy"—"inreach" to its white base, still the giant demographic actor in American politics.

With the Tea Party triumphs, it is clear that—blindly, confusedly, painfully, goaded by demographic and cultural insult—the white giant is stirring.

Peter Brimelow (email him) is editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denounced Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster,
(Random House - 1995) and The Worm in the Apple (HarperCollins - 2003)