Monday, August 30, 2010

"Moderate Muslims" threaten to turn "radical" if they get angry

A very interesting post from www.jihadwatch.org about so-called "Moderate" Muslims. This follows this post analyzing the Muslim who was attacked in 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.

"Moderate Muslims" threaten to turn "radical" if they get angry
A very revealing AP puff piece on the horrors that "moderate" Muslims are supposedly experiencing in America today. "NYC mosque debate will shape American Islam," by Rachel Zoll for AP, August 29 (thanks to all who sent this in):

NEW YORK - Adnan Zulfiqar, a graduate student, former U.S. Senate aide and American-born son of Pakistani immigrants, will soon give the first khutbah, or sermon, of the fall semester at the University of Pennsylvania. His topic has presented itself in the daily headlines and blog posts over the disputed mosque near ground zero.
What else could he choose, he says, after a summer remembered not for its reasoned debate, but for epithets, smears, even violence?


And whose fault is that, exactly? Mosque supporters have consistently smeared mosque opponents as racists, bigots, hatemongers, "Islamophobes" -- the usual array of charges levied at those who are leading the fight to raise awareness of the jihad and Islamic supremacism, but it was a new thing to see these charges levied promiscuously at the 70% of Americans who oppose the mosque.

As he writes, Zulfiqar frets over the potential fallout and what he and other Muslim leaders can do about it. Will young Muslims conclude they are second-class citizens in the U.S. now and always?
No one, of course, is saying the Muslims are or should be second-class citizens in the U.S. We have raised legitimate questions about the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's support for Sharia and Hamas, and about the symbolism of the Ground Zero mosque as a triumphal mosque. None of this has anything to do with Muslims being second-class citizens. It is simply asking that they accord to non-Muslims the consideration and respect that they demand for themselves. It is asking that they not engage in activity that amounts to sedition, in working to replace the Constitution with a system of laws that would deny basic liberties, and asking law enforcement and government authorities to be cognizant of the nature of Sharia and how it is at variance with those liberties.

"They're already struggling to balance, `I'm American, I'm Muslim,' and their ethnic heritage. It's very disconcerting," said Zulfiqar, 32, who worked for former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat, and now serves Penn's campus ministry. "A controversy like this can make them radical or become more conservative in how they look at things or how they fit into the American picture."...
Threat noted. But why would it do that? Islamic supremacists and Leftists know: no matter how much they lie about the words, deeds, and positions on various questions of mosque opponents, and no matter how much they defame and smear them, those who oppose the mosque are never, never going to strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up at the next hand-wringing meeting about "Islamophobia." In other words, some people, no matter how hard you push them, never become "radicalized." Why is it that adherents of the Religion of Peace who supposedly reject the version of Islam of Al-Qaeda and its ilk as a twisting and hijacking of their peaceful religion might nevertheless adopt that version of Islam as their own if they believe that some people are being mean to them?

Eboo Patel, an American Muslim leader and founder of Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago nonprofit that promotes community service and religious pluralism, said Muslims are unfortunately experiencing what all immigrant groups endured in the U.S. before they were fully accepted as American. Brandeis University historian Jonathan D. Sarna has noted that Jews faced a similar backlash into the 1800s when they tried to build synagogues, which were once banned in New York....
Yes, yes, of course. You may recall from the histories of those days that Jews in New York loudly proclaimed that they were there to take over, and numerous Jews in New York engaged in terror plotting. You remember the Fort Hood jihad shooting, the Arkansas recruiting center jihad shooting, the Christmas underwear bomb jihad attempt, the Times Square jihad car bomb attempt, the Fort Dix jihad plot, the North Carolina jihad plot, the Seattle jihad shooting, the JFK Airport jihad plot, and on and on. No, wait! Those weren't plots by 19th-century Jews in New York, but by 21st-century Muslims all over the U.S.! My mistake!

And no, the point is not that all Muslims in America are responsible for these and other jihad plots. The point is that when the Ground Zero imam and so many other Muslim leaders support Sharia, refuse to condemn Hamas and/or other jihad terror groups, and are manifestly dishonest, it makes the demand that Americans assume that they are different from the Muslims who were responsible for those jihad plots seem like sheer bullying, and a refusal to engage the legitimate concerns that people have about Sharia and the intentions of the Ground Zero mosque organizers.

Patel believes American Muslims are on the same difficult but inevitable path toward integration.
"I'm not saying this is going to be happy," Patel said. "But I'm extremely optimistic."

Yet, the overwhelming feeling is that the controversy has caused widespread damage that will linger for years.


No, all the jihad terror, all the supremacist declarations, all the lies and all the smears have caused widespread damage that will linger for years. And the Muslim advocacy groups behind the lies and smears, such as CAIR, just don't care about that damage -- because they can turn around after causing it and exploit any resulting "backlash" to reinforce their claim to privileged victim status.

American Muslim leaders say the furor has emboldened opposition groups to resist new mosques around the country, at a time when there aren't enough mosques or Islamic schools to serve the community....
Actually there are large mosques being built all over, for Muslim communities that have neither the numbers nor the money to sustain them. And that, too, raises questions that if you dare to ask, you're accused of "Islamophobia."

U.S. Muslims who have championed democracy and religious tolerance question what they've accomplished. If the "extremist" label can be hung on someone as apparently liberal as the imam at the center of the outcry, Feisal Abdul Rauf, then any Muslim could come under attack. Feisal supports women's rights, human rights and interfaith outreach.
Oh, and Hamas.

"The joke is on moderate Muslims," said Muqtedar Khan, a University of Delaware political scientist and author of "American Muslims, Bridging Faith and Freedom." "What's the point if you're going to be treated the same way as a radical? If I get into trouble are they going to treat me like I'm a supporter of al-Qaeda?"...
What's the point? Did he really ask that? How about this for a point: Muslims should not support Al-Qaeda because of human decency. Because of respect for human life. Because of the importance of human rights. Because the "radicals" are perpetrating great evil, murdering innocent people and working for the subjugation of women and non-Muslims, and the extinguishing of the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience. And apparently all that is just fine with Muqtedar Khan, if you make him angry.

That's "moderation"?
Posted by Robert

Documents Show Botched Abortions Hurt Women More Frequently Than Believed

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about botched abortions. This follows this post about the U.K.'s Ladette culture. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Documents Show Botched Abortions Hurt Women More Frequently Than Believed
Columbus, OH (LifeNews.com) -- A pro-life group released new documents today from a former abortion facility staffer showing two women injured medically by botched abortions in Columbus, Ohio in the last two months. The organization says it and other documents show women are injured more frequently than most people understand.

An abortion whistle blower provided documentation to Operation Rescue showing disturbing information about two botched abortions that took place at different abortion businesses in the Ohio state capital in the last month.

"It is our understanding from conversations with our confidential sources in Ohio that abortion patients in Columbus end up in the local emergency rooms with alarming frequency," OR president Troy Newman told LifeNews.com today.

"Our whistleblower says that these two incidents are just the tip of the iceberg. The true number of abortion complications is hidden from the public and it now appears that complications requiring emergency hospitalization have reached epidemic proportions," said Newman.

The pro-life organization is demanding that the Medical Board of Ohio conduct inspections and close the dangerous abortion businesses in Columbus and around the state. Full story at www.LifeNews.com

Seventy percent of Americans know they've been conned

This is a timely post from www.hughhewitt.com about America's views. This follows this post about what you can do now. For more posts like this click here to follow this blog.


Hugh Hewitt: Seventy percent of Americans know they've been conned
By: Hugh Hewitt
Examiner Columnist
August 29, 2010 Minimum estimate of Saturday's crowd on the Mall: 300,000 Maximum estimate: One million people.

Meaning of the crowd: An enormous upheaval in the emotions of average Americans is coursing through the country, with a certain significance for November's elections. It will have a lasting, profound impact on America's political direction.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin provided an occasion to glimpse this undeniable phenomenon. Of course, the interpretations of what the phenomenon is and what its consequences will be will keep the chattering class busy for weeks, if not years.

Some on the left are trying, with increasing desperation, to use old and new media to brand this surge in public participation in politics as sinister, even though it was preceded by a surge from the left of people and energy into President Obama's campaign.

The new tools of communication and the ease of movement have unleashed a tumultuous era of politics driven by the demand that elites not attempt to speak for, or condescend to, average citizens. They will not quietly or passively be lectured to, or insulted by, the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or any anchor on any network, any columnist in any paper, or any blogger on any Web site.

The people on the Mall and the millions more who watched the gathering with satisfaction rather than fear are quite simply sick of the left, and of its vast sneer toward the traditions, values and, yes, faith of the American middle class.

The American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brooks has quite accurately described America as a 70/30 nation, with the 70 percent presently massively underrepresented in the federal government, the Manhattan-Beltway media elite and academia.

The 70 percent is appalled by the placebo economics practiced by the president and the Congress over the past two years, shocked by its profligacy with the wealth of the republic, and sickened by the looting of the next generation's opportunities.

The 70 percent did not want Obamacare, but it has been thrust upon them.

The 70 percent did not want federal judges to declare "game over" in the complex discussion of what marriage is and means.

The 70 percent want a fence on the border that works, and do not want their concern over unregulated immigration dismissed as nativisim.

The 70 percent are not ashamed of their belief in God, deeply resent being labeled bigots because they view ground zero as land that ought not to be exploited for "messaging" of any sort by any group, and are enraged by the scorn which they encounter everywhere in media except Fox News and talk radio.

The 70 percent believe that the federal government is remote and clueless, and that the Constitution's principles of enumerated and limited powers and the sovereignty of the states are vibrant, important core values to the republic.

The 70 percent think Iran is in the grip of an evil, theocratic fascism, and that Israel is our true friend and ally deserving of our full-throated support.

We are in the middle of a perilous economic passage to a new competitiveness across the globe. We are watching other countries across the globe respond to the new demands of competitiveness by shrinking the public sector and encouraging private-sector growth. But American education is crippled by bureaucracy and burdened by the inability of a political class to demand reform of the practices and pensions of the public sector. Children have been hostages of this countrywide collapse of common sense for a generation, despite wave after wave of "reform".

Two years into what had been sold as a new politics and a new approach, the 70 percent are fully aware that they have been conned, suckered, and taken to the cleaners by a hyper-ideological amalgam of leftist public intellectuals, snarling bloggers, career politicians with limited abilities who are often corrupt, and a president wholly inexperienced in the management of complex problems who is in way over his head and prisoner to slogans and schemes that make for great campus debates -- but for disaster in the real world.

The people on the Mall were saying much more than "this far and no farther." They were saying "rewind and restart." They will hold that thought and that purpose as they peacefully, but with great passion and purpose, insist on real change come Nov. 2.

Examiner Columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Seventy-percent-of-Americans-know-they_ve-been-conned-639878-101758743.html#ixzz0y7omLHWd

Take Action to Stop King Obama's Executive Order Amnesty‏

A timely post from http://www.alipac.us/ about Barack Obama's Executive Order Amnesty. This follows this post about violence in Staten Island 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.

Take Action to Stop King Obama's Executive Order Amnesty‏

By now, most of you that are reading our homepage on a regular basis know that President Obama has ordered Amnesty for illegal aliens without a debate or vote from Congress.

This is the action of a king or despot, not a president and since Obama is not a king, we know what that makes him.

He has ordered the Border Patrol to back away from the border in some areas and in other areas they are either not stopping illegals or catching them and releasing them. Fines against employers are a trickle and slaps on the wrist while all raids have been halted.

Now, tens of thousands of illegal aliens are having their cases dismissed before their deportation hearings.

This is why ALIPAC has shaped our 2010 candidate survey to look for congressional candidates that are going to stand up to Obama and use the full power of the Congress if necessary to stop his Amnesty and save American jobs, wages, security, rights, and lives from illegal immigration.

Read
Feds moving to dismiss some deportation cases
http://www.alipac.us/article-5603-thread-1-0.html

Today ALIPAC is putting out a national press release to endorse Texas Republican Congressmen Ted Poe and John Carter for their strong stances on these issues.

We want to give special thanks to Congressman John Carter for this press release calling on members of Congress to stop Obama's illegal and unconstitutional Amnesty.

Congress Must Halt Unconstitutional Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
http://www.alipac.us/article-5612-thread-1-0.html

PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO HELP STOP OBAMA!

STEP 1:
Pleased call Congressman Carter's offices and thank him for calling on Congress to unify against Obama's "royal amnesty decree." Sample message "I'm calling/writing to thank Congressman Carter for calling on Congress to unify and stop Obama's unlawful and unconstitutional Amnesty decree. I am contacting my members of Congress to ask them to follow Representative Carter's lead on this matter."

Washington, D.C. Office (202) 225-3864
Round Rock District Office (512) 246-1600
Bell County Office (254) 933-1392
Or http://carter.house.gov/


STEP 2:
Please read, understand, and help circulate ALIPAC's important press release today. The message in this release is designed to help influence the actions of Congress and the national debate. Use these messages carefully and wisely. Send copies to your members of Congress and favorite media personalities.

ALIPAC Endorses Congressmen Ted Poe and John Carter of Texas
http://www.alipac.us/article5614.html

STEP 3:Contact both of your US Senators for your state and your member of Congress by phone. Craft your own polite yet firm distinct message. Remember that creating your own message and calling it in and following it up in writing is the most effective way to influence a member of Congress short of face to face meetings.

Sample Message: "I am calling/writing to ask Senator/Congressman/Congresswoman _______ to follow Texas Congressman John Carter's call for Congress to unify to stop the unlawful and unconstitutional Amnesty for illegal aliens that is being ordered by President Obama. Obama is making a mockery of our Congress and how are We The People to have a say in our nation if the president is allowed to defy the Constitution and federal law? Please work with Congressman Carter to stop Obama from abusing his power and granting Amnesty for illegal aliens without public or Congressional approval."

Here is the contact info you need for your calls and then follow-up messages sent by website page, fax, or letter.

ALIPAC's Congressional Contact Info
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-63874.html


This is our moment to shine ALIPAC! Obama has really overstepped is bounds and it is time for us to rally Congress and the public against his despotism.

The ALIPAC Team
www.alipac.us

Risk of Nuclear Attack Still Growing

An interesting article from www.wnponline.org about nuclear war. This follows this post about the return of Jesus Christ. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Risk of Nuclear Attack Still Growing
The United States and Russia have agreed to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads by nearly a third. Efforts are underway to rein in the spread of nuclear materials, but the threat of nuclear weapons is still growing.
by Rod Hall
With the recent signing of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) the two nuclear giants continue to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear warheads deployed on hair-trigger alert. The new 10-year agreement calls for each nation to reduce deployed warheads from the current ceiling of 2,200 to 1,550 within seven years after ratification by Russia's legislature (Duma) and the U.S. Senate. It replaces the 1991 START I agreement. Delivery vehicles such as missiles, bombers and submarines are to be cut from 1,600 to 800. The treaty does not appear to cut the stored stockpiles not deployed that are more than three times larger.

Reducing stockpiles
According to the Federation of American Scientists over the past 25 years the world's stockpiles of nuclear warheads have been reduced from a cold war high of over 65,000 in 1986 to 22,300 ("Status of World Nuclear Forces," www.fas.org, April 6, 2010). Nuclear expert Michael Krepon, former adviser to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, writes in The Washington Post of both decreasing and increasing threats. "While the threat of short- and medium-range missile attacks on our allies and forward-deployed troops is growing, the danger of transoceanic missile attacks on U.S. soil has decreased markedly...Overall, the long-range missile threat to the United States has decreased by two-thirds over the past two decades...Still, there are far too many missiles in U.S. and Russian arsenals on hair-trigger alert." ("5 Myths About All Those Nukes Out There," March 1, 2009).

Analyzing current threats
The threat of nuclear annihilation is still very much with us. In their book Global Catastrophic Risk, Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic analyze the risks and picture the devastation nuclear weapons can bring. "In an all-out war involving most of the weapons in the current US and Russian arsenals, 35-77 percent of the US population (105-230 million people) and 20-40 percent of the Russian population (28-56 million people) would be killed. Delayed and indirect effects—such as economic collapse and a possible nuclear winter—could make the final death toll far greater" (2008, p. 21).

What are the chances your life will be cut short due to nuclear war? "At least 10 percent..." says Stanford University Professor Martin Hellman. The odds are "thousands of times greater than the risk you would bear if a nuclear power plant were built right next to your home" ("Chance of Nuclear War Is Greater Than You Think: Stanford Engineer Makes Risk Analysis," www.physorg.com , July 20, 2009).

Efforts to rein in nuclear materials
Recognizing the growing danger, U.S. President Barak Obama called for a world free of nuclear weapons in a speech in Prague last year. He also stated "the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up" (The Washington Post, April 11, 2010).

The United States hosted a 47-nation Nuclear Security Summit, the largest such gathering in the United States since 1945. It was convened to stop terrorists from getting nuclear material. It called for the safeguarding of all "vulnerable nuclear material" within four years and steps to stamp out nuclear smuggling.

The United Nations also sponsored the five-year review of the 42-year-old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the world's bedrock agreement designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.

Most of the world community (187 countries) has signed the NPT agreement. It recognizes the first five nuclear powers (the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain) and commits them to work toward nuclear disarmament. It allows all other countries, in compliance with treaty obligations, to pursue civilian nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.

The UN's month-long May NPT conference pushed a highly ambitious plan that "reaffirms the unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals" (Associated Press, "At UN, Deadline Aired for Abolishing Nuke Weapons," May 14, 2010).

But none of the five nuclear powers recognized under the treaty have ever endorsed a specific timetable for this to be accomplished. And Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are not signatories of the NPT and would be unaffected by any final plan.

Is it too late to rein in nuclear proliferation? The more nations that get the bomb, the harder it will be to prevent further proliferation. As technology and know-how become more widespread, technical barriers are lowered. And once neighboring nations start down the nuclear path, surrounding nations may feel obligated to join them.

The recently issued U.S. "Nuclear Posture Review" includes significant changes hoped to encourage NPT compliance. It pledges that if attacked with biological or chemical weapons by a state in compliance with NPT, the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

The United States also pledges to not develop new nuclear warheads or replace any aging nuclear components, emphasizing refurbishing instead. Exceptions must be authorized by the president.

But critics worry that the changes may encourage use of other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and weaken deterrents offered by the nuclear umbrella that has kept America and its allies secure for the past half-century.

Nuclear terrorism
President Obama identifies nuclear terrorism as "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security." His deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, explained: "We know that terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, are pursuing the materials to build a nuclear weapon and we know that they have the intent to use one" ("US: al-Qaida Exemplifies New-Age Nuclear Threat," Associated Press, April 9, 2010).

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described in stark terms the impact that even a small bomb would have. "A 10-kiloton nuclear bomb detonated in Times Square in New York City would kill a million people.

"Many more would suffer from the hemorrhaging and weakness that comes from radiation sickness," she added. "Beyond the human cost, a nuclear terrorist attack would also touch off a tsunami of social and economic consequences across our country" (ibid.).

Her illustration uses a bomb about half the size of the one dropped by the United States on Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Terrorists are likely to use a similar bomb. They could also use less-developed radioactive materials in a variety of ways.

Terrorists could attack a nuclear reactor, steal nuclear fuel or waste; acquire fissile material and build a crude nuclear bomb (improvised nuclear device), disperse radioactive material with conventional explosives (dirty bomb), fabricate a nuclear bomb, trick a nuclear state into launching a nuclear weapon or acquire a ready-made nuclear weapon, small enough to fit inside a suitcase.

In spite of these growing concerns, a commission created by the U.S. Congress recently issued a "report card" on America's preparedness and gave it an "F" in some areas.

The report concludes the "U.S. government is not taking the necessary steps to protect the country from the threats posed by WMD and terrorism… There is direct evidence that terrorists are trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction...and the opportunity to acquire and use such weapons is growing exponentially because of the global proliferation of nuclear material and biological technologies" (World at Risk, www.preventwmd.gov, 2008).

The report warns unless nations act "decisively and urgently," it is more likely than not a WMD will be used in a terrorist attack by the end of 2013.

Growing nuclear stockpiles
In addition to nuclear materials used in bombs, there is a growing nuclear stockpile scattered about the globe in nuclear reactors, research facilities and military installations that may be vulnerable to attack or theft. This makes securing nuclear material more urgent and more difficult.

For example, according to the European Nuclear Society, 30 countries have 437 nuclear power plants, and 15 countries have 55 plants under construction ("Nuclear Power Plants, World-wide," April 2010). Another 40 countries, some in unstable regions, have also recently expressed interest in acquiring nuclear power.

And the amount of nuclear material needed for a devastating bomb is relatively small. The Washington Post reports, "Just 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium—about the size of a grapefruit—is needed to make a small nuclear device. There are an estimated 3.5 million pounds of the material in 40 countries and 1.1 million pounds of plutonium."

There is enough "'weapons-usable nuclear material' in the world to build more than 120,000 nuclear bombs" ("Obama Leads Summit Effort to Secure Nuclear Materials," April 11, 2010). The nuclear threat is also growing in specific regions like India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and Israel.

India and Pakistan
The escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan for more than a decade has spawned a nuclear rivalry. Pakistan is building two additional plutonium production reactors. At least one Pakistani scientist has confessed to smuggling nuclear weapons technology to other nations.

India has a superior conventional force, and there is growing concern that if pressed by an overwhelming conventional attack, Pakistan might use its nuclear weapons. According to the Federation of American Scientists both countries are estimated to have 60 to 90 nuclear weapons, and they continue to develop more (ibid.). Neither country has signed the NPT agreement.

North Korea
North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and has since successfully tested two nuclear weapons.

Times Online reports that North Korea is a "fully fledged nuclear power," an opinion shared by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). North Korea is capable of striking cities in neighboring countries and has threatened the United States and its allies ("North Korea Is Fully Fledged Nuclear Power, Experts Agree," April 24, 2009).

And North Korea is believed to have sold nuclear and missile technology to Iran, Pakistan and other nations.

Iran and Israel
The IAEA recently concluded that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons capability in defiance of IAEA and Western powers. The United States is leading a diplomatic push for a fourth round of UN sanctions against Iran. But past sanctions have not deterred Iranian efforts.

Iran was known to have five primary nuclear facilities until last September when a sixth facility was uncovered. It was being constructed secretly in defiance of the UN and IAEA inside a mountain near Qum. Iran has since announced plans to build 10 more.

Iran continues its efforts to enrich uranium to higher levels. The Iranians recently achieved the 20 percent level needed to produce nuclear fuel rods for research reactors.

According to the Long War Journal, Iran's stockpile of low enriched uranium (LEU) is "just over two tons, enough for two nuclear bombs if the uranium is enriched to 90%" ("Iran Actively Pursuing Nuclear Weapons Capability: IAEA," Feb. 19, 2010). Other experts indicate the additional enriching necessary to reach 90 percent is relatively small.

Many Arab countries worry about the unprecedented leverage a nuclear-armed Iran would have. With the dramatic altering of the balance of power in the Middle East, some may feel forced to respond with a program of their own.

Concern is nowhere more pointed than in Israel, which sees Iran's program as a direct threat to its existence. Israel has repeatedly threatened use of force if necessary to stop the Iranian efforts. Disrupting Iran's nuclear program will require more of a sustained campaign than the overnight air strike Israel launched on the Syrian nuclear site in September 2007. But even a successful campaign would likely only set the Iranian program back a few years.

If a strike occurs, the Iranians may retaliate either by striking Israel directly or through their proxies, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. And they may even order terror attacks on Western targets.

The Federation of American Scientists believes Israel is currently the only Middle Eastern country with a nuclear arsenal and calculates it has 80 weapons (ibid.).

"A nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would be devastating," says Anthony Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment for the U.S. secretary of defense. Israel "could conceivably survive a nuclear exchange while losing 200,000 to 800,000 citizens within 21 days, but Iran would face 16 to 28 million dead in the same time frame and no longer survive as an organized society" (United Press International, Nov. 22, 2007).

Prophecy and WMDs
Despite the global reduction of nuclear warheads, a growing dangerous nuclear threat explodes around the globe. We cannot know for sure when nuclear devices may be used. But they have been used in the past, and the figurative language of Bible prophecy in Revelation 9:13-19 appears to indicate a future global conflagration with staggering casualties (one third of the world's population) made possible only by today's arsenals of WMDs.

Jesus Christ personally warned that a time of trouble like no other is destined to push our world to the edge of human extinction (Matthew 24:22). Have you thought about what Christ said in Luke 21:36 and considered exploring its implications?

In a world seemingly out of control, it is time to understand why you are alive in the first place and what God has planned for you and the whole world. Learn about end-time events and God's plan to intervene to save us from self-destruction in Are We Living in the Time of the End?

Explore what the Bible says about your personal future in our booklets What Is Your Destiny? and Transforming Your Life: The Process of Conversion. WNP

Friday, August 27, 2010

Liberal activist botches "hate" crime – "anti-bigotry" activist stabs Muslim cab driver

Liberal activist botches “hate” crime – “anti-bigotry” activist stabs Muslim cab driver

A very interesting post from www.thepoliticalcesspool.org analyzing the Muslim who was attacked in New York. This follows this post about Barack Obama spending money on mosques 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.

Liberal activist botches “hate” crime – “anti-bigotry” activist stabs Muslim cab driver

Well, well, well…looks like one of the left wingers has been caught in the act. By now we’re all used to a nationwide “hate crime” hysteria that lasts for weeks after a swastika or noose is found, and then dies down immediately after it’s discovered that “the victim” was the perpetrator. This time, though, it looks like a left-winger decided to go beyond mere vandalism and actually physically assault a person, in hopes of it being blamed on “racists” and “haters”, (i.e., white people) but he got caught.

Police arrested Michael Enright on Tuesday night on charges including attempted murder as a hate crime. He was expected to appear in court in Manhattan later Wednesday.

Police say the 21-year-old suspect from Brewster, N.Y., was drunk when he hailed the cab on Manhattan’s East Side.

———-

Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, a yellow taxi cab driver slashed across the neck, face and shoulders by a passenger during an anti-Muslim hate crime will stand with fellow New York Taxi Workers Alliance members, and community, immigrant and Muslim organizations to call for an end to the bigotry and anti-Islamic rhetoric in the debate around the Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center, referred to as the Ground Zero Mosque. “I feel very sad. I have been here more than 25 years. I have been driving a taxi more than 15 years. All my four kids were born here. I never feel this hopeless and insecure before,” said Mr. Sharif. “Right now, the public sentiment is very serious (because of the Ground Zero Mosque debate.) All drivers should be more careful.”

On Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 Mr. Sharif picked up the perpetrator at 24th Street and Second Avenue, his first fare for the shift, and headed toward Times Square. The man, 21, started out friendly, asking Mr. Sharif about where he was from, how long he had been in America, if he was Muslim and if he was observing fast during Ramadan. He then first became silent for a few minutes and then suddenly started cursing and screaming. There, at about 6:15pm at Third Avenue between 40th and 41st Streets, he yelled, “Assalamu Alaikum. Consider this a checkpoint,” and then slashed Mr. Sharif across the neck. As Mr. Sharif went to knock the knife out, the perpetrator, continuing to scream loudly, cut the taxi driver in the face (from nose to upper lip), arm and hand.

“While a minority of has-been politicians spew ignorance and fear, it’s the working person on the street who has to face the consequences,” said NYTWA Executive Director Bhairavi Desai. “This kind of bigotry only breeds more violence and makes taxi drivers all the more vulnerable on the streets where there are no bully pulpits or podiums to hide behind.” The US Department of Labor reports taxi drivers to be thirty times more likely to be killed on the job than other workers.

Yes, it was a crime perfectly suited to stir up fears about “bigotry.” In fact, it looks like that was the plan from the beginning, as the man arrested for the attack is an “anti-bigotry” activist who strongly supports the Ground Zero Mosque:

Here’s where it gets strange: Michael Enright of Brewster, New York, who was booked on charges of attempted murder and assault with a weapon as a hate crime, is listed on Facebook as an employee of the New York City-based Intersections International, a New York-based “global initiative dedicated to promoting justice, reconciliation and peace across lines of faith, culture, ideology, race, class, national borders and other boundaries that divide humanity.” And a few weeks ago, they announced their support for — you guessed it — the Cordoba House, better known to many as the “Ground Zero Mosque.”

———-
Intersections International is a New York-based global initiative dedicated to promoting justice, reconciliation and peace across lines of faith, culture, ideology, race, class, national borders and other boundaries that divide humanity. Founded in 2007, Intersections is a permanent multi-faith, multi-cultural effort of the Collegiate Churches of New York, the oldest corporation in North America, dating back to 1628.

Using arts immersion, social marketing, intentional dialogue and other innovative methods, Intersections’ work includes projects that promote pluralism in emerging democracies, eradicate ignorance regarding Islam, nurture global peacemakers, dismantle systemic discrimination against the LGBT community and initiate conversation among disparate groups to develop new ways of problem solving for some of society’s most intractable issues. Intersections’ work lies in three programmatic areas: amplifying marginalized voices, interfaith dialogue and cooperation and addressing the consequences of conflict.



———-
A former high school classmate of Enright’s, speaking to TPMMuckraker on background, expressed shock about the crime and spent the morning eliminating electronic footprints that connected the two. “It’s just disgusting, sad, horrific,” he said, adding that, like the group Enright was working with, he supports the Cordoba Project.

Yes, it sure looks like a botched fake “hate crime.” Sounds like the guy wanted to shut down opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque by committing a vicious stabbing and having it blamed on the “climate of hate” fostered by opposition to the mosque. So he had a few drinks to get up the nerve to commit the crime, but apparently had a few too many, and wasn’t able to avoid being caught.

Can you think of a better explanation?

Staten Island Mexicans Gripe about Diverse Muggings

A timely post from www.vdare.com about violence in Staten Island This follows this post about the loss of J.D. Hayworth in Arizona 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.


Staten Island Mexicans Gripe about Diverse Muggings
[Brenda Walker]
In the New York borough of Staten Island, Mexicans residing there now complain about attacks by black assailants, who must not have received the memo that diversity is our strength.
Interestingly, the Associated Press story has a semi-explanatory headline, and the race of the accused perps doesn’t occur until the third paragraph.
A little further along, the reporter states, “the immigration debate plays out in suspicion of outsiders and sometimes escalates into violence” as if there were no real problems caused by the Mexican invasion, which has come rapidly to the area. Mere discussion is assumed to cause the dread xenophobia.

Attacks against Mexicans inflame tensions in NYC, AP, August 16, 2010
When Rodolfo Olmedo was dragged down by a group of men shouting anti-Mexican epithets and bashed over the head with a wooden stick on the street outside his home, he instinctively covered his face to keep from getting disfigured. Blood filled his mouth.
“I wanted to scream, but I couldn’t because of the beating they were giving me,” said the 25-year-old baker. Nearly five months later, he is still taking pain medications for his head injuries.
Recorded by a store’s surveillance camera, the assault was the first of 11 suspected anti-Hispanic bias attacks in a Staten Island neighborhood, re-igniting years-old tensions between blacks and Hispanics in New York City’s most remote borough.
Residents of Port Richmond — where an influx of newcomers from Latin America over the past decade has transformed the community — alternately blame the attacks on the economy, unemployment and the debate over Arizona’s immigration law.
And although most of the suspects were described as young black men and investigated for bias crimes, a grand jury has indicted only one of seven people arrested on a hate-crime charge.
But Isaias Lozano, a day laborer, said he knows why he was attacked and robbed in December by “morenos” — the Spanish word he uses to describe his black neighbors.
“They hate us because we’re Mexicans,” he said while sitting at El Centro del Inmigrante, a center for immigrant day workers. “They aren’t robbing just anybody.”
Across the United States, the immigration debate plays out in suspicion of outsiders and sometimes escalates into violence. Port Richmond, tucked in a corner of New York City that most visitors never see, is wrestling with the perennial question of how people from different backgrounds can live together and get along.
Some community leaders here blame the attacks on hoodlums preying on day laborers, who are perceived as easy targets because they often carry cash home from work. Others say the Arizona law is stirring up a climate of intolerance, even these thousands of miles away.
“It’s a cascading effect,” said the Rev. Terry Troia, a board member of El Centro del Inmigrante. “There are negative impulses being put out there both nationally and locally. People on the fringe catch a piece of that, and they are acting on it.”
Some of Port Richmond’s black residents assert that newcomers’ presence touches a nerve. Mike Mason, 47, a teacher who works in New Jersey, said the arrival of Mexican immigrants had changed the texture of the community.
“America has got to do something as far as immigration goes,” he said. “In the morning you can see the streets lined with undocumented workers … That’s always in the back of people’s minds.”
Staten Island is a relatively isolated, suburban-like borough of New York City. It is home to nearly 500,000 people, most of whom live in detached homes instead of apartments, need cars to get around and a ferry to get across New York Harbor to Manhattan.
Between 2000 and 2008, the number of Hispanics living on the island grew roughly 40 percent, according to Census bureau statistics analyzed by City University of New York’s Latino Data Project, with much of that growth coming from the Mexican community.
Many of those began to coalesce around the Port Richmond neighborhood, which had long been predominantly black and low-income. The neighborhood’s main commercial thoroughfare, once marked by empty storefronts, suddenly came alive with Mexican businesses selling pinatas, bars playing Spanish-language heavy metal, and grocers stocking chilies and tomatillos. The neighborhood developed a new nickname: “Little Mexico.”

Later in the article, some black residents said that bias was not the main impulse for the attacks. Whatever the truth about motive, diversity as an uber-value has come in for a battering on Staten Island.

VDARE.com: Blog Articles — proudly powered by WordPress

Lessons From The Betrayal Of J. D. Hayworth

A timely post from www.vdare.com about the loss of J.D. Hayworth in Arizona. This follows this post about Tuesday's primary 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.

Lessons From The Betrayal Of J. D. Hayworth
By Washington Watcher

A number of immigration patriots won on Tuesday’s primaries—bright spots included the victories of immigration patriots Jesse Kelly over McCain-backed Jonathan Paton in Arizona; Sandy Adams over pro-amnesty establishment favorite Craig Miller in Florida; and Joel Miller over Lisa Murkowski in Alaska.

But there is no getting around the fact that Senator John McCain’s 24 percentage point trouncing of J. D. Hayworth in the Arizona GOP primary is a huge disappointment.

But a close inspection of this race reveals a few silver linings—as well as insights as to how the patriotic immigration reform movement should view the “Conservative Movement” and the Republican Party.

First and foremost, we cannot blame J. D. Hayworth or his campaign for this failure.

J. D. is by no means a perfect candidate. He had some Abramoff issues. He appeared in an infomercial to help people get free money from the government.

Nor did his campaign and record satisfy purist immigration patriots. He made a silly $PLC-like attack on one of McCain’s supporters for appearing on a politically incorrect program. Hayworth’s Congressional record had some serious blemishes when it came to importing foreign workers.

And I’m sure his campaign made many other mistakes as well.

But so what? The fact of the matter is that Hayworth was the only person with enough courage to run. If he was such a bad candidate—which I don’t think he was—then someone else of some greater stature should have stepped up to the plate.

Moreover, whatever Hayworth’s personal or political flaws may be, they pale in comparison to John McCain. The simple fact that J. D. Hayworth was one of the most vocal opponents of illegal immigration during his tenure in Congress, while John McCain was one of the most vocal supporters of amnesty in and of itself, should have been enough for the entire conservative movement and any Republicans who claim to oppose amnesty and hate "RINOs" support him without hesitation.

But virtually no-one came to his aid. The only sitting congressman to endorse J. D. Hayworth was Dana Rohrabacher. Within the state, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and SB 1070 author Sen. Russell Pearce bravely stood by Hayworth. But everyone else stayed out or even endorsed McCain out of fear of retribution.

Outside of patriotic immigration reform organizations such as Team America, and Bill Gheen’s ALIPAC (to whom we give credit when credit is due), and some of the more "fringe" conservative outfits such as Gun Owners of America, no Beltway groups endorsed him.

Mark Levin and Michelle Malkin supported J.D., but few other prominent conservative personalities supported him. This is despite Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. repeatedly stating how important it is for us to support “true” conservatives over liberal Republicans.

Without any major conservative help, the fact that Hayworth raised 3 million dollars was an accomplishment. But that cannot fight McCain’s $20+ million.

Not only did most conservatives fail support Hayworth, many went to bat for John McCain.

The NRA, Arizona Right to Life and, (in an unusual but all-too-typical move), National Review, all endorsed him.

Most effectively for McCain, the two most significant people for the Arizona Republican base, Sarah Palin and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (benefitting, arguably undeservedly, from signing SB 1070) actively campaigned for him.

Nevertheless, despite all these setbacks, Hayworth came within striking distance. On April 16, as the border violence increased and the state debated SB 1070, a Rasmussen Poll found him trailing McCain by just five percentage points.

This was the point at which the conservative movement, and all the other people who used the excuse that Hayworth wasn’t worth supporting because he was destined to lose, had no reason not to support him.

Three days after the Rasmussen poll, McCain and John Kyl introduced a "10 Point Border Security Plan" that included a fence and troops on the border.

As Arizona became the center of a national debate over immigration with over three quarters of Republicans in the state supporting SB 1070, Hayworth ratings should have soared. Hayworth had lobbied for the bill from the beginning. He had the support of its author Russell Pearce.

Yet, amazingly, McCain managed to use SB 1070 and the support of Jan Brewer to turn himself into a champion of border security.

McCain went on to stand up vocally to Obama on immigration, and to run a tough ad walking along the border with popular border town Sheriff Paul Babeu and demanding we "complete the danged fence."

The ad concludes with Babeu saying: "Senator, you're one of us."

The Hayworth campaign responded with a brilliant ad splicing McCain’s tough statements about immigration with contradictory statements supporting amnesty.

But this was not enough to counter Brewer and all of McCain’s money. By June, McCain was up over 20 percent.

Hayworth supporters became discouraged and his campaign fizzled.

The hardcore Open Borders Lobby is doing the usual bait-and-switch tactic, where pro-amnesty politicians pretend to support the Border Patrol during the election, and then try to turn their ability to trick the voters into proof that the public supports amnesty.

According to Rudy Lopez [Email him] of the Campaign for Community Change

"Elected officials should take note of Hayworth's and other extremists' failures: Americans don't want demagoguery; they want practical, lasting solutions. A campaign built on demonizing immigrants does not pay off electorally,"

But this lie is impossible to believe. After all, the whole point of McCain’s campaign was that he pretended to be tough (= “demonizing [illegal] immigrants”).

In fact, of course, Democrats do not want to give McCain any credit, so the DNC is now saying,

"The complete takeover of the Republican Party by the Tea Party has included taking over the soul of a senator who was once the face of comprehensive immigration reform and who now would just build the ‘danged fence,'" [McCain shift on immigration, David Eldridge, Washington Times, August 24, 2010]

But, incredibly, conservatives are triumphantly trying the same spin. Richard Viguerie, one of the relatively principled DC conservatives, sent his e-mail list this message:

"The Senator owes his victory to the pressure he received from conservatives and Tea Partiers.

“To receive that support, he had to give up his maverick positions that have sometimes given aid and comfort to the liberals. I'm sure Senator McCain knows very well that he would not have won if he had continued his reputation as the Democrats' favorite Republican.

“McCain ran an aggressive, hard-hitting campaign against former Congressman J. D. Hayworth. If he had taken this same kind of principled conservative and 'take no prisoners' campaign against Barack Obama in 2008, he'd now be in the second year of his presidency.

“The strength of the Tea Party cause is being felt in various ways: sometimes by pressuring incumbents into retirement; other times by beating an establishment Republican in a convention or primary; or, in Senator McCain's case, by applying so much heat, they see the virtue of small government, constitutional conservatism.

“Conservatives and Tea Party activists look forward to welcoming Senator McCain and other lost conservatives back from their flirtations with big government."

[McCain beats Hayworth, Senator McCain, Richard Viguerie, Conservative HQ, August 25, 2010]

Maybe Viguerie is being tongue in cheek. But as it stands, every single one of his statement is wrong:

McCain never received Tea Party support. Hayworth’s staff told me that virtually the entire Tea Party crowd in the State was with them, while it was the established Conservative Movement groups that opposed JD. The real lesson: there is a gulf between Establishment conservatives and the Tea Parties—and the Tea Parties, without some national backing, cannot (yet) topple Establishment Republicans.
The only way for the Tea Parties to pressure McCain into pretending to be a conservative was to support J. D. Hayworth. Obviously if he hadn’t been running, McCain would have had no reason for his charade.
How can lying about your liberal record and smearing a genuine conservative be considered a "principled conservative" campaign?
By believing John McCain has converted back to conservatism during the election, the voters sent McCain and others like him, the message that voters have short memories and they can easily turn their back on them. It is unlikely that McCain will run for another term. So he has even more reason to ignore his constituents.
Viguerie’s prediction would be slightly more believable had McCain not made the exact same flip-flop less than two years earlier—when he began his "Enforcement First" rhetoric after amnesty failed in 2007.

But as soon as McCain won the Republican nomination, he crawled back to La Raza to pander:

"[Obama] suggested…that I turned my back on comprehensive reform out of political necessity. I feel I must, as they say, correct the record. At a moment of great difficulty in my campaign, when my critics said it would be political suicide for me to do so, I helped author with Senator Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform, and fought for its passage…I did so not just because I believed it was the right thing to do for Hispanic Americans. It was the right thing to do for all Americans… I do ask for your trust that when I say, I remain committed to fair, practical and comprehensive immigration reform, I mean it. I think I have earned that trust."

[The McCain Obama Immigration Wars, ABC News, July 14, 2008]

McCain went on to run Spanish language ads blaming Obama "‘No’ to the guest workers program; ‘no’ to a path to citizenship." [In Spanish, McCain Criticizes Obama on Immigration, by Jim Rutenburg, New York Times, September 15, 2008]
Moreover, McCain’s new-found opposition to amnesty in the 2010 Arizona primary race included these weasel words:

"Any measure designed to fix the broken immigration system must deal with the undocumented population, and as we all know, this is very difficult challenge that attracts a wide range of diverse views and opinions. We need a practical solution for dealing with undocumented immigrants currently living and working in our country and that solution must be carried out in a manner that fosters the social, economic, and security interest of the United States."

“Undocumented”?

And:

"McCain believes an essential component of any comprehensive reform to America’s immigration policy must include the implementation of temporary worker programs that reflect the labor needs of Arizona and the United States." [Protecting Our Borders and Our Homeland, McCain for Senate]

So don’t worry! When John McCain starts pandering once again, he will be able to say, as he did in his disastrous Presidential campaign, that he never turned his “back on comprehensive reform out of political necessity."

I don’t want to be too downbeat. There is one big silver lining to this campaign: J. D. Hayworth may have defeated amnesty.

McCain and Lindsey Graham were the go-to Republicans for "comprehensive immigration reform." McCain knew not to touch it until after his election. which left Graham as the point man.

Yet in April, Graham publicly backed off his collaboration. Open Borders lobby leader Frank Sharry explained why,

"Here’s my theory: Senator Graham wanted to do immigration reform, but it became clear this spring that his friend, Senator John McCain, was in a fight for his political life. In a state where the Republican Party has become consumed by nativism, McCain is in a close primary battle against anti-immigrant fire-breather J.D. Hayworth. With the primary scheduled for late August, Graham does not want to subject his friend to a ‘tough vote’ this summer.

“So he decided to blame the President, slow walk the immigration bill, and gear up on climate change. Now that the ‘perfect crime’ isn’t working out the way he wanted, Graham is threatening to take his marbles and go home – refusing to work with Democrats on either issue. Meanwhile, Senators McCain and Kyl, both of whom fought for comprehensive immigration reform in the past, are threatening to filibuster a bill if it is brought forward.

“They, too, seem determined to head off an immigration reform debate, even though their state is ground zero for the issue. Senator McCain went so far as to embrace the Arizona state law that is eerily similar to a 2005 Congressional bill he once denounced as ‘anti-Hispanic.’"

[Lindsey Graham and the real 'Cynical Political Ploy', Frank Sharry, Huffington Post, April 26, 2010]

I usually disagree with Sharry. But here he is spot on.

In March, Lindsey Graham had written (= signed) a Washington Post Op-Ed with New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer promoting the latest drive for “comprehensive immigration reform”. [The right way to mend immigration, by Charles E. Schumer and Lindsey O. Graham, March 19, 2010]

When McCain appeared to be in trouble in April, Graham dropped out. Schumer ended up releasing an outline of a bill with Harry Reid and Robert Menendez, but he couldn’t find a single Republican. By July, Graham was calling for the abolishing birthright citizenship.

Despite this sugar coating, the pill of another six years of John McCain is very tough to swallow.

But rather than get discouraged, we should learn a few lessons to help us in the future.

Never Trust the Establishment Conservative Movement: This cannot be said enough. They might say they support immigration control when it helps them raise money. But they don’t mean it. We should always encourage them to do the right thing—but for patriotic immigration reformers, it is important to support PACs and institutions outside of the conservative movement.
Do not Trust Sarah Palin or Jan Brewer: None of these women did anything good on immigration before SB 1070. They are both happy to be the respective queens of the Tea Party Movement and the Anti-Amnesty Movement. But their commitment is thin.
Money in Politics is Our Enemy: Conservatives somehow think that campaign finance reform will somehow destroy conservatism. Regardless of the other pros and cons of the policy, we need to remember corporations and the wealthy are almost always on the wrong side of the immigration question.
“Enforcement” cannot be the litmus test: McCain actually admitted in the campaign that he wanted more “guest workers”, and he did not completely run away from amnesty. What he essentially did was push "enforcement first." It would have been harder for him to do this 180 if the issues of legal immigration and opposition to any sort of legalization were seen (correctly) to be as important as border security.
Voters have short memories: This is really the toughest problem to fix. No matter what McCain and his MSM allies say, I still find it really hard to believe that anyone in Arizona who even read the newspaper twice a year wouldn’t remember him as the Number One promoter of amnesty. They all oppose amnesty and rate it as a top issue. I still cannot understand why they would vote for McCain. My only guess is that the general lull in immigration discussion from the General election in 2008 through SB 1070 was enough to make people forget. We need to continue to pound this issue, and the politicians, even when it is not in the public debate.
McCain is just one out of 100 senators. We should not fret any more about having him for another six years. He has a notoriously bad temper—who knows, maybe he will continue to be angry at Hispanics. He’s a “maverick”, isn’t he?

Instead, the cause of patriotic immigration reform depends on electing the scores of real immigration patriots up for election in 2010.

"Washington Watcher" [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Will You Celebrate Jesus Christ's Return?

An interesting article from www.ucg.org about the return of Jesus Christ. This follows this post about the Kingdom of God. This follows this post about right and wrong. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Will You Celebrate Jesus Christ's Return?

A commentary by Peter Eddington
UCG Media and Communications Services operation manager

A very significant month on the calendar lies just ahead of us. Thousands of Christians around the world are preparing to observe a very important biblical Holy Day in just a couple of weeks. Maybe you've heard of it? It's called the Day, or Feast, of Trumpets.

A prophetic picture
Jesus Christ observed this festival, as did the New Testament Church of God. It pictures the time of Jesus' return to this earth to establish His Father's Kingdom here. His return will be announced by a heavenly trumpet blast, and it will occur on the seventh of seven blasts—the seventh trump. We read about this event, as prophesied by Jesus Himself, in Matthew chapter 24:

"Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matthew 24:30-31, emphasis added).

We are approaching the observance of this great event on Sept. 9, the Feast of Trumpets. It makes us stop and consider the time when the actual prophesied fulfillment of the Day of Trumpets will occur—when our Lord descends from heaven to the Mount of Olives and establishes the Kingdom of God on earth, beginning at Jerusalem.

The second coming of Jesus Christ
Throughout history there has been much controversy, doubt and misinformation about the return of Jesus Christ. Many thought He would already have returned—some doubt that He will return at all! Many people today scoff at the idea of Jesus ruling from Jerusalem in the not too distant future.

However, the Bible is clear on this. His return will be as unmistakable and as universally visible as a flash of lightning (Matthew 24:27). It will be sudden and quite unexpected to the world (Matthew 24:37-39). It demands constant readiness on our part (Matthew 24:42-44), since none of us knows the exact time of His coming (Matthew 24:36). But we do know the end will come after the gospel of the Kingdom is preached to the world (Matthew 24:14)!

As Jesus commanded us, let us continue to pray, "Your kingdom come" (Matthew 6:10). As thousands of Christians around the world observe the Feast of Trumpets, keep in mind the great significance of what it pictures in God's Holy Day plan for mankind—the return of our Savior. If you're unfamiliar with this important day, you can read all about it in our booklet God's Holy Day Plan: The Promise of Hope for All Mankind. Perhaps you will feel compelled to observe it, too, as you pray for God's Kingdom to come.

$20 to give NOW

With most primaries behind us, the general election is next on the horizon. In order to get this done, begin to commit $5 a month to each of the following to repeal OBAMACARE, but also for immigration, homosexual marriage, and foreign policy.For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

First the RNC to have a general coordiation of the total efforts of the Republican party.

Next, the NRCC to make sure that the HOUSE goes Republican by picking up the necessary seats.

After this, the NRSC to help in the close race to make the SENATE go Republican. This is a tight, but winnable race.

Finally, to the RGA to control the redistricting for the next ten years!

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Join Us to Rally for American Jobs!

A very interesting post from http://consumerenergyalliance.org/ about fighting for domestic energy resources 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.



Help Support American Workers and Secure American Energy by joining at several rallies across the U.S. over the next few weeks!

Right now, Congress and the Administration are debating measures that, if approved, could cost American jobs, drive small- and mid-sized firms out of business, threaten our fragile economic recovery and jeopardize our energy security.

With 15 million people out of work, now is not the time for unnecessary energy legislation that could hurt the American economy. We need to support an industry that has supported more than 9 million American jobs.

Help Make a Difference!

Find out where there are rallies near you by clicking here.

More 'True Reformers' won Tues. -- good news for immigration reduction‏

A timely post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about Tuesday's primary. This follows this previous post about Tuesday's primary 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.


More 'True Reformers' won Tues. -- good news for immigration reduction‏
GRADE CARD FAXES READY TO SEND -- REALLY: I apologize profusely to all of you. Last night, I sent a big introduction to our new ability to fax Immigration-Reduction Report Cards to your 3 Members of Congress. Then, our website didn't keep up under your enthusiastic response.

Now, we're ready. Please go to your Action Board and send the Report Cards with your comments to your Members of Congress.

Last night was one of the welcome challenges of being the nation's No. 1 Single-Issue Advocacy Group Website. The more traffic the better.

Did Alaska Replace A Mostly-Pro-Amnesty
Senator With A True Immigration Reductionist?


VOTERS CHOSE SEVERAL MORE CANDIDATES THIS WEEK
WHO ARE COMMITTED TO OVERALL IMMIGRATION REDUCTIONS

We saw some exciting results in the Florida, Alaska, Arizona and Oklahoma primary elections Tuesday. The chances are going up with every Primary election for a much-improved Congress in terms of sensible immigration policy and reduced numbers.

Let me be clear that NumbersUSA never endorses candidates. But we work vigorously to make sure voters know which ones will work for less immigration and less competition for our unemployed U.S. workers.

DEMOCRATS

Throughout the Primary season, Democratic incumbents have been beating Primary challengers from the left who would be more in line with the pro-amnesty, high-foreign-workers positions of Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid.

We've been especially gratified to see Primary challengers fail at toppling Democrats who have been politically brave enough to oppose their Party's top leaders on immigration.

A strong case in point was yesterday in Florida where Blue Dog Democrat Allen Boyd beat a challenge from the left. Boyd works with us more than he works against us. And he has a better career Immigration-Reduction grade than 225 House Democrats. He prevailed with the voters yesterday.

The main reason that we did not have to face a congressional vote on the giant "comprehensive immigration reform" (amnesty) the last two years is that Democratic leaders knew they would have major opposition from their own Democratic Members. We are especially happy to see that Democratic voters in Primaries are not punishing our Democratic allies for opposing Party leaders on immigration.

ALASKA

Most of the excitement yesterday on the immigration front was in Republican Primaries.

We have been emailing candidate comparison pages almost daily to our 2,500 activist members in Alaska -- making sure they knew the immigration differences between their U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski and her Primary challenger newcomer Joe Miller -- encouraging our activists to spread the word.

Joe Miller took the NumbersUSA Candidate Survey and pledged to support all 12 of our top priorities!

View the 12 priorities that True Reformers pledge here.

At the moment, Miller has a lead of around 2,000 votes over Sen. Murkowski. There are still thousands of absentee ballots to count.

If Miller prevails in this stunning upset, the 5th Worst Immigration Republican in the Senate will be removed.

The only Republican Senators who have voted more consistently than Murkowski for increased foreign workers, for amnesty and against tough law enforcement are:
Lugar of Indiana (the worst)

Voinovich of Ohio (retiring)

McCain of Arizona (renounced amnesty to win re-election yesterday)

Brownback of Kansas (retiring)
Murkowski acted regularly for amnesties for illegal aliens once her father appointed her to the U.S. Senate and was one of McCain's dependable pro-amnesty votes when the Senate passed his giant amnesty in 2006 (you NumbersUSA activists helped persuade the House to refuse to take up the bill).

Under intense pressure and after seeing that the 2007 Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty was going to fail, Murkowski cast her vote against it. But her grades since then have been no better than before. Joe Miller certainly promises to be an incredible improvement. We'll anxiously await the final count.

FLORIDA

In the 24th District Republican Primary, the well-financed restauranteur Craig Miller had been favored to win this winner-take-all contest among four candidates. There are lots of patriotic restaurant owners who obey the law, but we will admit to being concerned about Miller's ties with restaurant associations that are among the loudest lobbyists for amnesties and higher foreign-worker importation.

The fact that Miller was the only one of the candidates who refused to take our immigration survey concerned us even more.

So, we are gratified that the winner -- Sandy Adams -- is a True Reformer who pledged to support all 12 of our priorities.

Furthermore, Adams has a record in the Florida legislature of pushing to require businesses to use E-Verify to make sure jobs are restricted to legal U.S. residents.

Now, Adams will be competing with the Democratic incumbent Rep. Suzanne Kosmas in the November election. Rep. Kosmas is one of those freshman Democrats who bucked the Democratic leadership and refused to get caught up with supporting any amnesty or any increase in foreign workers. But she has taken very few of the opportunities to actually improve the situation. Her "B" grade puts her among the better Democrats. Those voters who like Kosmas for her work on other issues now have a strong argument to make to her that she had better start showing some leadership on the immigration issue or Sandy Adams is going to beat her on the immigration/jobs front.

Here are other Florida Republican Primaries won by a True Reformer who pledged support for our immigration priorities:
FL 2 - Steve Southerland

FL 6 - Cliff Stearns

FL 8 - Daniel Webster

FL 11 - Dennis Ross

FL 20 - Karen Harrington
OKLAHOMA

In the 2nd District Republican Primary, TRUE REFORMER Charles Thompson won his runoff.

This is another piece of good news. The man he beat only pledged support on one of NumbersUSA's 12 immigration priorities.

But Thompson pledged support for all 12. And he won.

ARIZONA

The big disappointment for most immigration-reductionists who have been involved with the issue for many years is that Sen. John McCain won this Primary handily. With $20 million, McCain outspent former congressman J. D. Hayworth by almost 8-1.

Hayworth's top issue was McCain's career of favoring illegal aliens and foreign workers over American workers. Since Arizona has led the nation with state referenda and legislative laws getting tough on illegal immigration, McCain's political survival has flumoxed many immigration reductionists.

But "Open Borders" McCain did not run in this Primary.

Instead, it was "Secure Borders" McCain who showed up. His talk against illegal immigration was so tough that one open-borders advocate lamented last night that the Primary had actually been won by J.D. Hayworth inside John McCain's body.

We know that John McCain does not emotionally support the tough things he promised about illegal immigration.

But J.D. Hayworth and all the Arizonans who scared $20 million out of McCain forced the Amnesty King to make promises that will be difficult even for him to break after making them so publicly.

McCain's victory yesterday was definitely an immigration-reduction electoral loss that nonetheless will make -- and has already made -- the U.S. Senate a more hostile place for rewarding illegal immigration.

In the 5th District Republican Primary, TRUE REFORMER David Schweikert won the right to challenge Democrat Rep. Harry Mitchell in November. In his two terms, Mitchell has sidestepped nearly all immigration issues and stayed out of the grasp of Speaker Pelosi's open-borders henchmen. But he has done nothing to help the horrible situation in Arizona. He now has a real challenger in Schweikert.

In the 8th District Republican Primary, TRUE REFORMER Jesse Kelly can barely restrain himself now that he won the nomination to challenge Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords who talks a tough line on illegal immigration but has earned a "D+" grade during her two terms, including pro-amnesty work.

Don't forget to send the Report Cards to your 3 Members of Congress.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

UK’s Hard-Drinking ‘Ladette’ Subculture 40 Per Cent More Likely to Abort

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about the U.K.'s Ladette culture. This follows this post about a new EMBRYONIC stem cell ban. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

UK’s Hard-Drinking ‘Ladette’ Subculture 40 Per Cent More Likely to Abort


By Hilary White

CHESTER, UK, August 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Heavily made-up young women in scanty clothing and high heels pouring off commuter trains into city centres for a night of binge drinking, and probable sex: such a scene is a common sight in any British city on any Saturday night.

But now an extensive new study has shown that the so-called “ladette” subculture's combination of socially accepted heavy weekend drinking and uninhibited sex has resulted in previously unthinkable levels of unplanned pregnancies and abortion.

Research by the University College London, published this week in the Journal of Public Health, examined connections between alcohol consumption and sexual activity among 25,000 women aged 16 to 44 over a ten-year period. The study found that the hard-drinking ladettes, notorious in Britain for their aggressiveness, foul mouths and sexual promiscuity, are 40 percent more likely to have abortions.

The study showed that overall the number of people drinking to excess had tripled in 10 years. But women who drank to excess were 1.8 times more likely to have taken the abortifacient morning after pill at least once over the last year, and were 1.4 times likelier to have had at least one surgical abortion in the last 18 months.

Britain currently leads Europe in terms of its abortion rate, with approximately 200,000 abortions per year. The high rate recently caused the country to be labeled the “abortion capital of Europe” by Tory MP Anne Widdecombe.

The study is being seen as a heavy critique not only of the promiscuous ladette subculture, but also of the UK’s drinking laws, which were changed under the Blair Labour government in 2005 to allow 24-hour alcohol sales.

Other figures released by the Office of National Statistics have revealed that excessive drinking among women has doubled in the last ten years, with the sharpest rise between 1998 and 2006. In that time, from 8 percent to 15 percent of women were found to be drinking regularly to excess. In 2009, one fifth of all British women reported that they were drinking more than 15 units of alcohol a week.

The “unit” of alcohol is a measure used in Britain as a guideline for the consumption of alcoholic beverages, with a single unit defined as 10 millilitres of pure alcohol, or roughly half a pint of beer.

Such “anti-social behaviour” is shown to shorten lives. Previous research, undertaken by the universities of Cambridge, Cardiff and Birmingham, published in the Journal of Public Health in 2009, found that “childhood and parental predictors of offending, self-reported delinquency at age 32 and [criminal] convictions were significantly associated with death and disability by age 48.”

In May 2009, the Home office reported that 241 women are arrested every day for violent behavior, for a total of 88,139 in 2008, with many arrests being associated with drunkenness. Violent attacks were listed as the most common reason for females to be arrested in 2008, higher than theft. The numbers of young women and teenaged girls, particularly those under 18, arrested for violent attacks doubled during the time of the Blair/Brown Labour party rule.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman at the time said, “It is particularly worrying that so many teenage girls are resorting to violence, often fuelled by a binge-drinking ‘ladette’ culture.”

The term “ladette” was adopted as a description of the female version of the pre-existing “lad culture” of poorly educated working class young men, largely from public housing complexes – called council estates – that focuses on drinking, sexual promiscuity, soccer and sexually explicit “lad” magazines.

This subculture, which first appeared in the early 1990s, is heavily associated with crime, often defined by the criminal justice system under the mild umbrella term “anti-social behaviour.” Such behavior can cover anything from loud swearing and public drunkenness to mugging or assault. The notorious “ASBO” or “anti-social behaviour order,” widely ridiculed for its slap-on-the-wrist approach to crime, is commonly handed out for these offences.

In July 2010, new coalition government’s Home Secretary Theresa May announced that ASBOs, invented under the Blair government, would be abolished and that new measures, based on “community-based social control policies” for anti-social behavior, would be developed for England and Wales.


Read related LSN coverage:

Sharp Rise in Repeat Abortions in England and Wales: Values-Free Sex Ed Blamed
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10061407.html

Obama spending $6 million to restore mosques and other Islamic sites worldwide

A very interesting post from www.jihadwatch.org about Barack Obama spending money on mosques! This follows this post about the Ground Zero mosque's Imam 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.

Obama spending $6 million to restore mosques and other Islamic sites worldwide
This has been going on longer than Obama has been in office. Has its Constitutionality ever been challenged? If not, why not? "US funds restoration of global Islamic sites," from AP, August 24 (thanks to Ted):

WASHINGTON - The good will tour of the Middle East by the imam behind the proposed mosque near ground zero is just part of the U.S. government's efforts to reach out to the Muslim world.
This year, the Obama administration will spend nearly $6 million to restore 63 historic and cultural sites, including mosques and minarets, in 55 nations, according to State Department documents.

Under a program established by Congress in 2001, the department will fund at least five projects in as many countries at a cost of more than $271,000.

The contributions include $76,135 for the 16th century Grand Mosque in Tongxin, China, and $67,500 for the 18th century Golden Mosque in Lahore, Pakistan. An additional $62,169 will be spent on restoring a 19th century minaret in Mauritania's ancient city of Tichitt; $50,437 for the Sundarwala Burj, a 16th century Islamic Monument in New Delhi, and $15,450 to restore the 18th century Gobarau Minaret in Katsina, Nigeria.

The amount spent on mosque restoration projects is a fraction of the total in the 2010 Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation, which also will fund projects to restore Christian and Buddhist sites as well as museums, forts and palaces....


More mosques than churches. More on that soon.
Posted by Robert

TEN NumbersUSA True Reformer Candidates Win Tuesday Primaries

A timely post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about Tuesday's primary. This follows this post about your current Senators and Representatives 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.



TEN NumbersUSA True Reformer Candidates Win Tuesday Primaries
Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 11:52 AM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA



Joe Miller
In Tuesday's Congressional primaries, 10 candidates who were certified as True Reformers (based on their immigration reduction stances) won their respective races. The biggest True Reformer win belongs to Joe Miller, who appears to have ousted C- Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski (Miller has a solid lead with 98% of precincts reporting and most commentators believe Murkowksi cannot close the gap).

If Alaska was home to the biggest win, Florida was home to most number of wins: 6 True Reformers won their races. The winners were:

•Steve Southerland (FL-2)
•Cliff Stearns (FL-6)
•Daniel Webster (FL-8)
•Dennis Ross (FL-11)
•Karen Harrington (FL-20)
•Sany Adams (FL-24)

True Reformers also picked up wins in Oklahoma and Arizona. Charles Thompson (OK-2) won his run-off race and in Arizona, David Schwikert (AZ-5) and Jesse Kelly (AZ-8) won their respective primaries.

Please keep checking back for more information on these victories.

Fax Congress its immigration grades‏

A timely post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about your current Senators and Representatives. This follows this post about the 2010 elections 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.

Fax Congress its immigration grades‏
IT'S TIME TO GIVE YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
THEIR IMMIGRATION REPORT CARDS
FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS OF ACTIONS

Fax the Report Cards free and give their staffers reason to be proud or to want to take their boss to the woodshed.

Each Report Card fax has a space for you to send a short message on what you think about the grades.

ACTION: Go to your customized Action Buffet now and start faxing.

As you know, NumbersUSA has the nation's most complete record of every immigration action ever taken by every single Member of Congress. Our computers calculate an Immigration-Reduction grade for a Member's CAREER, and also for the RECENT actions (2007-10), and for THIS CONGRESS.

What you are going to find on your Action Board are faxes that contain the graphic of your Congress Member's grades for THIS CONGRESS.

If you want to review all your Member's grades and the actions that led to those grades, look at the upper right corner of your Action Board. You will see photos of your 3 Members. Above each photo, is that Member's overall grade. Just click on the grade to see the entire Report Card. You can also read more about what each category grade means.

WHAT TO WRITE

You have room for only a short note, so make it about something very specific that is on the Report Card.
If your Member got a D+ all the way down through an F-minus, you may want to express outrage that he/she continued to support the massive taking of U.S. jobs by foreign workers while Americans suffer a jobs depression.

Members with these low grades deserve all the scorn you may want to heap on them.


If your Member got a C-minus up through a B grade, your note more likely will express disappointment that when presented with such a huge problem of foreign workers displacing U.S. workers and driving down wages, these Members reacted with relative indifference. Their record isn't terrible but it doesn't reflect any sign of urgency about helping unemployed Americans get back to work.

Most of the people with these grades declined to take really bad actions but they also declined to do anything helpful unless forced by a roll-call vote.

Don't hesitate to point out where the Member got a bad grade in an individual category or where he/she simply "failed to act."


If your Member got a B+ or an A-minus, you will want to give him/her hearty congratulations and thanks. Nonetheless, you will probably see that nearly all of these got a "failed to act" instead of a good grade in the category of reducing importation of unnecessary foreign workers. Praise these Members but ask them to improve their grade by working to reduce legal immigration or to call a timeout on it until the unemployment crisis is over.


For Members with an A or A+,you may simply want to thank them profusely. Still, you may see some place where they "failed to act" and want to point that out.
For those of you with Members with B+ up through an A+, you may not see the Report Card fax action note on your Action Board when you first go to it. That is because we are making those available to only a portion of their constituents each day over the next couple of weeks. So, check your Action Board early each day and keep coming back until your turn comes.

ABOUT THE 'CHALLENGE STATUS QUO' GRADE

In every other category, a person doesn't get graded down for doing nothing. Instead, the words "failed to act" show up.

But it is not a neutral thing to fail to challenge the status quo, to do nothing in the face of our government continuing to import 75,000 new permanent working age immigrants each month and allowing 7-8 million illegal aliens to keep their jobs.

So, the STATUS QUO grade is based on whether the Member just took a pass on some of the pressing issues of immigration.

Click on the grade to see the scoresheet. At the bottom of it, you will see how the CHALLENGE STATUS QUO grade was calculated.

Friends, have some fun with these Report Cards. Imagine that you are the mom or dad who was mailed the grades and you are waiting at the door when your Congress Member comes home from "college" on summer break. What would you say about these grades?