Can We Win the War on Terror?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the will of the U.S. to fight terrorists. This follows this post about an earlier U.S. attack on Syria. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Can We Win the War on Terror?






article by Cecil Maranville





The world is at war. It's not the long-envisioned nuclear exchange, but don't count nuclear weapons out. This is a shadowy war of principle, one the United States, Britain and their allies are ill-equipped to win.



In August 1998, the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, came under violent attack by a then little-known terrorist group—al-Qaeda. Although its leader, Osama bin Laden, issued his now infamous "World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders" in February of that year, no one imagined the consequences. The death and injury toll was considerable—301 dead and more than 5,000 injured—but the bombings did not betray their significance.



The truth is, they started a worldwide war of terror.



The world did not realize it until the next major battle three years later. This time the number of dead was 10 times as great, when in a twin "airline missile" attack on the World Trade Center, this shadowy enemy murdered innocent people from 80 nations in a period of minutes (the other attacks were directed toward the U.S. government and military).



The world was at war again.



Just as at the outset of previous world wars, not all nations realized what was happening or joined the battle at the same time. And, over two years later, some still waffle over their allegiances.



Bin Laden's name and al-Qaeda were associated with the 9/11 attacks within hours. It was shocking to learn that a lone, ill-defined terrorist cell had been able to strike at the heart of the world's only superpower. But it was inconceivable to the point of defying sanity to think that al-Qaeda would draw the entire world into a protracted war.



To this day, many do not believe a tiny army of fanatics could have pulled off the 9/11 attacks. A recent poll of German citizens revealed that a startling 20 percent of its people believe the U.S. government engineered the attacks on its own people ("German Disbelief Over 9/11," CNN, July 24, 2003).



The attack slapped the United States to wakefulness, leaving not only dead and wounded, but also inflicting a draconian injury to its economy estimated at a $2 trillion loss.



"Good vs. evil"



U.S. President George W. Bush began speaking of the battle as "good vs. evil," with the "good" being democratic nations and the "evil" being what he called "global terrorism."



There are two ways to understand "global terrorism": (1) terrorism on a global scale and (2) terrorism against the globe, that is, against the world. While the first definition is no doubt what the president initially had in mind, the passage of time gives us the benefit of hindsight. We now know that both definitions apply.



The struggle pits the world's nations against a radical Islamic group whose wispy but deadly tentacles know no national boundary.



Bin Laden had been a low-level leader among freedom fighters in Afghanistan who opposed the occupying Russian forces. Once the Russians were ousted, he turned his attention and passion against the government of his native Saudi Arabia, seeking to "purify" his country of the "corrupting presence" of the United States. (The United States maintained a continuing military presence there after the 1991 Gulf War.) The royals were in no mood for a rabble-rouser and ordered him out of the country, revoking his citizenship.



He returned to Afghanistan and began organizing former freedom fighters into his private army, a military tool that could enforce his religious vision. He was the man for the moment, giving voice and modern identity to a type of religious terrorism that has waxed and waned since Muhammad's days.



A monster child



Bin Laden's brand of radical Wahhabism was a suitable mate for the Afghan government, controlled by the Taliban. State-sponsored Islamic terrorism on a massive scale was the monster child of that ideological marriage.



Perhaps the U.S. government would have been more effective in responding to the 1998 embassy bombings had then President Clinton and his administration not been distracted by scandal. If so, maybe al-Qaeda would have died an infant. That's a question for history.



What bin Laden financed and led in some fashion (many believe that he does not have the intelligence or the charisma to be the singular leader of the group) now has a life of its own. U.S. intelligence believes that al-Qaeda will continue to be a major threat, whether bin Laden lives or dies. The monster child is grown and is alive and well.



Al-Qaeda is suspected to be involved in the "battle for the peace" in Iraq. Demonstrating its capacity to carry out operations in more than one country at the same time, it bombed two synagogues and the British consulate in Turkey last month, killing dozens and injuring upwards of 750.



As is typical of terrorism, no one knows who the next target is. The U.S. intelligence assessment is stark: "The Al Qaida network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious terrorism threat facing the United States. Al Qaida will continue to favor spectacular attacks but also may seek softer targets of opportunity, such as banks, shopping malls, supermarkets, and places of recreation and entertainment.



"Al Qaida will continue its efforts to acquire and develop biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons. We judge that there is a high probability that Al Qaida will attempt an attack using a CBRN weapon within the next two years" (April 17, 2003, report from the U.S. ambassador to the UN, emphasis added throughout).



Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear



The Central Intelligence Agency's report "Terrorist CBRN: Materials and Effects" (May 2003) provides us with more information on the possibility of CBRN weapons: "Al-Qa'ida is interested in radiological dispersal devices (RDDs) or 'dirty bombs.' Construction of an RDD is well within its capabilities as radiological materials are relatively easy to acquire from industrial or medical sources. Usama Bin Laden's operatives may try to launch conventional attacks against the nuclear industrial infrastructure of the United States in a bid to cause contamination, disruption, and terror.



"A document recovered from [an] Al-Qa'ida facility in Afghanistan contained a sketch of a crude nuclear device...



"A simple explosive RDD consisting of a live-shielded container—commonly called a 'pig'—and a kilogram of explosive attached could easily fit into a backpack."



Al-Qaeda may also use biological weapons.



"Both 11 September attack leader Mohamed Atta and Zacharias Moussaoui expressed interest in crop dusters, raising our concern that Al-Qa'ida has considered using aircraft to disseminate [chemical and biological] weapons.



"Analysis of an Al-Qa'ida document recovered in Afghanistan in summer 2002 indicates the group has crude procedures for making mustard agent, sarin, and VX...



"Initial skin contact with mustard causes mild skin irritation, which develops into more severe yellow fluid-filled blisters. Inhalation of mustard damages the lungs, causes difficulty breathing, and death by suffocation in severe cases...



"Sarin...and VX are highly toxic military agents that disrupt a victim's nervous system by blocking the transmission of nerve signals" (ibid.).



It is almost impossible to defend against the production of some chemical weapons. Ricin is a good example. It "is a plant toxin that is 30 times more potent than the nerve agent VX by weight and is readily obtainable by extraction from common castor beans. There's no treatment for ricin poisoning after it has entered the bloodstream. Victims start to show symptoms within hours to days after exposure, depending on the dosage and route of administration" (ibid.).



A fight to the death over principle



In some ways, the objective of the war is terror itself, invading the sanctity of a free nation and destroying its sense of security. But there is a broader objective.



The objective in this world war is not to invade and conquer land, but rather to invade and conquer a way of thinking. The president of the United States was right in declaring it a war of good vs. evil, that is, a war of principle. It is a war between the wild-eyed definition of Islam that Wahhabism sponsors and Western-style democracy, with roots in Judeo-Christian teaching.



Wahhabism is rapidly igniting passionate support for its goals in the dried grass of poverty in the Islamic dictatorships and monarchies, in the few Islamic democracies and in Islamic minorities throughout the democratic world.



But is the democratic world ready for an ideological war? And is it equipped to fight it?



The answer to the first question is no, for nations bicker and squabble over which nation is in charge. Jealous resentment of the United States on the part of a slowly maturing EU is painfully obvious. Most notable among those more willing to argue over who will lead the column than who will join it are those historical rivals of each other, France and Germany. Russia cannot make up its mind whether it is friend or foe, so much like the scorpion and the frog, à la Aesop.



Clearly, the world's democratic nations do not yet recognize their common threat.



China, whose ambition to be the next superpower is thinly veiled indeed, also feels no threat. If anything, it sees the present world conflict as an opportunity to advance its own interests.



In light of all of this, the answer to the second question must also be no. How could the world be equipped to fight a war of principle when its leading powers cannot agree on the simplest of principles?



The United States seized the lead for several reasons. Most obviously, it absorbed the initial assault, not just on its interests, but also on its soil. Also, it continues to protect its interests by taking the war to Iraq and seeking to defeat the enemy far from home, if possible.



But many American citizens firmly believe that the main reason the United States took the lead was due to the leadership of a principled man, President George W. Bush, who clearly saw this as a war of ideology. Shoulder to shoulder with him is British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The American president said from the beginning that this is a fight to the death. He repeats that mantra nearly every time he speaks, showing he is up for the battle.



America and Britain not up to the challenge



But is the nation he leads? Americans' interest in matters of ideology or principle is ever shrinking, in reverse proportion to its ever-expanding appetite for self-indulgence and entertainment. Americans responded with historic fervor at first, but the World War I patriotic song, "The Yanks are coming and we won't come back 'til it's over, over there" is rapidly giving way to a whine: "When is it going to be over, over there?"



A USA Today /CNN/Gallup Poll released Nov. 19 shows a country nearly evenly divided on its approval for going to war in Iraq, and "most are unconvinced that the war has made the United States safer from terrorist attacks" (Richard Benedetto, "Poll Finds Splits Over Iraq to Be More Even: 55% Disapprove of U.S. Management of the Situation," USA Today ).



Political correctness keeps authorities from zeroing in on the core issue of Wahhabism vs. the West with its Judeo-Christian roots. Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi schools operating within the United States have been widely publicized. But the government is loath to speak against them directly, in spite of the fact that the Wahhabi philosophy wants nothing less than the total end of all things Judeo-Christian. The reason? The United States walks the tightrope of combating Wahhabi terrorism and avoiding destabilizing Middle Eastern governments in order to maintain a fragile peace.



That's a political decision the United States and Britain will lament.



In spite of the fact that the United States and Britain owe their glorious histories to the God of the Bible (see our booklet, The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy ), both avoid fully embracing Him and His laws. Indeed, the basis of much of the powerful hatred within a large sector of the American people toward their president is a dislike for the fact that he is a man of obvious Christian convictions.



In other words, the United States and Britain are pulling their punches in this war of principle. Our peoples turn to God when we hurt, but we are getting over the hurt of 9/11. Continuing to fight in Iraq only reminds us of what we would prefer to shut out.



Meanwhile, the other side, in part led by al-Qaeda, presses forward with nothing to lose. Who would have thought that such a war would be so difficult to sort out—or that so few could topple so many? —WNP

.

On 9/11, Remember . . . And Know It Was the Best PR Move By Muslims. Ever.

A very interesting post from www.DebbieSchlussel.com about the 9/11 attackers. This follows this post about John McCain’s endorsement of the phrase “Allahu Akbar.” This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more about what you can do to get more involved click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.

On 9/11, Remember . . . And Know It Was the Best PR Move By Muslims. Ever.


by Debbie Schlussel

Every year on the anniversary of 9/11, including today, I put up the three things every American needs to know and remember. But there are actually two more that I’ll be adding in future years: Remember the con artists who’ve used it to fill their coffers (including Palestinian Muslim con artist Hanan Qahwaji Tudor a/k/a Brigitte Gabriel–stay tuned for more on her in a later post, fake terrorist/genuine stalker Walid Shoebat, car loan fraud perpetrator Scamela Geller (who has two murders in her path), and assorted other malefactors); and Remember, as I’ve noted many times before, that the 9/11 attacks were the best public relations move ever by Muslims, who got America, its leaders, pop culture, and other American societal forces to bend over backward (and forward) for Islam, Muslims, their intolerance, and their regressive, backward ways. And got them to make American less safe than we were on 9/10/01.



Remember also that 12 years later, Ground Zero is still not rebuilt. One World Trade Center isn’t even complete and won’t be until next year. So much for “showing them.” Nope, they showed us and continue to have the last laugh. Instead, what we have to show for this is thousands of American lives and limbs lost because President Bush wanted to hand a Sunni country (Iraq) over to Shi’ites (Iran). And thousands more American lives and limbs given in the service of building roads and handing out candy in Afghanistan, per President Bush’s demand. And then there is the Arab Spring democracy BS that further destabilized the Middle East and gave Al-Qaeda and extremist Muslims (a redundant phrase) free reign. It was begun by Bush with his push for “democratic elections” in Gaza, Iraq, and Lebanon, which as a result became HAMASastan, an Iranian satellite state, and Hezbollahstan–another Iranian satellite state. It was continued with Barack Obama’s pushes in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria, using American pressure, support, money, weaponry, and CIA advisors. This is how we responded to 9/11. If we did this during World War II, the whole world would be saluting Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.

I detest those who say today is a “national day of service,” but won’t say why or who made today a day of solemn mourning as it should be for nearly 3,000 Americans who were mass murdered on our soil. Those who say we should “remember” 9/11, but who skip over the part about WHO DID IT and WHO CELEBRATED IT, are not remembering it at all. The 9/11 attacks were not committed by ghosts or the invisible man. They were not perpetrated by Fijians or Samoans or Wiccans. And those same groups didn’t celebrate the attacks. Nope, it was one group, with 1.8 billion adherents worldwide that did both the mass murder and the celebrating afterword. If you won’t admit that, you aren’t remembering a thing. You’re in fantasyland (and not the kind with the 72 re-virginized).

So here are the other main things you must remember on this and every 9/11 anniversary and every other day . . .

* REMEMBER WHO WAS MURDERED & DIED ON THAT DAY:

Nearly 3,000 innocent people targeted and murdered in cold blood because they were Americans. People like my cousin, Jon Schlissel, who heroically went back to his office to save someone who needed help getting out. The Muslims who died that day were collateral damage and not the target of the Muslims who perpetrated the attacks. Clearly, their deaths meant nothing to their fellow Muslims around the world, who cheered the attacks, passed out candy, danced in the streets, and let out their stupid hyena-like, “lalalalalalahs.” The deaths of these Muslims are important to them and the mainstream media only for politically correct public relations purposes.

My Cousin, Jon Schlissel, Z”L (Of Blessed Memory), Died on 9/11

* REMEMBER WHO DID IT:



“9/11 Was an Islam Job” Graphic By Reader Doda McCheesle

This was the act of 19 Arab Muslim men. No, they weren’t “random” people acting alone. They didn’t “hijack a religion” or any of that other BS we’ve heard rotely regurgitated for the last ten years. Their religion–ISLAM–hijacked them, and it continues its slow hijacking of America because we continue to let their fellow co-religionists in and we continue to bend over for them. Islam is at war with the West, particularly America. So long as we continue to claim we are not at war with Islam, we are losing that war.

* REMEMBER WHO CELEBRATED & CHEERED:

Muslims around the world–Palestinian Muslims on the streets of Ramallah, Palestinian Muslim Sunnis on the streets of Patterson, New Jersey, Shi’ite Muslims who were waiters and staff at a Middle Eastern restaurant in West Bloomfield, Michigan, Lebanese, Iraqi, and Iranian Shi’ite Muslims all over Dearbornistan. And, as I noted, the Pew Research Center notes that at least a third of these “American” (in name only) Muslims openly support Al-Qaeda and suicide bombings against Americans, which means they still celebrate.





Palestinian Woman on Ramallah Street Cheers 9/11 Attacks.



The biotch Katie Couric gives excuses for it (and blames Israel–you know, blame the JOOOOS):



Watch the video below to remember what really happened on 9/11:

Why the U.S. Attack Inside Syria Is Significant

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about an earlier U.S. attack on Syria. This follows this post about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Why the U.S. Attack Inside Syria Is Significant


A commentary by Cecil Maranville

Posted November 13, 2008





With the world's financial markets in meltdown, you might wonder, why should we care about what happens in Syria? It's a poor country with a small military and is not a crucial factor in the world market or a significant oil producer.



On October 26 the United States attacked a strategic target in the Sukkiraya Farms area of Syria near the town of Abu Kamal, which is only about five miles from the border of Iraq.



The attack ignited a diplomatic furor on several fronts. Iran, an ally of Syria, vigorously protested the American raid.



U.S. intelligence indicates that 90 percent of the foreign fighters enter Iraq through Syria; many of them through this difficult to defend region. Frustrated with a lack of cooperation from Syria to shut down this terrorist pipeline, U.S. forces took matters into their own hands.



A U.S. counterterrorism official said the target person headed a network funneling fighters, weapons and cash into Iraq. Syria protested that the Americans attacked the civilian occupants of a building, killing a man, his four children and another husband and wife. An eye witness to the funeral the next day said that there were seven adult males and no children.



Syria's relationship with Washington had been improving, but this incident is certain to strain that progress. Also, the young Iraqi government seeks good relationships with its neighbors Syria and Iran—even as it is in the midst of a sensitive political debate over how long U.S. forces will remain in Iraq.



With the world's financial markets in meltdown, you might wonder, why should we care about what happens in Syria? It's a poor country with a small military and is not a crucial factor in the world market or a significant oil producer.



But one significant nation—Russia—voiced angry protests over the U.S. attack. And it has probably not escaped your notice that Russia has all but publically declared a return to the Cold War.



Stratfor, an online publisher of geopolitical intelligence, warns that there are signs that Russia is again beginning to launch proxy wars —striking at American interests through any willing antagonist. Russia is also warming to an alliance with anti-American Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. And Russian money is supporting pro-Marxist terrorist groups in Mexico.



Now, as it did decades ago, Russia is renewing its military ties with Syria. Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, traveled to Moscow in August to discuss how to expand weapon purchases and the sharing of military technology.



For its part, Moscow hopes to establish a naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea that would make it possible for a Russian warship fleet to be stationed in the Mediterranean region! The Russians are likely to seize upon the recent American raid as an excuse to further the course they've already embarked upon with Damascus.



Centuries ago Syria's location was also strategic. It was on the main land route between Asia, Europe and Egypt. Since then, improved sea and air travel diminished its strategic significance. But its location cannot be ignored today because it borders Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. Syria also gives safe harbor to numerous terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah. And Iran's supply route to Hezbollah in Lebanon is through Syria.



A few years ago a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack on Jordan was planned and launched from Syria. Fortunately it was discovered and thwarted. But it could well have killed 60,000 people with chemical weapons, possibly from some of Saddam Hussein's weapon stockpiles covertly diverted to Syria.



Turkey, just north of Syria, is presently seeking membership in the EU. Turkey also would like to extend its influence in the Middle East after the United States withdraws from Iraq. A stable Syria would be greatly in Turkey's interest.



Syria's significance in the end time is mentioned in the biblical prophecies of Amos. His warning to Damascus (Amos 1:3-5 [3] Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron:

[4] But I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad.

[5] I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden: and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir, saith the LORD.





See All...) is one of his eight prophecies to tribes or countries in the region of Syria and Palestine . Of their meaning, The Anchor Bible Commentary perceptively concludes, "There was a single decree…declaring judgment on the entire region as a unit…. This unity suggests one cosmic holocaust …" (note on Amos 1). A modern fulfillment of Amos' prophecy would be significant.



Syria's Sukkiraya Farms region is rich with history, as it is close to the Kahbour River, also known as the Kebar or Chebar—next to the area where captives from Israel were resettled in the 8th century B.C. by Assyria. The most famous captive among them was the prophet Ezekiel who, from the Chebar's banks, wrote prophecies relating to the future of America, Europe and the Middle East today.

.

Editorial: Contact Catholic Bishops, Even if You're Not Catholic

Editorial

Over the past weekend, and scheduled for the Next several Weekends, the Roman Catholic church will be giving Homily Sermon messages encouraging their parishoners to lobby for increased immigration. This comes at the expense of unemployed Americans. You can read an article from VDARE about it here. After that, whether you are Catholic or not, you can contact the closest Roman Catholic bishops and the following key bishops with the message that follows their contact information:

Your Closest Bishop
Bishop Dolan NY
Bishop Chaput Philadelphia
Bishop Olmstead Phoenix
Bishop Gomez Los Angeles

You can use or modify this message

Honorable Bishop,


I am asking you to make a public statement against S.744 and any “pathway to citizenship”.

This bill will allow 33 million new immigrants over the next decade.

The 33 million green cards offered by S. 744 in the first decade would go to:

• around 11 million for illegal aliens (could be millions more if the official estimate is wrong)

• around 11 million in continuation of elevated flows from 1990 surge policy

• around 5 million from end of numerical limits on people waiting in line (mostly chain migration)

• around 6 million from new and expanded categories

On the other hand,

Nearly every section of the Gang Amnesty bill seems to add more foreign workers to compete with unemployed and underemployed Americans. The Gang apparently believes that the way to help the 20 million Americans who can't find a full-time job is to give out another 20-30 million lifetime work permits to foreign citizens over the next decade.

This bill would further flood labor markets at the lower-skill levels where real wages have declined 10% to 22% since 1980.

If the bill becomes law, the chances of Americans with no more than a high school education entering the middle class may disappear.

But it isn't just the low-end where Americans are threatened. The bill would make huge increases in importing higher-educated workers at a time when around half of all recent American college graduates either have no job at all or they aren't working in a degree job.

The under-32 Millennial Generation already is in danger of being a lost generation. After this bill, we may see these young adults spend the rest of their lives only partly engaged in the economy as they depend on government and family.



None of this is the kind of economy or society most Americans desire. Surely a compassionate and thoughtful citizenry will put a stop to this nonsense and ask its Representatives to go back to work putting Americans back to work.

In appreciation of your consideration,

Letter: Will Obama Admin Break the Law to Fund Abortions for Congress?

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about Obamacare covering abortions. This follows this post about the victims of Kermit Gosnell. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can also get two very interesting books HERE.

Letter: Will Obama Admin Break the Law to Fund Abortions for Congress?


Members of Congress are concerned the Obama administration ill break current federal law to pay for abortions for members of Congress and Congressional staff via Obamacare.



Some 86 members of Congress signed on to a letter to the director of the Office of Personnel Management expressing concerns that it will not comply with the Smith Amendment regarding Federal employee health plans that provide benefits or coverage for abortion. Under the amendment, which is existing law, federal funds may not be used to pay for abortions via federally-funded health insurance for congressional staff and Members. http://www.lifenews.com/2013/09/06/letter-will-obama-admin-break-the-law-to-fund-abortions-for-congress/

Weekend Box Office: Still Mine, The Grandmaster, The Lifeguard, Afternoon Delight

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: Still Mine, The Grandmaster, The Lifeguard, Afternoon Delight


By Debbie Schlussel

I did not have time to finish my movie reviews before the start of the Jewish holiday of Rosh HaShanah, so they are up later. Sorry for that. Among the new selections at movie theaters, this weekend, there’s one great choice, and the rest are a waste of time. I did not see “Riddick,” as the screening conflicted with Rosh HaShanah.

* “Still Mine“: This is a fabulous movie, one of the best I’ve seen all year. James Cromwell–a far lefty actor–ironically plays a man fighting big government in this Canadian-government-funded movie based on a true story. And along with it, there is also a love story. Cromwell portrays Craig Morrison, an 80-something farmer in New Brunswick, whose wife, Irene (Genevieve Bujold), is beginning to experience dementia.Morrison, a berry farmer, is down on his luck because of ever-encroaching regulations. His just-picked strawberry crop cannot be sold because the companies that buy them now insist that they be transported in the few-minutes drive from his field to market in an expensive refrigerated truck. The Morrison’s two-story farmhouse does not have central heating, and with his wife’s illness, he seeks to build a smaller home for the two of them on his farmland.

Morrison cannot afford to pay someone else to build it, but he is skilled in building and begins building the home himself. Despite his old age, Morrison is exhilarated and energized with the task, despite the naysaying of his grown children. But, soon, the local zoning and planning authorities encroach on his plans, demanding that he spend lots of money on costly building “plans,” “stamped” wood and a myriad of unnecessary regulations. (Perhaps he should have chosen to build in Detroit, where nothing happens to you if you do not get required permits or build according to regulations.)

The movie shows us how this elderly man not only fights back against big government sticking its nose in his life but also his fight to keep his ailing wife at home where he knows his love will comfort her, rather than in a nursing home.

This movie is mostly playing in arthouse movie theaters. If you cannot catch it there, wait for it to come out on DVD or Netflix.

An uplifting movie, indeed.

FOUR REAGANS



* “The Grandmaster [Yi Dai Zong Shi]“: As a fan of martial arts and martial arts movies, I found this incredibly disappointing. There was too much foo and not enough Kung Fu. Plus, it had an extremely ridiculous feminist theme to it. The movie, in Chinese with English subtitles, is supposed to be the story of Ip Man, the Kung Fu master who taught Bruce Lee. And, while some of the movie is that story, it is really a mishmash of stories about different martial arts masters in Chine from the early 20th Century through the 1950s.

And the movie shows us that a woman, who is the daughter of a famous Kung Fu master, is really better than all of them, but she is relegated to the sidelines because she’s a woman. Toward the end of the movie, she fights, beats, and kills a major martial arts master. That’s simply not believable, though the movie insists it is based on the true stories of these Kung Fu masters.

I found the movie to be way too long, very boring, and very thin on plot and story. Had I missed this, my life would not have been affected. I felt like I wasted 130 minutes and ten bucks on this (I did not attend the free critics’ screening). Don’t repeat my mistake.

ONE BETTY FRIEDAN







* “The Lifeguard“: What an incredible waste of time! A sullen, aimless 29-year-old Associated Press reporter (Kristen Bell) is bored and unhappy with her life in New York, so she returns home to live with her parents and become a lifeguard, like she did as a teen in high school. While most of the rest of her high school friends have grown up, she hasn’t. And she embarks on a sexual relationship with an underaged high school teen male. Nothing happens to her, though. The end. And the point of this was . . . ? Other than transferring my ten bucks to the bank account of left-wing actress Kristen Bell, apparently nothing.

Skip this.

FOUR MARXES







* “Afternoon Delight“: This movie was horrifying, disgusting, and incredibly anti-Semitic (from self-hating Jews). Homely actress Kathryn Hahn plays a Jewish yuppie housewife, who is unhappy with her and her husband’s sex life. So, they go to a strip club where they get lap dances from a young stripper. She then feels sorry for the stripper and invites the stripper–who admits she is a prostitute–to live at her house. She also accompanies the stripper to her, um, “appointments” with prostitution customers and is in the room while the prostitute has sex. The stripper has sex with one of Hahn’s friends’ husbands, and that is the last straw.

And they needed a movie about this . . . why? Apparently to make fun of religious Jews. The mother characters in the movie are Jews at a Jewish preschool, and they constantly make fun of one of the other mothers who is a religious Jew and keeps kosher. She is, of course, the nerdy, backward, uptight, ugly, weird-looking one. And they are so cool because they do not keep kosher, go to strip clubs, and have hookers living in their homes.

Ugh.

Would they make a movie like this about Muslims? Hell, no.

Skip at all cost.

FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS PLUS FOUR BIN LADENS

Isn't the virgin birth scientifically impossible?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. This follows this post about the Holy Days of God. This follows this post about  Russia attempting to undermine U.S. policy. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Isn't the virgin birth scientifically impossible?


The Bible claims that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin - but isn't that impossible? Doesn't that prove the account in the Bible is wrong?



Answer:



The Bible says, "Then the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus…' Then Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I do not know a man?' And the angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God'" (Luke 1:30-31 [30] And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.





See All..., 34-35).



So, yes—the virgin birth as recorded in the Bible is scientifically impossible.



A lot of things God does are scientifically impossible, but that has yet to stop Him. He's parted seas (Exodus 14:21And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.



See All...), stopped the sun in the sky (Joshua 10:12-14 [12] Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

[13] And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

[14] And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.





See All...), turned water into wine (John 2:6-11 [6] And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

[7] Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

[8] And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

[9] When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

[10] And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

[11] This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.





See All...), raised people from the dead (John 11:39-45 [39] Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

[40] Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

[41] Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

[42] And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

[43] And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

[44] And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

[45] Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.





See All...) and defied the laws of physics in perhaps a thousand other ways—one of which being Mary's conception of Jesus without ever having had sexual intercourse (Matthew 1:18-23 [18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

[19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

[20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

[21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

[22] Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

[23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.





See All...).



Something that's very important to understand in dealing with the Bible is that an event being described as "scientifically impossible" or just generally implausible doesn't matter when we're talking about the God who created the entire universe by calling it into existence. "Impossible" is not a valid argument against God having done something, since "with God all things are possible" (Mark 10:27And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.



See All...).



So, yes, the virgin birth is scientifically impossible. But the real question to consider is, "When has the impossible ever stopped God?"



For more understanding about the life of Jesus Christ, please read our booklet "Jesus Christ: The Real Story" .

.