Last Days News

 

 

 

 

 

4 Stages of Islamic Conquest:

From Civilus Defendus

(PDF version here. Click, save, share.)

STAGE 1: INFILTRATION

Muslims begin moving to non-Muslim countries in increasing numbers and the beginning of cultural conflicts are visible, though often subtle.

  • First migration wave to non-Muslim “host” country.
  • Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the host society.
  • Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful & Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism (even though Islam is not a ‘race’).
  • High Muslim birth rate in host country increase Muslim population.
  • Mosques used to spread Islam and dislike of host country & culture.
  • Calls to criminalize “Islamophobia” as a hate crime.
  • Threatened legal action for perceived discrimination.
  • Offers of “interfaith dialogue” to indoctrinate non-Muslims.

How many nations are suffering from Islamic infiltration? One? A handful? Nearly every nation? The Islamic ‘leadership” of the Muslim Brotherhood and others wish to dissolve each nation’s sovereignty and replace it with the global imposition of Islamic sharia law. Sharia law, based on the koran, sira and hadith, condemns liberty and forbids equality and is inconsistent with the laws of all Western nations. As the author and historian Serge Trifkovic states:

“The refusal of the Western elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history.”

STAGE 2:   CONSOLIDATION OF POWER

Muslim immigrants and host country converts continue demands for accommodation in employment, education, social services, financing and courts.

  • Proselytizing increases; Establishment and Recruitment of Jihadi cells.
  • Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population to Islam.
  • Revisionist efforts to Islamize history.
  • Efforts to destroy historic evidence that reveal true Islamism.
  • Increased anti-western propaganda and psychological warfare.
  • Efforts to recruit allies who share similar goals (communists, anarchists).
  • Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint.
  • Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslims.
  • Efforts to introduce blasphemy and hate laws in order to silence critics.
  • Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and immigration.
  • Use of charities to recruit supporters and fund jihad.
  • Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of host society from within.
  • Development of Muslim political base in non-Muslim host society.
  • Islamic Financial networks fund political growth, acquisition of land.
  • Highly visible assassination of critics aimed to intimidate opposition.
  • Tolerance of non-Muslims diminishes.
  • Greater demands to adopt strict Islamic conduct.
  • Clandestine amassing of weapons and explosives in hidden locations.
  • Overt disregard/rejection of non-Muslim society’s legal system, culture.
  • Efforts to undermine and destroy power base of non-Muslim religions including and especially Jews and Christians.

Is there a pattern here? Theo van Gogh is murdered in the Netherlands for ‘insulting’ Islam; the Organization of the Islamic Conference demands ‘anti-blasphemy’ laws through the United Nations; France is set afire regularly by ‘youths’ (read Muslims); the rise of (dis-) honor killings…holocaust denial…anti-Semitism…deception re the tenets of Islam; hatred toward Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists.  The pattern for all to see is the rise of Islamic intolerance and the covert/cultural jihad to remake host societies into sharia-compliant worlds – to remove host sovereignty and replace it with Islamic sharia law.  Sharia law that condemns earthly liberty and individual freedom, that forbids equality among faiths and between the sexes, that rejects the concept of nations outside the global house of Islam, that of dar al-Islam.

STAGE 3: OPEN WAR w/ LEADERSHIP & CULTURE

Open violence to impose Sharia law and associated cultural restrictions; rejection of host government, subjugation of other religions and customs.

  • Intentional efforts to undermine the host government & culture.
  • Acts of barbarity to intimidate citizens and foster fear and submission.
  • Open and covert efforts to cause economic collapse of the society.
  • All opposition is challenged and either eradicated or silenced.
  • Mass execution of non-Muslims.
  • Widespread ethnic cleansing by Islamic militias.
  • Rejection and defiance of host society secular laws or culture.
  • Murder of “moderate” Muslim intellectuals who don’t support Islamization.
  • Destruction of churches, synagogues and other non-Muslim institutions.
  • Women are restricted further in accordance with Sharia law.
  • Large-scale destruction of population, assassinations, bombings.
  • Toppling of government and usurpation of political power.
  • Imposition of Sharia law

The website www.thereligionofpeace.com keeps track of the number of violent jihad attacks as best it can. The site lists more than 14,000 attacks since September 2001. It is worth a visit. What is occurring, however, that is likely inestimable are events where muslims are bullied by other muslims for not being “muslim enough,” where non-Muslims are intimidated into doing or not doing what they desire, where remnant populations are in a death spiral simply for being non-muslim in a predominantly muslim area. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists Animists and Atheists meet with death, property destruction or confiscation, forced conversion, rape, excessive taxation (the jizya), enslavement, riotous mobs and various other forms of islam (in-) justice at the hands of muslims in Sudan, Philippines, Kenya, Malaysia, India, etc.  And let us not forget ‘death to Apostates’ the world over.

STAGE 4: Totalitarian ISLAMIC “THEOCRACY”

Islam becomes the only religious-political-judicial-cultural ideology.

  • Sharia becomes the “law of the land.
  • All non-Islamic human rights cancelled.
  • Enslavement and genocide of non-Muslim population.
  • Freedom of speech and the press eradicated.
  • All religions other than Islam are forbidden and destroyed.
  • Destruction of all evidence of non-Muslim culture, populations and symbols in country (Buddhas, houses of worship, art, etc).

The House of Islam (“peace”), dar al-Islam, includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, to the soul crushing, liberty-condemning, discriminatory law of Sharia. The rest of the world in in the House of War, dar al-harb, because it does not submit to Sharia, and exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of ‘Allah.’ No non-Muslim state or its citizens are “innocent,” and remain viable targets of war for not believing in ‘Allah.’ The Christian, Jewish, Coptic, Hindu and Zoroastrian peoples of world have suffered under subjugation for centuries. The Dhimmi-esque are forbidden to construct houses of worship or repair existing ones, economically crippled by the heavy jizya (tax), socially humiliated, legally discriminated against, criminally targeted and generally kept in a permanent state of weakness, fear and vulnerability by Islamic governments.

It should be noted that forced conversions (Egypt) and slavery (Sudan) are still reported. Homosexuals have been hung in the public square in Iran. Young girls are married to old men. Apostates are threatened with death. “Honor” killings are routine. Women are legally second-class citizens, though Muslim males insist they are “treated better” than in the West. These more obvious manifestations may distract from some less obvious ones such as the lack of intellectual inquiry in science, narrow scope of writing, all but non-existent art and music, sexual use and abuse of youth and women, and the disregard for personal fulfillment, joy and wonder. Look into the eyes of a recently married 12 year old girl to see the consequence of the moral deprivation spawned by Islam.

The 4 Stages of Islamic Conquest is also available in pdf format for easy sharing as part of “Liberty vs Sharia

 

 

 

 

Ben   Barrack

Will Congressman Eliot Ness Please Stand Up?

As the United States continues on its downward trajectory, thanks to the policies of Barack Obama, the debate rages about whether he’s doing it all on purpose or is just incompetent. When talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh discusses this, he concludes that “it doesn’t matter” because the result is the same either way.

Limbaugh misses a very critical line of distinction when he says that. If Obama is incompetent, it means he must be voted out of office. If he is intentionally destroying the country as it was founded, it means he has malicious intent and must be removed through impeachment and a Senate trial. It would also mean that he is a domestic enemy.

It wouldn’t matter if Al Capone were president of the United States, impeachment and a Senate trial is the only way to remove a sitting president from office. As for Capone, the Chicago mob boss was guilty of many things, the worst of which was murder. The Feds knew it but they couldn’t prove it. They also knew Capone was guilty of income tax evasion, which they could and did prove. Perhaps he wasn’t convicted of his most egregious crimes but it didn’t matter; he could do no more damage.

If this administration is intentionally destroying our nation (Rush at least doesn’t dismiss this possibility), the responsibility to remove Obama necessarily falls to 535 congressmen who took an oath to defend us against an occupant of the White House who is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe they can’t prove he’s doing it on purpose but if they know it, they should impeach and convict for a crime they can prove. It is their Constitutional duty to do so. With a solid majority in the House, speaker John Boehner would succeed, with the right message and the right case. Even if the House impeached and the Senate didn’t convict, Obama might think twice before usurping anymore power from the legislative branch.

In May of 2010, then Republican minority whip, Eric Cantor spoke at the Heritage Foundation. Someone in the audience asked him the following question:

“In light of what Obama has done… what would he have to do differently to be defined as a domestic enemy?”

Cantor’s response was the following:

“Listen, let me respond very forthright to that. No one thinks the president is a domestic enemy.”

 

Now House majority leader, Cantor has an even greater responsibility to get to the truth. If he is ultimately proven wrong about Obama’s intentions, he will have violated his oath by not doing everything in his power to reveal them and help to prevent them from being carried out.

 

There have only been two impeachments in the history of our republic. Both were Democrats – Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton – whose presidencies survived because the Senate failed to convict. The only other president who was certain to be both impeached and convicted was Republican Richard Nixon, who resigned when he saw the writing on his administration’s stonewalls.

Barack Obama is our 44th President. If you count Nixon, only one president has been removed from office by Congress; that’s 1 in 44. The odds of Obama facing a similar fate are barely more than 2%, which is why conservative Republicans continue the countdown to the 2012 election while saying it can’t get here soon enough.

Consider that Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. He has been in office for slightly more than 31 months. Assuming he is defeated in 2012, he will not leave office for another 17 months. The first term of his administration isn’t even two thirds complete, if you count the ten-week lame duck period. Yes, technically, the election is next year but it is still well more than a year away.

If this administration is intentionally trying to destroy the United States as it was founded, would it not attempt to do so completely before Obama leaves office? In fact, if the country survives and if Obama is defeated after one term, the administration may be at its most destructive during its last ten weeks. Does anyone remember what the outgoing 111th Congress did in the lame duck session after the Tea Party tsunami in 2010?

In a radio interview with Joe Pagliarulo on WOAI in Houston, TX, Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary committee, all but conceded there was nothing Congress could really do in response to Obama’s usurpation of its power by granting amnesty to illegal aliens on August 18th, in essence, by executive fiat. Smith said that hearings would take several months and do little more than embarrass the president; he then said that the 2012 election is the best option.

This president loves chaos; he loves redirection and misdirection; it keeps the opposition disjointed and ineffective while invoking ‘jack of all trades and master of none’ comparisons. In Chicago, instead of wringing their hands about whether to indict Capone on charges of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, bootlegging, racketeering, or any other crimes, Eric Holder’s Justice Department ancestors picked the best option and went for broke – income tax evasion.

Of all the things this administration has done, the best option for having Obama removed through impeachment and conviction is Operation Fast and Furious. It is a scandal that has been percolating just beneath the surface for months now and it involves the ATF allowing weapons to ‘walk’ into Mexico; it reaches to the highest levels of the Justice Department at minimum. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, ICE agent Jaime Zapata, and countless Mexican civilians are all alleged to have been murdered as a direct result of those who authorized it.

Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa has already chaired multiple rounds of hearings; he’s way out in front of Lamar Smith in that regard. Attorney General Eric Holder, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, and ATF Supervisor William Newell have all given testimony that reeks of perjury. As the scandal creeps along, it gets closer to the White House and Issa says there will be even more hearings. If this administration either authorized or knew about Fast and Furious, the scandal instantly becomes Watergate with murder.

If Obama authorized the operation, he could be guilty of criminally negligent manslaughter, which occurs when the death of another human being is the result of serious negligence or recklessness. Authorizing a program that puts guns in the hands of drug cartels who kill our federal agents would necessarily qualify. If, as some have alleged, the intent of the Obama administration was to create a crisis of guns crossing the border – in order to further a gun control agenda – we’re talking constructive manslaughter, which is more severe because it involves malicious intent.

If Holder committed perjury when he told the Senate Judiciary committee on May 4th that he had only learned about Fast and Furious a few weeks earlier, did Obama know his Attorney General committed perjury and do nothing about it? Worse yet, did he instruct Holder to commit perjury? In the former case, it’s called aiding and abetting perjury. In the latter case, it’s called suborning it.

Manslaughter and perjury are both impeachable offenses and Darrell Issa’s committee is getting very close to the truth, which does involve dead Americans and blatant stonewalling.

Issa has quickly become persona non grata in the leftwing media as well, a clear indication that he has become a threat. On August 15th, New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau penned an article that consists of thirteen factual errors according to Issa’s office. Libel is appearing more and more possible as the Times has already issued three corrections with more likely to follow, including the charge that Issa’s office overlooks a golf course. Issa’s staff posted a video of the view from all windows and there is no golf course in sight.

 

 

The doctoral dissertation of Obama’s ideological hero, Saul Alinsky, was an inside study of Capone’s mob, which he saw firsthand after endearing himself to the top henchmen. He said the following in an interview about the experience:

“The Federal Government could try to nail ‘em on an occasional income tax rap, but inside Chicago they couldn’t touch their power.”

This administration and its Justice Department seems to carry a similar air of invincibility. The metaphor carries eerily literal comparisons. Alinsky ingratiated himself with mobsters; Obama panders to union thugs; origins in Chicago were shared by both men. Coming full circle, Obama is a reverent student of Alinsky.

The metaphor here is that Congress represents the Feds and the White House seems to carry the evil spirit of Capone in some undeniable respects.

If there is an Eliot Ness in Congress today, Darrell Issa might just be the best candidate but he could sure use a few more untouchables.

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

August 31, 2011

The Only Thing Keeping Obama in Office

By James G. Wiles

American Thinker

There was Fareed Zakaria on his program GPS last weekend banging on about the superiority of the British parliamentary system over America’s presidential one.  Good luck with that excuse.  There’s such a delicious irony in the CNN/Newsweek commentator’s suggestion that it’s hard not to snicker.

Under a parliamentary system, Barack Obama would have been ousted as prime minister when the Republicans took back the House of Representatives in November 2010.  At a minimum, a Prime Minister Obama today would be in the process of being defenestrated by his own parliamentary party as part of a repositioning of the Dems for the 2012 election.  Faced with Mr. Obama’s dismal poll ratings, Hillary and the president’s fellow Democrats in Congress would be rising up to “do him down,” as the Brits say.

(Maybe she still will.  Senator Eugene McCarthy didn’t even announce that he was challenging President Lyndon Baines Johnson for the 1968 Democratic nomination until November 30, 1967.  Four months later, LBJ withdrew from the race.).

A British prime minister is head of government because he’s been elected to that post by his own party’s MPs, not by the voters.  Thus, the brutal fact is that a prime minister can at any time be given the bum’s rush from 10 Downing Street by a revolt in his own ranks.  In the last 21 years, two British prime ministers have been ousted by a rival via exactly that route.

The first was the UK’s greatest conservative post-war leader, Margaret Thatcher, in 1990 — after eleven years in office.  It happened again in 1997 to the man who ousted her, John Major.  Far behind in the polls, virtually certain of defeat at the next required election, both PMs were forced out by their own parliamentary colleagues.

That’s how it works under the Westminster system, which Fareed Zakaria likes.

The Founding Fathers didn’t like the Westminster system.  And the informed choice they made has served us well in times of national crisis.

That cunning old bird, Benjamin Franklin, knew Westminster well.  He’d been a lobbyist in London for almost 20 years when the Revolution broke out in 1775.  Dr. Franklin (his honorary doctorates came from St. Andrews and Oxford) worked Parliament on behalf of, among other clients, the colonies of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.  He knew well the pervasive corruption, patronage, and confused governance of Georgian England.

Later, after helping write the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Franklin served as the first U.S. minister to France.  There, he learned to speak French and saw l’ancien régime in action.  Ben Franklin brought that life experience to the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  He and the other Founders rejected kings and parliaments.  They designed instead a presidential system.

Absent impeachment, which requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate for conviction, a president cannot be removed until his term expires.  Thus, an American president can, like Mr. Obama, remain in office even though his public support has collapsed.  This is not some design defect: it is the intended result from the Founders.

This stability has been painted as a weakness of the American system.  Walter Bagehot, most notably, urged this point in The English Constitution.  I believe American history proves the contrary — especially when one factors in the inherent instability of a parliamentary system where there are more than two major political parties represented.

It was our presidential system which enabled Abraham Lincoln to remain in office as a war president after 1863.  That enabled the North to crush the South’s rebellion and save the Union.  More recently, it probably enabled another war president, George W. Bush, to remain in office after 2006 and win the Iraq War.

Either way, only the design of the Founding Fathers is keeping President Barack Obama in office right now.  Does that mean that Mr. Obama should simply resign, for the good of the country and the Democratic Party?  Well, Roger L. Simon, over at pajamasmedia.com, made  exactly that argument in a post on August 5.

Roger Simon’s point has only improved with time.  During possibly the most famous presidential vacation since Teddy Roosevelt went bear-hunting in Mississippi in 1902, Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal and Jim Geraghty in nationalreviewonline.com (among others) both speculated that the President might “do an LBJ.”  The danger to America’s national security of a broken president’s continuing in office for another year and a half — something I commented on — is the exact reason Richard Nixon gave for resigning in 1974.

Of course, the Nixon precedent didn’t deter Bill Clinton from staying in office after he was impeached in 1998.

But the real argument in favor of what would be only the second presidential resignation in history is economic, not political.  What the American people need right now is a change in the animal spirits of the economic marketplace.  The best stimulus which could be given to the U.S. economy before November 2012 would be the voluntary departure of Barack Obama as our president — and the rollback or defunding by Congress of virtually everything the Executive Branch has done since taking office.

An announcement à la LBJ by Mr. Obama that he’s not going to seek a second term wouldn’t be enough to break the Capital Strike.

The other objection to Fareed Zakaria’s suggestion is that parliamentary government is, when it works well, one-party rule.  That’s a “tell.”

Democrats always seem to like one-party rule, as long as they’re the one party doing the ruling.  When in the White House, Democrats argue for centralizing all power in the presidency.  But once a Republican gets in, Democrats change their tune and talk about the dangers of an imperial presidency.

Presidential scholar and JFK advisor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. practically gave himself whiplash doing that.

With the shift from President Bush to President Obama, this shift happened once again.  Now, with the Archangel Barack’s approval rating in the 30s, we’re hearing the familiar refrain that it’s the American form of government which needs to be changed, not the head of that government.

In short, Fareed Zakaria’s plaint strikes me as just special pleading.  The problem is not our form of government, but the occupant of the White House.  That’s fixable.

We don’t need another leftist rationale for why Barack Obama shouldn’t be blamed for the current state of affairs.  It didn’t work for Jimmy Carter — the last time, be it remembered, the American people were criticized for their “narcissism” — and it won’t work for this president.  The American people don’t believe it.

And, whether under a presidential system or a parliamentary system, American voters are going to get the last word.  Most of us can’t wait.

Until then, I’m content with the Founders’ choice.

 

 

 

 

August 31, 2011

Obama Ignores Israel’s Daily Hurricanes

By Lauri B. Regan

American Thinker

The day before Hurricane Irene swept through New York, I received a concerned email from a cousin in Israel asking if we were properly prepared to weather the storm.  I responded that I was not too concerned and thought the media and politicians were a bit over the top with the evacuations, warnings, and coverage.  The next night, as Americans up and down the east coast remained hunkered down in the safety of their homes, a Palestinian terrorist stole a taxi, ran over two individuals, and then stabbed a number of others outside of a Tel Aviv night club.  I emailed my cousin and explained that this is the exact reason that I cannot get excited over a storm — an act of God.  My cousin agreed, saying, “Yes, these are our day to day hurricanes here…”

Israel’s day-to-day hurricanes are not caused by acts of God.  They are caused by acts of man — hostile, dangerous, and irrational men (and women).  And while humans cannot control the weather, they can erect structures that can withstand wind and rain, hurricanes and tornados; they can build satellites that predict and track weather patterns, providing warning systems to escape the upcoming danger; and they can prevent loss of life.

On the other hand, there is not much that Israel can do to protect herself from the unpredictable acts of crazed lunatics who wish her and her people complete annihilation.  And the few steps that she has taken have been attacked by the international community which treats Israel and her citizens as terrorists should be in a sane world.  From the barrier erected to protect Israeli citizens from suicide bombers (which has been quite successful) to retaliatory strikes aimed at terrorists rather than full Arab civilian populations (despite the fact that terrorists hide both themselves and their weapons among their populations), Israel is continually demonized at the United Nations, in the international press, and on streets and college campuses across the globe.

Not surprisingly, the Obama administration has turned a blind and biased eye to the storms that Israel confronts daily.  The New York Times recently reported on the White House guidelines issued to government officials across the world instructing them how to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11.  One of the themes in the document is not only to recognize that the attacks are not “just about us,” but also that “Americans must be prepared for another attack — and must, in response, be resilient in recovering from the loss.”

As we commemorate the citizens of over 90 countries who perished in the 9/11 attacks, we honor all victims of terrorism, in every nation around the world[.] … We honor and celebrate the resilience of individuals, families, and communities on every continent, whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.

Conspicuously absent from this official White House policy statement is our ally, Israel.  This is appalling.  While all of these other countries have faced terrorism, Israel is the one country in the world that faces it daily from all sides — including its border with its former friend Egypt thanks to the Mideast policies of the Obama administration.  It is the one country that is threatened with annihilation on a regular basis.  It is the one country that this administration has bullied and threatened over and over again since Obama entered the White House.  And to issue guidelines recognizing the resilience of individuals from a litany of countries that specifically excludes Israel is simply a disgrace.

As the United States’ most important strategic ally, Israel has provided our country’s military with invaluable knowledge in the asymmetrical warfare that our troops abroad regularly face in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Israelis have obtained this knowledge not only from the multiple wars of aggression against her since her founding but because of the resilience that the Jewish people have acquired from millennia of attacks.  It is the Jewish people in general, and Israelis in particular in the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century, who have taught the world what resilience is and how to survive the never-ending perfect storms of violence and aggression.  To ignore this reality is not only to ignore the lessons of history, but it is cause for real concern over just how out of touch the Obama administration is.

Barack Obama has proven to be an abomination at leading this country.  Conservatives and liberals alike agree that the failure of leadership from the White House is leading America down the road to demise.  Were it not so sad, it would be amusing that Obama chose to use an act of God for his first attempt at real leadership.  But taking the helm at the FEMA offices prior to Hurricane Irene is not leadership — it was a simple covering-his-butt political stunt.

Leadership is what we see every time that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu speaks both here in the US and abroad.  He does not need two giant teleprompters for a three-minute speech announcing his selection for a new member of his administration.  Netanyahu understands storms and the need for his citizens to be resilient because he and all Israelis live in the path of a hurricane daily and it is his responsibility to ensure that his people survive each and every storm.

Leadership is also what House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen exhibited when she unveiled her U.N. reform bill on Tuesday.  In the lead up to the Palestinian bid at the UN for a unilateral declaration of independence, Ros-Lehtinen has introduced a bill to cut off U.S. funding of any U.N. agency that recognizes a Palestinian state prior to resolution of the Mideast peace process (the bill also would cut off U.S. funds to UNRWA and the U.N. Human Rights Council).  It is no surprise that the White House has reflexively come out in opposition to this bill.  As Jonathan Tobin recognized:

Obama’s “don’t worry, be happy” approach to the UN has done nothing to convince its members to stop trying to kill the peace process by voting to recognize an independent Palestinian state without first requiring it to make peace with Israel. Nor has the administration used its supposedly weighty influence at Turtle Bay to transform UNRWA or the Human Rights Council, both of which exist primarily in order to perpetuate the Arab war against Israel.

September is hurricane season here in the U.S.  For Israel, every day is hurricane season; however, September may present her with another perfect storm.  In response to intelligence indicating that there is another viable terror threat on her border with Egypt, the Israeli navy has moved two warships to that border.  At the same time, Iran has just announced that it is moving a fleet of ships to the area. The ceasefire with Gaza will last only until one of Hamas’ crazed lunatics decides to once again begin firing rockets into Israel.  And these same people will turn to the U.N. in the hopes that its member-states will approve a unilateral declaration of statehood for the Palestinian people.

Israelis have built effective defensive weapons systems but they cannot build a bomb-proof bubble over their entire country.  They have built satellites and drones that can detect and shoot down some of the missiles aimed at their country and citizens but they cannot destroy every fanatic firing at them from his local mosque or schoolyard.  They can attempt to prevent loss of life but without leadership from allies and the civilized world, when a hurricane approaches, Israelis can only pray that an act of God will save them.


 

 

 

August 31, 2011

Chilling Free Speech in the Great White North

By Terry Heinrichs

American Thinker

Americans aware of journalists Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are likely also aware that these two were hauled before Canadian “Human Rights Commissions” for supposed speech-crimes.  Levant was pursued because he published the Mohammed cartoons, and Steyn, for, well, casting some Muslims in a bad light.  Both men had their cases dropped, probably because they were articulate, famous, and had relatively deep pockets.  Others who have been charged have not been so lucky.  While such commissions stand as a serious threat to an open public discourse, they are not the only menace “controversial” speech faces in Canada.

Speech in the U.S. is subject to many types of restrictions, but there is no law that criminalizes “hate speech” as such.  Canada has such a law.  It punishes citizens for up to two years in the slammer for “communicating statements, other than in private conversation” that “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.”  This law, passed in 1970, has not been widely used.  It has been deployed about 15 times since 1993, all but twice against impecunious white Canadians.

However, the Canadian government is currently considering a bill which would amend the hate speech section of the Criminal Code in ways that expand the reach of the Act and give the government greater power over the content of what Canadians may say.  One amendment would add “national origin” to the list of “identifiable groups” which would then read: “any section of the public distinguished by color, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.”  Another proposal would change the wording of “communicating” from “communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means” to “communicating by any means and includes making available [the objectionable speech].”

The “national origin” amendment simply adds another basis for grievance to an already expansive collection.  For example, referring to Germans or Poles as “Krauts” or “Polaks,” or saying that “the French are “surrender monkeys,” could earn the person who utters such words a visit from the police.  And don’t think that because everyone has a race, sexual orientation, and national or ethnic origin, if not a religion, that the act will apply across the board.  Not a chance.  The Canadian Supreme Court has narrowed the application of an “identifiable group” to cover only those who could be considered “disadvantaged.”  For the Jews and Yanks among us, this means Palestinians and Pakistanis, not Israelis or Americans.

The “communicating” amendment is even more expansive and potentially much more dangerous.  “Communicating by telephone, broadcasting, or other audible or visible means” is already expansive enough; adding the phrase “making available” renders the term almost boundless.  According to the Parliament’s Legislative Summary of the bill, the term “making available” specifically includes “creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted.”

Readers of this publication are surely aware of hyperlinks.  In fact, I just produced one above.  It shows up blue and sends the interested reader to an internet website for any number of reasons — in this case to verify the claim just made.  But hyperlinks are used for many purposes, sometimes to direct readers to sites of which the sender approves, other times to sites of which he disapproves, and other times to different sites for different reasons which you are left free to imagine.

What has drawn the ire of those who worry about the threat to free expression contained by the phrase “creating a hyperlink” is that one may be investigated, charged, and even fined and imprisoned for simply linking to (i.e., “making available” to others) a site considered by the authorities to be hate-promoting.  Nor is this provision easily cabined.  It would apply to “any means” of communication.  This would include words (written or spoken) in any manner — including all print, oral, and internet “social media” (cell phones, iPads, iPhones, iPods, Facebook, Twitter, blogs) and whatever other media are either currently available or about to be introduced.  The fear of some critics is that one could accidentally run afoul of the law by innocently linking to a suspect site.  Other opponents of the legislation argue that the state has no business at all checking into one’s linking history.  All of the bill’s critics are aghast at the range of the types of media that are included in the legislation.

To what extent are these concerns real?  On balance, the criticisms are certainly justified; however, there are narrowing elements of the law that some critics tend to overlook.  For example, no one can be prosecuted without the permission of the attorney general of the province in question.  This provision is meant to prevent overzealous officers or prosecutors from launching criminal proceedings whenever passion moves them.  Moreover, no one can be convicted if their communication was part of a private conversation.  The rub is to what extent, if any, cell phone, iPad, etc. conversations are considered by the courts to be “private.”  At this point in time, the matter is not clear — so there is good reason to be concerned.

No one can be convicted unless the promotion of hatred was “willful” — that is, intended.  This last proviso is the kicker.  The person charged must specifically intend to promote hatred.  Though the Court has weakened the proviso in recent years by holding that the test is met by a lesser standard of “willful blindness.”

Moreover, for the accused, there are certain defenses available that might offer him an out.  Truth is a defense; however, the defendant has the burden of persuasion.  Also, a person can be exonerated if he can show he’s arguing “an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”  (The “Koran made me do it” defense.)  In addition, an accused may go free if his statements “were made in good faith, relevant to any subject of public interest,” believed to be true on “reasonable” grounds, and intended for “the public benefit.”  Finally, someone can walk if he can convince the court that, “in good faith,” his intention was to lessen the degree of hatred — not promote it.  (The “I’m just showing how awful these people are” defense.)

What these provisos suggest is that the situation might not be as grave as some critics argue.  Still, not everyone is articulate, connected, and fortunate enough to be able to contest such broad grounds for accusations of hate speech.  For most Canadians simply to have the police snooping around and investigating their private communications is frightening enough.  Since these amendments would expand the reach of the Act to increase the number of grievers and cover a greater variety of media, if passed, the new law will increase the likelihood that conversations about national groupings will be chilled still further.  People will steer away from controversial statements about nationality issues for fear that they will come under investigation for hate promotion.

All forms of communication would be targeted.  With no clear standard of what is private and what isn’t, one’s comments about “fags,” “gypsies,” “Japs,” Jews, or Muslims on Twitter, or wherever, however discreet, might stir the interest of the police.  In any case, if the state does not intervene, it won’t be because of anything a citizen can control.

Because the proposal targets “hatred,” a vague and subjective concept at best, Canada’s hate speech law is by that fact alone a serious threat to freedom of expression.  In Canada, saying something remotely hostile to the interests or self-image of an “identifiable group” is already imprudent; to broaden the law’s reach, as the proposed amendments surely will, promises to freeze such discussion altogether.

 

 

 

 

 

Littman’s exposé “Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel” released by Center in advance of Durban III

Center for Security Policy | Aug 30, 2011

As an act of opposition to the Durban III Conference scheduled this September 21  in New York City, as well as the impending UN General Assembly vote on  the Palestinian proposal to seek a “Unilateral Declaration of  Independence,”   the Center for Security Policy Press has released the  inaugural publication of its new archival series: a reprint of Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel (Fourth Edition),  by David G. Littman.  The publication commemorates the fortieth  anniversary of the book’s original publication in September 1971, and is  based on the Third 1976 edition.

Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel was originally published  in 1971 by “D.F. Green” and has enjoyed three previous printings in  English, two in French and one in German, and a circulation of over  80,000 to date.  With the 2011 reprint of the Fourth Edition of this  book, it is revealed officially in the preface that “D.F. Green” was, in  fact, the pseudonym of historian David G. Littman and his co-author  Professor Yehoshafat Harkabi of the Hebrew University.

The book contains excerpts from speeches given at the Fourth  Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research in 1968, which was  convened in Cairo to discuss the fundamentals of the Middle East  conflict, a year after the Six-Day War between Israel and her neighbors,  which resulted in a decisive Israeli victory.  In addition to excerpts  from speeches by high officials, excerpts from eighteen papers presented  at the conference are included, as well as the recommendations and  names of participants. At the end, there are additional extracts from  revealing statements by Anwar El Sadat in 1953, 1972 and 1975 and from  Anis Mansour (1972–1975).

The organization that held the conference excerpted in Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel, the Academy of Islamic Research, was founded and linked with Cairo’s Al-Azhar University fifty years ago in 1961.   The Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel  excerpts from the 1968 conference include virulently antisemitic and  anti-Israel speeches by mainstream Islamist leaders such as Hussain  Al-Shafe’i, Vice President of the U.A.R. (Egypt); Sheikh Hassan Ma’moun,  Rector of Al-Azhar University; Dr. Abdul-Halim Mahmoud,  Secretary-General (1970) of the Academy of Islamic Research; Dr. Mahmoud  Hubballah, Secretary-General (1968) of the Academy of Islamic Research;  and Sheikh Hassan Khalid, Mufti of the Lebanon.
Regarding the timing of the reprinting, author David Littman remarked:
“On reading D.F. Green’s introduction 40  years later, one notes that there has not been an iota of change in the  Arab-Muslim world on this subject in their media, especially on certain  TV government programs, sermons in mosques, in schools, (widely  documented by MEMRI, Palestine Media Watch and other bodies), and with  rare condemnation or shame.  One paragraph says it all then and now:
‘Arab spokesmen contend that they  differentiate meticulously between Zionism and Judaism and that they are  against Zionism and not against Judaism. There cannot be a more  trenchant disproof of this allegation than the arguments used at the  Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, at least as  regards its participants. The odium of Zionism is described as emanating  from the perversity of Judaism. Zionism and Jews are treated  synonymously.’”
The September 21, 2011 Durban III conference will be boycotted by  the US, Canada, Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands and  Australia because it is expected once again to promote racism,  antisemitism and the denial of Israel’s right to exist.
David Littman is a British historian and widely venerated human  rights activist who has represented several NGOs at the United Nations  in Geneva. As a young man, Littman was at the center of a 1961  clandestine operation (codenamed “Operation Mural” by the Mossad) which  succeeded in bringing 530 Jewish children from Morocco to Israel, via  holidays in Switzerland, when Jews could not leave the country at the  insistence of Gamal Abdal Nasser and the Arab League.  From 1986 onward,  he has appeared at the United Nations representing a variety of NGOs,  including the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ), Association of  World Citizens (AWC), World Federalist Movement (WFM) and the  Association for World Education (AWE) – to press for justice on many  subjects: Soviet Refuseniks, Christian slaves in the Sudan, women and  minorities under Shariah law, particularly on taboo subjects such as  female genital mutilation, honor killings and forced 9-year old girl  marriages in Iran and other OIC countries.  He is married to the noted  historian Bat Ye’or, author of groundbreaking books on Jews and  Christians under Islam, Dhimmitude and Eurabia, with her latest work Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate (2011).  His other writings can be found online at www.dhimmitude.org and  http://www.iheu.org/.
Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel (Fourth Edition) is available for purchase at Amazon.com, and can also be downloaded as a free pdf, Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel, 4th Edition (PDF, 18MB), in the edition prepared by online publisher Brian of London

 

 

 

 

 

No Egyptian crackdown on Sinai terrorists. Jihad keeps Israel in suspense
DEBKAfileSpecial Report August 31, 2011, 9:03 AM (GMT+02:00)

Egypt’s tanks stand idle against terrorists

The Cairo media’s highly colored accounts Monday, Aug. 30 of 1,500 Egyptian commando and tank supposedly raiding Jihad Islami and al Qaeda cells in Sinai are pure fiction, debkafile’s military sources confirm. Israeli forces along the Gazan and Egyptian borders down to Eilat have been forced to stand for a week at the highest level of preparedness since receiving word that a large group of terrorists had left the Gaza Strip for Sinai on Aug. 24 bent on another attack on southern Israel. The Egyptian army, for its part, is sitting on is hands as the jihadists take up assault positions on its side of the Sinai border.The group set out from Gaza the day after the head of the Jihad Islami missile and logistics chief Ismail al-Asmar died in a targeted Israeli air strike on the car he was travelling in Rafah.

Israelwent on high terror alert on Aug. 25. Its leaders have repeatedly warned since then that Israel is fully prepared to respond swiftly if attacked. Tuesday night, the IDF’s Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz said: “Hamas and the other terrorist organizationsin Gaza had better realize that if they harm Israeli citizens we shall hit them hard. Testing our strength would be a mistake.”

Tuesday, Home Front Minister Mattan Vilnai cited information that the at least 10 terrorists were in Sinai getting set to strike southern Israel.

Our sources report he was scolded by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak for letting it be known that the coming Palestinian raid was liable to be bigger than the coordinated highway attacks just north of Eilat of the Aug. 18, in which gunmen shot eight people dead. Limited Israeli reprisal then against Gazan terrorist targets brought forth a 150-missile barrage from Gaza against locations within its constantly expanding range.

For the loss of its logistics chief, the group decided it was not satisfied with heavy missile assaults and plotted a “quality operation” from Sinai. debkafile’s intelligence and counter-terror sources report that the absence of Egyptian preventatives and Israel’s passivity in the face of an assault known to be approaching afford the Palestinian terrorist group, which is sponsored and armed by Iran, extra leverage and strategic leeway in its contest with Israel. Sunday, Aug. 21, after accepting an Egyptian-brokered truce for
halting the missile blitz from Gaza, Netanyahu commented that Israel had gained the upper hand: The Palestinians had landed themselves with a new negative equation: Their attacks from Sinai would henceforth incur retaliation in Gaza.Jihad Islami is now turning this equation on its head by demonstrating that Israeli attacks on Palestinian terrorist targets in the Gaza Strip bring forth Palestinian reprisals from Sinai. They calculate correctly as it turned out this week that the Egyptian border offers them no obstacle to cross-border terror, whereas Israeli counteraction is stopped short.

Held back from its famous preemptive tactics by Israel’s leaders out of fear of further strains on relations with the military rulers in Cairo, the Israeli army’s deterrent strength is progressively sapped and the pro-Iranian Palestinian terrorists are getting the last laugh even before they strike. They have wound up holding the initiative in the next round. It is up to them to decide for how much longer – days or weeks – reinforced Israeli units must stay on maximum preparedness and Israel’s main routes to the south, Highways 10 and 12, stay closed to civilian traffic. They can keep Israel on tenterhooks as long as they like before deciding to press the trigger.

 

 

 

 

Turkey’s need for Israel’s UAVs may unite once close allies

Ankara censures Israel for its attacks on Gaza, but does not hesitate to bomb the Kurdish PKK movement in much the same manner.

By Zvi Bar’elTags:                                        Israel TurkeyGaza

Turkey’s patience in the face of frequent attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party  (PKK ) ended last week, when it began a war targeted at areas with high concentrations of members of the movement, which is defined as a terrorist organization. On Thursday the Turkish army announced that it had killed 100 PKK members in areas along the Iraqi border and inside Iraq as well, a week after the PKK killed eight Turkish soldiers.

Could Turkey’s war against the PKK bring it closer to Israel? Visit Haaretz.com on Facebook and share your views.

Turkey censured Israel for its activities in Gaza, but operates in a similar manner against the PKK: It penetrates Iraq’s air space and bombs villages or sites suspected of housing PKK members, causing the deaths of innocent people, including women and children. And like Israeli diplomats, Turkey’s ambassador was summoned to a reprimand: the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, demanded of the ambassador that his country cease its military activities on Iraqi soil immediately. Members of the Iraqi Kurdistan Parliament added the demand for an apology for Turkey’s attacks in its country to this reprimand.

It appears that Ankara, which brought the term “apology” to the forefront of the new diplomatic discourse, will have to deal with this itself now.

According to Turkish sources, in this campaign the Turkish army is using unmanned aerial vehicles acquired from Israel, to which Turkish-made cameras are attached. It turns out that the amount of UAV’s in Turkey’s hands is insufficient, and it is seeking to purchase more, along with other military equipment, for immediate delivery. Turkey’s policy until now has been to acquire Turkish-made equipment or that produced in cooperation with other countries; however, in light of the increasing attacks of the Kurdish movement and the decision to focus a military effort on it, Turkey has decided to make immediate purchases.

Rehabilitating factor

A senior Turkish source told Haaretz that it is possible that “the war against the PKK may actually be the factor that rehabilitates relations between Turkey and Israel. Turkey needs the UAV’s and Israel is likely to be a good source, especially when the fact that Turkey already has a service platform for Israeli UAV’s is taken into account.”

The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reports that the army intends to buy combat helicopters “off the shelf,” in addition to those ordered from the Italian AgustaWestland firm, which were co-produced with Turkish Aerospace Industries.

The war against the PKK has been going on for a long time. Since 1984, more than 40,000 people have been killed. During the last two years, the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has tried to reach agreements with the leader of the group, to offer reconciliation, and even announced an effort to rebuild Kurdish areas of Turkey. Alongside these efforts, however, Ankara acted against the Kurdish activists who ran for parliament and some of them were arrested, which led to violent confrontations between Turkish Kurds and the police force.

Military fatigues

The campaign against the PKK has also stirred up Turkish politics: This week a recording was leaked to the media in which the previous army chief of staff, Isik Kosaner, is apparently heard saying that the Turkish army is losing its fight against the Kurds due to failures in organization and coordination. Kosaner resigned his post in July, together with the heads of other army branches, in protest following the arrest of senior officers in the “Ergenekon Affair,” in which they and other public figures were accused of instigating a military coup. In the recording, a person who appears to be Kosaner says that soldiers abandoned their weapons and deserted during the fighting. In the wake of the publicity that followed, families of soldiers who were killed are demanding compensation from the government for the death of their loved ones due to army negligence.

And this is not the only scandal. In the recording, Kosaner also warns senior commanders about the new law passed by the Turkish parliament which states that the army’s civilian business will be under civilian control. “Be careful, financial matters will be much more serious from now on,” he says.

The Turkish army, through its soldiers’ aid center, owns many civilian factories, including the car assembly firm Renault Fluence, cement factories, hotels and residences that are intended to house soldiers but are sold on the free market. These businesses, worth billions of dollars, have enjoyed complete freedom until now, without any government oversight. The army pension fund will also be under government control now, and according to Kosaner, will be reduced by 15 percent following the introduction of new taxes.

While the Turkish army is beginning to feel government pressure on its pockets, the Turkish government intends to adopt a new fighting strategy against the PKK: Special police and gendarmerie forces will be put in charge, while the Turkish army will concentrate on defending borders. In this way Erdogan’s government is in effect declaring that it no longer trusts the army’s ability to conduct an effective war against Kurdish terror and plans to become directly involved in the operative side, which until now was free of oversight.

The war against the PKK is the pillar of the policy on which Turkey conditioned its diplomatic cooperation with Syria and Iran. But this policy is changing. Turkey is becoming Syria’s biggest critic, while Iran attacks Turkey’s policies toward Syria and even threatens to act against Turkey. The concern in Ankara is whether Iran will operate terror organizations in its territory, and also encourage the PKK to widen its attacks, if Turkey continues with its present approach toward Syria.

ADMINISTRATOR’S NOTE: I reprint the following articles from The Christian Post to illustrate how what is called “Christianity” is rife with blasphemy after blasphemy, and abomination upon abomination. It has become a worldly pursuit. Just another category of “Pop Culture” to appease the masses of lost souls. It makes me want to puke. I hope those reading these articles, and others like them, see them for what they are. That you have the discernment given from God and the Holy Spirit, and that each one will turn to God’s Word and the Lord in prayer to resist this deadly wave of abomination drowning the masses and seek the Lord in truth and pureness of heart and spirit.
Ken
The Christian Post > Entertainment|Tue, Aug. 30 2011 05:41 PM EDT

Modern-Day Christian Painter Shows Christ With Muscles, Tattoo

By Jeff Schapiro | Christian Post Contributor

A photo of Stephen Sawyer’s painting “No Appointment Necessary” shows a man in blue jeans and a white t-shirt, flexing his right tricep and showing off the tattoo on his right arm.  The man in the painting, who has a beard and long, brown hair, is strong and masculine – and his name is Jesus.

  • Stephen Sawyer dedicates this painting,
    (Photo: Stephen Sawyer/Art4God.com)
    Stephen Sawyer dedicates this painting, “No Appointment Necessary,” to “those children of God who do not appear to ‘fit in.'”
Related Topics

The 58-year-old Christian artist’s goal, according to his “Art for God” website, is to use his paintings to “reflect the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth in the 21st century.”  The painting described above has appeared in hundreds of different newspapers around the world, Sawyer says, including the Jerusalem Post.

“Those people who have tattoos, many of which are bikers, who have turned their heart over to God … instead of them being embraced by Christian fellowship … they had Leviticus being spouted out at them,” Sawyer told The Christian Post on Tuesday while explaining the purpose of the painting.

“That was my open hand slap to say, ‘Stop judging people based on the outside of their cup,’” he said.

He was referring to Leviticus 19:28, which in the New International Version says, “Do not … put tattoo marks on yourselves.”

Another of Sawyers paintings, “Undefeated,” portrays Jesus as a boxer in the ring.

“Originally I did that for young people because I felt like they needed to see Jesus not as an emaciated, thin, worn-out, sometimes overly-effeminate looking savior,” he said, “and I wanted to do something that would give them a new way to interpret their love for Jesus of Nazareth.”

Sawyer says that he’s been an artist since he was in kindergarten, but he’s taken “a couple of detours” along the way while he sought out the career that was right for him.  He is a graduate of the University of Kentucky, where he studied architecture and engineering.

Though some people are offended by the way he portrays Christ, Sawyer says that “95 percent” of the people who see his work relate to it in a positive way.  Those who don’t, he says, are generally “modern-day Pharisees” who “create a very judgmental God based on the fact that they’re very judgmental.”

He uses a real-life model, Tyrone Dove Gardner, as a visual aid when creating his Jesus paintings.  He looked through thousands of potential models for over 20 years before he found the right one.

“What I wasn’t looking for was a historically accurate representation of Jesus, because I have no idea what Jesus looked like,” Sawyer says.  “It’s just pure speculation.”

He added, “I was looking for a beautiful specimen of a human being and I feel like I found it.”

In addition to showing Jesus as a modern day man, Sawyer has also conveyed issues like sexual abuse and drug addiction through his art.

“I’ve tried to tackle what I consider are some of the very important issues that help keep Christianity relevant instead of in the past,” he said.

The Christian Post > Church & Ministries|Sat, Aug. 27 2011 02:44 PM EDT

United Methodist Gay Rights Supporters Gather in Ohio

By Jeff Schapiro | Christian Post Contributor

On the shore of Lake Erie, in the city of Huron, Ohio, several hundred United Methodists from around the country have gathered this weekend for the “Sing a New Song!” conference in support of seeing the church become more open to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

“I’d say the overarching purpose of our gathering is to come together to worship God and to praise God for all the blessings that he has bestowed upon all of us…to focus our attention back on Jesus Christ,” said the Rev. John Oda, chair of Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN), in an interview with The Christian Post (CP) Friday.

RMN collaborated with the Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA) and Affirmation: United Methodist to put the event together, which will also serve as a chance to prepare for the 2012 General Conference in which a precedent-setting vote regarding homosexuality in the church is set to take place.

The Rev. Dr. Karen Oliveto, also a board member of RMN, told CP that gearing up for the general conference will play a big role in this weekend’s discussions.

“Well, as United Methodists, it’s a part of who we are…we wouldn’t be United Methodists if we weren’t talking about it.  It’s [a] very democratic denomination and so our voices need to be heard,” she said.

Approximately 700 people are in attendance at Sing a New Song, which began on Aug. 25 and will conclude on Sunday.  They say that 100 of those people are considered either youthor young adults.

 

“The church works hard to fulfill Christ’s commandment to love your neighbor,” said Jill A. Warren, executive director of the Methodist Federation for Social Action in a statement. “United Methodists support human rights for all people, including LGBT people. I pray for a day when we can all work together to bring peace to war-torn countries and to be good stewards of God’s creation, as fully-inclusive United Methodist neighbors.”

Joy J. Moore, associate dean for Black Church Studies and Church Relations at Duke Divinity School, told CP that she is “troubled by the fact that this conversation has so captivated not only the United Methodist denomination but the church at large, so that we spend a great deal of time speaking of this as if it were central.”

Moore holds to the United Methodist Church’s current official position on the issue, and says that homosexuality is “not compatible with Christian scripture.”

God called his chosen ones be a “peculiar people,” she said, but this is a “popular conversation” in which Christians are seeking to be liked for what they have to say.

Though Moore maintains the orthodox position on the issue, she doesn’t take it to an extreme and believes there should at least be a discussion about it.

“I do not believe we have been engaged in a genuine conversation,” she said.  She later added, “preaching and programming is not a dialogue.”

At the 2012 General Conference in April, she expects there to be “verbal, gladiator kind of sparring” but seems confident that the UMC’s official stance on homosexuality will not change, for now.

“General Conference is not a place to have this kind of conversation because we have yielded our process to a political, legislative process,” she said.  “What I have not yet heard in the sound bites…is a theological discussion of what this means in terms of the transforming work of God.”

“It’s not about issues,” she said. “It’s about whether or not the people of God bear witness to the presence of God in the world.”

 

 

 

 

 

The Christian Post > U.S.|Fri, Aug. 26 2011 10:25 AM EDT

Eddie Long Wants to Move Past Sex Charges

By Anugrah Kumar | Christian Post Contributor

Bishop Eddie Long said he wanted to run his Atlanta megachurch “without distractions” after two of the four youngsters who accused him of luring them into homosexual sex acts declared they were writing a book about their experiences although they had withdrawn all lawsuits.

  • eddie long
    (Photo: New Birth Missionary Baptist Church via The Christian Post)
    Bishop Eddie Long is seen delivering his first Sunday Service message since the settlement in the sexual allegations case was reached. Four young men who were former members of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church had accused Long of sexual misconduct.

“Unfortunately, we are in the media again and people are wondering what I am going to say,” Eddie Long, senior pastor at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta, Ga., said in a statement Thursday. “All I have to say is what we stated earlier. All parties involved decided to resolve the civil cases out of court. The decision was made to bring closure to this matter and allow us to move forward with the plans God has for this ministry.”

Long’s statement came a day after two of the accusers, who withdrew their lawsuits in May as part of a settlement deal, told Atlanta’s SWB-TV that they were writing a book to express what they had been through and to warn others.

“I don’t know if I’m angry anymore at the abuse, I think I’m more so angry at what I lost from it,” Jamal Parris was quoted as saying. “I don’t need the clothes. I don’t need the jewelry. I’ll stand up in front of you like a man more than you ever were. Now tell me I’m lying, tell me I’m wrong. Tell me you didn’t do this. Look at all of us now face up.”

“We weren’t anything more than kids who went to the church to learn about God,” Spencer LeGrande said. “What trapped us is we were just addicted to the lifestyle. We were addicted to the love that we got… I’m gonna tell the world, money does not buy happiness.”

Eddie Long has denied the allegation that he coerced the four into sexual acts by offering cash, cars, lodging and lavish trips, but he went for out-of-court settlement on May 27 to get the lawsuits filed in September 2010 dismissed.

 

The four former members of the LongFellows Youth Academy, a group of teenage boys selected by Long for mentoring, charged that the real purpose of the academy was to lure youngsters into sex.

In his Thursday’s statement, Long said he would “continue to honor and abide by my commitment of confidentiality and restraint as it relates to the resolution of the civil litigation and will not be diverted from the important work of the ministry.”

According to Houston Chronicle, Long is a “flashy figure” in Lithonia, the Atlanta suburb where he lives and built his church. “He is often seen in a Bentley attended by bodyguards. He wears clothes that show off his muscular physique. He favors Gucci sunglasses, gold necklaces, diamond bracelets and Rolex watches. He lives in a 5,000-square-foot, five-bedroom house that he bought for $1.1 million in 2005.”

In his sermons, he often tells his congregation that God wants them to be wealthy and asserts that Jesus was not a poor man, the newspaper added. The megachurch claims to have 25,000 members. Long’s Emmy-Award-winning broadcast, “Taking Authority,” which airs on the Trinity Broadcast Network, reaches 172 countries and more than 270 million people.

After Long’s out-of-court settlement, which reportedly involved payment of big sums of money, Bishop Paul S. Morton of the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship, who ordained Long as bishop, urged him to repent.

While Long’s statement expressed desire to serve God, it did not include confession.

The statement mentioned Long’s journey to South Africa “where thousands where blessed and more than 700 people gave their lives to Christ.” “We also were able to sow more support into the HIV/AIDS Hospice in Johannesburg that we partnered with last year. We built a wonderful bridge of relationships with pastors and community leaders to further establish the Kingdom and bless others.”

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply, please --- thank you.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes