Java's Weblog

Legislative Attack on Catholic Church in Connecticut

2009-03-09T19:27:00.001-05:00

3/7/2009

On Thursday, March 5, a bill was introduced in the Connecticut state legislature, and immediately referred to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. It targets one – and only one – church in the state, the Catholic Church, and would strip the bishops and priests of the state of any power to exercise administrative authority over their parishes.

Raised Bill No. 1098 is a committee bill and does not bear the names of any individual sponsors. Both co-chairmen of the committee, State Sen. Andrew McDonald and State Rep. Michael Lawlor, are outspoken proponents of same-sex marriage in Connecticut and have been critical of the Catholic Church’s opposition to both civil unions and same-sex marriage.

The stated purpose of the bill is to “provide for the investigation of the misappropriation of funds by religious corporations,” but it deals only with the corporate structure of the Catholic Church. No other church is mentioned, or would be subject to the bill’s requirements.

The measure has been put on a legislative fast track, with hearings scheduled for Wednesday, March 11, less than a week after its introduction. Knights of Columbus, and all concerned Connecticut Catholics, are encouraged to attend the hearing that day and express their opposition to the bill. They may also call or write the committee co-chairmen, State Sen. Andrew McDonald (800-842-1420 or McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov), and State Rep. Michael Lawlor (800-842-8267 or MLawlor99@juno.com.

Source: Free Public

What in the name of God is going on in this country? What right does any government have to interfere in the business affairs of a church? And why are they singling out the Catholic Church other than for political reasons?

This is abuse of power at its very worst. It’s time we all took a stand against this kind of tyranny!

Don't link Islam to terror, Islamic chief urges

2008-12-19T17:39:00.002-06:00

Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:07pm EST

By Robert Evans

GENEVA (Reuters) - The world's top diplomat for Islam called on Friday for an end to what he termed efforts to equate the religion with terrorism and said the 'demonization' of Muslims around the world must be fought.

But speaking soon after the U.N. General Assembly passed an Islamic-sponsored resolution condemning "defamation of religion" for the fourth year in a row, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said his group was committed to respecting freedom of expression.

There was a "rising tide of incitement to religious hatred and discrimination and intolerance targeting Muslims," he told a meeting called by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) at the United Nations in Geneva. The 57-nation OIC, based in Saudi Arabia, represents 1.5 billion Muslims.

"Attempts to equate Islam with terrorism should be stopped. Stereotyping and demonization of Muslims should be combated," said Ihsanoglu, a Turkish history professor who became OIC Secretary-General in 2005.

In a statement on Ihsanoglu's remarks, Geneva spokesman for the International Humanist and Ethical Union Roy Brown argued that Islam was often linked to terror because perpetrators of many terrorist acts identify themselves as Muslims.

Critics of the OIC -- including countries who voted against the "defamation" motion at U.N. headquarters in New York on Thursday -- say many Islamic states use defamation or "blasphemy" laws against minorities and free-thinkers.

Referring to the U.N. vote, in which for the first time since the OIC introduced a "defamation" motion in 2005 more countries voted against or abstained than voted for, Ihsanoglu said the motives of the Islamic grouping were misunderstood.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The aim of the OIC, he declared, "is not to protect religion against critics based on objective and rational interrogation." The body, he added, "is firmly committed to respect for freedom of expression, which is a fundamental human right."

In a statement issued earlier this week, watchdogs on freedom of expression for the U.N.'s Human Rights Council and for key regional inter-state organizations in Africa, Europe and Latin America called for an end to "defamation" resolutions.

The four, three of them prominent developing country human rights lawyers, said that where "blasphemy" laws existed they had often been used "to prevent legitimate criticism of powerful religious leaders and to suppress the views of minorities, dissenting believers and non-believers."

In an echo of their comments, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told Friday's meeting that when criticism of religion became incitement to hatred "urgent but proportionate" action should be taken.

But, she added, "speech critical of religions does not necessarily constitute such incitement" and that it should always be assessed "stressing the importance of protecting the rights of both religious minorities and non-believers alike."

(Editing by Stephanie Nebehay and Ralph Boulton) Source

Let's see - where do I begin? People associate terror with Islam because 99% of all terrorism is perpetuated by Muslims. If you want people to stop the association, then stop terrorizing people.

Discrimination against Muslims? Saudi Arabia doesn't allow any Jews in their country - none, zilch, nada. Israel has Arabs as legislators in the government. Arabs are allowed to live in Israel, but Jews aren't allowed to buy property or live in "Palestinian lands" whatever that is. Who is discriminating whom?

Free speech? Please. When the Dutch politicians Geert Wilders released his documentary film Fitna - he received death threats. Why? If free speech is so respected in Islam - why the death threats?

The rank hypocrisy is astounding. I think it's about time for Muslims to seriously examine themselves and reform their religion if they want respect among the peoples of this world.

Why Israel Should Be Concerned

2008-11-16T17:40:00.004-06:00

In this article from AP, Gutkin states:

Eight years of unflinching support from President George W. Bush has yielded no peace. So while most Israelis appreciated Bush's backing, others wonder if a tougher approach — maybe even some arm twisting here and there — might not have been better.
Their fear stems from the demographic threat posed by Israel's occupation of Arab lands, as the size of the Arab population approaches the Jewish one and endangers Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state. A true friend of Israel is an American leader who will work not only to protect Israel from external enemies, but to disentangle itself from the 41-year-occupation — or so the argument goes.
For Obama, that could mean abandoning what many see as a policy of blanket support in favor of some muscular diplomacy, such as pressuring Israel to stop expanding settlements on land Palestinians claim for a future state.

Occupation? That's Orwellian double speak for "the Jews have no right to be there." Why is this never said about any Arab occupation in the Middle East? Both Jews and Arabs have been living there since time began.

There is more than enough land for a new Arab country - if they even want one - in present Arab land. But that's the thing - they don't want a country - they want Israel to cease being one. That is what will happen if Israel cedes any more land to terrorists.

And that is unacceptable to any right thinking person.

God Will Not Be Mocked!

2008-11-12T01:46:00.002-06:00

Nancy Gibb of Time Magazine had this to say about the election of Obama:

Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope. Barack Obama never talks about how people see him: I'm not the one making history, he said every chance he got. You are. Yet as he looked out Tuesday night through the bulletproof glass, in a park named for a Civil War general, he had to see the truth on people's faces. We are the ones we've been waiting for, he liked to say, but people were waiting for him, waiting for someone to finish what a King began.

Comparing Barack Hussein Obama to Jesus Christ is not funny. It is blatantly offensive to every true born again Christian.

3 “You shall have no other gods before me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Exodus 20:3-6 (ESV)

It seems as though the liberals, who are so fond of attacking Christianity, have made their own religion and anointed their own messiah.

4 And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.

Matthew 24:4-5 (ESV)

God will not be mocked!

The Next Attack

2008-11-10T12:20:00.001-06:00

On November 9, 2008, the London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported, citing "a source close to the Al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen," that Osama bin Laden had ordered a new attack on the U.S. which will be "far greater than the 9/11 attacks."
The paper said the source was "a former Al-Qaeda commander who is still in touch with... the organization leadership, and who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons."
According to the source, the attack is meant "to change the world [both] politically and economically," and is planned for the near future. Source

Terrorism has not gone away nor has the war on it ended. America may have been lulled into a false sense of security because we have not been hit by a major terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. We can thank President George Bush and his team of advisors for keeping this country safe in the last seven years.

After the recent election where an ultra liberal Democrat won, many in the Middle East rejoiced because they see a man who will not fight back as Bush has done. They sense and smell weakness and weakness invites attacks.

When the attack does come, will Obama fight back? Will he raise the white flag of surrender and give this country up? Time will tell his reaction and whether or not the American people still have the will to fight an enemy so intent on our destruction.

On this, the birthday of the United States Marine Corps, and tomorrow on Veteran's Day, let us pause to thank God Almighty for the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces. They stand on the front lines of freedom and pay the price daily for you and I.

Technorati Tags: Terrorism,Osama bin Laden,Obama,Al-Qaeda,Veteran's Day,USMC

The Good Old Days?

2008-08-06T00:16:00.001-05:00

In a recent blog by American Congress for Truth it is reported that

Ken Timmerman apparently was at a session of the Claremont Institute, last weekend, when Dr. William Graham and others spoke about what Iran’s recent missile tests using Scuds in the Caspian Sea was all about. It was about a sneak nuclear attack on the US via launch of a nuclear warhead ship borne Scud missile. The detonation at an altitude between 40 to 400 kilometers in lower space would create an Electronic Magnetic Pulse (EMP). The EMP would fry all of our military and industrial communications nets and virtually bring our advanced economy to a halt and back to the 18th Century. The effects would be devastating and deaths would pile up from lack of adequate medical treatment. The estimated economic costs as we have posted could range close to $800 billion.

It is unbelievable to me that the United States, as well as modern Western countries, continue to ignore the very real threat of nuclear war from Iran. Having grown up in the 1960's and 1970's, nuclear war brings to mind the days of the Cold War and instant global annihilation. Today, nuclear war need not be so other worldly in order to be effective.

One nuclear bomb, detonated above the surface of the earth, can have catastrophic results. If you don't believe it, ask yourself when was the last time you milked a cow? Do you know how to plow without a tractor? When was the last time you made bread from wheat?

Without electricity, our economic system comes to a grinding halt. The author later estimates a casualty rate of 90% from lack of food and medical attention. In America today there are roughly 300 million people - that leaves us only 30 million to recover after six months or so.

Do we dare wait before protecting our national interests? Knowing that Obama would surrender our country the day he is sworn in as president, we have a limited window of opportunity to stop this madness before it starts. It may take sacrifice and war but so did WWII and the end result was worth it. Mr. Bush, take out the Iranian nuclear threat now!

Surrender on the installment plan

2008-04-16T00:28:00.001-05:00

(IsraelNN.com) "When Israel's ideology will collapse, and after we take Jerusalem, Israel's ideology will collapse altogether, and then we will proceed with our own ideology, inshallah [if Allah wills], and we will throw them out of all of Palestine." So said Abbas Zaki, the Palestinian Authority's ambassador to Lebanon on Lebanese television last week, according to a translation by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute). Source article

I have read in several different places that "appeasement (compromise) is nothing more than surrender on the installment plan." We as humans have obviously learned nothing from the lessons of World War II. Everyone should study what happened from 1917 to 1948 in world history.

Land for peace was the rallying cry of Chamberlain and he gave away a country he did not own (Sudentenland) to a tyrant (Hitler) who went on to take the rest of Eastern Europe in less than six months.

Today, everyone wants to carve up Israel into ever smaller and smaller pieces. If you look at a map of the Middle East - color coded with Muslim countries vs Israel - you will see that obviously!! the Muslims have run out of land and absolutely need a few more square kilometers of Israel! (For those of you with no intelligence - I speak in satire).

Our (Israel and the Christian United States) enemy considers our tolerance to be weakness. They are not impressed with magnanimous gestures of goodwill. Their goal since the 600's AD has been to annihilate their enemy. On this, they have never wavered or faltered.

Weak politics has failed. Iran remains a threat to the security of all free people. It's time for action - not talk.

Obama's foot in mouth disease

2008-04-12T02:42:00.001-05:00

Today on the campaign trail, Obama stuck his foot in mouth - big time...

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. - Sen Obama"

I have news for you Obama - Americans don't "cling to guns" - it's our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. Perhaps you should read the Bill of Rights sometime.

We don't "cling" to religion like a pacifier or even use it to advance our political career like you. America was founded on freedom of religion. The fact that the vast majority of early settlers were Judeo-Christian gave this country the concepts of freedom, equality before the law, justice and industry that has made this country great.

Rather than being "anti-immigrant", America has always opened it's doors to legal immigration. What most Americans are against and what seems to baffle most politicians is that Americans are against illegal immigration. If laws are to mean anything - then they must be enforced.

Americans aren't "anti-trade". We are for just compensation for work performed. With food and oil prices skyrocketing, it's only fair that wages and salaries increase as well.

My suggestion to you is to first learn about America before running for any office.

Prayer AND medicine

2008-03-28T23:32:00.002-05:00

What happened this week in Wisconsin didn't need to happen.

WESTON, Wisconsin - Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor.
To read more...

Whatever authority the parents were relying on in this situation - it wasn't the bible. No where in Scripture do I find any admonishments to avoid doctors or medicine in order to "prove" how much faith you have. While it may sound noble to stand on faith alone - it is an illusion - much like listing humility as one of your greatest strengths.

True faith in God believes that what He has promised, He will deliver and true patience waits for God to answer. By denying their daughter medical treatment, they attempted to force God to act more quickly - on their timetable. They used their daughter's life as their pot of chips in a poker game with God.

What if their miracle had been two, four or even 12 months away? Could they not have waited that long to see their daughter healed? Why stop her medicine?

Why do we think that God can't heal a body with medicine in it? Is there some rule that I missed that says you can't get healed after you've started medical treatment? Years ago, when healing first began to be taught - I remember people taking off their eyeglasses and claiming their healing as if that meant God had to heal them. Many stumbled and walked into walls before realizing that the minute their healing manifested - they would be the first to know - and would take off any glasses that weren't needed.

God - whose covenant name is Jehovah Rapha - the God who heals - is more interested in you getting well than you proving something. The Great Physician and human physicians both work toward the same goal - getting you healed. Who do you think gave humans the ability to diagnose and treat illness anyway?

When Jesus was offered the chance to jump off the pinnacle of the Temple to prove that God's angels would protect Him, He refused saying "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." We would do well to heed the Savior's wise advice.

The two faces of Obama

2008-03-23T16:21:00.002-05:00

Noted Arab historian Dr. Mark Gabriel explains in his book Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran really teaches about Christianity, violence and the goals of Islamic Jihad (2002) that it is perfectly acceptable in Islam to practice deceit. In the early years of Muhammad's attempts to spread his religion, he used soft and pleasant methods to entice people. In the latter years, when Jews and Christians refused to submit to him, he advocated bloody jihad.

This is why certain passages of the Quran seem to advocate getting along with Jews and Christians, while other passages encourage Muslims to kill them. In Arabic this is known as the principle of nasikh (in English to override). What was taught in the latter years overrides that which was taught in earlier years.

Deception is also taught in Islam. Again to quote from Dr Gabriel:

Philosopher Ibn Taymiyah (1263-1328) wrote a book titled The Sword on the Neck of the Accuser of Muhammad. In it he described how Muslims should live in the weakened stage.
Believers when in a weakened stage in a non-Muslim country should forgive and be patient with people of the book [i.e., Jews and Christians] when they insult Allah and his prophet by any means. Believers should lie to people of the book to protect their lives and religion.
In other words, it's OK to lie to non-Muslims to protect yourself when you are a minority in their country. (ibid pg 91)

What we have now is proof that Barak Obama is practicing such deceit. In today's Israel News:

(IsraelNN.com) Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is currently hiding his anti-Israel views in order to get elected, according to a well-known anti-Israel activist. The activist, Ali Abunimah, claimed to know Obama well and to have met him on numerous occasions at pro-Palestinian events in Chicago.
In an article he penned for the anti-Israeli website Electronic Intifada, Abunimah wrote:
"The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.
"As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, 'Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.' He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy [and said:] 'Keep up the good work!'" Source article

In these last days, Christians are commanded by Jesus not to be deceived by false messiahs:

Mat 24:4-5 NKJV
(4) And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you.
(5) For many will come in My name, saying, "I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.

Don't be deceived.

Europe surrenders

2008-03-16T22:28:00.002-05:00

I guess it's official now - Europe has surrendered to the Islamists. A Dutch politician by the name of Geert Wilders wants to produce a 15 minute documentary on why the Koran should be banned as hate speech. The movie has not been released to the public, yet it has already been threatened and banned. The Dutch government has warned Wilders that it will bill him for extra security due to death threats from terrorists.

Can you imagine this scenario with any other subject matter? Here's what the Council of Europe said:

“Freedom of expression should not be considered a license to offend,” said Maud de-Boer Buquicchio, deputy secretary general of the Council of Europe, a pan-European human rights watchdog.

Speech that does not offend doesn't need protection under the law. It is precisely the speech that does offend that needs protection. If we used those same guidelines to rule on all speech - then any commentary from homosexuals, atheists, liberals, Satan-worshippers, child molesters or Nazi enthusiasts would have to be banned as well - because they offend me.

Whether or not the Koran promotes hate speech is a valid topic for discussion among educated and civilized peoples. If the Koran does not inspire hatred and violence, then Mr Wilders wouldn't need extra police protection because he wouldn't be threatened. The mere fact that he is being threatened gives substance to his thesis.

Rather than trying to shut him down, the civilized nations of the world should rise up in support of his right to say what he wants to. If we, as a free society, ban all speech that offends, then we have surrendered without a fight.

Source article

Technorati Tags: free speech,Wilders,Fitna,Koran

Is it cancer? When is the surgery?

2008-03-08T16:46:00.002-06:00

In yesterday's American Congress for Truth blog New Documents Show Iran Still Working on Nukes, evidence is shown to the IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency that proves that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon.

Reading through the article, which I highly recommend, evidence is presented that blasts the former NIE of the CIA to shreds. To wit:

…a videotape of a “mock-up chamber and internals” of the missile re-entry vehicle, as well as laboratory preparations to test them, which could only have been obtained from sources inside Iran.
He also showed an Iranian animation demonstrating how a Shahab-3 missile could be programmed to detonate at about 2,000 feet over a target. Heinonen noted that detonation at that altitude only made sense for a nuclear warhead.
Key to the clandestine programs was a private Iranian company called Kimia Maadan, which the Iranians acknowledged had been set up in May 2000 to work on a secret uranium mine at Gachine.
Kimia Maadan was run by Revolutionary Guards Brig. Gen. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, one of a number of alleged nuclear weapons designers the IAEA has sought to interview, without success.
schematic drawings of the missile warhead
Flow sheets for a secret uranium conversion plant
Test reports on high voltage detonators
Production documents on an exploding bridgewire detonator
Procurement documents showing that Iran had purchased spark gaps, shock wave software, neutron sources, special steel parts, and radiation measurement equipment, all of which are relevant to nuclear weapons work
Documentation on Iranian training courses on neutron calculations, the effect of shock waves on metal, enrichment/isotope separation, and ballisic missiles
Information on the construction of what appeared to be a nuclear test site, with a 1,300 foot shaft connected to a monitoring station six miles away, which the Iranians claimed was used to test conventional explosives.

As I was thinking about this situation it occurred to me that if medicine were practiced the same way as international politics, a lot of people would be dead. Think about this: you find a lump under your arm and faithfully show it to your doctor. Your doctor says, let's wait and see if it grows. After a few months, you return to show the doctor and it has grown and gotten ugly. The doctor does a biopsy that indeed shows it to be cancer.

Your next logical question would be - when is the surgery? Any fool knows that cancer must be cut out especially when it sits on top of the skin.

I would like to know if our government and the leaders of the world are fools or not. The time has come for surgery. Instead of doing fifteen more tests to confirm that it is cancer - we should be scheduling an OR.

We are all concerned

2008-03-01T02:57:00.002-06:00

The Israelis Should Be Very, Very Nervous
World: Paul R. Hollrah
February 28, 2008
To read more...
An article in the February 5 edition of Investor’s Business Daily asks, “What happens when an Islamofascist state gets the bomb and the White House falls into the hands of a president who thinks such enemies can be defeated with diplomacy?”
The article goes on to speculate that, “If that person is either of the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination, it could spell unprecedented danger. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem committed to the magic powers of negotiating a deal with Iran’s fanatical mullahs...”
For example, Obama’s foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice of the Brookings Institution, has said,
“...the United States could dangle various incentives the Iranians might find attractive. For instance, in exchange for a full and verifiable halt to Iran’s nuclear program, as well as termination of its support for terrorism and anti-U.S. elements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States could offer to lift U.S. sanctions, normalize relations, pay some Iranian claims against the United States, promote new trade and investment flows, allow Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization, guarantee access to civilian nuclear power, or provide regional security guarantees.”
Meanwhile, Clinton’s “experts,” Iranian-Americans Ray Takeyh and Vali Nasr (both born in Tehran), recommend,
“...engagement as a means of achieving a more pluralistic and responsible government in Tehran.” They have suggested that “to liberalize the theocratic state, the United States would do better to...embark on a policy of unconditional dialogue and sanctions relief. A reduced American threat would deprive the hard-liners of the conflict they need to justify their concentration of power.”
So what happens if the Iranians responded to a President Clinton or a President Obama with, “Okay, but only if the U.S. will also agree to cease and desist in the defense of Israel, pull all troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, end the NSA program of monitoring international telephone calls of Muslims with al Qaeda ties, and cease tracking the worldwide financial transactions of people of Arabic and Persian descent.”
In other words, Democrats would have us believe that, if we would only surrender unilaterally to Ahmadinejad, as he continues to enrich uranium, he might just conclude that he’s won and leave us alone...while he proceeds with plans to blow Israel off the map.

The idea of either of the two Democratic nominees making it into the White House is enough to keep me up at night. Obama's advisor, Susan Rice, seems to be in some parallel universe and hasn't a clue as to what Ahmadinejad has said publicly or what Iran is currently doing. That he would choose her as his foreign policy advisor speaks volumes about his intelligence.

Clinton's advisors at least recognize the need to change the current regime in Iran if hopes of peace and security in the Middle East can be achieved. Their views are idealistic and naive but are at least rooted in the reality that no dialogue with Ahmadinejad is possible.

Either view is lacking in the most basic understanding of what radical Islam is and why it is doing what it is doing. Both views assume that the radical Islamists are attacking the West because of Israel and both views are wrong. Radical Islam is attacking the West because it is the West. They will attack moderate Muslims who don't agree with their policy of terror. Anyone who disagrees with them is fair game in their pursuit of global jihad.

You cannot negotiate with such a mindset. This evil that is radical Islam sends mentally disabled women as suicide bombers prompting officials in Iraq to round up the homeless and beggars to protect them. This evil hides in hospitals and uses ambulances to send bombs into crowded markets. This evil treats women as property, thinks "honor killings" are ok, cuts off arms and legs as punishment and stones victims of rape. This evil cut off a journalist's head with a dull sword.

We have to understand what we are fighting against and from the comments above from the policy advisors to the Democrats - it's obvious they don't have a clue.

History lesson

2008-02-29T14:20:00.002-06:00

In today's Debka File, I found this article, reported no where else.

The resolution unanimously approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Thursday, Feb. 29, recognizes the “over 850,000 Jews put to flight from Arab countries” in 1948 as refugees, no less than their Palestinian counterparts, who they outnumber.
The US president is urged to ensure that when the Middle refugee issue is discussed in international forums, any reference to Palestinian refugees be matched by a similarly explicit reference to expelled Jewish populations. Source article

Why does this matter and what are they talking about?

JEWISH REFUGEES & DISPLACED ARAB PALESTINIANS
135 million refugees in the 20th century fled from Russia, India, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Greece and Muslim states like Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Algeria, Indonesia, Kuwait, Sudan, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya etc In 1945, as a result of Nazi Germany's defeat in WWII and the Potsdam Agreement, she lost 25% of her territory and 12 million Germans were expelled.
In 1948, Palestinian Arabs and four Arab members of the UN went to war - not only against Israel, but against the UN decision for a two-state solution in Palestine. Hundreds of thousands of Arab Palestinians fled Jewish Israel, mostly to former Palestine Mandate areas, and hundreds of thousands of Jews fled Arab states. Hundreds of thousands Arab Palestinians remained in Israel while all Jews where ethnically cleansed in territory conquered by the Arabs. Of the 135 million refugees in the 20th century 0.5% were Arab Palestinians; in reality many were not refugees but Internally Displaced Persons (IDP.

While Israel integrated Jewish refugees right away, Arab Palestinian IDP and their descendants are the world's only permanent "refugees". At any point during the past years, Arab governments could have helped the Arab Palestinian IDP settle down to a decent life. They could have created the infrastructure of an autonomous Palestine on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that Jordan respectively Egypt controlled until 1967, or encouraged the resettlement of Palestinians in Jordan, which constitutes the lion's share of the original mandate of Palestine. Rather than fund the Palestine Liberation Organization to foment terror against Israel the Arab regimes could have endowed Palestinian schools of architecture, engineering, medicine and law. What Israel did for Arab Palestinians and Jewish refugees from Arab lands, Arabs could have done much more sumptuously for the Arab Palestinians displaced by the same conflict. Instead, Arab dictators cultivated generations of "refugees" and focused on what the Palestinian Arabs lost while attempting to destroy Israel. These "refugees" endured brutal oppression and unmitigated suffering at the hands of their host Arab dictators, and their own corrupt dictator Yasser Arafat. Palestinian leaders absconded with billions of dollars in international aid money and used the pilfered funds to enrich themselves and to raise terror militias. Source article

Basically, what we have in peace talk negotiations is the so-called "right of return" in which all Palestinian refugees would be allowed to move back to Israel and be given back their property. What the Foreign Affairs Committee did was to remind the President that much more history is attached to this issue than what is currently being reported in the media.

Ignorance is bliss

2008-02-26T13:49:00.002-06:00

Lionel Beehner writes an interesting opinion piece (read article here) on the post war Bush administration and its foreign policy.

The war on terror is over. At least that's the assumption based on comments made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on his recent tours of some of the world's trouble spots...No longer does the United States view everything in the world through the prism of fighting terrorism. And that is not a bad thing. We are now making informed foreign policy decisions--some rational, some irrational--that have nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism or al-Qaeda.

If we cover our eyes and plug our ears, maybe terrorism will just go away. Or perhaps we could say that all the terrorism is from little splinter groups that don't threaten US security. Let's even add that Islam is a religion of peace and the terrorists have hijacked a great religion. We would be wrong on all counts.

Perhaps Beehner is of the assumption that 9/11 is just something that George Bush thought up to increase his popularity ratings. Perhaps he thought that a brief air assault on the Taliban would be compensation enough for their attacks on New York and Washington DC. Whatever, it is evident he wasn't "thinking" at all, merely regurgitating liberal views on the current war.

So we've entered a post-GWOT world and not a second too soon. Besides the fact it was an abysmal failure--terrorist attacks have gone up since 9/11 everywhere (except I think in Southeast Asia, for reasons unknown), it was never a real war. Someone once said it was a war on a means--akin to fighting a war on submarines. That is not to say we are safe from terrorism. Far from it. But at least the fear tactics of warmongers have been sidelined and we can now debate more serious issues in this presidential campaign, like Hillary's binging on Dunkin Donuts and pictures of Obama in Somalian garb.

The fact that we haven't had a significant terror attack on US soil in the last 7 yrs seems to have escaped his notice. The fact that two formerly terrorist supporting nations are now democratic (Afghanistan and Iraq) also seems to have escaped his attention.

Beehner does get one thing right though, "Global War on Terrorism" is a misnomer and always has been. We are fighting for the survival of Western civilization against the threat of Islamofascism and that war is far from over.

Peace talks?

2008-02-24T14:46:00.002-06:00

Today as I was scanning the headlines this jumped out at me:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - After months of delay, Israel and the Palestinians set up teams of government experts on Sunday to try to jumpstart U.S.-backed peace talks that have so far shown little progress.

Let's examine a few of the misconceptions surrounding the "peace talks".

1. Jews are occupying Arab lands - the British Mandate covered what is now modern day Jordan and Israel. All of it was called "Palestine". In an effort to appease Arabs, the British government decided to divide it between Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians. The Arabs were given 80% of the land and it was called TransJordan. 20% was given to the Jews. Thus, there is already a Palestinian Arab state - it is called Jordan.

2. Both sides want peace - we know Israel does and has over the last 60 yrs attempted to give away yet more and more land in an illusive bid for peace. For years, the Palestinians (hereafter the term for Arab Palestinians) were led into more terrorism and no state by Yassar Arafat. Today, we have the weak Abbas and his Fatah party in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, neither of which has shown the slightest interest in stopping terrorism. Hamas has even refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli State.

3. Legacy building - is not a reason for a peace treaty. American presidents in their last few years in office try to build a legacy - so that history will remember them well. Putting together a weak, ineffective peace treaty is not a legacy - it is sloppy diplomacy.

4. Land for peace - is an illusion. Take a look at any map of the Middle East that is color coded between Islamic nations and Israel and ask yourself this one question - would dividing up Israel into ever smaller parts really settle anything? The Muslims have plenty of land already - they do NOT need half of Israel for anything.

5. Blatant hypocrisy - Jews must be forcibly removed from contested areas because no Muslim country wants any Jews living within their borders. To the deceived modern world - this is perfectly reasonable. To me it sounds like apartheid - yet the Jews are the ones accused of it although Arabs are full citizens and members of the Knesset in Israel.

Until someone with an understanding of history and possessing a modicum of reality sits down with both sides - there will be no peace.

Never again?

2008-02-20T23:51:00.002-06:00

Anyone reading the history of the Holocaust will rightfully come to the conclusion that we, as human beings, should never let something like this happen again. The sheer horror and evil of what happened during WWII caused many to rise up and cry "Never again!" Never again will we allow a dictator to execute millions of people - never again will we allow anti-Semitism to rear its ugly head. Could this tragedy have been prevented if only people had seen the warning signs?

Even before the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, they had made no secret of their anti-Semitism. As early as 1919, Adolf Hitler had written, “Rational anti-Semitism, however, must lead to systematic legal opposition.…Its final objective must unswervingly be the removal of the Jews altogether.” In Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”; 1925–27), Hitler further developed the idea of the Jews as an evil race struggling for world domination. Nazi anti-Semitism was rooted in religious anti-Semitism and enhanced by political anti-Semitism. To this the Nazis added a further dimension: racial anti-Semitism. Nazi racial ideology characterized the Jews as Untermenschen (German: “subhumans”). The Nazis portrayed Jews as a race and not a religious group. Religious anti-Semitism could be resolved by conversion, political anti-Semitism by expulsion. Ultimately, the logic of Nazi racial anti-Semitism led to annihilation.*

Adolf Hitler told the world of his plans in his book Mein Kampf (in Arabic "Jihad"). People read the book and thought it was just the rantings of a mad man. Lord Chamberlain of Great Britain tried appeasement - land for peace - and gave Sudentenland to the Germans in hopes for peace. Less than six months later, all of Yugoslavia belonged to the Germans.

Once WWII was under way, did the outside world know of what was happening to the Jews of Europe? Yes.

The Allies, who had early and accurate information on the murder of the Jews, made no special military efforts to rescue them or to bomb the camps or the railroad tracks leading to them. (See Sidebar: Why wasn't Auschwitz bombed?) They felt that only after victory could something be done about the Jewish situation. Warnings were issued, condemnations were made, plans proceeded to try the guilty after the war, but no concrete action was undertaken specifically to halt the genocide. An internal memo to U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., from his general counsel in January 1944 characterized U.S. State Department policy as “acquiescence to the murder of the European Jews.” In response Morgenthau helped spur the creation of the War Refugee Board, which made a late and limited effort to rescue endangered Jews, mainly through diplomacy and subterfuge.*
Holocaust. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Standard Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

Once again, diplomacy failed when dealing with a mad man intent on the annihilation of Jews. In the aftermath of WWII, the UN established a convention on genocide which offered the following:

In addition to the commission of genocide, the convention also made conspiracy, incitement, attempt, and complicity in genocide punishable under international law.
genocide. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Standard Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

In the last seventy years, we as a civilized society have failed miserably in the prevention of genocide and war atrocities. We have seen millions killed in the cruel pogroms of Stalin's Russia, in the killing fields of Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Sudan, and most recently in the conflict between Bosnia and Serbia.

We stand on the brink of another "mad man" dictator who is publicly declaring his intentions towards Israel. Hitler told us he was going to kill all the Jews and he managed to get six million before being stopped. Saddam Hussein said he was going to invade Kuwait and he did. Both men had been treated as mad men who didn't really mean what they said.

Today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated what his intentions are concerning Western civilization. He is leading his country to the production of nuclear weapons. Will we stand idly by with hands folded and watch another atrocity? UN Secretary General Ki-moon said in 2006:

'Denying historical facts, especially on such an important subject as the Holocaust, is just not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to call for the elimination of any state or people. I would like to see this fundamental principle respected both in rhetoric and in practice by all the members of the international community."
- UN Secretary-General-designate Ban Ki-moon, December 14, 2006

It is time to hold this mad man of Iran responsible for what he says in public. Let's stop this evil before it goes any further.

The war on free speech

2008-02-17T03:34:00.002-06:00

In December of 2007, an American author - Rachel Ehrenfeld - was successfully sued by a Saudi billionaire in a court in the UK. American courts said that her right to free speech is not protected in the US as long as someone else doesn't like it somewhere else in the world.

The battle lines are particularly sharp in New York State. There, the Court of Appeals ruled on Dec. 20, 2007 that under current “long-arm” statutes governing business transactions, New York lacks jurisdiction to protect author Rachel Ehrenfeld, whom Saudi billionaire Khalid Bin Mahfouz sued for “libel” in London's High Court of Justice. Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld after the 2003, U.S. publication of her book Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed--and How to Stop It, which noted that Mahfouz and his family financially supported al-Qaeda and other “Islamist terror groups.”
Only 23 copies of Ehrenfeld's book sold in England--over over the Internet--but Mahfouz won in the U.K. by default. On learning that former CIA director R. James Woolsey wrote the book's foreword, U.K. Justice David Eady stated, “Say no more. I award you a judgment by default, and if you want, an injunction, too.” He ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize, retract, pay $225,913.37 in damages and destroy remaining copies. In a case still pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Ehrenfeld asked the Southern District Court of New York to protect the First Amendment and rule the U.K. judgment unenforceable here.

Without commenting on the idiocy of the UK judge, what US judge would rule that Americans don't have the right to free speech? Our forefathers fought and died to give us that liberty - and now a Saudi businessman can take it away without firing so much as a firecracker?

No country has free speech protections as strong as those in the U.S., noted First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams, who was present Jan. 13 and supports the New York state bill. Moreover, many U.S. federal documents and Congressional testimonies have implicated Mahfouz for terror financing.
Yet in the last decade, the Saudi billionaire has threatened or successfully sued over 40 authors and publishers in the United Kingdom--including numerous Americans--for reports on terror funding that mentioned him. Without trying a single case on its merits, Mahfouz extracted settlements, default judgments, apologies, retractions and fines in all his British “libel” cases--except in the case of Ehrenfeld. Mahfouz' suits, and others like them, have created an enormous “chilling effect” on free speech, says Ehrenfeld's New York-based attorney, Daniel Kornstein.

Without going into the constant erosion of free speech rights under the tyranny of the politically correct, this litigation is a direct attack against America's freedoms. Jesus said "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32 KJV) If we as American citizens aren't allowed to publish the truth, let alone read it, how free are we?

Source article

Common sense

2008-02-01T16:06:00.002-06:00

Quote
Yesterday we posted comments on Hamas breaching the border wall with Egypt and the chaos that ensued.How much chaos, you ask? Watch this Israel Broadcasting Authority news video here and you will see. Hamas has won a major media victory by piercing the wall with Egypt and effectively ending the blockade that Israel, the US and the PA authority in Ramallah thought might bring Hamas to heel. US Middle East peace initiatives have effectively failed. The fantasy dream of Palestine is over for all intents and purposes. PA President Abbas and his aging Fatah klepto cronies might just as well skedaddle to a safe haven and live off their ill-gotten billions in cash and investments.
Read blog here...

Quote

Yesterday we posted comments on Hamas breaching the border wall with Egypt and the chaos that ensued.How much chaos, you ask? Watch this Israel Broadcasting Authority news video here and you will see. Hamas has won a major media victory by piercing the wall with Egypt and effectively ending the blockade that Israel, the US and the PA authority in Ramallah thought might bring Hamas to heel. US Middle East peace initiatives have effectively failed. The fantasy dream of Palestine is over for all intents and purposes. PA President Abbas and his aging Fatah klepto cronies might just as well skedaddle to a safe haven and live off their ill-gotten billions in cash and investments.

Read blog here...

The breach of the border between Egypt and Gaza this week and the resulting flood of over 350,000 people into Egypt only proves what reasonable people have known for sometime. The surrounding Muslim countries should absorb the refugees from the war of independence of 1948.

After WWII, over 10 million people were resettled after losing their homes. The general rule was to use culture, language and religion as the guiding principles as to where place people. For example, if someone was brought up French, spoke French, and was Christian, they would be placed in France.

That Israel has a right to exist is no longer debatable. They have existed for over 60 yrs. Longer than other Middle Eastern states such as Jordan or Iraq. No one questions their right to exist. It's time to settle this matter once and for all. Sounds simple enough right? So where should people who are Muslim and speak Arabic be settled?

To look at a map of the Middle East, one sees that Israel has about 1% of all the land available. Shouldn't the refugees be placed in countries of their own culture, religion and language rather than dividing up the what little land Israel has left?

Terrorism by any other name...

2007-06-20T14:05:00.000-05:00

You can call it militant fighting or insurgents if you want... but the deliberate targeting of civilians is still terrorism. Hamas hides behind women and children, in churches and mosques and then act offended if the Israeli's shoot back. They kill their own in public executions - they demand that Christians in Gaza live in dhimi status as serfs.

I'm sure Amnesty International has something to say about all this... oh wait, they are too busy condemning Israel for defending itself. No agenda there mind you ;) The mass deception spoken of by Jesus in His Olivet discourse rings true now more than ever. The media can put a spin on anything and most people, like sheep, will accept whatever they are told.

Keep your eyes on Jerusalem, Syria and Iran in the next few weeks. And pray for the peace of Jerusalem!

Summer is here

2007-06-01T23:12:00.000-05:00

With Memorial Day past, we here in America can now wear white. Many of the reserve IDF will be donning their uniforms instead. The situation in the Middle East is heating up. Sooner or later someone will light the match that sends the whole thing up in a cloud of smoke. Whether that trigger comes from Syria and Hizbollah or more directly from Iran, we can only wait and see.

While we wait, remember the IDF soldiers in your prayers, that God would protect them and preserve their lives.

And pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

Happy Anniversary Jerusalem

2007-05-11T12:07:00.000-05:00

This May 16th marks the 40th anniversary of the reunification of the city of Jerusalem. The city has prospered and grown since 1967 under Jewish control. All faiths are allowed to worship freely unlike the Muslim control period of 1948-1967.

The city of Jerusalem is mentioned over 800 times in the Scriptures that are the basis for both Judaism and Christianity. It is not mentioned at all in the Quran which I personally find very interesting.

Zechariah (chap 12) prophesied about the end times and had this to say about Jerusalem:

2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. 3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Those who want to divide the city would do well to heed this Scripture.

Rest in Peace

2004-11-16T19:50:00.000-06:00

Unlike all those whom you murdered. Yasser Arafat, the chief terrorist of the 20th century is gone. He died in a hospital bed with doctors in attendance, unlike the thousands he blew apart with bombs and rifles.

Did anyone besides me notice how the news on the day of his death was all about how peace was now possible? What was left unsaid - was the Yasser Arafat was the cause of most of the fighting in the Middle East for the last 40 yrs.

The stage is set for the emergence of a "peace leader". The Bible calls him Antichrist - what will his name on earth be?

Reform in Palestine?

2004-07-29T16:30:00.000-05:00

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1090903958282&apage=1

Experience, however, proves otherwise. The consecutive killings of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi did not lead to the threatened rivers of blood, but to four months in which there has not been a single suicide bombing. As importantly, Israel's muscular military strategy is beginning to pay political dividends. The isolation of Yasser Arafat has helped create a new class of local Palestinian strongmen no longer interested in taking orders from, or ceding authority to, the rais. The failure of Palestinians to carry their war to Israel has led them to question the wisdom of that war as a matter of efficacy if not morality. The US and even some European countries have come to the conclusion that Arafat is an obstacle to achieving reform.

But most crucially, it seems that more and more senior Palestinian figures are realizing they must get rid of Arafat. For them, of course, it is more a matter of democratic reform and fighting corruption within their society than stopping terror against Israel. But they understand that one is unachievable without the other.

**************************************************************
Years of handwringing and appeasement didn't work. What did work was a determine show of force and the firm leadership of a Prime Minister with moral clarity. Perhaps we here in the US can learn from Israel's example.

A New Beginning

2004-07-29T14:50:00.000-05:00

Welcome everyone to My Thoughts... I will be posting more as I get used to this so stay tuned!