Wednesday, February 29, 2012

The Case of Obama’s Ambiguous Birth Narrative

I have been writing about Obama's ineligibility issues for years. But with the release of the so-called "long form birth certificate," in April, 2011, Obama and his cronies probably had hoped to put the issue to rest. Well guess what? The release of that document has only heightened the interest in solving the true story of Obama's birth narrative.

The alleged "Certificate of Live Birth" has been shown to be a forgery - by many experts in the field of determining the authenticity of birth documents!

Perhaps SOMETHING will be finally be done about this after Sheriff Joe Arpaio [read details at first link above] releases the findings tomorrow that he and his Cold Case Posse have accumulated over the course of several months' worth of investigation into Obama's mysterious records. Two important blog posts to read before tomorrow:

1. Cry and Howl: Sheriff Joe to Release Findings About Barack Obama March 1, 2012. Be sure to click on and read the two links provided at the Cry and Howl blog!

2. The Daily Pen Blog spot: Vital Records Indicate Obama Not Born IN HAWAII HOSPITAL (PART 2)

Even though I have been following this issue for some time now, the following important information was brand new to me:


Many have wondered why the left margin of the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” is curling away under a digital “clipping mask”. An obvious explanation used by Obama’s defenders is that it was copied from a book of bound certificates in the main office of the Hawaiian department of Health.

However, this explanation does not explain two very significant facts about the image which, when considering vital statistics reporting methodology, render the certificate image a fraudulent document unqualified to determine the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President.

First, the overlay of what appears to be security paper was used around the visible part of the document image to conceal the lower portion of the document which contains birth metrics, health information and coding guidelines about the specific circumstances of the birth and the child’s biography after birth. For example, the author of this story has an original birth certificate which contains notations in this portion of the document indicating a change in paternity five years after his birth.

More importantly, however, the left margin of the document is not visible because the forgers wanted to conceal the codes scribed in that area. A few of these numbers are visible. However, the ones that are only partially visible or concealed are the ones which reveal the codes reported about the location and circumstances of paternity of the birth.

The numbers 6, 2 and what looks to be the flourish of a 5 appear next to the entry boxes for parental information.

The possibility of the presence of a “5” in this location has foreboding implication with regard to Obama’s birth. According to the Vital Statistics Instruction manual, this code means “Other” with regard to “Type of Location of Birth” – Code Outline shown here:

Essentially the presence of this code in any case is an indication of a Place of Birth other than a Hawaii Hospital and other than by a Hawaiian Medical Doctor.

The presence of the “6” next to the “Place of Birth” item is most troubling. As the second digit of the number 56, the 1961 VSIM uses the number 56 to code the location of births which occur outside of the United States but which are processed “in conjunction with” the county of registration. The states and the District of Columbia are numbered in alphabetical order from 01 to 51 while Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Panama Canal were 52 through 55, respectively. This left the number 56 as the code for classifying “Remainder of the World”. This can be found in the 1961, 1962, 1968, 1977, 1993 and 1999 versions of the VSIM. In 1993, number 55 became the code for New York City because of its large birth volume it was classified as its own major birth rate statistical reporting area.

Essentially, this means the code tape file contains two spaces for the state to record a geographic code for the foreign location of the occurrence of the birth without showing that location on the certificate for a resident mother.

The presence of a “2” is probably the second digit of “12” which is the indication of the VSIM geographic code for Hawaii as the state of the Mother’s “Usual place of Residence”.


Note this portion:

WHAT THE EXPERTS SAYUpon analysis of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” image by former Social Security Administration record investigators consulted for this report, artifacts appearing on the document indicate this document is not a reliable source of identity verification. They provided this assessment for our report:


Thank you for inquiry regarding the contents of the document image you submitted on February 8th, 2012. We are familiar with the controversy surrounding this particular document and have included our best possible evaluation without access to the corroborating information.

ITEM 1: The image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted to the internet in April, 2011, contains handwritten (penciled) numeric and alphanumeric characters which confirm that preliminary coding marks were applied to the document.

On authentic certificates filed by the Health Department, these penciled notations were used on the original, paper version of the record kept by the State-level office of the Department of Health after a photo static copy was provided for medical record archives to the facility shown on the certificate. Moreover, they were applied to even-numbered certificates in 1961, which were those from which statistics were reported to the National Center for Health Statistics. Typically, they are not found on an original certificate which was prepared by an attending medical authority present at the live birth event because the medical personnel do not report natal statistics, the state registrar’s office does.

Therefore, an official copy of the hospital version of this same document in coordination with the code file tape created by the National Vital Statistics office will confirm whether the birth information is accurate between the four agencies who processed it, including the local registrar office, the state registrar, the hospital and the U.S. Vital Statistics office in the appropriate reporting region. All should have copies of this record.

If Obama’s birth occurred in 1961, it would be subject to the NCHS reporting methods and coding for that year. Therefore, his birth statistics would have been tabulated in the State office but not necessarily recorded and published by the NCHS statistics report. However, if the tape file record of his birth were discovered in the NCHS tape file archive, this would be contradictory to what we have been told about his birth.

Therefore, according the SSA panel, it is unlikely the certificate would not have been coded with preliminary notations in 1961, since vital statistics were coded from microfilmed images and translated to punch cards which contained approximately 150+ digit spaces for each birth registration. These cards were tediously completed, in blocks of 20 birth records, with a majority of the records being required, by contract with the NCHS, to be completed by July 31st of the following year.

Beginning in 1960, punch cards were hand-fed into a scan machine and the resulting data was then stored on a magnetic tape reel by the NCHS. According to the official U.S. Vital Statistics System Development handbook, this procedure required several hours for each record and was in effect under Hawaii’s contract with the NCHS until 1971.

ITEM 2: It is important to remember that births are just one of four types of more than 40,000 vital records which required processing, copying and filing in Hawaii. State vital records registration officials simply could not afford to spend time applying preliminary handwritten codes to vital records which were not going to be included in the annual reporting block.

Adding to the challenge, unlike today’s electronic system, the initial coding process was manually performed in 1961. With more than 40,000 records in need of processing and microfilming, why would a municipality waste resources to do unnecessary accounting? The resources were simply not available to do this for all the births, deaths, marriages and divorces in the time frame required, so the even-numbered reporting method was introduced. Besides, the NCHS contract with the states paid only a few cents per record to the (state) Health Department. If these penciled numbers appear on a vital record, the content of that record was reported as part of the even-numbered certificates to the NCHS as required.

Based on this, it is conclusive that Obama’s certificate number is either fraudulently assigned by forgers, or it was changed to an odd number after the original contents of the document were entered in order to prevent inquiries into Obama’s record file tape. Under either circumstance, information about Obama’s birth is being intentionally obscured in order to hide his actual natal history and the negative impact it would have on his eligibility to be president.

It is our recommendation that the identity of this individual, including his natal history, as well as all major forms of primary identification including social security number, education records, licenses and travel records be formally and thoroughly investigated.

Best Regards,

Records and Claims Investigations office
Social Security Administration

Based merely on the fact that Obama’s stated father, as shown in the image of this alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth was not an American citizen, Obama is not eligible to president of the United States. However, the NCHS coding and vital statistics reporting methods have left more than ample artifacts to formally investigate the truth about this most ambiguous shell of a man.

Perhaps it’s time for America to embrace the truth, engage the consequences of this deception and lies and, then…move on.

GO Read it all at The Daily Pen Blogspot.

Hat tips to all links.

Rick Warren Goes Over the Deep End - Again!

I have written about Rick Warren's heresy in several blog posts in the past, however, the new revelation about Warren's error-laden Chrislam beliefs take his apostasy to a whole new level!

Warren is an example of why liberal Christianity DOES NOT WORK. It is NOT BIBLICALLY BASED, and therefore, does not adhere to the truth of God that is represented by His Living Word - our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - or the written Word of God - the Bible.

There is such a thing known as outreach to people of other faiths. But when a lie is being promoted as the basis of such an "outreach," there is no absolute truth to hold it together!

Please educate yourself if you think that Warren is correct in his thinking that "Christians and Muslims worship the same God." THEY DON'T - PERIOD!!!. Please read the first post by clicking on this LINK.

There are several additional posts to read under the first one at that link above which might further cement in any reasonable mind all information why it is impossible for Christians and Muslims to be considered as worshipping the same God!

I present a copy of the original post on this page. In addition to my explanation, there are two links (at the bottom of this page) to excellent essays done by Bill Muehlenberg of CultureWatch:

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Why Muslims Don't Worship the Same God as Christians

While sharing comments at Sarah Palin's Face Book page, I pointed out to a young man who had written that "Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship the same God" that he is incorrect. I referred him to an essay I had written back in 2006 at my Talk Wisdom Discussion Forum. I thought that it might be a good idea to share it on this blog so that when you encounter people (even some Christians!) who state that "we all worship the same God," you can be armed with the truth.

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

The short answer is no! The bottom line is this - Hal Lindsey does not believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews and I agree with him and his reasoning on the subject.

However, I also realize that some Christians do differ on this issue. In fact, President Bush once stated (incorrectly, IMO) that Islam worships the same god as Christians and Jews. I disagree and I will share many reasons that will explain to you why this is not possible.

First, a summary:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heavens glory and will return again, to earth, to reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. (Matthew 1:22-23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5; John 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 1:3,4; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Timothy 6:14,15; Titus 2:13.)

The Koran denies that Jesus is the Son of God although it describes the virgin birth in a passage similar to Luke 1:26-38 (Surah 3:45-47) (Note: Surah is in the Koran).

The Koran calls Jesus a prophet, equal to Abraham, Jonah and others, but places Him in rank far below Muhammad. Surah 4:171 says that "Jesus...was only a messenger of Allah...Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son."

Muhammad totally ignored the claims that Jesus made about Himself. Jesus said, for example:

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).
"Before Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:58).

The Bible also states that God Himself called Jesus His Son (see Matthew 17:5).

Demons trembled as they recognized the Son of God (see Matthew 8:29).

Doubting Thomas acknowledge Him as "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

John identified Christ as the author of creation (John 1:1-5); so did Paul (Col. 1:15-17) who also said, "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).

The only way to deal with this kind of evidence is to do what Muhammad did - simply ignore or deny it. Islam denies Jesus Christ's Deity so they do not worship the same 'god' in their god of Allah.

Next, a response to someone who thinks Allah and Yahweh are one in the same.

In response to an individual who was attempting to equate Allah with Yahweh, I wrote the following response and included some comments from others who agree with my stance:

What Muslims believe:

"Christ, the son of Mary [note: not as the "son of God"], Was no more than A Messenger; many were Messengers that passed away Before him [here, equating Jesus with mere Messengers, or perhaps prophets, but certainly not the Son of God]. Sura 5:75, Abdullah Yusef Ali, 10th ed. reprint, 2001.

"The similitude of Jesus Before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust . . . ". Sura 3:59. A subsequent "created" man, like Adam. Not God.

What Christians believe:

However, "And the angel [being Gabriel, the same angel that allegedly dictated the "Holy Koran" to Muhammad] answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35, KJV).

The Scriptures refer to Christ as "the seed of the WOMAN," knowing that no woman has any seed. The seed has to come from the male; Christ, as the Word incarnate (John 1:14), in an INCORRUPTIBLE SEED (1 Pet. 1:23) not like unto "corruptible MAN" (Rom. 1:23). Not like Adam, a created man who was not the son of God.

Thus, it comes down to a choice between these two disparate positions.

Either God showed up in the flesh, or he did not.

At this point in history, that makes you either believe God's inspired Scriptures testifying of himself in the flesh, or Allah's declaration that he did not visit in the flesh nor will he return once again.

The Koran indicates there WAS AND IS NO SON OF GOD in the flesh at any time. Muhammad thus cuts off the Isaac line through David to Jesus by God acting through Mary, and substitutes the illegitimate Ishmael to substitute himself for Jesus Christ as the New Testament "Comforter".

Jesus would then have been the son of Joseph (a corruptible man, dead and buried without resurrection), and therefore could not be the Son of God.

What does that make Muhammad?

I realize that some readers will regard this as harsh. I am just sharing the truth of the matter.

We are warned about such non-scripture by Paul when God cursed Muhammad (and any angel with whom he was consorting) for preaching "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8-9).

Below, are more differences that I have gathered through other's postings. (I will include first names or screen names only)

1. Muhammad sought earthly power and riches, including women from conquest. Jesus taught us that the Kingdom of Heaven is not of this world, and he gave up His life, via a gruesome Roman execution, so that we all might live again in the Kingdom of heaven, with all the angels and saints. And a final human act of murder and self-destruction will not gain one access to that Kingdom of Heaven, much less 72 dark-haired perpetual virgins. No, allah and God are quite different beings, with different requirements for believing in them. (contributed by John)

2. No Muslim believes that Jesus Christ in the trinity is one with God and God. Therefore they do not worship the same God. Allah does not reflect John 1:1 at all. Hence the reason one can not preach the teachings of Christ around Mecca. (contributed by Merle)

3. It is TOTALLY ILLOGICAL to say the god of Islam and God of the Jews and Christians are one and the same. Islamic scripture KORAN and Hadith is rife with Allah's disdain and hate of the the Jews and Christians. It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to hate the people (Jews and Christians) He created. Therefore Allah of Islam and God are not the same. (contributed by Paul)

4. To base arguments on the superficial use of the word 'God' misses the mark entirely. Even cults use the word 'God'. It is true that Judeo-Christian and Islamic beliefs have Abraham in common. From there though, Islam takes every Judeo-Christian belief and turns it upside down. (contributed by Terry)

5. Perhaps I can fill you in on some key points as to why I have trouble (with anyone who holds the opinion) that Allah is the same God of the Bible - God of Christians and Jews. First we need to be careful to resist our natural urge to claim common ground for the sake of unity and peace. Instead we need to look at historical facts and religious aims to see whether such commonality is possible. And we need to proceed LOGICALLY. The question we are asking is : Who is Allah? Here we are asking who Allah, the God of Islam is. We are asking who is the Allah god muslims worship to?

The Koran points out that Allah is the same as the God of Jews and Christians ( "the People of the Book") And muslims claim their faith as "the faith of Abraham" in one Creator God. So the question is settled? Well, not so fast!

As well meaning religious people, we like to see unity and peace. And we like to establish commonality with our neighbors. However to answer this key question, we need to be more objective. So let's clear up our mind and approach this question from the standpoint of a new muslim convert who is being introduced to Islam. What is the most important statement of Islam? It is the Shahada: That there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. This all important pledge states that Allah is the only God there is and Muhammad is his prophet. If you say this before two witnesses, you become a muslim. This all important claim of Islam DEFINES Allah.

Note that there are two parts to Shahada - "Allah is [the] only God that exist[s]" and "Muhammad is Allah's prophet". In other words, Shahada states "There is only Allah" but who is this god, Allah? "Allah is Muhammed's God" because Muhammad is his spokesman (prophet).

So the fundamental axiom of Islam DEFINES who Allah is. Allah is the God Muhammad worshipped! And this is a point that ALL MUSLIMS, CHRISTIANS, AND JEWS CAN AGREE ON.

Allah is the god Muhammad worshipped. This is how we should clarify who Allah is. This statement: "Allah is the God Muhammad worshipped daily" is a statement we all agree on.

Now we examine cold and hard historical facts.Was Muhammad ever a Jew? Nope. Was Muhammad ever a Christian? Nope. In fact, historians would agree that Muhammad was an Arab pagan who worshipped at Kaaba temple of Mecca. And he worshipped the supreme deity of Arab paganism - Allah of Mecca. We know that there is connection between the God of Christians and the God of Jews BECAUSE JESUS HAS BEEN A JEW AND SO WERE ALL EARLY CHRISTIANS. We can safely say that Christianity is a branch, if you will, out of Judaism because all early Christians were Jews and Christians accept Jewish Old Testaments VERBATUM.

By the same key criteria, we cannot say that Islam is a growth out of Judaism nor Christianity. Muhammad had never been a Jew nor a Christian and muslims do not accept the Bible verbatum. Instead Islam AIMS TO REPLACE THE BIBLE WITH THE KORAN. Because they believe that the Bible is full of errors while the Koran is the perfect book from the Heaven.

So let us summarize the above point why Allah is not the same as the God of Christians and Jews.

a. "Allah is the God Muhammad worshipped." If you want to talk Islam, you have to start from the Shahada. If you are unwilling to see the meaning of Shahada, we are talking at cross purpose. Shahada says that Allah is the God Muhammad worshipped and he is the only God there is. All other deities are idols to be denied and oppressed. (This is a point that all muslims, Christians, and Jews can agree on. )

b. Muhammad was an Arab pagan who worshipped at Kaaba temple of Mecca. (This also is a point that all can agree on. ) He was and never had been a Christian nor a Jew.

c. Therefore, Allah is NOT the God of Christians and Jews. (contributed by Jay)

I am very politically aware of what is going on in the world today. In fact, here in America, as long as your god is just a word, the world has no problem with you. However, mention the name of Jesus Christ and they do have a problem. Why is that? Why is Jesus so offensive to those who do not believe in him?

Perhaps you already agree that we Muslims and Christians do not worship or serve the same God.

Christians believe in the Trinity (I John 5:7). God the father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

"If you have seen me you have seen the Father" (John 14:9).

In non-theological words, Jesus is God revealed to us in the flesh. Muslims do not believe in the same god, that is the God of the New Testament Bible. Let's just call it like it is. People must not try to trivialize our differences for the sake of peace.

When I was debating an individual about this topic, at the very beginning I had stated, "Since you are using a book - Koran - that I view as an improper addition to the Bible, anything I might say to rebut your allegations will probably not be accepted by you.

I do not say that the Koran is an improper addition to the Bible with a mean-spirited goal, it is just the truth as I see it being a born-again Christian. The Bible gives us a double warning in Revelation 22:18,19 not to add nor subtract from what is written, therefore, any book written after Revelation would be adding (and, in some cases subtracting, according to what is written in them) to God's Word which we are told not to do according to these verses."

With that said, I will share a few points regarding his dismay when I called Ishmael illegitimate.

I am currently in the middle of a Bible study on the book of Genesis. Here is a partial recap of chapter 16:

Here we find Sarai and Abram frustrated by the passing years without a son. So they devise their own strategy for "fulfilling" God's promise--and reap the consequences. Read Genesis 16.1.

It has been ten years since Abram and Sarai entered Canaan. What action does Sarai how suggest (16:1-2)?

Suggested Abram sleep with her maidservant to build a family through her.

2. What do you think this indicates about their trust in God?

They doubted that His promise would be fulfilled without them stepping in and "helping it along" the way. Sarai influenced Abram to commit adultery. (Another point to recognize is the name changes of both Sarai and Abram to Sarah and Abraham before Isaac was born; but even more significantly this occurred after Ishmael was born. A name change in Scripture is quite significant in that it indicates a great change in the path of the person. We see this in the New Testament when Saul was renamed Paul after his encounter with Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus and thus his conversion from not only just Judaism, but from being a persecutor of Christians to becoming one of the greatest apostles for Christ!)

3. How can our impatience with God's timetable lead us into unbelief and even disobedience?

It led to the sin of adultery in order to get the child they so desperately wanted. In fact, God did come through later with the conception and birth of Isaac.

7. Ishmael means "the God who hears." What does that reveal about the outcome in 16:15-16?

The Lord heard the child and Hagar's misery. Even though He told her the good news that He would increase her descendants so that they would be too numerous to count, He also told her the bad news; that Ishmael would be Gen 16:12- "And he will be a wild man; his hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."

This is indicative of the hostility we have seen between Arabs and Jews throughout the centuries. We also see it in the radical fringe of Arab/Muslim terrorism going on around the world. (This is not to say that ALL Arabs/Muslims are terrorists because of course they all are not, but to point out that the hostility predicted in this Biblical account has come to fruition down through the generations and can be seen today as a result of this prophetic description of Ishmael in Genesis 16:12.)


In Chapter 17 we see that God's one and only covenant is revealed through Isaac. I have already included the Bible verses in previous posts.

Lastly, at my Bible study this past Tuesday, we ran across the following verse that reveals an astonishing truth about which son God Himself recognized as Abraham's "only son."

In Genesis Chapter 22 verse 2 we read:

"Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Of course, we know that God provided a substitute for Isaac at the last moment by providing a ram caught in in a thicket by its horns (verse 13). This was a foreshadowing of the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of mankind at the cross.

But notice also that God said that Isaac was Abraham's only son. Thus, we recognize Isaac's line in succession to Jesus Christ, not Ishmael's line of descendants.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8

The eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth to show Himself strong to those whose hearts are fully committed to Him. 2 Chronicles 16:9



My Face Book friend, who happens to be a Christian biblical scholar from Australia - Bill Muehlenberg - has written two excellent essays on this topic. Please read them and be educated on this issue!

Culture Watch Blog: No, We Do Not Worship the Same God

Culture Watch Blog: What to Make of Allah


Hat tips to all links.


Update on 3/4/12:

Rick Warren's Tower of Babel

Most important points:

One critic has accurately commented that rather than obeying the Great Commission and creating disciples of the Jesus of the Bible, Warren is “building a Tower of Babel that leads to nowhere.”

I would agree in that when Christian groups join together with other groups that have such fundamentally divergent goals and doctrines, the danger is always compromise. Throughout the Old Testament, the commandment of God to the Israelites was to never enter into agreements, covenants or marriages with the surrounding peoples, lest the Israelites would find themselves led away to worship other gods. In such a post-modern culture, these concepts may sound amazingly intolerant, but the wisdom of the Lord’s proscription against treaties and partnerships is seen in Warren’s agreement not to evangelize his Muslim “friends” and co-laborers for mutual social causes.

The commandment is no less pressing today. The concept of holiness biblically has always revolved around the idea of separation. The Lord takes covenants, agreements and partnerships very seriously and commands us not to enter into partnerships with those who possess such antagonistic views toward the most essential biblical doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Divine sonship of Jesus. Beyond this, while the ultimate emphasis of biblical hope is messianic, looking for the return of Jesus, Muslims await another Jesus who returns to literally abolish Christianity. If Warren was pursuing friendships for the purpose of evangelism, I would openly stand with him in this goal. But I think it is clear that Warren is pursuing an agenda far more in line with the spirit of the age than with the goals of the early Christian Church.

But Medearis and other critics of the concept of “Christianity” fail to consider 1 Peter 4:16-17 where the apostle made the following very clear statement: “However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?”

Beyond this, Jesus’ commandment to baptize and make disciples in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is an unequivocal call to make converts who make public confessions and identify with a visible community and a specific creed.

While some may argue that Rick Warren’s efforts are in line with what they understand to be the mission of the Church, the slippery slope is seen in syncretistic expression and practices of the Insider Movement, which may truly be called “Chrislam.” While Warren and numerous other well-meaning Christian(?) missionaries who endorse and practice the C5 or Insider methodology believe that they are serving Jesus, their methods always lead to dishonesty, blurring the lines of truth, compromise and eventually outright heresy.

Critics of this blog may ask why I bring up such topics as this one. The answer is because of what is written as a warning in Jude:

Jud 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words], having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

Jud 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Jud 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

Jud 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Jud 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Jud 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present [you] faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Jud 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, [be] glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.

Mar 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mat 24:25 Behold, I have told you before.

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

1Pe 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

1Pe 2:10 Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Montesquieu's Roadmap for Our American Constitution

In my last blog post - A Founding Father's Quote for Election 2012, I found a quote from Montesquieu written descriptively below the word origin of "vice."

Word Origin & History

"moral fault, wickedness," c.1300, from O.Fr. vice, from L. vitium "defect, offense, blemish, imperfection," in both physical and moral senses (cf. It. vezzo "usage, entertainment").

"Horace and Aristotle have already spoken to us about the virtues of their forefathers and the vices of their own times, and through the centuries, authors have talked the same way. If all this were true, we would be bears today." [Montesquieu]

This morning, I reached chapter 5 in Mark Levin's book "Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America" which covers the writings of Montesquieu. It is amazing to see how the warnings contained in this chapter fit so well with describing the current gangster government under Obama.

Before I get to that chapter, I have to share something I saw on O'Reilly last night. Producer Jessie Waters attended the Academy Awards on Sunday night. He stood on the "red carpet" and approached several "celebrities" to ask them political questions. Apparently, Cameron Diaz was heard saying, "I don't do Fox News." But George Clooney was willing to speak with Mr. Waters. Jessie asked George if he thought that Obama was doing a good job. Clooney answered, in a liberal leftist predictable way, that he thought Obama was doing a good job. As Clooney started to depart from the microphone Jessie was holding, he also said, "and it's President Obama." The look on Clooney's face as he walked away but continued to look at Waters didn't even need to be analyzed by a body language expert. It was a look of disdain, disgust, and contempt. All of that because Waters disrespected Obama by not giving him the proper label that Clooney thought he should have. But do you recall how Clooney and the rest of the Hollyweird crowd denigrated, trashed, disparaged and cursed about President George W. Bush? How quickly they forget that "respect" mantra when they are spewing their vile comments against a Republican President. Hypocrisy - Clooney is thy name.

Waters didn't verbally bash Obama. No! All he did was make the "mistake" of not saying his current title - and THAT was disrespectful in Clooney's mind? Give me a break!!

What's more, O'Reilly agreed with Clooney (sort of) that Obama should be given respect because of the position he holds. Tell me Bill, would that have applied to Hitler too? It isn't about the position one holds that deems what kind of respect should be given - it's about whether or not that person's deeds in the office deserve respect!

I'm sure that there have been MANY video clips of O'Reilly just calling Barack by his last name. So...should O'Reilly call himself out on that?

I think that it is humorous to see Fox News anchors fall all over themselves because Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum called Obama, "a snob." I'm sure that the crazies at MSNBullCrap are apoplectic over it!! But again, the media of mass deception called President Bush every derogatory name you could imagine, but THAT was OK?? Hypocrisy, MSNBC is thy name!

Let's look at the definition of that word and see if it fits Obama:

snob   /snɒb/ Show Spelled[snob] Show IPA
1. a person who imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and is condescending or overbearing to others.
2. a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field: a musical snob.

Word Origin & History


1781, "a shoemaker, a shoemaker's apprentice," of unknown origin. It came to be used in Cambridge University slang c.1796 for "townsman, local merchant," and by 1831 it was being used for "person of the ordinary or lower classes." Meaning "person who vulgarly apes his social superiors" arose 1843, popularized
1848 by William Thackeray's "Book of Snobs." The meaning later broadened to include those who insist on their gentility, in addition to those who merely aspire to it, and by 1911 had its main modern sense of "one who despises those considered inferior in rank, attainment, or taste."

I think Rick hit the nail directly on the head!  The term "snob" certainly does describe Obama as:

"2. a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field: a musical snob." and
"one who despises those considered inferior in rank, attainment, or taste."

Recall when Obama was fundraising with millionaires in San Fransisco prior to the 2008 election and he was caught on tape referring to people in Pennsylvania with disgust, labeling them hicks who "cling to their guns and Bibles?" I think that the term "snob" fits Obama quite well. But it certainly isn't the only derogatory description that he deserves!  Also recall how Obama disparaged the TEA Party protestors, but embraced the Occupy Wall Street protestors; many of whom killed, raped, pillaged and destroyed their surroundings.  Now Obama and his thugs have gone one step further, having the IRS target TEA Party groups.

Back to the topic.

I would like to share a few paragraphs from Levin's Ameritopia that are written in Chapter 8  which is entitled, "Charles De Montesquieu and Republican Government."

Montesquieu wrote of the nature of governments. "There are three kinds of government: REPUBLICAN, MONARCHICAL, and DESPOTIC. To discover the nature of each, the idea of them held by the least educated of men is sufficient. I assume three definitions, or rather, three facts: one,  republican government is that in which the people as a body, or only a part of the people, have sovereign power; monarchical government is that in which onoe alone governs, but by fixed and established laws; whereas, in despotic government, one alone, without law and without rule, draws everything along by his will and caprices"  (1,1,2).

Montesquieu describes the Republican form of government requiring people to vote in elections.

Levin continues:

Montesquieu points out, There is this difference between the nature of the government and its principle:  its nature is that which makes it what it is, and its principle, that which makes it act.  The one is its particular structure, and the other is the human passions that set it in motion" (1,3,1).  He explains, "There need not  be much integrity for a monarchical or despotic government to maintain or sustain itself.  The force of the law in the one and the prince's ever-raised arm in the other can rule or contain the whole."  As for republican government, Montesquieu asserts that "in a popular state there must be an additional spring, which is VIRTUE."  What I say is confirmed by the entire body of history and is quite in conformity with the nature of things.  For it is clear that less virtue is needed in a monarchy, where the one who sees to the execution of the laws judges himself above the laws, than in a popular government, where the one who sees to the execution of the laws feels that he is subject to them himself and that he will bear their weight....But in a popular government when the laws have ceased to be executed, as this can come only from the corruption of the republic, the state is already lost" (1,3,3).  In despotic government, "virtue is not at all necessary to it..." (1,3,8)

Montesquieu saw despotism, including its frequent antecedent, anarchy, as a continuing threat to republican government.  "When that virtue ceases, ambition enters those hearts that can admit it, and avarice enters them all.  Desires change their objects:  that which one used to love, one loves no longer.  One was free under the laws, one wants to be free against them.  Each citizen is like a slave who has escaped from his master's house.   What was a maxim is now called severity; what was a rule is now called constraint; what was vigilance is now called fear.  There, frugality, not the desire to possess, is avarice.  Formerly the goods of individuals made up the public treasury; the public treasury has now become the patrimony of individuals.  The republic is a cast-off husk, and its strength is no more than the power of a few citizens and the license of all" (1,3,3).

I think that the last sentence describes the angst of the informed electorate who now see what Obama and his cohorts are REALLY all about! It all started back when the TEA Party formed in 2009.

Rick Santelli's rant on the stock exchange floor may have spurred on the TEA Party movement, however, ever since that day many more people are realizing the terrible direction that Obama is taking our nation.

Right now, Republicans are in the process of vetting out the candidates for Election 2012. Personally, I think that is a GOOD THING! Anyone who is calling for early selection of a candidate should be held under suspicion of being part of the establishment RINOS who would take this country in the same direction that Obummer has, but at a slower pace. There are progressives in each of the major parties, so we must be diligent to spot the candidate that best represents what the TEA Party stands for.

In the next few paragraphs, we find Montesquieu warning about despotic government:

Montesquieu warned, "In despotic states the nature of the government requires extreme obedience, and the prince's will, once known, should produce its effect as infallibly as does one ball thrown against another.  No tempering, modification, accommodation, terms, alternatives, negotiations, remonstrances, nothing as good or better can be proposed. Man is a creature that obeys a creature that wants. He can no more express his fears about a future event than he can blame his lack of success on the caprice of fortune. There, men's portion, like beasts', is instinct, obedience, and chastisement. It is useless to counter with natural feelings, respect for a father, tenderness for one's children and women, laws of honor, or the state of one's health; one has received the order and that is enough" (1,3,10).

A paragraph later:

It follows that virtue is mostly impossible in a monarchy and nonexistent under despotism, but is crucial to sustain a republican government. "Virtue, in a republic, is a very simple thing: It is love of the republic; it is a feeling and not a result of knowledge; the lowest man in the state, like the first, can have this feeling." However, virtue alone is not enough. "Despotic government has fear as its principle; and not many laws are needed for timid, ignorant, beaten-down people"(1,5,13), but republican government requires fixed, established laws adopted by the representative of the people, which create a culture of support for the republic. "Laws must relate to the nature and the principle of the government that is established or that one wants to establish, whether those laws form it as do political laws, or maintain it, as do civil laws" (1,1,3)

Levin goes on to describe several of Montesquieu's warnings. I am writing just the first sentence of each warning:

1. Montesquieu warns of the tyranny of concentrated power resulting from either unjust laws or the application of laws unjustly, and the anarchy of radical egalitarianism that leads to despotism.

2. Montesquieu also fears the destructive consequences of excessive taxation of liberty.

3. Montesquieu also viewed commerce as essential to the character of republican government.

4. Montesquieu explained that unlike the poor in republican government, who in freedom can better their circumstances, in despotic states the poor have no hope.

5. [While discussing industrious men and societies] - Moreover commerce is a natural outgrowth of republican government, where individuals are largely free to make self-interested economic decisions.

6. Montesquieu, always mindful of history's preference for tyranny, argued that political liberty exists within the context of a constitution--a fixed, established law.

7. Montesquieu urged an independent and temporary judiciary in which judges, chosen from the people, strictly adhered to the law.

There is much more to read about Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws. We can safely say that it had virtually nothing in common with the utopias in Plato's Republic, More's Utopia, Hobbes's Leviathan, and later, Marx's workers' paradise.

Levin writes:

Montesquieu's greatest concern was with despotism's threat to the individual and his political liberty. He argued for moderate, republican government, where the people choose their representatives and their representatives are prudent and virtuous. Aware of tyranny's resoluteness and the nature of political power, Montesquieu insisted that republics must separate the three powers of government into different branches to ensure they are not united under one person or centralized in one institution.

Furthermore, he emphasized that the law must be stable and predictable, reflective of society's mores, and made not to interfere with the individuals routine except in cases of actual necessity. When disputes arise or violations of law occur, they are to be adjudicated by individuals who are independent of the legislative and executive branches and adhere strictly to the law's meaning.

The majority of the American people have seen Obama wreak havoc against the principles of our Constitutional Republic over the past three years. His attempts to create a kind of utopianism here in America is actually a form of despotism in and of itself! When a political Marxist gets into office, he and his cohorts attempt to fool the public into thinking "he knows what's best." The trouble is, it is THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what most Americans want! Americans want LIBERTY, equality properly understood, moderation, tolerance (not approval of aberrant behavior!), and to prosper as individuals in a society of freedom while keeping our traditions alive and well!

Levin closes the chapter:

In The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu would provide a road map for the American constitution, in which a system of gevernment is established to represent a diverse and dynamic society, and the individual lives free from the cruelty and domination of others and the government itself.
Hat tips to all links.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

A Founding Father's Quote for Election 2012

"Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the "latent spark"... If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?"

Quote by: John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Source: Novanglus, 1775


The more that I see of the final four candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, the more the stark contrast builds between these four men and the would-be dictator, Barack Hussein Obama.

I will admit, none of them are what we might call "the perfect candidate."  We know that no one is perfect this side of heaven.  Only Jesus Christ, in the Incarnation, was the perfect Man.  Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father but by Him!

Our Founding Fathers knew this about Christ.  Most of them were true, Christian believers.  It is for that reason that they wrote the Declaration of Independence - the creed for America to live by.  However, it is also a fact that our Constitutional Republic can only survive if we are led by God-fearing leaders.  Not the fakes like we currently have in leadership from the Democrat party.

As far as the GOP nominees go, I like one candidate more than the others and even find one of the candidates scary concerning his foreign policy attitudes (especially regarding Iran).   But any one of them would be light-years better than Obama!!

John Adams teaches us from this historic quote. This election boils down to:

"...seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice."

What Obama has been presenting our nation is mostly falsehood.  He has wreaked havoc upon this nation with what is wrong in this world.  He has done what amounts to slapping We The People, our military, our economy, our freedoms, our liberty, and our sacred honor as a people with nothing but vice.

Vice - a word that isn't used much today. But it certainly fits when describing the current puppet pResident in the White House, as well as all of his cronies and puppeteers!

Take note of the definition of "vice."

vice    /vaɪs/ Show Spelled[vahys] Show IPA
1. an immoral or evil habit or practice. Synonyms: fault, failing, foible, weakness. Antonyms: virtue.

2. immoral conduct; depraved or degrading behavior: a life of vice. Synonyms: depravity, sin, iniquity, wickedness, corruption. Antonyms: virtue, morality.

3. sexual immorality, especially prostitution. Synonyms: wantonness, degeneracy, licentiousness.

Here is the World Dictionary definition:

World English Dictionary
vice 1 (vaɪs)

— n
1. an immoral, wicked, or evil habit, action, or trait
2. habitual or frequent indulgence in pernicious, immoral, or degrading practices
3. a specific form of pernicious conduct, esp prostitution or sexual perversion
4. a failing or imperfection in character, conduct, etc: smoking is his only vice
5. obsolete pathol any physical defect or imperfection
6. a bad trick or disposition, as of horses, dogs, etc

[C13: via Old French from Latin vitium a defect]

'viceless 1

— adj

4. a particular form of depravity.

5. a fault, defect, or shortcoming: a minor vice in his literary style. Synonyms: flaw, blemish, imperfection, foible, weakness.

World Origin:

Word Origin & History


"moral fault, wickedness," c.1300, from O.Fr. vice, from L. vitium "defect, offense, blemish, imperfection," in both physical and moral senses (cf. It. vezzo "usage, entertainment").

"Horace and Aristotle have already spoken to us about the virtues of their forefathers and the vices of their own times, and through the centuries, authors have talked the same way. If all this were true, we would be bears today." [Montesquieu]

We could all make ourselves busy from now until election day listing the evils of this administration. But what we should focus on now is how to get out of this mess and be sure that Obama is gone come January 20, 2013 (or maybe even sooner).

See some of the efforts to share the truth about Obama:

1. Ulsterman Report: The Chart Barack Obama Doesn't Want America to Know About

Closing paragraph:

The truth is clear - the Obama presidency has been a near-complete disaster for working Americans. This might explain a term growing in popularity of late – “ABO” - Anybody But Obama in 2012…

Democrats as Agents of Fraud - ©2012 drkate Misprision of Felony: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and

Sheriff Arpaio Press Conference Will Be Livestreamed March 1 - *Sheriff Arpaio Press Conference Will Be Livestreamed * *ARTICLE II SUPER PAC AND THE WESTERN CENTER FOR JOURNALISM IS CO-SPONSORING WORLD NET DAILY’S (WND...
Obama lies continue, Energy policy Political Platitudes, Gas prices, Truth team moment, No concern from Obama for poor and working families - Obama lies continue, Energy policy Political Platitudes, Gas prices, Truth team moment, No concern from Obama for poor and working families “the Times of t...
As Afghan Leaders Call for Jihad Against U.S. Military: Sarah Palin Demands Apology for Death of U. S. Soldiers Over Koran Burning - By Gary P Jackson Ah, the “Religion of Peace” strikes again. Radical Muslims have been on a rampage for the last three days after some copies of the Koran ...
RUSSIA WARNS ISRAEL NOT TO ATTACK IRAN: Prophetic implications? - >> IRAN SET TO EXECUTE CHRISTIAN PASTOR — Please pray for Youcef Nadarkhani, who left Islam to become a follower of Jesus >> JUST POSTED: A video blog by J...
P.S.  Have you heard ANYTHING FROM OBAMA regarding this Christian Pastor's DEATH SENTENCE in Iran???  Yet Obummer apologizes for the burning of a Koran!!!

Obama's Disarm-America Agenda - Story *here*. Cutting America’s nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads — a level not seen since 1950 — would place the number of US strategic nuclear weapons at...

FLOTUS Returns from Aspen Ski Vacation at Billionaire Donor’s Home to Preach About Sharing the Wealth - The usual battle cry on the SS Hope & Change: Damn the optics, full steam ahead! Michelle Obama went to Aspen for another vacation, stayed at the home of a...

Doug makes several great points at the end of his post:

If Michelle wanted her audience to share the wealth with the less fortunate, why didn’t she ask them to give the $10,000 to charity instead of accept it on behalf of her husband’s campaign? After all, Team Obama will only burn that money trying to get re-elected so they can continue to pile up an unprecedented debt burden on the “less fortunate” they claim to want to share the wealth with.

I see the Obamas and their cronies sharing a lot of debt with Americans… but the wealth, they keep that between each other.
Big Surprise: Obamacare’s Pre-Existing Condition Plan Costing Twice as Much Per Enrollee as Originally Estimated - **Written by Doug Powers Here’s the latest “it’s costing twice as much as we thought” revelation from the people who are working 24/7 to make health care m...

What If Obama Is Neither Stupid Nor Incompetent . . . - and everything is going according to plan? From my post "History Class (Circa 2100)": - Obama White House asks Americans to turn in their fellow cit...
Personally, I think that Obama is stupid, incompetent AND is allowing his vice-laden puppeteers to let everything go "according to the evil plan."

Give the video at the above link a thorough view.  It may appear one way in the beginning, but the ending is priceless!!

14. Gulag Bound: Campaign for Ron Paul Fingered Attacking Gingrich and Santorum for Romney


More links to be added throughout the day.
Hat tips to all links

Thursday, February 23, 2012

The Iranian Plan to Annihilate the Jews

I was very glad to hear Mike Huckabee's report from Israel today on Fox News regarding the problem of Iran getting nuclear weapons. He didn't mince words when asked about the Israeli government's opinion when an American official stated that "the Iranians are rational actors."

I agreed with the reactions Mr. Huckabee shared. Have you ever heard such a stupid and utterly clueless statement in your life?? The Iranian PEOPLE may very well be rational - after all, they tried to get freedom from the Islamic regime back in 2009 (or 2010?) during a freedom uprising there. But what did Obamafraud do? NOTHING!! A missed opportunity - to say the least! But Obama gets involved in the Libyan and Egyptian uprisings to oust those leaders? We must ask why?

Could it be that Obama is the kind of Muslim sympathizer that agrees with the Iranian Mullahs?

Mind you, that is a HORRIBLE thought and I sincerely hope that it is NOT TRUE - but what are we to think when we see the Obama administration send officials over to Israel to beg them not to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities; all the while knowing even more horrifying information than what you are about to read here?


There are two articles over at American Thinker that are must reads! The media of mass deception isn't going to cover such issues in depth, so we must utilize online media to keep up with the TRUTH about Iran and the dangers the fanatics in that regime present not only to Israel, but also to the United States and the rest of the world.

posted by null at American Thinker - 9 hours ago
Pamela Geller interviews the former CIA agent inside Iran's bloodthirsty Revolutionary Guards.
I recently interviewed Reza Kahlili, and what he told me was revealing.
Pamela Geller: Do you think the Iranian statements about Israel's imminent demise portend a nuclear strike from Iran against Israel?
Reza Kahlili: Though it is difficult for the West to understand, the decisions and actions by the leaders of the Islamic regime in Iran are based on an ideology which is deeply rooted in "Mahdiism," and that's the promise by Allah for the day that the last Islamic Messiah (the Shiites' 12th Imam, Mahdi) will reappear to raise the flag of Islam in all corners of the world.  As per centuries-old hadith, the trigger for the coming is the destruction of Israel.  The Iranian leaders are on a path to bring about that trigger, believing that it will bring about the final victory of Islam over infidels.  Their nuclear program is for the destruction of Israel and the West.
PG: What do you think should be done to prevent Iran from striking at Israel?
RK: I think the best course is regime change, as any attack just on the Iranian nuclear sites will not only fail to solve the threat posed by the radicals ruling Iran, but will engulf the region.  The only solution to this problem is a regime change in Iran, which would go a long way toward securing world peace and global stability.  That can only be achieved by helping the Iranians, who are one of the most westernized people in the region, to bring about change in Iran, while at the same providing every reason for the loyalists to abandon the regime.
PG: Is Iran a danger to the U.S. now?  How is that likely to change in five years?
RK: Unfortunately, not many in the U.S. realize that the leaders in Iran not only pose an existential threat to Israel, but also to America.  The fact that the U.S. could destroy Iran in a matter of minutes in case of an attack will not deter the Islamic regime in Iran from an attack on U.S. soil.  The Iranian assets, including Quds forces and Hezb'allah cells, have long infiltrated the U.S.  The Iranians run a complex operation through several entities and organizations, such as mosques, Iranian Islamic student associations, the Muslim Brotherhood's Muslim Students Association and others.  In helping U.S. intelligence, I once established contact with a Revolutionary Guard commander who posed as a student here in the U.S.  Another time I was informed of a very important Guard commander who had come to the U.S. under a fake passport, and was meeting with the heads of Muslim Students Association groups.  So not only terrorism at home is very likely when the leaders in Iran decide to take action, but a more dangerous scenario is a launched missile with a nuclear payload, either from Iran or off of a ship close to U.S. shores.

The next article is very difficult to read.  It shows the utter contempt, hatred, evil, and maniacal beliefs against Israel and the West that exists in the minds of the radical Islamic regime in Iran!

posted by null at American Thinker - 9 hours ago
A well-known strategist within the Iranian government has introduced a new doctrine not only to destroy Israel in a preemptive attack, but to commit to genocide and kill the Jewish people.

Though it is difficult to post just a small excerpt, here is a portion that contains a link as proof of what the author is discussing in his piece:

For many years, I have tried to raise awareness not only of the threat posed by the fanatics ruling Iran, but also of the injustices done to the Iranian people.  This has drawn the ire of the mullah-appeasers and those in alliance with the criminal Islamic regime in Iran.
Recently, I revealed a shocking piece, "Ayatollah: Kill All Jews, Annihilate Israel," in which a well-known strategist within the Iranian government introduced a new doctrine not only to destroy Israel in a preemptive attack, but also to commit to genocide and kill the Jewish people.  The piece got international attention and made headlines across the world.

The facts in my piece were an exact copy of the original piece, which was published in Iran.  I even left a link to the Iranian piece that interestingly was not only written in Farsi, but also translated into English.  I wanted to make sure that the world could see that my piece was a true and accurate reflection of what was said in Iran.
I wanted the world to see that the jihadists in Tehran had no shame in openly calling for the mass murder of the people of another nation.  I wanted the world to realize that we were once again dealing with madmen who had no interest in humanity, love, or peace, and that they were determined to commit a grave crime, based on their belief in glorifying Allah.

Even though I did my best to make it easy to verify the facts, many Islamists, and those supporting negotiations with the regime in Iran, launched an attack against me and my article and did not hide their hatred for Israel and the Jewish people.
In their attacks, they not only tried to assassinate my character, but also tried to deceive the readers, claiming that my piece was a lie and that no one in Iran was calling for the killing of the Jewish people.

Even though I did my best to make it easy to verify the facts, many Islamists, and those supporting negotiations with the regime in Iran, launched an attack against me and my article and did not hide their hatred for Israel and the Jewish people.

In their attacks, they not only tried to assassinate my character, but also tried to deceive the readers, claiming that my piece was a lie and that no one in Iran was calling for the killing of the Jewish people.
Do we now see that negotiations with maniacal killers like the radical Islamists in the Iranian government is IMPOSSIBLE because of their Apocalyptic beliefs?

I agree with the writer that regime change is necessary in Iran.  Heck - regime change is necessary here in the U.S. too!  But I also think that it might be too late for regime change if the Iranian government gets nukes before such a change can happen.  Therefore, Israel may need to take action, once again, to save their own nation, the U.S. and the rest of the world from Iran getting (and then using) nuclear weapons!

Read more: American Thinker: The Iranian Plan to Annihilate the Jews

Hat tip:  American Thinker

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family and Freedom Before It's Too Late

While listening to the Sean Hannity radio show this afternoon, I heard an amazing commentary spoken by James Robison. Robison is the founder and president of LIFE Outreach International, a worldwide Christian relief organization. He is also the host of LIFE Today, a daily syndicated television program that reaches 300 million homes in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia. He is the author of many books including The Absolutes, True Prosperity and Living in Love, and has spoken to millions of people through evangelistic crusades since entering public ministry in 1962.

Mr. Robison and Jay W. Richards have written a book together entitled, "Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family and Freedom Before It's Too Late.

There is a book signing bus tour going on across certain parts of the country and you can see the locations HERE.

There is a long list of people with stated accolades about the book at the link. But I found the following review most convincing to me that every American needs to read this book!!

14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars You can't cherry-pick when it comes to freedom, February 21, 2012
By Ryan Freed (Paradise Falls, AZ) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME) This review is from: Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It's Too Late (Hardcover)

This book is a thorough survey of what has become the greatest debate of our time--the role of the government in our lives and the prospect for personal freedom. This is unabashedly a Christian conservative book. As such, it will be disregarded off hand by anyone who leans away from the religious right. But that would be a terrible mistake. Like another awesome book on the modern political system, Juggernaut: Why the System Crushes the Only People Who Can Save It, this book delves into some of the most fascinating paradoxes of the modern world and shows just how twisted it has become. It is an argument that everyone can appreciate, no matter what his political stripe is.

The insight begins with the title. What exactly is indivisible anyway? The authors bring up the fact that freedom cannot be divided between fiscal and social issues. If you want freedom, you must strive for freedom in both. This is where the interesting part comes in. When the authors say that one must strive for freedom, they are not saying that one must be able to do whatever they want to do. As they put it, freedom is "getting to do what you don't want to do, not to do what you want to do." And by taking this frame, the authors make the claim that, in order to defend freedom, you not only have to prevent government intrusion on the fiscal and economic plane, but also on the social plane.

To be sure, the authors oppose government intervention in fiscal areas, but they also oppose government intrusion in the social realm as well. What is interesting is that they don't take this to mean that we should legalize everything from abortion to gay marriage. To the authors, defending freedom in the social realm is to in fact defend laws against things like abortion and gay marriage.

This might seem a little counter-intuitive at first glance. This is how the logic works: The authors bring up an important point: In the beginning of the country, religious freedom was seen as important so that no state government could impose its brand of religion on its citizens. Now the situation has flipped. No longer is there a need to prevent state governments from imposing its religion, it is necessary to prevent state governments from imposing its atheism on its subjects. It used to be that free thinkers were the main beneficiaries of religious freedom; now the truly religious are the only ones who can benefit. Ultimately, the moral of the story is the same: the only way that people can exist side-by-side together in a complex society is if they are able to practice their religion freely without encumbrance from the government. If you have this foundation, you have a thriving people, determined to produce for themselves and capable of conducting the trade essential for productivity and growth. Without this foundation, you have a calumnious people, determined to fight each other until their way of life is protected.

Government is supposed to be non-religious, that is true. But it is also supposed to be limited. When government expands the way it has in the last several decades, its non-religious foundation means that there are atheistic standards infiltrating our day-to-day activities. Sure, we can be religious outside of our affiliations with government, but, increasingly, it is becoming harder to do anything outside of government's purview.

An excellent read for anyone interested in the big battle going on these days.

Hat Tips to all links.

A Nuclear-Armed Iran Would be a Threat to Israel's Very Existence

The gall of this AWFUL administration is beyond belief! administration that sides with Islamists in the Middle East wants to dictate to Israel (more like BEG) NOT to strike Iran's nuclear facilities!

Let me ask you this. If America was the immediate target of the Iranian crazies, would our government listen to another country telling us not to strike a rogue nation that aims to blow us up in a nuclear attack? The answer is NO - OF COURSE NOT!

I trust Benjamin Netanyahu. I trust him more than our own government right now. I think that he will do what is necessary for the survival of the Nation of Israel. That is why he is in the office of Prime Minister at this time in history.

We may not have known it at the time, but the election of 2008 brought into being the worst pResident in American history! An administration that sides with radical Islamists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, radical environmentalists, and liberal leftist thugs isn't going to do all it can to protect WE THE PEOPLE of America - no less the people and state of Israel! Right now, here in America, the inmates are running the asylum. Millions of Americans see this for what it is - a usurper who is a puppet of all of these radical groups trying to destroy our nation!

Recently, a campaign advisor for Rick Santorum appeared on a news show and incorrectly stated that Santorum's comments about Obama's worldview being a "theology" was because of "radical Islamist theology." She later corrected herself, saying that she meant to say, "radical environmentalist theology" and apologized for the error. But that won't matter to the liberals and the Obama regime. Do you think they might use that slip of the tongue for all it's worth to attack Santorum's campaign? It has been revealed that the Obama regime is now considering attacking Santorum more than Romney now because of Rick's surge in the polls.

On the other hand, maybe the leftists won't use it. Why? Because perhaps they don't want to draw attention to what writer Essam Abdallah has exposed! We shall see...

But was Alice Stewart's comment a Freudian slip? Could it be that she is well aware of Essam Abdallah's article?

Does anyone in their right mind REALLY think that sanctions will stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?

Excerpt from Now The End Begins blog:

Both Israel and the West believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb — a charge Tehran denies. But differences have emerged in how to respond to the perceived threat.

The U.S. and the European Union have both imposed harsh new sanctions targeting Iran’s oil sector, the lifeline of the Iranian economy. With the sanctions just beginning to bite, they have expressed optimism that Iran can be persuaded to curb its nuclear ambitions.

So...what does Iran do?


On Sunday, Iran’s Oil Ministry said it has halted oil shipments to Britain and France in an apparent pre-emptive blow against the European Union. The semiofficial Mehr news agency said the National Iranian Oil Company has sent letters to some European refineries with an ultimatum to either sign long-term contracts of two to five years or be cut off. The 27-nation EU accounts for about 18 percent of Iran’s oil exports.

Yeah right..."sanctions" are working! /sarc

Concluding argument excerpt:

Israel has welcomed the sanctions. But it has pointedly refused to rule out military action and in recent weeks sent signals that its patience is running thin.
Israel believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its very existence, citing Iran’s support for Arab militant groups, its sophisticated arsenal of missiles capable of reaching Israel and its leaders’ calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Last week, Israel accused Iran of being behind a string of attempted attacks on Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia and Thailand.

There is precedent for Israeli action. In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. And in 2007, Israeli warplanes are believed to have destroyed a target that foreign experts think was an unfinished nuclear reactor in Syria.

Israel will need to come to the rescue once again. God be with Her!

Hat tips to all links.