"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, USMC, a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy said. "I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by a saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way." "As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior."
Pace later said he was sorry he spoke of his own personal feelings, but did not deny that was the way he felt.
Homosexuality is a deviation from normalcy. There is no place for homosexuals in the military. Who wants to put their hand into a sucking chest wound and wonder if the AIDS virus got there before the bullet? Not to mention, who do they shower with?
Homosexuals - Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Be in the military. Frankly, I don't care how talented you are or what a great interior decorator you will be in another life.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Thursday, March 08, 2007
DirecWay used to kind of suck, now Hughesw.Net really sucks!
If you exceed your FAP download allotment, Hughes.Net will supposedly limit your download speeds to 150Kbps until you are back within the arbitrary limit. Most of you are probably asking, what kind of broadband is that? How are you supposed to download movies, stream audio and video and the like? Who would go for that?
On the other hand, if you are a Hughes.Net user, you know the real question – How do you get to your FAP limit with real world speeds that average about 15Kbps?
This is blog is uploaded on a 28.8K dialup because tonight all I can get with a signal strength of 82 is 2.5Kbps.
The day Hughes.Net does not suck will be the day they market a vacuum cleaner.
On the other hand, if you are a Hughes.Net user, you know the real question – How do you get to your FAP limit with real world speeds that average about 15Kbps?
This is blog is uploaded on a 28.8K dialup because tonight all I can get with a signal strength of 82 is 2.5Kbps.
The day Hughes.Net does not suck will be the day they market a vacuum cleaner.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Left isn't Right
Foreword - This is not my work, but rather the writing of a contemporary of mine, Jimmy Cash, who stayed on active duty. It is worth reading. Take the time and read it. Hap
LET'S BE SPECIFIC
Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the "I Am Tired" letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. Unlike Bob McClellan, I will not continue to whine, twist and degrade our country's leaders on a weekly basis. Instead, this will be a one time input attempting to reach some of those who are confused by McClellan and his ilk's unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years.
These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow.
As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I'll never forget the language, "I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia".! On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson.
The only question in my mind was simply, "Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party? "
I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.
Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should.
Then came Jimmy Carter.
Our young people don't remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I'll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst.
During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts.
Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us.
The military had some equipment, but it was all broken.
Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me?
Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat.
All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.
Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB, Florida, and Ronald Regan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year ou! t of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country.
Proof of the pudding is simple.
Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours.
Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.
Then, came everyone's favorite---Bill Clinton. If there ever was! an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton's antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn't real sex, and some of our children believed him.
It took a lot of years, but now I became certain.
There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual. Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up.
Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln's prediction of destruction from within just may come true.
There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today.
However, this country faces a new kind of threat---one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or! the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by te rrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change.
Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation?
Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer?
If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now.
THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRUBITION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.
Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don't believe in political correctness. So, let's look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative.
However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. I! F THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONCENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!!
The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.
What are the real facts?
On the home front this country's economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they we! re when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngsters, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to "fix" all these domestic problems? Bob and George, give me a break!!!! On the war front this country has not! been touched since 2001.
I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again. We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight somewhere other than in our country.
To hell with political correctness.
The President can't say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure.
I don't care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan.
You honestly don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think.
I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, "This is a strong country!!! " It has! survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I'll just bet it will again.
Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, 'I-am-finally-somebody' grin from Nancy Pelosi's face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power.
IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Retired
LET'S BE SPECIFIC
Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the "I Am Tired" letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. Unlike Bob McClellan, I will not continue to whine, twist and degrade our country's leaders on a weekly basis. Instead, this will be a one time input attempting to reach some of those who are confused by McClellan and his ilk's unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years.
These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow.
As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I'll never forget the language, "I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia".! On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson.
The only question in my mind was simply, "Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party? "
I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.
Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should.
Then came Jimmy Carter.
Our young people don't remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I'll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst.
During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts.
Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us.
The military had some equipment, but it was all broken.
Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me?
Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat.
All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.
Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB, Florida, and Ronald Regan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year ou! t of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country.
Proof of the pudding is simple.
Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours.
Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.
Then, came everyone's favorite---Bill Clinton. If there ever was! an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton's antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn't real sex, and some of our children believed him.
It took a lot of years, but now I became certain.
There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual. Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up.
Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln's prediction of destruction from within just may come true.
There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today.
However, this country faces a new kind of threat---one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or! the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by te rrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change.
Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation?
Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer?
If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now.
THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRUBITION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.
Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don't believe in political correctness. So, let's look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative.
However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. I! F THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONCENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!!
The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.
What are the real facts?
On the home front this country's economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they we! re when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngsters, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to "fix" all these domestic problems? Bob and George, give me a break!!!! On the war front this country has not! been touched since 2001.
I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again. We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight somewhere other than in our country.
To hell with political correctness.
The President can't say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure.
I don't care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan.
You honestly don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think.
I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, "This is a strong country!!! " It has! survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I'll just bet it will again.
Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, 'I-am-finally-somebody' grin from Nancy Pelosi's face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power.
IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Retired
Monday, February 19, 2007
Anglican Communion meeting in Tanzania
The leaders of the Anglican Communion met in Tanzania 12 - 19 February 2007. The primary purpose of the meeting was to decide what to do with the apostates in the “Developed Countries”, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most troubling, the United Kingdom, England in particular.
While the Anglican Church was originally known as the Church of England, it is national in nature, with each country having (in the old days) a single national church. Each country sent representatives, its highest ranking priest a Bishop, known as a Primate, to the annual meetings of the Church in general. With no real central authority, all looked to the head of the Church in England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the spiritual leader.
From the 1960s on, the Epsicopal Church in the United States became more and more liberal at the upper levels as it was taken over by radical feminists and homosexuals. The membership, always very conservative, left in droves. The church is now roughly 10 percent of its 1967 membership count. As the liturgy changed to accommodate the feminist - homosexual - liberal - anti-American agenda, membership plummeted. Most left the church for "independent" religion, that is they did not affliate with any church. Others left and either established new chuches mirroring the old PECUSA, Protestant Epsicopal Church of the United States, or joined those who had. These are known as the continuing church. Foreigners find this to be splintering. Members of the continuing church are not concerned. They reject compromise, pointing out the purple shirts compromises got the ECUSA (now TEC) where it is. The continuing church is growing at about 15 percent per year, while the TEC is in freefall.
While church membership is in decline in the developed countries, it is rapidly rising in the developing countries. Membership in places like Africa far outnumber membership in the developed countries. While the majority of money comes from the developed countries, that is far less important to the Anglicans than to Roman Catholics. The Anglican Church is often referred to as the home of the church mice. Like the US Marines, they have done so much with so little, they think they can do anything with nothing.
The current problem is that the developed countries have turned their back on the entire Anglican Motto – Scripture – Reason – Tradition. They no longer look to the Bible as the Word of God; they accept, nay, embrace homosexuality and other activities commonly thought to be deviate; they do not support their nation states as patriots; they look to the state for handouts and support national socialism; they no longer follow the liturgical practices of the past. In short, they have turned their backs on everything that made winners chose the Anglican Way in the past.
We have prayed that the Primates listen to the Holy Ghost, follow His direction and not get in His way. We asked that they listen to the words of our Lord when He said, as recorded by Saint Matthew, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.“
For too long have the Bishops valued collegiality above God’s will. We asked the Primates as they meet consider what Jesus asked of us, Do not block God, but rather follow Him, Battle Evil; Do Good.
What has come out of Tanzania? Nothing. As a "Proud Texan" said, "Sadly I read this as 'Please comply with the Winsor report and we really, really, really mean it this time, if you don't we're going to send you a letter with all sorts of bad grammar.' My guess is that the deadline will come and go with all sorts of meaningless shuffling of feet."
Jesus calls us to action, not collegiality. Once again, it seems the church has been betrayed by the purple shirts who value collegiality above God’s will.
Is there any wonder bishops are less trusted than used car salesmen?
While the Anglican Church was originally known as the Church of England, it is national in nature, with each country having (in the old days) a single national church. Each country sent representatives, its highest ranking priest a Bishop, known as a Primate, to the annual meetings of the Church in general. With no real central authority, all looked to the head of the Church in England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the spiritual leader.
From the 1960s on, the Epsicopal Church in the United States became more and more liberal at the upper levels as it was taken over by radical feminists and homosexuals. The membership, always very conservative, left in droves. The church is now roughly 10 percent of its 1967 membership count. As the liturgy changed to accommodate the feminist - homosexual - liberal - anti-American agenda, membership plummeted. Most left the church for "independent" religion, that is they did not affliate with any church. Others left and either established new chuches mirroring the old PECUSA, Protestant Epsicopal Church of the United States, or joined those who had. These are known as the continuing church. Foreigners find this to be splintering. Members of the continuing church are not concerned. They reject compromise, pointing out the purple shirts compromises got the ECUSA (now TEC) where it is. The continuing church is growing at about 15 percent per year, while the TEC is in freefall.
While church membership is in decline in the developed countries, it is rapidly rising in the developing countries. Membership in places like Africa far outnumber membership in the developed countries. While the majority of money comes from the developed countries, that is far less important to the Anglicans than to Roman Catholics. The Anglican Church is often referred to as the home of the church mice. Like the US Marines, they have done so much with so little, they think they can do anything with nothing.
The current problem is that the developed countries have turned their back on the entire Anglican Motto – Scripture – Reason – Tradition. They no longer look to the Bible as the Word of God; they accept, nay, embrace homosexuality and other activities commonly thought to be deviate; they do not support their nation states as patriots; they look to the state for handouts and support national socialism; they no longer follow the liturgical practices of the past. In short, they have turned their backs on everything that made winners chose the Anglican Way in the past.
We have prayed that the Primates listen to the Holy Ghost, follow His direction and not get in His way. We asked that they listen to the words of our Lord when He said, as recorded by Saint Matthew, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.“
For too long have the Bishops valued collegiality above God’s will. We asked the Primates as they meet consider what Jesus asked of us, Do not block God, but rather follow Him, Battle Evil; Do Good.
What has come out of Tanzania? Nothing. As a "Proud Texan" said, "Sadly I read this as 'Please comply with the Winsor report and we really, really, really mean it this time, if you don't we're going to send you a letter with all sorts of bad grammar.' My guess is that the deadline will come and go with all sorts of meaningless shuffling of feet."
Jesus calls us to action, not collegiality. Once again, it seems the church has been betrayed by the purple shirts who value collegiality above God’s will.
Is there any wonder bishops are less trusted than used car salesmen?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
One voice – No Compromise - The Anglican Republic
One voice – No Compromise - The Anglican Republic
When the United States formed, the Church of England then operating in the country re-formed as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. Continuing the model of the Church of England, each country where this form of Christianity spread formed its own national church, each under the direction and leadership of a single bishop or primate. All the national churches look to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the symbolic head of the worldwide church. Unlike the Roman Catholic church, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the monarch of the church, nor does anyone think he is infallible. All of the national churches form the Anglican Communion, with, in theory, all subscribing to the same Articles of Religion found in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and its predecessors.
Never a very large church, the PECUSA nonetheless has provided 35 percent of our country’s Presidents and 40 percent of its military flag officers.
The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States eventually dropped the Protestant part and became just The Episcopal Church of the United States. It has now dropped its national identity, along with a lot more, and is now just The Episcopal Church, or TEC.
Over the past 30 years the now TEC has become less and less Bible oriented; its theology can no longer be found in the Bible. As the various dioceses elected apostates as bishops, membership dropped. With the election of a practicing homosexual adulterer as a bishop and the election of a woman who cannot bring herself to refer to Jesus as the Son of God, the one time important church has dropped to less than ten percent of its former size.
With bishops leading the church to hell, valuing collegiality over God’s Word, the people began to see the problem. Over time many people have left the PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC and formed new churches where they could practice their religion without fear of apostasy. The new churches are known as the continuing church. The continuing church is comprised of many splinter groups. They are often derided for not being willing to come together. Those from whom the derision arises actually mean not willing to compromise and band together.
Most of the continuing churches saw what compromise brought and who brought it. Bishops, bishops wearing purple shirts and sporting spade tipped tails. There are differences in approaches, not so much in theology, but certainly approaches. No one should compromise, yet we should not let our differences override our natural ties through our allegiance to God, His Son, the Holy Ghost and our Anglican form of religion.
We need to maintain our uniqueness. Yet, to have an effective voice in the Anglican Communion there needs to be one voice for the United States’ Anglican Churches.
There is a solution – the United Anglican Republic.
The problems facing the United States’ Anglican Churches are almost identical to those facing our young nation at its founding. So is the solution:
Hold a Constitutional Convention
Each national church (APA, REC, UEC, etc.) to send three delegates, a Bishop, a Priest and a Beadle
Form a list of beliefs and rules common to all
Number the list
Elect a Presiding Bishop from among the Bishops present
Period of office – Four years
One term only
The next Bishop cannot be drawn from the same national church
Send the Presiding Bishop to the Primate meetings
This will give us a single voice and there will be no compromise.
One voice – No Compromise
When the United States formed, the Church of England then operating in the country re-formed as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. Continuing the model of the Church of England, each country where this form of Christianity spread formed its own national church, each under the direction and leadership of a single bishop or primate. All the national churches look to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the symbolic head of the worldwide church. Unlike the Roman Catholic church, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the monarch of the church, nor does anyone think he is infallible. All of the national churches form the Anglican Communion, with, in theory, all subscribing to the same Articles of Religion found in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and its predecessors.
Never a very large church, the PECUSA nonetheless has provided 35 percent of our country’s Presidents and 40 percent of its military flag officers.
The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States eventually dropped the Protestant part and became just The Episcopal Church of the United States. It has now dropped its national identity, along with a lot more, and is now just The Episcopal Church, or TEC.
Over the past 30 years the now TEC has become less and less Bible oriented; its theology can no longer be found in the Bible. As the various dioceses elected apostates as bishops, membership dropped. With the election of a practicing homosexual adulterer as a bishop and the election of a woman who cannot bring herself to refer to Jesus as the Son of God, the one time important church has dropped to less than ten percent of its former size.
With bishops leading the church to hell, valuing collegiality over God’s Word, the people began to see the problem. Over time many people have left the PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC and formed new churches where they could practice their religion without fear of apostasy. The new churches are known as the continuing church. The continuing church is comprised of many splinter groups. They are often derided for not being willing to come together. Those from whom the derision arises actually mean not willing to compromise and band together.
Most of the continuing churches saw what compromise brought and who brought it. Bishops, bishops wearing purple shirts and sporting spade tipped tails. There are differences in approaches, not so much in theology, but certainly approaches. No one should compromise, yet we should not let our differences override our natural ties through our allegiance to God, His Son, the Holy Ghost and our Anglican form of religion.
We need to maintain our uniqueness. Yet, to have an effective voice in the Anglican Communion there needs to be one voice for the United States’ Anglican Churches.
There is a solution – the United Anglican Republic.
The problems facing the United States’ Anglican Churches are almost identical to those facing our young nation at its founding. So is the solution:
Hold a Constitutional Convention
Each national church (APA, REC, UEC, etc.) to send three delegates, a Bishop, a Priest and a Beadle
Form a list of beliefs and rules common to all
Number the list
Elect a Presiding Bishop from among the Bishops present
Period of office – Four years
One term only
The next Bishop cannot be drawn from the same national church
Send the Presiding Bishop to the Primate meetings
This will give us a single voice and there will be no compromise.
One voice – No Compromise
Monday, February 12, 2007
Always have, always will
PAUL GALANTI
TIMES-DISPATCH GUEST COLUMNIST
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Since I was otherwise occupied as a POW in Hanoi and wasn't able to observe firsthand, I suppose it was a '60s thing -- when everybody who was anybody was or deeply aspired to be a victim. And, later, when the soldiers who'd fought valiantly in a war they actually won handily en route to defeating an entire evil empire demanded the same respect given every other element in society -- deserving or not -- they were accorded their own category of victimhood and enshrined in the most out-of-sight, obscure memorial in Washington, D.C.
The re-writing of history to correct the many historical perversions has been very slow in coming.
I remember writing one of my first Op/Eds about the Vietnam "Wall, " which reminded me then of a big hole in the ground or a large open mouth? la a contemporary actress/ally of our enemy. But it was a nice gesture. Although it tended to patronize the suddenly glamorous former "baby killers, " most of our contemporaries in military service shrugged it off as a belated, sort-of thanks from a grateful nation.
From my first days in the military, I was taught that our job was to serve; there would be tough times but keep a stiff upper lip and press on. And enjoy the good times and camaraderie that military life -- almost exclusively -- engenders. Most movies back then had male heroes who sucked up adversity and pressed on. Mothers encouraged their daughters to marry the strong, silent types -- like John Wayne.
On my return in 1973, being greeted by crowds and overuse of the sobriquet "hero" was embarrassing and confusing. The words and articles written about our incarceration in the filthy, miserable dungeons of communist Vietnam were laced with the term "heroes" -- and there were, in fact, a few of those. But it became apparent, early on, that by hero the writers and speakers and extollers usually meant victim -- as in you poor guys. There was obviously a confusion of terminology! In fact, the roles had been reversed. At Home, the Same Spin
During my entire time in the infamous Hanoi Hilton POW compound, I felt like Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984 as the North Vietnamese propagandists talked about their glowing victories and mocked American efforts as the ignominious defeats of the U. S. aggressors and their lackeys. Now that I was home, I began to feel that propagandists in our country had developed their own strain of Newspeak to justify their weak arguments.
When we POWs were released in February 1973 after the crushing B-52 raids and crippling of North Vietnamese commerce, I thought we'd won. Imagine my surprise when many Americans apparently indoctrinated by academia and a powerful media seemed to think we'd been routed.
Fast forward to 2007. Reading the generally unbelievable mainstream media, one would suspect that unemployed communist propagandists had found a new home -- as journalists. Their endless agonizing over American losses omits any mention of the good things that are happening throughout the Middle East or even the crippling losses of the other side! Embedded in the safe Green Zone, reporters write damning articles that cannot be corroborated.
I'm almost glad this is happening because I can now see with my own eyes what transpired here in the 1960s while I read between the lines in Vietnam. From the condescending words used to describe the fighting forces, to outright exaggerations and lies, efforts are made to transform our servicemen into "victims. "
Regardless of how it started, the assault on America by our own tenured, unassailable academy, by our own "free" press and politicians for personal gain is undone by e-mails from actual soldiers and Marines in harm's way. But the true story usually fails to gain traction. It's much easier to manufacture hand-wringing bad news to weep and wail and whine about our valiant troops/victims than it is to find something interesting to report about our successes. Call it the Dan Rather/Jayson Blair School of Journalistic Integrity -- it has a deleterious effect on those who never cross-check the stories. It's a good reason that polls can swing up and down by 10 percentage points on the basis of an unreliable but sensational story.
Military Doesn't Need Sympathy - Our armed forces are not victims. They are not in Iraq because they're dumb. They are performing selfless acts on behalf of all Americans, and they don't need sympathy. That, simply, is what they do. Proudly. And justifiably so. Always have, always will. It's something the Hate America crowd will never understand. Frankly, most of those serving don't care what their de facto domestic enemies think of them. But, if those ungrateful Americans ever need help, their armed forces will be there serving proudly.
~~~~
A Richmond resident, retired Navy commander and attack pilot Paul Galanti was a prisoner of war in Vietnam from 1966 until 1973. He is currently the chairman of the Board of Veterans Services for the commonwealth. His Commentary Columns regarding veterans appear regularly on the Back Fence.
TIMES-DISPATCH GUEST COLUMNIST
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Since I was otherwise occupied as a POW in Hanoi and wasn't able to observe firsthand, I suppose it was a '60s thing -- when everybody who was anybody was or deeply aspired to be a victim. And, later, when the soldiers who'd fought valiantly in a war they actually won handily en route to defeating an entire evil empire demanded the same respect given every other element in society -- deserving or not -- they were accorded their own category of victimhood and enshrined in the most out-of-sight, obscure memorial in Washington, D.C.
The re-writing of history to correct the many historical perversions has been very slow in coming.
I remember writing one of my first Op/Eds about the Vietnam "Wall, " which reminded me then of a big hole in the ground or a large open mouth? la a contemporary actress/ally of our enemy. But it was a nice gesture. Although it tended to patronize the suddenly glamorous former "baby killers, " most of our contemporaries in military service shrugged it off as a belated, sort-of thanks from a grateful nation.
From my first days in the military, I was taught that our job was to serve; there would be tough times but keep a stiff upper lip and press on. And enjoy the good times and camaraderie that military life -- almost exclusively -- engenders. Most movies back then had male heroes who sucked up adversity and pressed on. Mothers encouraged their daughters to marry the strong, silent types -- like John Wayne.
On my return in 1973, being greeted by crowds and overuse of the sobriquet "hero" was embarrassing and confusing. The words and articles written about our incarceration in the filthy, miserable dungeons of communist Vietnam were laced with the term "heroes" -- and there were, in fact, a few of those. But it became apparent, early on, that by hero the writers and speakers and extollers usually meant victim -- as in you poor guys. There was obviously a confusion of terminology! In fact, the roles had been reversed. At Home, the Same Spin
During my entire time in the infamous Hanoi Hilton POW compound, I felt like Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984 as the North Vietnamese propagandists talked about their glowing victories and mocked American efforts as the ignominious defeats of the U. S. aggressors and their lackeys. Now that I was home, I began to feel that propagandists in our country had developed their own strain of Newspeak to justify their weak arguments.
When we POWs were released in February 1973 after the crushing B-52 raids and crippling of North Vietnamese commerce, I thought we'd won. Imagine my surprise when many Americans apparently indoctrinated by academia and a powerful media seemed to think we'd been routed.
Fast forward to 2007. Reading the generally unbelievable mainstream media, one would suspect that unemployed communist propagandists had found a new home -- as journalists. Their endless agonizing over American losses omits any mention of the good things that are happening throughout the Middle East or even the crippling losses of the other side! Embedded in the safe Green Zone, reporters write damning articles that cannot be corroborated.
I'm almost glad this is happening because I can now see with my own eyes what transpired here in the 1960s while I read between the lines in Vietnam. From the condescending words used to describe the fighting forces, to outright exaggerations and lies, efforts are made to transform our servicemen into "victims. "
Regardless of how it started, the assault on America by our own tenured, unassailable academy, by our own "free" press and politicians for personal gain is undone by e-mails from actual soldiers and Marines in harm's way. But the true story usually fails to gain traction. It's much easier to manufacture hand-wringing bad news to weep and wail and whine about our valiant troops/victims than it is to find something interesting to report about our successes. Call it the Dan Rather/Jayson Blair School of Journalistic Integrity -- it has a deleterious effect on those who never cross-check the stories. It's a good reason that polls can swing up and down by 10 percentage points on the basis of an unreliable but sensational story.
Military Doesn't Need Sympathy - Our armed forces are not victims. They are not in Iraq because they're dumb. They are performing selfless acts on behalf of all Americans, and they don't need sympathy. That, simply, is what they do. Proudly. And justifiably so. Always have, always will. It's something the Hate America crowd will never understand. Frankly, most of those serving don't care what their de facto domestic enemies think of them. But, if those ungrateful Americans ever need help, their armed forces will be there serving proudly.
~~~~
A Richmond resident, retired Navy commander and attack pilot Paul Galanti was a prisoner of war in Vietnam from 1966 until 1973. He is currently the chairman of the Board of Veterans Services for the commonwealth. His Commentary Columns regarding veterans appear regularly on the Back Fence.
Running as a national past time for our civilian government
'The Last Helicopter'
By AMIR TAHERI Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2006; Page A18
Hassan Abbasi has a dream -- a helicopter doing an arabesque in cloudy skies to avoid being shot at from the ground. On board are the last of the "fleeing Americans, " forced out of the Dar al-Islam (The Abode of Islam) by "the Army of Muhammad. " Presented by his friends as "The Dr. Kissinger of Islam, " Mr. Abbasi is "professor of strategy" at the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard Corps University and, according to Tehran sources, the principal foreign policy voice in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's new radical administration.
For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of Guard and Baseej Mustadafin (Mobilization of the Dispossessed) officers in Tehran with a simple theme: The U. S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of "running away, " leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies.
To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U. S. could be narrated with the help of the image of "the last helicopter. " It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the bodies of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein's generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed live to fight their domestic foes, and America, another day. Bill Clinton's helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.
According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an "aberration, " a leader out of sync with his nation's character and no more than a brief nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an "American Middle East. " Messrs. Abbasi and Ahmadinejad have concluded that there will be no helicopter as long as George W. Bush is in the White House. But they believe that whoever succeeds him, Democrat or Republican, will revive the helicopter image to extricate the U. S. from a complex situation that few Americans appear to understand.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out. " "We are sure the U. S. will return to saner policies, " says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.
Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America. Mr. Bush might have led the U. S. into "a brief moment of triumph. " But the U. S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.
Mr. Ahmadinejad also notes that Iran has just "reached the Mediterranean" thanks to its strong presence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He used that message to convince Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to adopt a defiant position vis-à-vis the U. N. investigation of the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former prime minister of Lebanon. His argument was that once Mr. Bush is gone, the U. N., too, will revert to its traditional lethargy. "They can pass resolutions until they are blue in the face, " Mr. Ahmadinejad told a gathering of Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Arab leaders in Tehran last month.
According to sources in Tehran and Damascus, Mr. Assad had pondered the option of "doing a Gadhafi" by toning down his regime's anti-American posture. Since last February, however, he has revived Syria's militant rhetoric and dismissed those who advocated a rapprochement with Washington. Iran has rewarded him with a set of cut-price oil, soft loans and grants totaling $1.2 billion. In response Syria has increased its support for terrorists going to fight in Iraq and revived its network of agents in Lebanon, in a bid to frustrate that country's democratic ambitions.
It is not only in Tehran and Damascus that the game of "waiting Bush out" is played with determination. In recent visits to several regional capitals, this writer was struck by the popularity of this new game from Islamabad to Rabat. The general assumption is that Mr. Bush's plan to help democratize the heartland of Islam is fading under an avalanche of partisan attacks inside the U. S. The effect of this assumption can be witnessed everywhere.
In Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf has shelved his plan, forged under pressure from Washington, to foster a popular front to fight terrorism by lifting restrictions against the country's major political parties and allowing their exiled leaders to return. There is every indication that next year's elections will be choreographed to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, arguably the most pro-American leader in the region, is cautiously shaping his post-Bush strategy by courting Tehran and playing the Pushtun ethnic card against his rivals.
In Turkey, the "moderate" Islamist government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan is slowly but surely putting the democratization process into reverse gear. With the post-Bush era in mind, Mr. Erdogan has started a purge of the judiciary and a transfer of religious endowments to sections of the private sector controlled by his party's supporters. There are fears that next year's general election would not take place on a level playing field.
Even in Iraq the sentiment that the U. S. will not remain as committed as it has been under Mr. Bush is producing strange results. While Shiite politicians are rushing to Tehran to seek a reinsurance policy, some Sunni leaders are having second thoughts about their decision to join the democratization process. "What happens after Bush? " demands Salih al-Mutlak, a rising star of Iraqi Sunni leaders. The Iraqi Kurds have clearly decided to slow down all measures that would bind them closer to the Iraqi state. Again, they claim that they have to "take precautions in case the Americans run away. "
There are more signs that the initial excitement created by Mr. Bush's democratization project may be on the wane. Saudi Arabia has put its national dialogue program on hold and has decided to focus on economic rather than political reform. In Bahrain, too, the political reform machine has been put into rear-gear, while in Qatar all talk of a new democratic constitution to set up a constitutional monarchy has subsided. In Jordan the security services are making a spectacular comeback, putting an end to a brief moment of hopes for reform. As for Egypt, Hosni Mubarak has decided to indefinitely postpone local elections, a clear sign that the Bush-inspired scenario is in trouble. Tunisia and Morocco, too, have joined the game by stopping much-advertised reform projects while Islamist radicals are regrouping and testing the waters at all levels.
But how valid is the assumption that Mr. Bush is an aberration and that his successor will "run away"? It was to find answers that this writer spent several days in the U. S., especially Washington and New York, meeting ordinary Americans and senior leaders, including potential presidential candidates from both parties. While Mr. Bush's approval ratings, now in free fall, and the increasingly bitter American debate on Iraq may lend some credence to the "helicopter" theory, I found no evidence that anyone in the American leadership elite supported a cut-and-run strategy.
The reason was that almost all realized that the 9/11 attacks have changed the way most Americans see the world and their own place in it. Running away from Saigon, the Iranian desert, Beirut, Safwan and Mogadishu was not hard to sell to the average American, because he was sure that the story would end there; the enemies left behind would not pursue their campaign within the U. S. itself. The enemies that America is now facing in the jihadist archipelago, however, are dedicated to the destruction of the U. S. as the world knows it today.
Those who have based their strategy on waiting Mr. Bush out may find to their cost that they have, once again, misread not only American politics but the realities of a world far more complex than it was even a decade ago. Mr. Bush may be a uniquely decisive, some might say reckless, leader. But a visitor to the U. S. soon finds out that he represents the American mood much more than the polls suggest.
Mr. Taheri is author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).
By AMIR TAHERI Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2006; Page A18
Hassan Abbasi has a dream -- a helicopter doing an arabesque in cloudy skies to avoid being shot at from the ground. On board are the last of the "fleeing Americans, " forced out of the Dar al-Islam (The Abode of Islam) by "the Army of Muhammad. " Presented by his friends as "The Dr. Kissinger of Islam, " Mr. Abbasi is "professor of strategy" at the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard Corps University and, according to Tehran sources, the principal foreign policy voice in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's new radical administration.
For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of Guard and Baseej Mustadafin (Mobilization of the Dispossessed) officers in Tehran with a simple theme: The U. S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of "running away, " leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies.
To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U. S. could be narrated with the help of the image of "the last helicopter. " It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the bodies of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein's generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed live to fight their domestic foes, and America, another day. Bill Clinton's helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.
According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an "aberration, " a leader out of sync with his nation's character and no more than a brief nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an "American Middle East. " Messrs. Abbasi and Ahmadinejad have concluded that there will be no helicopter as long as George W. Bush is in the White House. But they believe that whoever succeeds him, Democrat or Republican, will revive the helicopter image to extricate the U. S. from a complex situation that few Americans appear to understand.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out. " "We are sure the U. S. will return to saner policies, " says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.
Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America. Mr. Bush might have led the U. S. into "a brief moment of triumph. " But the U. S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.
Mr. Ahmadinejad also notes that Iran has just "reached the Mediterranean" thanks to its strong presence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He used that message to convince Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to adopt a defiant position vis-à-vis the U. N. investigation of the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former prime minister of Lebanon. His argument was that once Mr. Bush is gone, the U. N., too, will revert to its traditional lethargy. "They can pass resolutions until they are blue in the face, " Mr. Ahmadinejad told a gathering of Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Arab leaders in Tehran last month.
According to sources in Tehran and Damascus, Mr. Assad had pondered the option of "doing a Gadhafi" by toning down his regime's anti-American posture. Since last February, however, he has revived Syria's militant rhetoric and dismissed those who advocated a rapprochement with Washington. Iran has rewarded him with a set of cut-price oil, soft loans and grants totaling $1.2 billion. In response Syria has increased its support for terrorists going to fight in Iraq and revived its network of agents in Lebanon, in a bid to frustrate that country's democratic ambitions.
It is not only in Tehran and Damascus that the game of "waiting Bush out" is played with determination. In recent visits to several regional capitals, this writer was struck by the popularity of this new game from Islamabad to Rabat. The general assumption is that Mr. Bush's plan to help democratize the heartland of Islam is fading under an avalanche of partisan attacks inside the U. S. The effect of this assumption can be witnessed everywhere.
In Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf has shelved his plan, forged under pressure from Washington, to foster a popular front to fight terrorism by lifting restrictions against the country's major political parties and allowing their exiled leaders to return. There is every indication that next year's elections will be choreographed to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, arguably the most pro-American leader in the region, is cautiously shaping his post-Bush strategy by courting Tehran and playing the Pushtun ethnic card against his rivals.
In Turkey, the "moderate" Islamist government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan is slowly but surely putting the democratization process into reverse gear. With the post-Bush era in mind, Mr. Erdogan has started a purge of the judiciary and a transfer of religious endowments to sections of the private sector controlled by his party's supporters. There are fears that next year's general election would not take place on a level playing field.
Even in Iraq the sentiment that the U. S. will not remain as committed as it has been under Mr. Bush is producing strange results. While Shiite politicians are rushing to Tehran to seek a reinsurance policy, some Sunni leaders are having second thoughts about their decision to join the democratization process. "What happens after Bush? " demands Salih al-Mutlak, a rising star of Iraqi Sunni leaders. The Iraqi Kurds have clearly decided to slow down all measures that would bind them closer to the Iraqi state. Again, they claim that they have to "take precautions in case the Americans run away. "
There are more signs that the initial excitement created by Mr. Bush's democratization project may be on the wane. Saudi Arabia has put its national dialogue program on hold and has decided to focus on economic rather than political reform. In Bahrain, too, the political reform machine has been put into rear-gear, while in Qatar all talk of a new democratic constitution to set up a constitutional monarchy has subsided. In Jordan the security services are making a spectacular comeback, putting an end to a brief moment of hopes for reform. As for Egypt, Hosni Mubarak has decided to indefinitely postpone local elections, a clear sign that the Bush-inspired scenario is in trouble. Tunisia and Morocco, too, have joined the game by stopping much-advertised reform projects while Islamist radicals are regrouping and testing the waters at all levels.
But how valid is the assumption that Mr. Bush is an aberration and that his successor will "run away"? It was to find answers that this writer spent several days in the U. S., especially Washington and New York, meeting ordinary Americans and senior leaders, including potential presidential candidates from both parties. While Mr. Bush's approval ratings, now in free fall, and the increasingly bitter American debate on Iraq may lend some credence to the "helicopter" theory, I found no evidence that anyone in the American leadership elite supported a cut-and-run strategy.
The reason was that almost all realized that the 9/11 attacks have changed the way most Americans see the world and their own place in it. Running away from Saigon, the Iranian desert, Beirut, Safwan and Mogadishu was not hard to sell to the average American, because he was sure that the story would end there; the enemies left behind would not pursue their campaign within the U. S. itself. The enemies that America is now facing in the jihadist archipelago, however, are dedicated to the destruction of the U. S. as the world knows it today.
Those who have based their strategy on waiting Mr. Bush out may find to their cost that they have, once again, misread not only American politics but the realities of a world far more complex than it was even a decade ago. Mr. Bush may be a uniquely decisive, some might say reckless, leader. But a visitor to the U. S. soon finds out that he represents the American mood much more than the polls suggest.
Mr. Taheri is author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Martin Luther King Day 2007
Monday, 15 January 2007, is the day set aside to honor the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King.
But why?
Because he was a great Black or African American?
I think that thought would be repugnant to the Reverend King as it surely is to God. In his “I have a dream” speech the Reverend King dreamed of an American where we would each be Americans, neither black, nor white.
Consider if you will the intertwined stories of Thomas J. Hudner and Jesse Leroy Brown whose lives came together before God and parted on 4 December 1950.
Ensign Jesse LeRoy Brown was born in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on 13 October 1926. Jesse did not know the Navy had no black pilots and never intended to have any. He was told that, but he paid no attention. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1946 and was appointed a Midshipman, USN, the following year. After attending Navy pre-flight school and flight training, he was designated a Naval Aviator in October 1948, the first “African American” to achieve this status. Midshipman Brown was then assigned to Fighter Squadron 32. He received his commission as Ensign in April 1949. During the Korean War, his squadron operated from USS Leyte (CV-32), flying F4U-4 Corsair fighters in support of United Nations forces. On 4 December 1950, while leading a close air support mission near the Chosin Reservoir, flying his 20th mission, Jesse’s Corsair was hit by ground fire over hostile territory and lost power. The only place to land was on the side of a mountain covered by snow. LTjg Thomas Hudner, two years older than Jesse, a Naval Academy graduate and his wingman, watched in horror as Jesse’s plane pancaked hard on the mountainside.
Hudner was briefly buoyed by hope to see Jesse wave from the open canopy. But he wasn’t making any effort to get out of the cockpit. Something was very wrong, and to make matters worse, there was smoke rising from the shattered plane.
Hudner made a quick decision to try to rescue Jesse. That meant crash landing his plane next to Jesse on the side of the mountain, which he successfully did. Can you imagine what it takes to put a six ton machine down onto the side of a mountain at 85 miles per hour? Meanwhile, the rest of the squadron circled overhead to watch for Chinese soldiers and radioed for a rescue helicopter.
Hudner found Jesse trapped in the buckled cockpit without his helmet and gloves in below zero temperature and undetermined internal injuries. He covered Jesse’s head with a wool cap and his numb hands with a scarf and used the snow to put out the smoldering fire. But he couldn’t budge Jesse no matter how hard he tried. He returned to his crashed aircraft and radioed other airborne planes, requesting that the helicopter bring an ax and fire extinguisher.
Charlie Ward, a pilot friend of Jesse’s, arrived, making a difficult landing with the helicopter. Charlie had an axe, but that didn’t help free Jesse since the axe just bounced off the metal surface of the plane. Jesse kept getting weaker as the two men desperately tried to free him.
Their efforts were for naught and Jesse slipped slowly away as they worked in frustration. His last words were, "Tell Daisy that I love her. " Hudner and Ward wept.
Back on the ship, Jesse’s squadron debated what to do. They didn’t want to leave him for the Chinese so they decided to give Jesse a "warriors funeral. " The next day seven aircraft left the carrier and flew over the crash site. While one plane accelerated in a vertical climb toward heaven, the others dove and released their bombs on the mountainside. The voice of one of the pilots could be heard over the radio reciting the Lord’s Prayer.
On April 13, 1951, President Truman awarded the Medal of Honor to Jesse’s friend and wingman, Thomas Hudner. Jesse was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal and the Purple Heart.
Think of this, down below he could see his fellow Naval Aviator trapped in the cockpit, with enemy forces likely to close soon. With no thought for himself, thinking only of his fellow Aviator (notice not black or African, but just a fellow Aviator), Tom Hudner did the only thing he could to help. Charlie Ward came in to pick up his fellow Aviators; not black, not white.
This is the America the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King dreamed of. It had taken root far before the “I have a dream” speech and with actions, not mere words. It is an America with Americans, plain and simple. God’s chosen people showed their face once again at the Chosin Reservoir in this story as in so many others in that terrible place.
But why?
Because he was a great Black or African American?
I think that thought would be repugnant to the Reverend King as it surely is to God. In his “I have a dream” speech the Reverend King dreamed of an American where we would each be Americans, neither black, nor white.
Consider if you will the intertwined stories of Thomas J. Hudner and Jesse Leroy Brown whose lives came together before God and parted on 4 December 1950.
Ensign Jesse LeRoy Brown was born in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on 13 October 1926. Jesse did not know the Navy had no black pilots and never intended to have any. He was told that, but he paid no attention. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1946 and was appointed a Midshipman, USN, the following year. After attending Navy pre-flight school and flight training, he was designated a Naval Aviator in October 1948, the first “African American” to achieve this status. Midshipman Brown was then assigned to Fighter Squadron 32. He received his commission as Ensign in April 1949. During the Korean War, his squadron operated from USS Leyte (CV-32), flying F4U-4 Corsair fighters in support of United Nations forces. On 4 December 1950, while leading a close air support mission near the Chosin Reservoir, flying his 20th mission, Jesse’s Corsair was hit by ground fire over hostile territory and lost power. The only place to land was on the side of a mountain covered by snow. LTjg Thomas Hudner, two years older than Jesse, a Naval Academy graduate and his wingman, watched in horror as Jesse’s plane pancaked hard on the mountainside.
Hudner was briefly buoyed by hope to see Jesse wave from the open canopy. But he wasn’t making any effort to get out of the cockpit. Something was very wrong, and to make matters worse, there was smoke rising from the shattered plane.
Hudner made a quick decision to try to rescue Jesse. That meant crash landing his plane next to Jesse on the side of the mountain, which he successfully did. Can you imagine what it takes to put a six ton machine down onto the side of a mountain at 85 miles per hour? Meanwhile, the rest of the squadron circled overhead to watch for Chinese soldiers and radioed for a rescue helicopter.
Hudner found Jesse trapped in the buckled cockpit without his helmet and gloves in below zero temperature and undetermined internal injuries. He covered Jesse’s head with a wool cap and his numb hands with a scarf and used the snow to put out the smoldering fire. But he couldn’t budge Jesse no matter how hard he tried. He returned to his crashed aircraft and radioed other airborne planes, requesting that the helicopter bring an ax and fire extinguisher.
Charlie Ward, a pilot friend of Jesse’s, arrived, making a difficult landing with the helicopter. Charlie had an axe, but that didn’t help free Jesse since the axe just bounced off the metal surface of the plane. Jesse kept getting weaker as the two men desperately tried to free him.
Their efforts were for naught and Jesse slipped slowly away as they worked in frustration. His last words were, "Tell Daisy that I love her. " Hudner and Ward wept.
Back on the ship, Jesse’s squadron debated what to do. They didn’t want to leave him for the Chinese so they decided to give Jesse a "warriors funeral. " The next day seven aircraft left the carrier and flew over the crash site. While one plane accelerated in a vertical climb toward heaven, the others dove and released their bombs on the mountainside. The voice of one of the pilots could be heard over the radio reciting the Lord’s Prayer.
On April 13, 1951, President Truman awarded the Medal of Honor to Jesse’s friend and wingman, Thomas Hudner. Jesse was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal and the Purple Heart.
Think of this, down below he could see his fellow Naval Aviator trapped in the cockpit, with enemy forces likely to close soon. With no thought for himself, thinking only of his fellow Aviator (notice not black or African, but just a fellow Aviator), Tom Hudner did the only thing he could to help. Charlie Ward came in to pick up his fellow Aviators; not black, not white.
This is the America the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King dreamed of. It had taken root far before the “I have a dream” speech and with actions, not mere words. It is an America with Americans, plain and simple. God’s chosen people showed their face once again at the Chosin Reservoir in this story as in so many others in that terrible place.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
The Maji - The Three Wise Men - Were they really wise women?
Church rethinks three wise 'men' Tuesday, February 10, 2004 Posted: 10:01 AM EST (1501 GMT)
But were they really wise women?
Church of England
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- The Three Wise Men who followed the star to Bethlehem bearing gifts for the baby Jesus may not have been all that wise -- or even men, or for that matter even human. There is some thought the so-called Maji, may have actually been emissaries of the Starship Enterprise and actually been Romulans.
The traditional infant nativity play scene could be in for a drastic rewrite after the Church of England indulged in some academic gender-swapping over the three Magi at its General Synod in London this week.
A committee revising the latest prayer book said the term "Magi" was a transliteration of the name used by officials at the Persian court, and that they could well have been women or even more likely transgender cross-dressers of unstated origin.
"Magi is a word which discloses nothing about numbers, wisdom or gender embodied in the term. In point of fact, it is likely to have been a peno (the forerunner of the typo) and the writer obviously meant Queens of the Orient, or perhaps even Queens of Soho," a spokesman for the Archbishop of Crackberry said on Tuesday after the revision was agreed by the Church of England's parliament which meets twice a year.
In the authorized 17th century King James bible used by up to 70 million worshippers in Anglican churches around the world, the gift-bearing visitors are referred to as "The Three Wise Men."
Now they are to be called just "Magi" and no longer gender-specific in the Anglican prayer book.
"Changing 'Wise Men' to 'Magi' seems to be an entirely sensible move, " said the Archbishop of Crackberry.
The revision committee said: "While it seems very unlikely that these Persian court officials were female, the possibility that one or more of the Magi were female cannot be excluded completely. "
There is no theological dispute about the gifts they brought -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- but the prayer has been changed to use the word Magi on the grounds that "the visitors were not necessarily wise and not necessarily men. "
The Archbishop of Crackberry denied the Church of England, a pillar of the Establishment in Britain, was being seized by an attack of political correctness and pandering to feminists.
The decision was greeted by mocking newspaper headlines like "The Three Fairly Sagacious Persons" and "Is it unwise to call the Magi men? "
On Tuesday, the Synod will be turning its attention to "Gender Neutral Titles. "
Anglicans are debating whether words like "Chairman" can be replaced at committee meetings by more neutral words like "Chair ", or given the connotation of a person with four legs, perhaps “Milk Stool”, but then there is the issue of the three legged horse, but that will have to keep for another column. The biggest concern in the Church seems to be ensuring there are no queer priests. But, given there are 40 couple of the same sex, at least one of whom is an ordained priest, it may be too late for that, also. Back to you Milk Stool.
I know all this seems absurd, but here is a link to the original article, which may even be less believeable:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/10/uk.magi.reut/index.html
But were they really wise women?
Church of England
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- The Three Wise Men who followed the star to Bethlehem bearing gifts for the baby Jesus may not have been all that wise -- or even men, or for that matter even human. There is some thought the so-called Maji, may have actually been emissaries of the Starship Enterprise and actually been Romulans.
The traditional infant nativity play scene could be in for a drastic rewrite after the Church of England indulged in some academic gender-swapping over the three Magi at its General Synod in London this week.
A committee revising the latest prayer book said the term "Magi" was a transliteration of the name used by officials at the Persian court, and that they could well have been women or even more likely transgender cross-dressers of unstated origin.
"Magi is a word which discloses nothing about numbers, wisdom or gender embodied in the term. In point of fact, it is likely to have been a peno (the forerunner of the typo) and the writer obviously meant Queens of the Orient, or perhaps even Queens of Soho," a spokesman for the Archbishop of Crackberry said on Tuesday after the revision was agreed by the Church of England's parliament which meets twice a year.
In the authorized 17th century King James bible used by up to 70 million worshippers in Anglican churches around the world, the gift-bearing visitors are referred to as "The Three Wise Men."
Now they are to be called just "Magi" and no longer gender-specific in the Anglican prayer book.
"Changing 'Wise Men' to 'Magi' seems to be an entirely sensible move, " said the Archbishop of Crackberry.
The revision committee said: "While it seems very unlikely that these Persian court officials were female, the possibility that one or more of the Magi were female cannot be excluded completely. "
There is no theological dispute about the gifts they brought -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- but the prayer has been changed to use the word Magi on the grounds that "the visitors were not necessarily wise and not necessarily men. "
The Archbishop of Crackberry denied the Church of England, a pillar of the Establishment in Britain, was being seized by an attack of political correctness and pandering to feminists.
The decision was greeted by mocking newspaper headlines like "The Three Fairly Sagacious Persons" and "Is it unwise to call the Magi men? "
On Tuesday, the Synod will be turning its attention to "Gender Neutral Titles. "
Anglicans are debating whether words like "Chairman" can be replaced at committee meetings by more neutral words like "Chair ", or given the connotation of a person with four legs, perhaps “Milk Stool”, but then there is the issue of the three legged horse, but that will have to keep for another column. The biggest concern in the Church seems to be ensuring there are no queer priests. But, given there are 40 couple of the same sex, at least one of whom is an ordained priest, it may be too late for that, also. Back to you Milk Stool.
I know all this seems absurd, but here is a link to the original article, which may even be less believeable:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/10/uk.magi.reut/index.html
Monday, January 01, 2007
direcway sucks DOT com
We live too far from the telephone switch for DSL and way too far out for cable. The only broadband solution is satellite. Too bad it is so slow. Sometimes you will see upload speeds in the 200K per second and download speeds in the 500K per second range. Unfortunately, most of the time the speeds for both are in the single digit K speeds. Often, we are reduced to hundreds or even tens of bauds! Today is another dialup day. 28K dialup is better than direcway today.
DWay cares, not much and certainly not about service, particularly your service. But they care.
DWay cares, not much and certainly not about service, particularly your service. But they care.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
San Diego Auto Show Sucks DOT com
Today we experienced the San Diego at its finest. My lovely wife asked to go to the San Diego Auto Show. This is an event held annually at the San Diego Convention Center. The cost is $10.00 per person, thus for the three of us it would be $30.00, plus $10.00 Special Events Parking. All this to allow automakers to show us their products in the hope we might buy them.
After wending our way through the Gas Lamp Quarter, over torn up streets, around sleeping bums and drug addicts, we arrived to the front of the Convention Center. The underground parking was closed, FULL said the sign, although there were no cars to be seen in the parking garage. Oh, yes, and a sign – Additional Parking at 801 Harbor Drive – with no indication of which way was 801 Harbor Drive. The only thing was to go the way we were going, finally turn around and find the parking structure at 801 Harbor Drive. Two entrances, both with cars 10 deep, to park in a garage one the opposite side from the entrance to the show.
So, how was the show? No idea. We left. The people who planned our trip through the bums, the tank traps that pass for roads, who closed the parking garage can look for some other suckers to pay the $40.00 to look at The National City Mile of Cars inside a building. All we wanted was out of town.
After wending our way through the Gas Lamp Quarter, over torn up streets, around sleeping bums and drug addicts, we arrived to the front of the Convention Center. The underground parking was closed, FULL said the sign, although there were no cars to be seen in the parking garage. Oh, yes, and a sign – Additional Parking at 801 Harbor Drive – with no indication of which way was 801 Harbor Drive. The only thing was to go the way we were going, finally turn around and find the parking structure at 801 Harbor Drive. Two entrances, both with cars 10 deep, to park in a garage one the opposite side from the entrance to the show.
So, how was the show? No idea. We left. The people who planned our trip through the bums, the tank traps that pass for roads, who closed the parking garage can look for some other suckers to pay the $40.00 to look at The National City Mile of Cars inside a building. All we wanted was out of town.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Can you tell me more about the Sixth Commandment?
The Sixth Commandment which has been the source of much confusion, misdirection and misinformation for Christians has been translated as follow:
Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13) KJV
Thou shalt do no murder (1928BCP)
As many people are aware, but perhaps tend to forget, the Ten Commandments had to be written down twice. Moses got them once, but upon his return to camp he found that people had started the party without him. Naturally incensed, he made the blunder of smashing the tablets upon which God had written his commandments. This was God's first work as an author, and now it was lost! But God, being God, felt capable of salvaging the matter. He told Moses that he'd write them down again, exactly as they had been written originally. With two originals, it is not surprising there are now a myriad of different translations. It is often believed one of the key Commandments states, “You shall not kill. ” But the original Hebrew does not use “kill. ” It says, “You shall not murder, ” which is clearly very different.
Like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated “Thou shalt do no murder” or "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause.’ The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge’, so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution. The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing. The punishment for murder was the death sentence. However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.
Many believers regard this as perhaps the most basic and easily accepted of all the commandments. After all, who would object to the government telling people not to kill? Unfortunately, this position relies upon a very superficial and uninformed understanding of what is going on. This commandment is, in fact, much more controversial and difficult that it appears at first.
To begin with, what does it mean to “kill”? Taken most literally, this would forbid killing animals for food or even plants for food. That seems implausible, however, because the Hebrew scriptures contain extensive descriptions about how to properly go about killing for food and that would be strange if killing were forbidden.
More significantly is the fact that there are many examples in the Old Testament of God commanding the Hebrews to kill their enemies — why would God do that if this were a violation of one of the Commandments? Thus, many translate the original Hebrew word ratsach as “murder” instead of “kill.” This may be reasonable, but the fact that popular lists of the Ten Commandments continue to use “kill” is a problem because if everyone agrees that “murder” is more accurate, then the popular lists — including those often used for government displays — are simply wrong and misleading. In fact, many Jews regard the mistranslation of the text as “kill” to be immoral in and of itself, both because it falsifies the words of God and because there are times when one has an obligation to kill.
How much does the word “murder” help us? Well, it allows us to ignore the killing of plants and animals and focus just on the killing of human beings, which is useful. Unfortunately, not all killing of human beings is wrong. People kill in war, they kill as punishment for crimes, they kill because of accidents, etc. These killings are not prohibited by the Sixth Commandment. There is so much in the Hebrew scriptures that describes how and when it is morally licit to kill other human beings. There are many crimes listed in the scriptures for which death is the prescribed punishment. Despite this, there are some Christians who read this commandment as though it prohibits any killing of other human beings. Such committed pacifists would refuse to kill even in times of war or to save their own lives. For Christians, the Sixth Commandment must be read much more narrowly. The most reasonable interpretation would seem to be: Thou shalt not take the lives of other human beings in a manner proscribed by the law. That’s fair and it’s also the basic legal definition of murder.
Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13) KJV
Thou shalt do no murder (1928BCP)
As many people are aware, but perhaps tend to forget, the Ten Commandments had to be written down twice. Moses got them once, but upon his return to camp he found that people had started the party without him. Naturally incensed, he made the blunder of smashing the tablets upon which God had written his commandments. This was God's first work as an author, and now it was lost! But God, being God, felt capable of salvaging the matter. He told Moses that he'd write them down again, exactly as they had been written originally. With two originals, it is not surprising there are now a myriad of different translations. It is often believed one of the key Commandments states, “You shall not kill. ” But the original Hebrew does not use “kill. ” It says, “You shall not murder, ” which is clearly very different.
Like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated “Thou shalt do no murder” or "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause.’ The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge’, so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution. The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing. The punishment for murder was the death sentence. However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.
Many believers regard this as perhaps the most basic and easily accepted of all the commandments. After all, who would object to the government telling people not to kill? Unfortunately, this position relies upon a very superficial and uninformed understanding of what is going on. This commandment is, in fact, much more controversial and difficult that it appears at first.
To begin with, what does it mean to “kill”? Taken most literally, this would forbid killing animals for food or even plants for food. That seems implausible, however, because the Hebrew scriptures contain extensive descriptions about how to properly go about killing for food and that would be strange if killing were forbidden.
More significantly is the fact that there are many examples in the Old Testament of God commanding the Hebrews to kill their enemies — why would God do that if this were a violation of one of the Commandments? Thus, many translate the original Hebrew word ratsach as “murder” instead of “kill.” This may be reasonable, but the fact that popular lists of the Ten Commandments continue to use “kill” is a problem because if everyone agrees that “murder” is more accurate, then the popular lists — including those often used for government displays — are simply wrong and misleading. In fact, many Jews regard the mistranslation of the text as “kill” to be immoral in and of itself, both because it falsifies the words of God and because there are times when one has an obligation to kill.
How much does the word “murder” help us? Well, it allows us to ignore the killing of plants and animals and focus just on the killing of human beings, which is useful. Unfortunately, not all killing of human beings is wrong. People kill in war, they kill as punishment for crimes, they kill because of accidents, etc. These killings are not prohibited by the Sixth Commandment. There is so much in the Hebrew scriptures that describes how and when it is morally licit to kill other human beings. There are many crimes listed in the scriptures for which death is the prescribed punishment. Despite this, there are some Christians who read this commandment as though it prohibits any killing of other human beings. Such committed pacifists would refuse to kill even in times of war or to save their own lives. For Christians, the Sixth Commandment must be read much more narrowly. The most reasonable interpretation would seem to be: Thou shalt not take the lives of other human beings in a manner proscribed by the law. That’s fair and it’s also the basic legal definition of murder.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
You make the choice, but remember Radiation is our Friend
No matter what our religion (unless it is their particular brand of Islam), whether we like it or not, we are in a worldwide religious war with people who claim the religion of Islam and claim to be followers of Allah. These “Holy Warriors” are honor bound to kill or convert each of us to their own particular brand of Islam. Anyone who is not in their narrowly cast brand is an “infidel.” Not just Islamist against Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists, but Sunnis killing Shittes, etc.
For all practical purposes, Mohammedans, Moslems, Followers of Allah, by whatever name are divided into two camps:
• Those who follow the Koran
and
• Apostates
The followers of the Koran have the following values inconsistent with civilization as we know it:
• With regard to those they consider infidels, they have only three choices:
- Conversion
- Death
- Taxation until one of the above
• They only recognize an Islamic government as legitimate
Those who would appease the Islamofacists fail to recognize they will be the first to die when the Islamofacists take over.
Let it be written that we have no real options in dealing with followers of the Koran; they must all die. The only other choice is for us to die.
Like World War II, we did not start this war. Unlike World War II, it will not be over in six years, unless the end starts with a sunrise like that seen in Japan. It would be best for those “Moderate Muslims” to reflect on the words of Yamamoto, “We have wakened a sleeping giant. I fear we have but six months to rage like a wild boar.” Then think further on to realize that once awakened, the sleeping giant will take no prisoners and turn their homelands into a glass lake.
Christianity is based on Christ’s words, “My kingdom is not of this world” and “Cast not your pearls before swine.” We cannot accept the presence in this world of suicidal forces who believe in the forcible spread of their cancer.
You are with us or against us.
You make the choice, but remember Radiation is our Friend.
For all practical purposes, Mohammedans, Moslems, Followers of Allah, by whatever name are divided into two camps:
• Those who follow the Koran
and
• Apostates
The followers of the Koran have the following values inconsistent with civilization as we know it:
• With regard to those they consider infidels, they have only three choices:
- Conversion
- Death
- Taxation until one of the above
• They only recognize an Islamic government as legitimate
Those who would appease the Islamofacists fail to recognize they will be the first to die when the Islamofacists take over.
Let it be written that we have no real options in dealing with followers of the Koran; they must all die. The only other choice is for us to die.
Like World War II, we did not start this war. Unlike World War II, it will not be over in six years, unless the end starts with a sunrise like that seen in Japan. It would be best for those “Moderate Muslims” to reflect on the words of Yamamoto, “We have wakened a sleeping giant. I fear we have but six months to rage like a wild boar.” Then think further on to realize that once awakened, the sleeping giant will take no prisoners and turn their homelands into a glass lake.
Christianity is based on Christ’s words, “My kingdom is not of this world” and “Cast not your pearls before swine.” We cannot accept the presence in this world of suicidal forces who believe in the forcible spread of their cancer.
You are with us or against us.
You make the choice, but remember Radiation is our Friend.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Israeli Restraint
Everywhere we hear about the need for Israeli restraint.
Why?
If your family was being shelled and rocketed, would you exercise restraint or would you eliminate the problem?
If you are one of those restraint exericisers, I do not want you in my family.
If my family is shot at, trust me, I will exercise every last bit of force I can get my hands on to eliminate the problem from the face of this earth.
There is only so long until the "End Game", tolerating evil only accelerates the timing. The Israelis, rather than using excessive force, by their "restraint" are only speeding the final days. The time for taking prisoners is long gone. Muslims only see prisoners as something to bargain for. The next time they kidnap an Israeli to get back their Muslim friends, the Israelis should execute every Muslim in that prison, and then go on to the town the ransom note came from.
The time for understanding, understatement and restrain is long gone.
There are 1.5 billion Muslims. If only 10 percent are hardliners, that is 150 million.
A point to keep in mind, the Israelis only have about 300 warheads. On the other hand, the Muslims only have about 100 targets of value. Thus, there are 200 warheads left for Europe in the end game.
Why?
If your family was being shelled and rocketed, would you exercise restraint or would you eliminate the problem?
If you are one of those restraint exericisers, I do not want you in my family.
If my family is shot at, trust me, I will exercise every last bit of force I can get my hands on to eliminate the problem from the face of this earth.
There is only so long until the "End Game", tolerating evil only accelerates the timing. The Israelis, rather than using excessive force, by their "restraint" are only speeding the final days. The time for taking prisoners is long gone. Muslims only see prisoners as something to bargain for. The next time they kidnap an Israeli to get back their Muslim friends, the Israelis should execute every Muslim in that prison, and then go on to the town the ransom note came from.
The time for understanding, understatement and restrain is long gone.
There are 1.5 billion Muslims. If only 10 percent are hardliners, that is 150 million.
A point to keep in mind, the Israelis only have about 300 warheads. On the other hand, the Muslims only have about 100 targets of value. Thus, there are 200 warheads left for Europe in the end game.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Israel, nice people and Collateral Damage
Unfortunately we learn the lessons of the last war and usually not the lessons that mattered. The Japanese fought World War II on the basis of the Russian War of 1905; they just missed the real points. We fought Gulf I on the basis of Viet Nam, we just missed the real points. Israel is fighting this war on the basis of the our example of Kosovo.
The Israelis are surrounded by people who want them dead. They do not have enough territory to allow an in depth defense. There are only two real solutions, either allow no incursions or attacks without massive and complete destruction of the perpetrator or take enough territory to allow an in depth defense.
Israel should never have occupied any territory beyond its borders. It should have expanded its borders and expelled or eliminated any previous occupants who did not desire to become Israelis. The occupation of territory is a mistake. That implies the territory is not legitimately theirs.
Our enemies, for in this case Israel's enemies are also those of the United States, and in fact enemies of the entire non-muslim world, must understand that we will accept no nibbling away at our toes. If they strike at us from a location, we will take that location for our own. For when it is our territory we need not fear attack from it. Muslims who will not acknowledge the civil authority of non-islamic government need to be expelled. There is no freedom under even the United States Constitution to advocate the violent overthrow of our government.
Our enemies also need to understand that what we take, we will never give up. Never.
Airpower is nice, precision is nice. A rifleman wins the war. With enough airpower, you can make it easier for the rifleman, but the war is not over until the rifleman holds the ground.
Precision has its limits and is not always that helpful. Perhaps rather than precisioning a 125 pound warhead, it would be better to precision a 3,000 warhead and tell people not to get too close to the enemy.
The Israelis are surrounded by people who want them dead. They do not have enough territory to allow an in depth defense. There are only two real solutions, either allow no incursions or attacks without massive and complete destruction of the perpetrator or take enough territory to allow an in depth defense.
Israel should never have occupied any territory beyond its borders. It should have expanded its borders and expelled or eliminated any previous occupants who did not desire to become Israelis. The occupation of territory is a mistake. That implies the territory is not legitimately theirs.
Our enemies, for in this case Israel's enemies are also those of the United States, and in fact enemies of the entire non-muslim world, must understand that we will accept no nibbling away at our toes. If they strike at us from a location, we will take that location for our own. For when it is our territory we need not fear attack from it. Muslims who will not acknowledge the civil authority of non-islamic government need to be expelled. There is no freedom under even the United States Constitution to advocate the violent overthrow of our government.
Our enemies also need to understand that what we take, we will never give up. Never.
Airpower is nice, precision is nice. A rifleman wins the war. With enough airpower, you can make it easier for the rifleman, but the war is not over until the rifleman holds the ground.
Precision has its limits and is not always that helpful. Perhaps rather than precisioning a 125 pound warhead, it would be better to precision a 3,000 warhead and tell people not to get too close to the enemy.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Pat Buchanan and the Bloodthirsty Hebrews
In two columns, posted at WorldNetDaily this week, Pat Buchanan accused President Bush of being a puppet of nefarious Jewish warmongers. Nothing sets Buchanan’s imagination racing like a Bush-backed Israeli war. On Tuesday, Pat asked, “Who is whispering in his ear?” His answer: bloodthirsty Hebrews.
“That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.”
This occurred after “Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority,” and “Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.” In an overtly ethnic reference, he added, “Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.”
In Thursday’s column, entitled “No, This is Not ‘Our War,’” Buchanan writes America is “impotent” because “we have allowed Israelto dictate to whom we may and may not talk.”
Worse, blood-drenched Jews are using America equipment to commit war crimes. “Israeli airstrikes [are] an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left [Hezbollah supporters] with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July.” (Days without light in July?)
He sagely concludes: “And we wonder why they hate us.”
I am a bit offended by the reference to paleoconservatives and Pat Buchanan in same sentence. I presume the paleo… refers to "old" and then ties in conservative.
Pat Buchanan is a populist, one of those who the founding father hoped to protect us against when they did not make this a democracy, but rather a constitutional democratic republic. The function of the Constitution in a large part is to stabilize the government and protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
In addition to being a populist, Pat Buchanan is either a devil buddy or a fool.
The Israelis have tried since the the year 33AD to make people like them by being timid. They ignored the instructions in the Old Testament, their Torah; they ignored the lessons of the Inquisition; they ignored the lessons of the Holocaust; they ignored the lessons of the first seven Arab-Israeli wars, which were really Muslim-Israeli wars. Seven wars, the Israelis won each one of them. There are still Muslims left. How many Jews would be left if the Muslims won one war?
The Israelis need to listen to history. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it; repeat it they certainly have.
The Israelis need to:
• Tell the Muslim world that they have a right to exist;
• Tell the Muslims that they will no longer accept Muslim violence passively;
• Tell the Muslims in advance that they will annex permanently any territory that harbors perpetrators of violence against Israel, but not annex the people; they will drive the people out and it will become Israeli territory forever;
• Tell the world this is a new dawn, Israel will no longer beg for mercy;
• Put their fighters on Victor alert;
• Tell Europe in no uncertain terms the Victor alert fighters will nuke the European capitals as well as the Muslim world in the event of a war that the Israelis appear to be losing;
• Name every operation with code words like FAT BOY, LITTLE MAN, SUNRISE, MUSHROOM and the like, just to make sure the world groks the plan in its fullness;
• Remind the world of Masada and tell them the sword goes out first this time;
• Strike the heart of any nation who allows violence to cross their borders into Israel.
It is well known that Muslims are either at your throat or at your feet. The word of Allah, as interpreted by the Wahabbist, leaves no room for other religions, thus there is no room for other religions. Thus, either you kill them, or they kill you.
Let there be no misunderstanding; no talk of compromise; no talk of love without love in return.
Give violence a chance.
Molon labe
“That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.”
This occurred after “Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority,” and “Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.” In an overtly ethnic reference, he added, “Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.”
In Thursday’s column, entitled “No, This is Not ‘Our War,’” Buchanan writes America is “impotent” because “we have allowed Israelto dictate to whom we may and may not talk.”
Worse, blood-drenched Jews are using America equipment to commit war crimes. “Israeli airstrikes [are] an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left [Hezbollah supporters] with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July.” (Days without light in July?)
He sagely concludes: “And we wonder why they hate us.”
I am a bit offended by the reference to paleoconservatives and Pat Buchanan in same sentence. I presume the paleo… refers to "old" and then ties in conservative.
Pat Buchanan is a populist, one of those who the founding father hoped to protect us against when they did not make this a democracy, but rather a constitutional democratic republic. The function of the Constitution in a large part is to stabilize the government and protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
In addition to being a populist, Pat Buchanan is either a devil buddy or a fool.
The Israelis have tried since the the year 33AD to make people like them by being timid. They ignored the instructions in the Old Testament, their Torah; they ignored the lessons of the Inquisition; they ignored the lessons of the Holocaust; they ignored the lessons of the first seven Arab-Israeli wars, which were really Muslim-Israeli wars. Seven wars, the Israelis won each one of them. There are still Muslims left. How many Jews would be left if the Muslims won one war?
The Israelis need to listen to history. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it; repeat it they certainly have.
The Israelis need to:
• Tell the Muslim world that they have a right to exist;
• Tell the Muslims that they will no longer accept Muslim violence passively;
• Tell the Muslims in advance that they will annex permanently any territory that harbors perpetrators of violence against Israel, but not annex the people; they will drive the people out and it will become Israeli territory forever;
• Tell the world this is a new dawn, Israel will no longer beg for mercy;
• Put their fighters on Victor alert;
• Tell Europe in no uncertain terms the Victor alert fighters will nuke the European capitals as well as the Muslim world in the event of a war that the Israelis appear to be losing;
• Name every operation with code words like FAT BOY, LITTLE MAN, SUNRISE, MUSHROOM and the like, just to make sure the world groks the plan in its fullness;
• Remind the world of Masada and tell them the sword goes out first this time;
• Strike the heart of any nation who allows violence to cross their borders into Israel.
It is well known that Muslims are either at your throat or at your feet. The word of Allah, as interpreted by the Wahabbist, leaves no room for other religions, thus there is no room for other religions. Thus, either you kill them, or they kill you.
Let there be no misunderstanding; no talk of compromise; no talk of love without love in return.
Give violence a chance.
Molon labe
Friday, June 02, 2006
Can you sleep when the winds blows?
This is not mine, I have no idea where it came from, other than it was sent to me by Melanie. It bears reading and thinking about. "We know not at what hour the Master cometh." It is far better to be ready now. Hap
==============
Years ago, a farmer owned land along the Atlantic seacoast. He constantly advertised for hired hands. Most people were reluctant to work on farms along the Atlantic. They dreaded the awful storms that raged across the Atlantic, wreaking havoc on the buildings and crops. As the farmer interviewed applicants for the job, he received a steady stream of refusals.
Finally, a short, thin man, well past middle age, approached the farmer. "Are you a good farm hand?" the farmer asked him. "Well, I can sleep when the wind blows," answered the little man.
Although puzzled by this answer, the farmer, desperate for help, Hired him. The little man worked well around the farm, busy from dawn to dusk, and the farmer felt satisfied with the man's work.
Then one night the wind howled loudly in from offshore. Jumping out of bed, the farmer grabbed a lantern and rushed next door to the hired hand's sleeping quarters. He shook the little man and yelled, "Get up! A storm is coming!Tie things down before they blow away!"
The little man rolled over in bed and said firmly, "No sir. I told you, I can sleep when the wind blows."
Enraged by the response, the farmer was tempted to fire him on the spot. Instead, he hurried outside to prepare for the storm.
To his amazement, he discovered that all of the haystacks had been covered with tarpaulins. The cows were in the barn, the chickens were in the coops, and the doors were barred. The shutters were tightly secured. Everything was tied down. Nothing could blow away. The farmer then understood what his hired hand meant, so he returned to his bed to also sleep while the wind blew.
When you're prepared, spiritually, mentally, and physically, you have nothing to fear. Can you sleep when the wind blows through your life?
The hired hand in the story was able to sleep because he had secured the farm against the storm.
We secure ourselves against the storms of life by grounding ourselves in the Word of God. We don't need to understand, we just need to hold His hand to have peace in the middle of storms.
==============
Years ago, a farmer owned land along the Atlantic seacoast. He constantly advertised for hired hands. Most people were reluctant to work on farms along the Atlantic. They dreaded the awful storms that raged across the Atlantic, wreaking havoc on the buildings and crops. As the farmer interviewed applicants for the job, he received a steady stream of refusals.
Finally, a short, thin man, well past middle age, approached the farmer. "Are you a good farm hand?" the farmer asked him. "Well, I can sleep when the wind blows," answered the little man.
Although puzzled by this answer, the farmer, desperate for help, Hired him. The little man worked well around the farm, busy from dawn to dusk, and the farmer felt satisfied with the man's work.
Then one night the wind howled loudly in from offshore. Jumping out of bed, the farmer grabbed a lantern and rushed next door to the hired hand's sleeping quarters. He shook the little man and yelled, "Get up! A storm is coming!Tie things down before they blow away!"
The little man rolled over in bed and said firmly, "No sir. I told you, I can sleep when the wind blows."
Enraged by the response, the farmer was tempted to fire him on the spot. Instead, he hurried outside to prepare for the storm.
To his amazement, he discovered that all of the haystacks had been covered with tarpaulins. The cows were in the barn, the chickens were in the coops, and the doors were barred. The shutters were tightly secured. Everything was tied down. Nothing could blow away. The farmer then understood what his hired hand meant, so he returned to his bed to also sleep while the wind blew.
When you're prepared, spiritually, mentally, and physically, you have nothing to fear. Can you sleep when the wind blows through your life?
The hired hand in the story was able to sleep because he had secured the farm against the storm.
We secure ourselves against the storms of life by grounding ourselves in the Word of God. We don't need to understand, we just need to hold His hand to have peace in the middle of storms.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
The Great Disconnect
This is like finding Waldo. Can you find the problem?
First Directive – You must verify that a person is a legal resident of the United States and has the necessary paperwork allowing them to work in the country before you pay them to cut your grass. This seems reasonable to me. I want people to be here legally. I do think it can be a more cumbersome process than necessary, but the issue of being here legally is an important one.
Second Directive – The State may not ask a person about their legal residency status before they give them welfare, medical treatment, driver’s license or anything else. This does not seem reasonable to me. I think the government has the same responsibility to follow the law that I do.
Let's boil this down to a simple one v one:
I cannot pay an illegal alien to cut my grass; on the other hand, the State takes money from me at the point of a gun to pay illegal aliens.
Being the State has its privileges, doesn’t it? Abuse under color of authority is a egregious crime.
I cannot pay for an illegal alien, so if they need money, they go to the State who can pay them, but only if they do not work.
Do you still wonder why we have a budget deficit?
Our government has a mental illness called liberalism.
First Directive – You must verify that a person is a legal resident of the United States and has the necessary paperwork allowing them to work in the country before you pay them to cut your grass. This seems reasonable to me. I want people to be here legally. I do think it can be a more cumbersome process than necessary, but the issue of being here legally is an important one.
Second Directive – The State may not ask a person about their legal residency status before they give them welfare, medical treatment, driver’s license or anything else. This does not seem reasonable to me. I think the government has the same responsibility to follow the law that I do.
Let's boil this down to a simple one v one:
I cannot pay an illegal alien to cut my grass; on the other hand, the State takes money from me at the point of a gun to pay illegal aliens.
Being the State has its privileges, doesn’t it? Abuse under color of authority is a egregious crime.
I cannot pay for an illegal alien, so if they need money, they go to the State who can pay them, but only if they do not work.
Do you still wonder why we have a budget deficit?
Our government has a mental illness called liberalism.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The Three Choices of Islam
Islam or Mohamedism is very clear on its only choices for non-believers:
• Convert
• Pay tribute to live
• Die
The Islamofacists have a particular distaste for Christians and Jews. There are people who claim to follow Islam, who in reality are like many who claim to be Christians. They like the bullet points of the religion (at least those they agree with) and are willing to ignore the points they do not like, or find inconvenient. Those are the public wine drinkers (for Islam). They are not a problem in their religious mode. In the secular mode, they can be as much or as little trouble as the next person.
True followers of Mo Hamed are a major problem. They do not have the same value structure that Christians and Jews share:
They follow a man, not a god.
We follow God at the direction of the Son of God.
They praise "Allah", but follow Mo Hamed.
We praise God and at His Son's direction pray to Him and follow Him only.
Their kingdom is intended to be here on earth.
Ours is not of this world.
They want all government to follow their rules, sharia.
We are told to respect civil authority, to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
They are told to overthrow all governments who will not follow their rules.
We are told to pray for the civil rulers.
It is no coincidence the evil Klingon Empire and the CS Lewis Tash people were based on Islam.
This new fellow in Iran is particularly troublesome in a worldly sense. He believes it is time for Ragnarok (the Viking Final Battle). He is working on developing nuclear weapons with the stated purpose of leveling Israel. This is what he is saying on the open world forum, his internal communications are far more inflammatory. Frankly, I am far more concerned near time that he will be able to buy some of the former Soviet nuclear weapons, of which there are hundreds, if not thousands unaccounted for.
If you do not see the conflict, one can only say, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
It is also good to be prepared for the end of the world at a moment's notice. For our personal world can end at any time and we face our Lord at the Final Sorting Hat.
• Convert
• Pay tribute to live
• Die
The Islamofacists have a particular distaste for Christians and Jews. There are people who claim to follow Islam, who in reality are like many who claim to be Christians. They like the bullet points of the religion (at least those they agree with) and are willing to ignore the points they do not like, or find inconvenient. Those are the public wine drinkers (for Islam). They are not a problem in their religious mode. In the secular mode, they can be as much or as little trouble as the next person.
True followers of Mo Hamed are a major problem. They do not have the same value structure that Christians and Jews share:
They follow a man, not a god.
We follow God at the direction of the Son of God.
They praise "Allah", but follow Mo Hamed.
We praise God and at His Son's direction pray to Him and follow Him only.
Their kingdom is intended to be here on earth.
Ours is not of this world.
They want all government to follow their rules, sharia.
We are told to respect civil authority, to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
They are told to overthrow all governments who will not follow their rules.
We are told to pray for the civil rulers.
It is no coincidence the evil Klingon Empire and the CS Lewis Tash people were based on Islam.
This new fellow in Iran is particularly troublesome in a worldly sense. He believes it is time for Ragnarok (the Viking Final Battle). He is working on developing nuclear weapons with the stated purpose of leveling Israel. This is what he is saying on the open world forum, his internal communications are far more inflammatory. Frankly, I am far more concerned near time that he will be able to buy some of the former Soviet nuclear weapons, of which there are hundreds, if not thousands unaccounted for.
If you do not see the conflict, one can only say, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
It is also good to be prepared for the end of the world at a moment's notice. For our personal world can end at any time and we face our Lord at the Final Sorting Hat.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Islam as a "Religion of Peace"
Islam as a "Religion of Peace" is vastly over rated. Christianity has as one of its basic tenants, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar and unto God that which is God's" and "Do not cast your pearls before swine."
Christianity recognizes, or should if the Bible is followed, the authority of the civil government over the affairs of this world (those of the physical body) while leaving the affairs of the soul to religious law. It also calls for believers to offer up their beliefs to unbelievers and if they are not interested not to bother them further.
This is a far cry from Islam's insistence that the bizarre set of rules set by someone calling himself a Prophet of Allah should govern everyone's life here on earth and that if you will not "believe", "true believers" are duty bound to kill you.
The "War of Terror" is simply a half hearted response to a global war by Radical Islam (which by the way means anyone who follows the Koran/Qran/Quaran). Terror is a method used by Islamofacists to wage war, thus the War on Terror could be equated to an earlier War on Blitzkrieg or War on Kamikaze.
Interesting, isn't it.
Christianity recognizes, or should if the Bible is followed, the authority of the civil government over the affairs of this world (those of the physical body) while leaving the affairs of the soul to religious law. It also calls for believers to offer up their beliefs to unbelievers and if they are not interested not to bother them further.
This is a far cry from Islam's insistence that the bizarre set of rules set by someone calling himself a Prophet of Allah should govern everyone's life here on earth and that if you will not "believe", "true believers" are duty bound to kill you.
The "War of Terror" is simply a half hearted response to a global war by Radical Islam (which by the way means anyone who follows the Koran/Qran/Quaran). Terror is a method used by Islamofacists to wage war, thus the War on Terror could be equated to an earlier War on Blitzkrieg or War on Kamikaze.
Interesting, isn't it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
