Archive for June, 2008
The Slippery Slope is Real (and Real Slippery)
By Justin Hart
As the bedtime story tells it, Chicken Little’s unhinged nightmare began with a small piece of falling sky. The hysteria that followed assumed that the rest of the big blue ceiling would come tumbling down any minute.
Today, conservatives are ritually accused of inciting a similar panic on issues from abortion to pornography; from immigration to States’ rights; and most recently with gay marriage. Skeptics casually cover us over with Mr. Little’s mantle and call us out for using a Slippery Slope argument. “You’re overreacting!” they exclaim.
The truth is that Progressives on the left are the ones using the Slippery Slope argument to support their agenda and push us down the very slide they say doesn’t exist.
Thanks to the California Supremes the big debate of the day revolves around gay marriage. Liberals accuse conservatives of drawing a sinister straight line from homosexuality to Armageddon. Certainly, there are pockets on the right who make this correlation but it’s the exception not the rule.
Most conservatives I hear from are upset about the inch-by-inch ground we give up on traditional values. The end result isn’t a ball of fire; instead we wake up in a foggy, swampy mess of concessions that really does impact society. Conservatives are more than happy to concede gray areas on this graph but not the trajectory.
Frankly, we don’t need to prove a downward slope. The left has done it for us. Take the justification of the New Jersey Supreme Court in their 2006 determination that the State can and should move closer and closer to gay marriage. Indeed, in their minds, it’s just the natural next step.
Follow their downward leading logic in their own words:
• “New Jersey’s courts and its Legislature have been at the forefront of combating sexual orientation discrimination and advancing equality of treatment toward gays and lesbians.”
• “In 1992, through an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), New Jersey became the fifth state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of ‘affectional or sexual orientation.'”
• “In making sexual orientation a protected category, the Legislature committed New Jersey to the goal of eradicating discrimination against gays and lesbians.”
• “In 2004, the Legislature added ‘domestic partnership status’ to the categories protected by the LAD.”
• “The Legislature, moreover, created the New Jersey Human Relations Council to promote educational programs aimed at reducing bias and bias-related acts, identifying sexual orientation as a protected category.”
• “Legislature passed the Domestic Partnership Act, which confers certain benefits and rights on same-sex partners who enter into a partnership under the Act.”
• “The Domestic Partnership Act has failed to bridge the inequality gap between committed same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples.”
• “Significantly, the economic and financial inequities that are borne by same-sex domestic partners are also borne by their children.”
• “Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.”
“Cast in that light” has quickly become the verse, chorus and bridge for most every liberal libretto. Traditional marriage is bound to fall asunder when you cast it “in that light”. It’s high hypocrisy to claim that the Slippery Slope is a ruse and then utilize it to justify your endgame.
Last week the National Institute of Child Health and Development announced a Down Syndrome test for pregnant mothers in their first trimester. The Washington Post quoted Dublin Surgeon Fergal Malone: “By the time you’re 20 weeks pregnant, most women will be feeling fetal movement. We wouldn’t want to underestimate the psychological or emotional difficulty of undergoing pregnancy termination that late.” Indeed.
The Clintonian mantra of “safe, legal and rare” has now given way to the Clintonian voting motif “early and often.” Of course, there’s also the question of why? Why is it that pro-choice advocates want to rid the world of Down Syndrome children?
Jonah Goldberg recently brought to light the historical relationship between eugenics and Liberal Progressives in his best-selling book Liberal Facism:
“Eugenics fit snugly within this new worldview, for if nations are like bodies, their problems are in some sense akin to diseases, and politics becomes in effect a branch of medicine: the science of maintaining social health. “
In short, if we’re going to get rid of unwanted babies we might as well get rid of the right ones. With these marching orders we finally understand the “why” of first trimester “disease” tests: Liberals know what’s best for all of us.
Conservatives have taken it on the chin for three decades now for suggesting that abortion could lead to soft eugenics. One neat thing about the Slippery Slope though is that it’s easy to document the downward spiral after you’re through the Hegelian water slide. Guess what, we were right.
As Amy Harman reported recently for the New York Times:
“Kirsten Moore, president of the pro-choice Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said that when members of her staff recently discussed whether to recommend that any prenatal tests be banned, they found it impossible to draw a line — even at sex selection, which almost all found morally repugnant. “We all had our own zones of discomfort but still couldn’t quite bring ourselves to say, ‘Here’s the line, firm and clear’ because that is the core of the pro-choice philosophy,” she said. “You can never make that decision for someone else.” “
“Choice” is the ultimate subjective grease on the Slippery Slope which brings these contrasts into sharp relief: conservatives employ the Slippery Slope to call out our fall from grace; liberals acknowledge as much but insist we simply sit back, enjoy the ride and make the most of it. Like some bizarre reenactment of a Bugs Bunny “‘dis line, no ‘dat line!” routine we find ourselves standing over the cliff with a free fall on our next step.
Speaking of rabbits, we can’t seem to escape the omnipresent Playboy brand these days. This last week I shared a park bench with a teenager sporting a baseball cap with the familiar bunny logo. However, unlike its cousin, the drum-beating, ray-ban-wearing Energizer rodent, the consumptive product behind Hefner’s mascot isn’t quite as long lasting or satisfying.
Recent trends indicate that the centerfold playmate should start looking for another job. Professional porn is out; the day of the amateur has arrived. Pornography addicts of a gone-by age had to get their fix via the plastic wrapped glossy at off-hours and discretely hide it from their significant others. Today, the product comes streaming onto the iPhone free of charge while the significant other is watching on or more likely, filming it with you.
To each his own I suppose. Unless of course the “his” in “his own” is your 16-year-old son. In which case you end up with seventeen high-schoolers anxious to Tivo “Nanny 911” for pressing personal reasons. The nexus of technology, amorality and teenage curiosity is wreaking havoc on our children. Amateur porn has become the main sex educator of our kids.
Professor James Weaver testified before the Senate in 2006:
“… pornography — with its seemingly factual, documentary-style presentation of sexual behaviors — has usurped most other socialization agents to become the de facto sex education for children and adults alike. Thus, the likelihood persists that the main messages of pornography have a stronger influence on the formation of sexual dispositions, including coercive disposition, than alternative forms of sexual indoctrination.”
Never mind this supposed damage. According to Justice Ginsburg and Souter who recently declared in their dissenting opinion in US vs. Williams: “As a general matter pornography lacks the harm to justify prohibiting it.” Visit PornographyStats.com to judge for yourself but I gather most people would at least agree that pornography isn’t fully harm-less. Even staunch feminist Naomi Wolfe senses the impact: “In the end, porn doesn’t whet men’s appetites-it turns them off the real thing.”
Unlike gay marriage and abortion the Slippery Slope for pornography is not what you expect. Today, sexually explicit material takes its shape in a YouTube clone for bestiality driving societal entropy and numbing the next generation of families to the possibility of true intimacy.
In 2005, NARAL sponsored a host of parties across the country with the cute catch phrase: “Screw abstinence!” That pretty much sums up the Left’s attitude towards conservatives as we stand there with our thumbs in the dike. Our stopgaps are their fodder to stoke the fires and push us down the Slippery Slope. Enjoy the ride!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
I’m no longer surprised, but it still makes me angry that the media won’t follow up on this stuff.
Obama campaign site: Free Islamic terrorist!
E-mail addresses, phone numbers provided to ‘take urgent action’
Posted: June 29, 2008
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
JAFFA, Israel – A blog posting on Sen. Barack Obama’s official campaign site urges Americans to take action to secure the release of imprisoned terrorist fundraiser Sami Al-Arian, comparing the controversial former professor to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.
The posting is just a sampling of a large volume of racist, anti-Semitic and pro-Palestinian rhetoric published on the user-friendly MyObama community blog pages. The Obama campaign does not monitor all blog material, which is posted by registered users, but says it removes offending posts that are brought to the attention of the administrators.
In a blog post on Obama’s site titled, “We are all Palestinians,” user Ulf Erlingsson laments what he calls the “harsh” conditions of Al-Arian’s imprisonment – explaining he “lives in segregation … is not allowed any visitors and is given only two phone calls a month.”
The posting quotes Agha Saeed, chair of the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections, comparing Al-Arian to King and Malcom X, who “symbolized the struggle for human rights in the fifties and sixties. Dr. Sami Al-Arian has come to symbolize the current struggle for human rights.”
Al-Arian is also labeled an “internationally recognized political prisoner.”
Obama’s site readers are called upon to “take urgent action. Just 3 phone calls and 1 E-mail to make a difference.”
The blog – first noticed this weekend by Little Green Footballs – goes on to list phone numbers or e-mails for Al-Arian’s jail, a civil liberties office at the Homeland Security Department and the attorney general handling the Al-Arian case. The posting gives specific instructions for what protestors should say when they call the various agencies.
The blog also links to a Free Al-Arian website for readers interested in learning more.
Al-Arian, a former university professor, was arrested in 2003 on multiple charges of funding terrorists, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organization, which took credit for every suicide bombing in Israel since 2005. In 2006, Al-Arian accepted a plea bargain resulting in a conviction with conspiracy to aid Islamic Jihad.
Al-Arian was sentenced to 57 months in prison including time served. He was to serve the remainder of 19 months and then be deported, but he was held in contempt of court for refusing to testify in other related terrorism cases involving former associates. The contempt charges were overturned last year, but in March Al-Arian was subpoenaed to testify in front of another grand jury in a terrorist case, and he has so far refused.
The Al-Arian posting is joined by volumes of controversial rhetoric posted by registered users on Obama’s official campaign site. Some of the offending postings have been removed, while others still remain.
One recently removed posting claims Jews control the media:
“Jewish owners and managers of CNN, FOX NEWS, mainstream media and the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public,” read the blog.
Another post refered to Jews as “puppet masters” and “war criminals.”
Yet another posting, titled “The Israeli connection to 9/11,” claimed Israeli intelligence was involved in the mega-attack and planted “false flags” to blame Arab countries.
Other MyObama posts have warned of “Judeofacists and their Neocon comrades” who “already destroyed America … The entire Congress should be overthrown by revolution for having sold America to the Israelis.”
A popular topic on Obama’s site seems to be the so-called Israel Lobby.
An Obama site search under the key words “Israel lobby” brings up a large number of pages with titles such as “Bush uses Nazi history against Obama to pander to the Jewish lobby” and “The Israel Lobby: bad for the world.”
In one recently removed posting, titled, “How the Jewish Lobby works,” the page read, “No lobby is feared more” and claimed Jews “run the Federal Reserve Bank, US Homeland Security, and the US State Department.”
“If a politician does not play ball with the Jewish Lobby, he will not get elected, or re-elected, and he will either be smeared or ignored by the Jewish-owned major media,” read the posting.
Obama’s campaign did not return a WND e-mail request for comment before press time, but Obama spokesmen have previously stated the campaign cannot monitor all content but it promptly removes content brought to its attention that is deemed inappropriate or hateful.
A disclaimer on the MyObama blog section reads, “Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.”
Author Bill Levinson commented on the Israpundit blog, which documented some of the anti-Semitic postings: “The presence of these pages at BarackObama.com is entirely consistent with Obama’s toleration of hate mongers (Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright) and even his endorsement and solicitation of racists, anti-Semites, and/or Catholic-hating bigots (MoveOn.org, Al Sharpton, National Action Network).”
But the Patterico Pontific blog took a different tone in a recent posting, writing, “Assuming the content was posted by an Obama supporter…so what?
“Barack Obama attracts some anti-Semitic supporters. That’s hardly a surprise, nor is it obviously his fault. In my opinion, he’s been too cozy with supporters of the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan. So criticize him for that. But the fact that he has anti-Semitic supporters, standing alone, says no more about him than the fact that there are white racists supporting John McCain.”
BRAVO! BRAVO! I wish American politicians had the guts this guy has!!
Geert Wilder’s speech to Holland’s Parliament
Madam Speaker, allow me, first, to express my sincere thanks to you personally for having planned a debate on Islam on the very day of my birthday. I could not have wished for a nicer present! Madam Speaker, approximately 1400 years ago war was declared on us by an ideology of hate and violence which arose at the time and was proclaimed by a barbarian who called himself the Prophet Mohammed. I am referring to Islam.
Madam Speaker, let me start with the foundation of the Islamic faith, the Koran. The Koran’s core theme is about the duty of all Muslims to fight non-Muslims; an Islamic Mein Kampf, in which fight means war, jihad. The Koran is above all a book of war “” a call to butcher non-Muslims (2:191, 3:141, 4:91, 5:3), to roast them (4:56, 69:30-69:32), and to cause bloodbaths amongst them (47:4). Jews are compared to monkeys and pigs (2:65, 5:60, 7:166), while people who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God must according to the Koran be fought (9:30).
Madam Speaker, the West has no problems with Jews or Christians, but it does have problems with Islam. It is still possible, even today, for Muslims to view the Koran, which they regard as valid for all time, as a licence to kill. And that is exactly what happens. The Koran is worded in such a way that its instructions are addressed to Muslims for eternity, which includes today’s Muslims. This in contrast to texts in the Bible, which is formulated as a number of historical narratives, placing events in a distant past. Let us remind ourselves that it was Muslims, not Jews or Christians, who committed the catastrophic terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London; and that it was no coincidence that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri.
Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course. However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell. In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30, which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell. Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.
Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state. I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect.
Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as “moderate Islam”…. As Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said the other day, and I quote, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”…. Islam is in pursuit of dominance. It wishes to exact its imperialist agenda by force on a worldwide scale (8:39). This is clear from European history. Fortunately, the first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at Poitiers in 732; the second in Vienna in 1683. Madam Speaker, let us ensure that the third Islamic invasion, which is currently in full spate, will be stopped too in spite of its insidious nature and notwithstanding the fact that, in contrast to the 8th and 17th centuries, it has no need for an Islamic army because the scared “dhimmis” in the West, also those in Dutch politics, have left their doors wide open to Islam and Muslims.
Apart from conquest, Madam Speaker, Islam is also bent on installing a totally different form of law and order, namely Sharia law. This makes Islam, apart from a religion for hundreds of millions of Muslims also, and in particular, a political ideology (with political/constitutional/Islamic basic values, etc). Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non-believers and not for apostates. Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war.
Madam Speaker, the Islamic incursion must be stopped. Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe. If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time. One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about 1 million Muslims in this country. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilization as we know it. Where is our Prime Minister in all this? In reply to my questions in the House he said, without batting an eyelid, that there is no question of our country being Islamified. Now, this reply constituted a historical error as soon as it was uttered. Very many Dutch citizens, Madam Speaker, experience the presence of Islam around them. And I can report that they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, so-called honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and department stores, Sharia exams, the Finance Minister’s Sharia mortgages, and the enormous overrepresentation of Muslims in the area of crime, including Moroccan street terrorists.
In spite of all this, Madam Speaker, there is hope. Fortunately. The majority of Dutch citizens have become fully aware of the danger, and regard Islam as a threat to our culture. My party, the Freedom Party, takes those citizens seriously and comes to their defence.
Many Dutch citizens are fed up to the back teeth and yearn for action. However, their representatives in The Hague are doing precisely nothing. They are held back by fear, political correctness or simply electoral motives. This is particularly clear in the case of PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party, which is afraid of losing Muslim voters. The Prime Minister said in Indonesia the other day that Islam does not pose any danger. Minister Donner believes that Sharia law should be capable of being introduced in the Netherlands if the majority want it. Minister Vogelaar babbles about the future Netherlands as a country with a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, and that she aims to help Islam take root in Dutch society. In saying this, the Minister shows that she has obviously gone stark raving mad. She is betraying Dutch culture and insulting Dutch citizens.
Madam Speaker, my party, the Freedom Party, demands that Minister Vogelaar retract her statement. If the Minister fails to do so, the Freedom Party parliamentary group will withdraw its support for her. No Islamic tradition must ever be established in the Netherlands: not now and also not in a few centuries’ time.
Madam Speaker, let me briefly touch on the government’s response to the WRR [Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy] report. On page 12 of its response, the government states that Islam is not contrary to democracy or human rights. All I can say to that is that things can’t get much more idiotic than this.
Madam Speaker, it is a few minutes to twelve. If we go on like this, Islam will herald the end of our Western civilisation as well as Dutch culture.
I would like to round off my first-reading contribution with a personal appeal to the Prime Minister on behalf of a great many Dutch citizens: stop the Islamification of the Netherlands!
Mr Balkenende, a historic task rests on your shoulders. Be courageous. Do what many Dutch citizens are screaming out for. Do what the country needs. Stop all immigration from Muslim countries, ban all building of new mosques, close all Islamic schools, ban burkas and the Koran. Expel all criminal Muslims from the country, including those Moroccan street terrorists that drive people mad. Accept your responsibility! Stop Islamification!
Enough is enough, Mr Balkenende. Enough is enough.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Wow, good article from the NY Post. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could count on the media to tell us the truth instead of the lies they want to cram down our throats? Unfortunately a lot of uninformed people will vote based on these lies being fed to them by the dishonest media.
LIARS’ ROUND-UP ON SECURITY, FACTS MATTER
By Ralph Peters
June 28, 2008
THE facts about your security are being torn to shreds by activist liars. And they think that you’re too stupid to know the difference.
Let’s lay out the worst current examples of media make-believe and election-year truth-trashing:
Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where’s the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.
And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11.
A record to be proud of.
Countless aspects of the Bush-Cheney administration deserve merciless criticism. But fair is fair: Since 9/11, we haven’t suffered a single successful terrorist attack on our homeland. Not one.
Explain to me, please, how this shows we’re less safe. What factual measurement applies, other than the absence of attacks?
God knows, the terrorists desperately wanted to strike our homeland. And they couldn’t. Are we supposed to believe that was an accident?
Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can’t launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can’t show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).
Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda’s been beaten down to violent-fugitive status.
By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest?
Whopper No. 3: Success in Iraq is an illusion – the surge failed. Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe.
Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better – remarkably so.
If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq’s government is working, its economy is booming – and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq’s major cities.
And our troops are coming home. Where’s the failure?
Whopper No. 4: Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who’ve rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who’ve smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn’t take long to figure out that Tehran’s foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab.
The people of Iraq don’t intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has lost in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?
Whopper No. 5: The US-European relationship is a disaster. In fact, Washington and the major European capitals have built new, sturdier bridges to replace old ones that badly needed burning.
The Europeans grudgingly figured out that they need us – as we need them. The big break in 2003 cleared a lot of bad air (there was no break with Europe’s young democracies). Relations today are sounder than they were in the fiddle-while-Rome-burns Clinton era.
Oh, and NATO has become a serious military alliance – fighting in Afghanistan, patrolling the high seas and conducting special operations against terrorists. The Germans announced this week that they’re sending another thousand troops to Afghanistan. France is re-engaging with NATO’s military side. Where’s the disaster, mon ami?
Whopper No. 6: As president, Barack Obama would bring positive change to our foreign policy – and John McCain’s too old to get it.
Hmm: Take a gander at Obama’s senior foreign-policy advisers: Madeleine Albright (71), Warren Christopher (82), Anthony Lake (69), Lee Hamilton (77), Richard Clarke (57) . . .
If you added up their ages and fed the number into a time-machine, you’d land in Europe in the middle of the Black Death.
More important: These are the people whose watch saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, Mogadishu, Rwanda, the Srebrenica massacre, a pass for the Russians on Chechnya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the near-sinking of the USS Cole – oh, and the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
Their legacy climaxed on 9/11. You couldn’t assemble a team in Washington with more strategic failures to its credit.
Whopper No. 7: Our troops are all coming home as psychos victimized by their participation in military atrocities.
Tell it to the Marines.
More lies and deceit from the Obama camp. And what’s the deal with this preacher?????? Obama and his supporters just CANNOT be trusted! I think they are allergic to the truth.
Obama worker, Bush pastor linked to Dobson-bashing
Family association says preacher changed story about involvementPosted: June 27, 2008
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A campaign worker for Barack Obama and the Texas Methodist pastor who advises President Bush have been linked to a website that bashes prominent Christian leader and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.
The site, called “jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme,” appeared just days ago after Dobson criticized Obama’s interpretation of the Bible during a 2006 speech and Obama responded essentially by calling Dobson a liar, accusing him of “making things up.”
Now a report from OneNewsNow, a division of the American Family Association, said the website originally was registered to Obama campaign worker Alyssa Martin, but the registration later was changed to Kirbyjon Caldwell, who leads a Methodist megachurch in Texas and has advised Bush.
Donald Wildman, the chairman of the AFA, suggested that Caldwell could do some explaining about his participation in the campaign to bash Dobson, the author of “Bringing Up Boys” and dozens of other family books.
“We are dismayed that the pastor of a large Methodist church in Houston, Texas, has had trouble remembering the facts of his relationship with the Barack Obama campaign,” Wildmon said today. “On Wednesday of this week, the Associated Press quoted Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, who has endorsed Obama, as saying he belongs to a group of religious leaders who, working independently of Obama’s campaign, launched a website to counter critical remarks about Obama made by Focus on the Family leader James Dobson.
“Pastor Caldwell repeated the assertion that he did not work with the Obama campaign to develop the site during an interview with OneNewsNow.com. However, in a subsequent interview with OneNewsNow.com, Caldwell stated that he had worked with Obama campaign worker, Alyssa Martin, to help set up the site,” Wildmon continued.
“Why has Pastor Caldwell changed his story about the website, and why has he been reluctant to reveal his close working relationship with the Obama campaign in setting up the website which has been used to attack the credibility of James Dobson?” Wildmon asked.
Caldwell’s personal page on his church website notes that he believes the church must “embrace theology, identify societal problems, and deliver solutions holistically.”
The dispute arose following Dobson’s evaluation of Obama’s 2006 speech.
Dobson, whose daily radio broadcasts reach millions, said the likely Democratic presidential nominee distorted the Bible and pushed a “fruitcake interpretation” of the U.S. Constitution.
Obama’s comments had come in a June 2006 speech to the Call to Renewal group, which was described by the Associated Press as “liberal.”
“Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?”
Obama cited Leviticus as suggesting slavery is all right and eating shellfish is an abomination. He said in the speech, “Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”
Dobson said Obama improperly equated Old Testament dietary codes and texts to Jesus’ New Testament teachings.
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson told the AP. “He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”
Obama’s response? “I think you’ll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes.”
Now the site assembled by the onetime Obama campaign worker and Caldwell accuses Dobson of not speaking for its supporters.
“He doesn’t speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to divide; He doesn’t speak for me when he speaks as the final arbiter on the meaning of the Bible; James Dobson doesn’t speak for me when he uses the beliefs of others as a line of attack; He doesn’t speak for me when he denigrates his neighbor’s views when they don’t line up with his; He doesn’t speak for me when he seeks to confine the values of my faith to two or three issues alone,” the website says.
Instead, “What does speak for me is David’s psalm celebrating how good and pleasant it is when we come together in unity; Micah speaks for me in reminding us that the Lord requires us to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with Him; The prophet Isaiah speaks for me in his call for all to come and reason together and also to seek justice, encourage the oppressed and to defend the cause of the vulnerable.”
It offers readers a choice to sign onto its political agenda.
It also lists comments from Obama in response to Dobson’s criticisms. It even addresses what many Christians see as one of the more visible apparent conflicts between Obama’s statements abouthis adopting Christianity and his actions: his dedicated support for abortions even through late-term procedures.
Obama says: “I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
Dobson’s responded to that statement with: “And if I can’t get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. That is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution. … Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?”
The Washington Post noted Caldwell “has for months participated on a weekly Friday morning prayer call with members of Obama’s staff and other Christian ministers who dial in from across the county (sic).”
On the OneNewsNow forums page, the anonymously submitted opinions were running heavily against Caldwell:
• Obama is either ignorant or misguided because he declared his mother was in heaven even though she was not a Christ follower and even a good Muslim would go to Heaven. All such is an affront to Jesus own words. Settle it Obama. Jesus was either a liar, crazy or who He said he was, the only begotten of the Father!
• I have to question the Christianity of a man who has the same philosophy about the sanctity of human life as the Nazis did. Just as the Nazis justified the Holocaust and the murder of millions of people because they considered them not to be human beings and therefore killing them was not murder, Obama doesn’t consider an innocent child in its mother’s womb to be a human being and therefore killing them is not murder. Abortion does not equal murder in Obama’s eyes and yet he calls himself a “Christian.” There were Nazis who called themselves “Christians.”
• While Dobson doesn’t speak for me, I do agree with him on this item. Obama has said so many things that are totally against God’s word that it is scary….i.e “there are other ways to heaven than just through Jesus,” “my mother was an atheist, but she was the nicest kindest woman, and I believe she is in Heaven” Excuse me! What Christian could say something like this???? God help this country if he is elected because we will need it.”
How blind can people be???? WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!
Islamic school has notorious alumni
Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 6/20/2008
A conservative group says it’s attempting to “lift the veil off the deception” at an Islamic school in Virginia funded by the Saudi government.
The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) recently held a demonstration outside the Islamic Saudi Academy, which is renting a school facility from Fairfax County, Virginia. Conservative activists, as well as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, have called on the State Department to shut down the private school because of its use of textbooks that promote violence against Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims.
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of TVC, says both the State and Justice Departments need to investigate the Academy because it is “a virtual one-stop shopping center for law enforcement.”
“The former valedictorian from this school is in jail right now because he plotted to kill President Bush,” she points out. In addition, that individual — Ahmed Omar Abu Ali — was convicted of joining al-Qaida after graduating from the school. He is serving a 30-year sentence.
Lafferty also relates a widely reported news story involving a man and woman who were taking pictures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. “The person that was apprehended [in that incident] was the finance officer at the time for the school,” says the TVC spokeswoman. “Then, you had some of the students who were apprehended by Israeli intelligence because they flew to Israel with no luggage, lots of money, and some questionable documents.”
Lafferty says in the case of the Muslim school, “it’s clear that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
“There are schools like this all around the country, and America needs to wake up,” she declares. “Traditional Values Coalition is wanting to lift the veil off of the secrecy and the deception surrounding Islam. But, I don’t want people … to think ‘Oh, it’s just Virginia.’ No, it is all over the country — and if America is not free, no one is free.”
More recently, the director of the Islamic Saudi Academy was arrested for obstruction of justice and refusing to report child abuse.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
« Previous Entries