Mike Corthell
Executive Director, The Michael Mills Agency
Saturday, July 30, 2011
UnTruth: The Chrislam Con
''The truth is never subject to my belief or yours. It’s the very essence of God Himself. Neither time, nor cultures, nor preferences, nor ideologies, nor clever tactics can redefine or distil truth. It simply is.''It’s said that “if words are to enter men’s minds and bear fruit, they must be the right words shaped cunningly to pass men’s defenses and explode silently and effectually within their minds” (J. B. Phillips). While the fruit of fitly spoken words is sweet, opportunists also use cunningly devised terms to shroud their own provocative agendas that, in the end, bear rotten fruit.[1]
For instance, universally agreeable twenty-first century buzzwords as “transformation,” “transcendence,” and “collaboration” may appeal broadly, but their generic meanings obscure widespread grasp of how they’d look if acted out in real time. By definition, globalism is an interdependent, worldwide design with geopolitical, economic, and spiritual components.
For the transformative “Grand Design” of collaborative globalism to be realized, national sovereignty, free enterprise capitalism, and biblical fundamentalism must give way to bio-regional global governance, sustainability (wealth redistribution), and syncretism (doctrinal mix). Personal and/or group identities must defer to the Global Village in which populations are controlled and private ownership of property is curtailed.[2]
Because religionists of all colors dominate the global population, and religious passion serves as a tremendous boost to (or threat against) democratic transnationalism, globalists work to build bridges of commonality between Eastern and Western belief systems. More often than not, in today’s emerging one-world paradigm, fundamental Western values bow to collectivist counterparts, many of which originate in the East. Purportedly for “the common good,” compliant world citizens submit to a new earth, pan-religious ethic, rather than to traditional mores.[3]
Tactical Pursuit of Commonality via Changeover, Commendation, Confusion
Religious commonality is accomplished by hawking politically correct diversity, popularly touted as “tolerance,” and by merging and thereby morphing traditional faith systems into oblivion. Among the world’s religionists are exclusivists, pluralists, and inclusionists.
Exclusivists adhere to one true and nonnegotiable path to salvation or liberation. Globalists finger fundamentalism as counterproductive to the burgeoning novus ordo seclorum (“new secular world order of the ages”) and instead favor doctrinal mix (syncretism) over dogma. Scripted “dialogue” encourages changeover to alternatives more amenable to the one-world plan.
Next, pluralists believe in many paths to salvation or liberation, none of which reigns supreme. If you follow Buddhist practices, for instance, you ostensibly get to Buddhist heaven; and if you follow Muslim practices, you get to Muslim paradise. For this reason, it’s assumed that I’m okay; you’re okay; and so is everyone else. Hence, there’s no need for conversion. Globalists promote and placate pluralists as especially useful; predictably, they commend pluralism for “tolerance” (more accurately, for malleability).
Finally, inclusionists believe in many paths to salvation or liberation; however, in the end, a seeker will naturally come to realize “the superior path.” Proponents recognize, identify with and, then, downplay religious differences by recasting them as similar or by trivializing them as superfluous “side issues.”[4]
The Chrislam Con
Viewed by many as its chief obstacle, well-established religious creed must be softened in order to realize the new, one-world order. With a mind to reset religious canon, globalists introduce confusion simply by merging disparate faith systems. This brand of inclusionism particularly appeals to nominal Christians who are more committed to “tolerance” than they are to biblical truth. As was the case with Eve, the loaded question “Hath God said?” gives them pause. In the name of “diversity,” these swap out the proverbial waistband of sound doctrine with the loose elastic of comfy compromise. http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra195.htm
For instance, universally agreeable twenty-first century buzzwords as “transformation,” “transcendence,” and “collaboration” may appeal broadly, but their generic meanings obscure widespread grasp of how they’d look if acted out in real time. By definition, globalism is an interdependent, worldwide design with geopolitical, economic, and spiritual components.
For the transformative “Grand Design” of collaborative globalism to be realized, national sovereignty, free enterprise capitalism, and biblical fundamentalism must give way to bio-regional global governance, sustainability (wealth redistribution), and syncretism (doctrinal mix). Personal and/or group identities must defer to the Global Village in which populations are controlled and private ownership of property is curtailed.[2]
Because religionists of all colors dominate the global population, and religious passion serves as a tremendous boost to (or threat against) democratic transnationalism, globalists work to build bridges of commonality between Eastern and Western belief systems. More often than not, in today’s emerging one-world paradigm, fundamental Western values bow to collectivist counterparts, many of which originate in the East. Purportedly for “the common good,” compliant world citizens submit to a new earth, pan-religious ethic, rather than to traditional mores.[3]
Tactical Pursuit of Commonality via Changeover, Commendation, Confusion
Religious commonality is accomplished by hawking politically correct diversity, popularly touted as “tolerance,” and by merging and thereby morphing traditional faith systems into oblivion. Among the world’s religionists are exclusivists, pluralists, and inclusionists.
Exclusivists adhere to one true and nonnegotiable path to salvation or liberation. Globalists finger fundamentalism as counterproductive to the burgeoning novus ordo seclorum (“new secular world order of the ages”) and instead favor doctrinal mix (syncretism) over dogma. Scripted “dialogue” encourages changeover to alternatives more amenable to the one-world plan.
Next, pluralists believe in many paths to salvation or liberation, none of which reigns supreme. If you follow Buddhist practices, for instance, you ostensibly get to Buddhist heaven; and if you follow Muslim practices, you get to Muslim paradise. For this reason, it’s assumed that I’m okay; you’re okay; and so is everyone else. Hence, there’s no need for conversion. Globalists promote and placate pluralists as especially useful; predictably, they commend pluralism for “tolerance” (more accurately, for malleability).
Finally, inclusionists believe in many paths to salvation or liberation; however, in the end, a seeker will naturally come to realize “the superior path.” Proponents recognize, identify with and, then, downplay religious differences by recasting them as similar or by trivializing them as superfluous “side issues.”[4]
The Chrislam Con
Viewed by many as its chief obstacle, well-established religious creed must be softened in order to realize the new, one-world order. With a mind to reset religious canon, globalists introduce confusion simply by merging disparate faith systems. This brand of inclusionism particularly appeals to nominal Christians who are more committed to “tolerance” than they are to biblical truth. As was the case with Eve, the loaded question “Hath God said?” gives them pause. In the name of “diversity,” these swap out the proverbial waistband of sound doctrine with the loose elastic of comfy compromise. http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra195.htm
Friday, July 29, 2011
More Muslim victimization?
''Uh-oh. I know what "statements" the foreign minister means – and it's not the saying of Muhammad, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." Store means the histories, analysis and reportage related to Islam copied into the phony "manifesto." These, in the spin that Lippestad's assessment doesn't quite match, "led" to the massacre – not the madness or evil of a drugged-up killer.'' On Tuesday, I read a New York Times online report about a press conference held by Geir Lippestad, the defense lawyer for admitted Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. I found one of Lippestad's statements of interest and saved it for future reference. Little did I know it would apparently disappear from the news website.
The statement was: "Asked if the rampage was aimed at the Labor Party or at Muslim immigrants, Mr. Lippestad said: 'This was an attack on the Labor Party.'"
The lawyer's statement is the first credible assessment of motive, and as such it is a significant piece of the story. So why did the New York Times cut it from the final version of the story online and in Wednesday's newspaper?
The answer, I think, has much to do with how Lippestad's opinion fails to accelerate the rush of Times insta-spin, and could even slow what looks like a swift-moving drive to limit free speech about Islamization in the West.
The "updated" Times report that omits Lippestad's statement now features comments from Jonas Gahr Store, Norway's foreign minister. Sure, Store's comments are significant, but why they obliterated the defense lawyer's statement, I don't know. But I can guess.
Lippestad believes his client was attacking the Labor Party, not Muslim immigrants. The final version, minus Lippestad's comment, reports on an official, post-attack event: the foreign minister's visit to the World Islamic Mission, a large Oslo mosque, "to express solidarity," as the Times explains, with Norwegian Muslims. Over the weekend, Store visited a church as well, but the Times doesn't mention that. The overall patina to the mosque event then, certainly minus Lippestad's assessment, becomes one of Muslim aggrievement – an artificial creation given that the majority of Breivik's victims are most likely non-Muslim. Such aggrievement, however, fits the Times' anti-anti-jihad narrative to date, also dovetailing with machinations on the left.
We may assume Norway's Labor Party, like all parties on the European left, draws votes from a majority of Norway's Muslims for its support of Islamic immigration and the cultural, legal and financial accommodations that follow. Indeed, it's the resulting pattern of Islamization across Europe that drove what has been absurdly glorified as Breivik's 1,500-page "manifesto." After I checked out the nine times my own name appears – all in cut-and-pasted essays by the Norwegian blogger Fjordman – I learned via counterterrorism expert Jarrett Brachman that the "manifesto" is partly plagiarized from the Unabomber. Jawa Report has now identified multiple other plagiarized sources throughout the first 350 pages (and counting). This means the myth of the "manifesto" as some magnum opus of counter-jihad written by the killer over many years is a phony. Still, I'll wager it's pure Breivik where the "manifesto" notes his fave TV shows, from "Vampire Diaries" to "Dexter." Read more: Pumping up Muslim victimization http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327281#ixzz1TU1Y5ReR
The statement was: "Asked if the rampage was aimed at the Labor Party or at Muslim immigrants, Mr. Lippestad said: 'This was an attack on the Labor Party.'"
The lawyer's statement is the first credible assessment of motive, and as such it is a significant piece of the story. So why did the New York Times cut it from the final version of the story online and in Wednesday's newspaper?
The answer, I think, has much to do with how Lippestad's opinion fails to accelerate the rush of Times insta-spin, and could even slow what looks like a swift-moving drive to limit free speech about Islamization in the West.
The "updated" Times report that omits Lippestad's statement now features comments from Jonas Gahr Store, Norway's foreign minister. Sure, Store's comments are significant, but why they obliterated the defense lawyer's statement, I don't know. But I can guess.
Lippestad believes his client was attacking the Labor Party, not Muslim immigrants. The final version, minus Lippestad's comment, reports on an official, post-attack event: the foreign minister's visit to the World Islamic Mission, a large Oslo mosque, "to express solidarity," as the Times explains, with Norwegian Muslims. Over the weekend, Store visited a church as well, but the Times doesn't mention that. The overall patina to the mosque event then, certainly minus Lippestad's assessment, becomes one of Muslim aggrievement – an artificial creation given that the majority of Breivik's victims are most likely non-Muslim. Such aggrievement, however, fits the Times' anti-anti-jihad narrative to date, also dovetailing with machinations on the left.
We may assume Norway's Labor Party, like all parties on the European left, draws votes from a majority of Norway's Muslims for its support of Islamic immigration and the cultural, legal and financial accommodations that follow. Indeed, it's the resulting pattern of Islamization across Europe that drove what has been absurdly glorified as Breivik's 1,500-page "manifesto." After I checked out the nine times my own name appears – all in cut-and-pasted essays by the Norwegian blogger Fjordman – I learned via counterterrorism expert Jarrett Brachman that the "manifesto" is partly plagiarized from the Unabomber. Jawa Report has now identified multiple other plagiarized sources throughout the first 350 pages (and counting). This means the myth of the "manifesto" as some magnum opus of counter-jihad written by the killer over many years is a phony. Still, I'll wager it's pure Breivik where the "manifesto" notes his fave TV shows, from "Vampire Diaries" to "Dexter." Read more: Pumping up Muslim victimization http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327281#ixzz1TU1Y5ReR
Thursday, July 28, 2011
America is Christian In Name Only
''Are you a Christian?” I asked him.
“Yes I am. I was born a Methodist.” He retorted.
“No wonder you think the way you do, Pal. You need to get born again.” He had no idea what I meant.''
“Yes I am. I was born a Methodist.” He retorted.
“No wonder you think the way you do, Pal. You need to get born again.” He had no idea what I meant.''
It is a good thing that Jesus has risen from the grave or He would certainly be rolling over in it. I find it hard to believe that He would drag that cross up Golgotha so that what He stood for could be so miss-represented around the world.
Everything He stood for is under attack and much of the attack is a result of His followers being so un-like Him.
It is hard to write this without coming off as self-righteous. All I can say is that it is not my intention. Christianity is a journey, not a destination. All of us who wish to follow Him must “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.” Please count me among those who are still a work in progress.
Calling oneself a “Christian” today has become meaningless. Because the characteristics of a true follow of Jesus have become so murky, the label has become nothing more distinctive than identifying oneself as an American.
But even that term, “American”, is foggy. I am an American. But so was Jeffrey Dahmer, Al Capone, Bill Ayers, Jane Fonda, and Margaret Sanger. Nationality, in most cases, is determined by birth, rather than by belief. You can hate America and still be an American.
But Christianity is a different bird. You are Christian by choice, never by birth. You can be an American and hate Christianity, but you can not be a Christian and hate your fellow man.
Christianity has been hi-jacked. It has become nothing more than the wing of a political party.
Christianity is neither rightwing nor left wing. True Christianity is the heart of the Eagle…the heartbeat of America if you will. Those firm foundations are still responsible for keeping the Eagle in the air. The dipping of the wings only rock the boat.
I don’t know if you have noticed, but there is a whole lot of shakin’ going on.
To defame is to “to attack the good name or reputation of; slander; libel.” The defamation of Christianity is happening before our very eyes and our vision is too myopic to even recognize it.
But it is not Christianity they are defaming. It is the One whose name the religion bears that is being slandered.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -Gandhi
I think Gandhi is on to something.
How else can you explain the fact that this latest mass-murderer in Norway could even remotely be taken seriously when he calls himself a Christian? That is as ridiculous as me trying to pass myself off as an African American, or a woman, or a teenager. Anyone with half a brain (tied behind the back or not) would look at me and declare my assertions to be an obvious fraud. Nothing about me meets the standards of being black, womanly, or young.
But the Norwegian assassin makes the claim that he is a “Christian” and no one asks the obvious question.
“How can he be a Christian and kill innocent people?” Christians do not kill innocent people. Period. http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave246.htm
Everything He stood for is under attack and much of the attack is a result of His followers being so un-like Him.
It is hard to write this without coming off as self-righteous. All I can say is that it is not my intention. Christianity is a journey, not a destination. All of us who wish to follow Him must “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.” Please count me among those who are still a work in progress.
Calling oneself a “Christian” today has become meaningless. Because the characteristics of a true follow of Jesus have become so murky, the label has become nothing more distinctive than identifying oneself as an American.
But even that term, “American”, is foggy. I am an American. But so was Jeffrey Dahmer, Al Capone, Bill Ayers, Jane Fonda, and Margaret Sanger. Nationality, in most cases, is determined by birth, rather than by belief. You can hate America and still be an American.
But Christianity is a different bird. You are Christian by choice, never by birth. You can be an American and hate Christianity, but you can not be a Christian and hate your fellow man.
Christianity has been hi-jacked. It has become nothing more than the wing of a political party.
Christianity is neither rightwing nor left wing. True Christianity is the heart of the Eagle…the heartbeat of America if you will. Those firm foundations are still responsible for keeping the Eagle in the air. The dipping of the wings only rock the boat.
I don’t know if you have noticed, but there is a whole lot of shakin’ going on.
To defame is to “to attack the good name or reputation of; slander; libel.” The defamation of Christianity is happening before our very eyes and our vision is too myopic to even recognize it.
But it is not Christianity they are defaming. It is the One whose name the religion bears that is being slandered.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -Gandhi
I think Gandhi is on to something.
How else can you explain the fact that this latest mass-murderer in Norway could even remotely be taken seriously when he calls himself a Christian? That is as ridiculous as me trying to pass myself off as an African American, or a woman, or a teenager. Anyone with half a brain (tied behind the back or not) would look at me and declare my assertions to be an obvious fraud. Nothing about me meets the standards of being black, womanly, or young.
But the Norwegian assassin makes the claim that he is a “Christian” and no one asks the obvious question.
“How can he be a Christian and kill innocent people?” Christians do not kill innocent people. Period. http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave246.htm
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Deathly but Hallowed?
"In its early years, 'Harry Potter' was a litmus test of orthodoxy for some conservative Christians, who expressed concern over its portrayal of witchcraft....The hysteria has largely died down, and not many religious leaders asked their flocks to avoid the final movie."[2]
"[They] practiced witchcraft and soothsaying, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord...." 2 Kings 17:17
I had plenty of company last Saturday morning as I hurried into the movie theater to see the final film in the Harry Potter series. Several families with children walked in ahead of me. Others followed. One little girl couldn't be more than three years old! How would she react to this scary movie?
For more than two hours, the audience sat immersed in a mystical world filled with frightening shrieks, explosive sounds of death and destruction, and enticing suggestions certain to appeal to power-hungry youth already attuned to the forces of evil.
If you are a parent, please don't take your children to see this movie!
By its end, it had exposed the two sides of today's popular evil. Like the yin-yang symbol, there is an obvious dark side and a more subtle "light" side to occult deceptions. To resist their mind-changing allure, we need to understand both.
THE DARK SIDE OF EVIL
This last part of the Harry Potter sequence promotes everything God bans in this warning:
"There shall not be found among you anyone who... practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.... For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord..." Deuteronomy 18:10-12
During the last three centuries, Americans have enjoyed relative freedom from the occult forces that have tormented many other parts of the world. From the beginning, the pilgrims and a significant number of other believers trusted God and built this nation on the foundation of His Word. Therefore God protected their land. Few were exposed to words and actions that led to the occult.
But times have changed and God's actual truth is forgotten. We can no longer shut out the well-marketed forces of evil that press into our lives -- even in churches. That's all the more reason to prepare for the spiritual warfare ahead. Let's begin by taking a closer look at the occult practices listed in the above verses from Deuteronomy. Each practice is featured in this movie.
But times have changed and God's actual truth is rarely heard in public places. We can no longer shut out the well-marketed forces of evil that press into our lives -- even in churches. That's all the more reason to prepare for the spiritual warfare ahead. Let's begin by taking a closer look at the occult practices listed in the above verses from Deuteronomy. Each practice is featured in this movie.
1. WITCHCRAFT: Trusting the occult spirit world for power to perform all kinds of magical spells and wonders.
Witchcraft was common in Old Testament days. Back then, it was already a "normal" part of life in cultures around the world. Finally, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, such practices faded in the West. More recently, that trend has been reversed. The mind-changing fantasies spread by Rowling and her admirers have sparked a rapid revival of interest and delight in occult empowerment.
2. SOOTHSAYER: A fortuneteller, diviner or seer in communication with demonic spirits.
3. INTERPRETING OMENS: Receiving messages and interpretations -- usually ominous - from the spirit world.
4. SORCERY: Performing magical feats through occult forces.
If witchcraft and sorcery sound like fantasy and fairy tales to teens and children today, the devil must be very pleased. He is constantly on the lookout for those who will follow his ways -- even if "just" in their imaginations. As God warned long ago,
"They...walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart...." Jeremiah 7:24
5. CONJURE SPELLS: Manipulating occult forces according to mental formulas and projecting the spell through a physical object.
"To cast a spell is to project energy through a symbol," explained Starhawk, the wiccan author of The Spiral Dance. "Spells... require the combined faculties of relaxation, visualization, concentration, and [mental] projection."[3]
Most spells in the movie were cast through magically empowered wands. The powerful Elder Wand apparently had a mind of its own and could choose whether or not to serve a new master. Wikipedia explains its bizarre history:
"In the preceding movie, Voldemort...opens Dumbledore's tomb and claims the wand as his own. Assuming incorrectly that Snape is the wand's current master, Voldemort slays Snape, not realizing that the wand's allegiance was to Draco....Harry had subsequently disarmed Draco and taken his wand. ...the Elder Wand's allegiance had since shifted to Harry....Voldemort uses the Elder Wand to cast his final Killing Curse against Harry's Expelliarmus charm. But since the wand's allegiance is to Harry, Voldemort's spell backfires and kills him once and for all."[4]
Spells were also essential to the creation and destruction of the horcruxes used by Voldemort to secure his own immortality. "Invented" by J.K Rowling, they only exist in the imaginations of those who are captivated by her tales and by the additional "information" they inspire. For example, Wikipedia adds this gruesome description:
Advertisement
"...the creation of a Horcrux requires one to commit a murder, which, as the supreme act of evil, 'rips the soul apart.' After the murder, a spell is cast to infuse part of the ripped soul into an object, which becomes the Horcrux....Both inanimate objects and living organisms have been used as Horcruxes, though the latter are considered riskier to use, since an organism can move and think for itself....
"To be destroyed, a Horcrux must suffer damage so severe that repair through magical means would be impossible....Once a Horcrux is irreparably damaged, the fragment of soul within it is destroyed."[5]
These dark fantasies share a common consequence with actual occult realities. Both stir cravings for new and ever darker occult thrills and knowledge. http://www.newswithviews.com/BeritKjos/kjos120.htm
"[They] practiced witchcraft and soothsaying, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord...." 2 Kings 17:17
I had plenty of company last Saturday morning as I hurried into the movie theater to see the final film in the Harry Potter series. Several families with children walked in ahead of me. Others followed. One little girl couldn't be more than three years old! How would she react to this scary movie?
For more than two hours, the audience sat immersed in a mystical world filled with frightening shrieks, explosive sounds of death and destruction, and enticing suggestions certain to appeal to power-hungry youth already attuned to the forces of evil.
If you are a parent, please don't take your children to see this movie!
By its end, it had exposed the two sides of today's popular evil. Like the yin-yang symbol, there is an obvious dark side and a more subtle "light" side to occult deceptions. To resist their mind-changing allure, we need to understand both.
THE DARK SIDE OF EVIL
This last part of the Harry Potter sequence promotes everything God bans in this warning:
"There shall not be found among you anyone who... practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.... For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord..." Deuteronomy 18:10-12
During the last three centuries, Americans have enjoyed relative freedom from the occult forces that have tormented many other parts of the world. From the beginning, the pilgrims and a significant number of other believers trusted God and built this nation on the foundation of His Word. Therefore God protected their land. Few were exposed to words and actions that led to the occult.
But times have changed and God's actual truth is forgotten. We can no longer shut out the well-marketed forces of evil that press into our lives -- even in churches. That's all the more reason to prepare for the spiritual warfare ahead. Let's begin by taking a closer look at the occult practices listed in the above verses from Deuteronomy. Each practice is featured in this movie.
But times have changed and God's actual truth is rarely heard in public places. We can no longer shut out the well-marketed forces of evil that press into our lives -- even in churches. That's all the more reason to prepare for the spiritual warfare ahead. Let's begin by taking a closer look at the occult practices listed in the above verses from Deuteronomy. Each practice is featured in this movie.
1. WITCHCRAFT: Trusting the occult spirit world for power to perform all kinds of magical spells and wonders.
Witchcraft was common in Old Testament days. Back then, it was already a "normal" part of life in cultures around the world. Finally, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, such practices faded in the West. More recently, that trend has been reversed. The mind-changing fantasies spread by Rowling and her admirers have sparked a rapid revival of interest and delight in occult empowerment.
2. SOOTHSAYER: A fortuneteller, diviner or seer in communication with demonic spirits.
3. INTERPRETING OMENS: Receiving messages and interpretations -- usually ominous - from the spirit world.
4. SORCERY: Performing magical feats through occult forces.
If witchcraft and sorcery sound like fantasy and fairy tales to teens and children today, the devil must be very pleased. He is constantly on the lookout for those who will follow his ways -- even if "just" in their imaginations. As God warned long ago,
"They...walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart...." Jeremiah 7:24
5. CONJURE SPELLS: Manipulating occult forces according to mental formulas and projecting the spell through a physical object.
"To cast a spell is to project energy through a symbol," explained Starhawk, the wiccan author of The Spiral Dance. "Spells... require the combined faculties of relaxation, visualization, concentration, and [mental] projection."[3]
Most spells in the movie were cast through magically empowered wands. The powerful Elder Wand apparently had a mind of its own and could choose whether or not to serve a new master. Wikipedia explains its bizarre history:
"In the preceding movie, Voldemort...opens Dumbledore's tomb and claims the wand as his own. Assuming incorrectly that Snape is the wand's current master, Voldemort slays Snape, not realizing that the wand's allegiance was to Draco....Harry had subsequently disarmed Draco and taken his wand. ...the Elder Wand's allegiance had since shifted to Harry....Voldemort uses the Elder Wand to cast his final Killing Curse against Harry's Expelliarmus charm. But since the wand's allegiance is to Harry, Voldemort's spell backfires and kills him once and for all."[4]
Spells were also essential to the creation and destruction of the horcruxes used by Voldemort to secure his own immortality. "Invented" by J.K Rowling, they only exist in the imaginations of those who are captivated by her tales and by the additional "information" they inspire. For example, Wikipedia adds this gruesome description:
Advertisement
"...the creation of a Horcrux requires one to commit a murder, which, as the supreme act of evil, 'rips the soul apart.' After the murder, a spell is cast to infuse part of the ripped soul into an object, which becomes the Horcrux....Both inanimate objects and living organisms have been used as Horcruxes, though the latter are considered riskier to use, since an organism can move and think for itself....
"To be destroyed, a Horcrux must suffer damage so severe that repair through magical means would be impossible....Once a Horcrux is irreparably damaged, the fragment of soul within it is destroyed."[5]
These dark fantasies share a common consequence with actual occult realities. Both stir cravings for new and ever darker occult thrills and knowledge. http://www.newswithviews.com/BeritKjos/kjos120.htm
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Warning From Norway
''The murderous attacks in Norway last week cry out for justice for the victims, based on a thorough investigation of the crime and its perpetrator. They also demand that Norway and other civilized nations respond thoughtfully – notably, by resisting the temptation to suppress those warning of encroaching shariah and, in the process, abet those who are striving to insinuate that totalitarian program into freedom-loving lands.'' Almost lost in official Washington’s preoccupation with the partisan slug-fest over raising the debt ceiling and reducing the deficit was the despicable, murderous attack in Norway on Friday. Unfortunately, such inattention increases the likelihood that the wrong lessons will be learned from the mayhem – and a proper response to the mayhem inflicted upon that Nordic ally will not be forthcoming.The predictable narrative has already begun to take hold. The confessed perpetrator of a bombing of government offices in Oslo and a seek-and-destroy operation at a Labor Party youth camp on Utoya Island, Anders Behring Breivik, is depicted as a “Christian,” “conservative” and/or “right-wing extremist.” His attacks, we are told, were animated by a delusional ambition to save his country from an Islamic take-over.Much remains to be learned about this evident psychopath and his precise motivations for acting in such a deranged fashion. Still, an unholy axis of Muslim Brotherhood operatives and those on the Left – groups whose spokesmen, ironically, endlessly inveigh against precipitous judgments when jihadists are the perpetrators – have been quick to find in this attack proof of their favorite meme: that conservatives and Christians are as much a threat to domestic tranquility (if not more) as are those seeking to impose the totalitarian Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of shariah. They insist that as much effort (if not more) should be expended by law enforcement and other government agencies to counter such “Islamophobic” right-wing extremists as is applied to Muslim “violent extremism.”Worse yet, they want us to believe that a number of individuals about whom Breivik wrote admiringly are inciting to violence when they warn about the threat posed by shariah’s adherents. That list includes prominent, responsible figures on both sides of the Atlantic. He even cites, although mostly critically, one of my own columns in the Washington Times.As it happens, the carnage inflicted by Breivik stands in stark contrast to the efforts of men and women across the Free World who are striving not only to raise awareness of what the Brotherhood calls its “civilization jihad,” but are making real progress through entirely lawful means to counter that stealthy effort, again in the MB’s words, “destroy Western civilization from within.”For example, authentic Christians who are being persecuted for their faith in places like Sudan, Nigeria and Egypt are responding with peaceful demonstrations to the burning of their churches, the kidnapping of their daughters and the beatings and murder of their coreligionists. Across Europe, citizens and leaders are pushing back legislatively and morally against what amounts to Islamic totalitarianism by; voting to ban minarets in Switzerland, limiting immigration, banning burkas for security reasons, etc. The good news is that, in Europe if not in the Muslim world, the popular tide has begun to turn against the Islamists. Europeans in particular are rediscovering their own values through conservative political parties and the defense of their own free speech. From French President Nicholas Sarkozy's insistence on his country’s secular identity to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilder’s victory in court for free speech, the fight against Islamicization is actually strengthening Western institutions. In other words, the facts are that we are beginning to change public opinion and national policy. Anti-Islamicization parties are increasingly part of coalition governments in, for example, the Netherlands, Denmark and Italy. Mainstream parties and governments are adopting conservative platforms that would have been unthinkable even five years ago. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18775.xml
Monday, July 25, 2011
Those Crazy Humans World-Wide
''In Somali, as reported by the United Nations, 800,000 children will starve to death because Islamic militants promise to kill any aid workers attempting to distribute food to adults and children alike.If you watched the weekend reports on ABC, NBC or CBS, you saw endless lines of wretched humans fleeing into Kenya and Ethiopia.'' “If we are to save lives, we need to act now, to bring in massive quantities of medicines, vaccines, nutritional supplies and other aid into the region as quickly as possible,” said Shanelle Hall, director of UNICEF.
Ironically, AIDS has killed 42, 597, 559 Africans in the past 30 years. It has currently infected 62,672, 209 that are slated to die. One more African contracts HIV every nine seconds.
But the Pope dictated that no one could or should use condoms in Africa because it was against God’s law.
Is that crazy or what? It makes you wonder what century the Pope maintains his mindset or if he possesses a mind at all.
Going back to the situation where 800,000 African children will die of starvation, the United Nations also released its latest population projections that Africa will grow from its current 1 billion people to a mind-numbing 3.1 billion within this century. That means that AIDS hasn’t and won’t slow down the fecundity of the Africans. But it also begs the question, “Does anyone have a brain in Africa?” Or, I might add, any third world country?
Today, in countries like Africa, over 1 to 2 billion people cannot procure a clean glass of water. Why? Somewhere in excess of 3 billion humans do not have access to a toilet. That’s why water systems suffer incredible pollution. Does anyone possess an inkling of the ramifications of Africa’s adding another 2.1 billion to its current population?
This stuff just boggles my mind. Why am I one of the few addressing it?
Try this one on for size. India suffers 1,000 children under age 12 dying daily from dysentery, diarrhea and other water borne disease. That’s 24/7 throughout the year folks! (Source: www.populationmedia.com ) Some estimates show that 10, 20 even 30 million Indians do not have access to a toilet. The Ganges and all their other rivers are open sewer pipes. I know because I saw it for myself. Yet they grow by a net gain of 11 million annually on their way to becoming the most populated country in the world at 1.6 billion in 39 years.
Yet, on an NPR interview with Terri Gross of “Fresh Air,, an Indian transplant and editor of Time Magazine, Fareed Zakaria told Ms. Gross that immigration will make America a “vibrant” 400 million in several decades. He fled India because of its demographic nightmare only to applaud another “American India” being formed in our country. By the way, Terri Gross didn’t ask Zakaria a single question on what another 100 million people might do to our rivers, lakes, water sources, energy, quality of life and standard of living.
Am I off base here folks? Is it me? Am I out of touch? Should I be writing into Time Magazine and NPR congratulating people like Zakaria and Gross that are so out of touch with reality that they might as well live on Mars? http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty682.htm
Ironically, AIDS has killed 42, 597, 559 Africans in the past 30 years. It has currently infected 62,672, 209 that are slated to die. One more African contracts HIV every nine seconds.
But the Pope dictated that no one could or should use condoms in Africa because it was against God’s law.
Is that crazy or what? It makes you wonder what century the Pope maintains his mindset or if he possesses a mind at all.
Going back to the situation where 800,000 African children will die of starvation, the United Nations also released its latest population projections that Africa will grow from its current 1 billion people to a mind-numbing 3.1 billion within this century. That means that AIDS hasn’t and won’t slow down the fecundity of the Africans. But it also begs the question, “Does anyone have a brain in Africa?” Or, I might add, any third world country?
Today, in countries like Africa, over 1 to 2 billion people cannot procure a clean glass of water. Why? Somewhere in excess of 3 billion humans do not have access to a toilet. That’s why water systems suffer incredible pollution. Does anyone possess an inkling of the ramifications of Africa’s adding another 2.1 billion to its current population?
This stuff just boggles my mind. Why am I one of the few addressing it?
Try this one on for size. India suffers 1,000 children under age 12 dying daily from dysentery, diarrhea and other water borne disease. That’s 24/7 throughout the year folks! (Source: www.populationmedia.com ) Some estimates show that 10, 20 even 30 million Indians do not have access to a toilet. The Ganges and all their other rivers are open sewer pipes. I know because I saw it for myself. Yet they grow by a net gain of 11 million annually on their way to becoming the most populated country in the world at 1.6 billion in 39 years.
Yet, on an NPR interview with Terri Gross of “Fresh Air,, an Indian transplant and editor of Time Magazine, Fareed Zakaria told Ms. Gross that immigration will make America a “vibrant” 400 million in several decades. He fled India because of its demographic nightmare only to applaud another “American India” being formed in our country. By the way, Terri Gross didn’t ask Zakaria a single question on what another 100 million people might do to our rivers, lakes, water sources, energy, quality of life and standard of living.
Am I off base here folks? Is it me? Am I out of touch? Should I be writing into Time Magazine and NPR congratulating people like Zakaria and Gross that are so out of touch with reality that they might as well live on Mars? http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty682.htm
Sunday, July 24, 2011
THEY: Are they here??
As discussed in Part 2 of this series, the manipulation of living tissue by ancient fallen angels led to superhuman hybridity made up of human and animal genetics known as Nephilim, an “Earth-born” facsimile or “fit extension” into which fallen angels incarnated. However, the long history of demonological phenomenon related to manipulation of biological matter suggests that versions of this curious activity have been ongoing ever since the Days of Noah. Today, what some call “alien abduction,” in which a breeding program allegedly exists resulting in alien/human hybrids, seems but a contemporary retelling of similar DNA harvesting and genetic manipulation by those mysterious beings whose activity was recorded throughout time. In his book, Confrontations—A Scientist’s Search for Alien Contact, highly regarded UFO researcher, Dr. Jacques F. Vallée, once phrased it this way: “Contact with [aliens is] only a modern extension of the age-old tradition of contact with nonhuman consciousness in the form of angels, demons, elves, and sylphs.” Later, Vallée more closely identified the operative power behind “aliens” as equivalent to the fallen angels in the Days of Noah:
Are these races only semi-human, so that in order to maintain contact with us, they need crossbreeding with men and women of our planet? Is this the origin of the many tales and legends where genetics plays a great role: the symbolism of the Virgin in occultism and religion, the fairy tales involving human midwives and changelings, the sexual overtones of the flying saucer reports, the biblical stories of intermarriage between the Lord’s angels, and terrestrial women, whose offspring were giants? [17]
Another highly respected and often quoted UFO researcher, John Keel, echoed the same when he stated in Operation Trojan Horse:
Demonology is not just another crackpot-ology. It is the ancient and scholarly study of the monsters and demons who have seemingly coexisted with man throughout history… The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar, if not entirely identical, to the UFO phenomenon itself. Victims of demonomania (possession) suffer the very same medical and emotional symptoms as the UFO contactees… The Devil and his demons can, according to the literature, manifest themselves in almost any form and can physically imitate anything from angels to horrifying monsters with glowing eyes. Strange objects and entities materialize and dematerialize in these stories, just as the UFOs and their splendid occupants appear and disappear, walk through walls, and perform other supernatural feats. [18]
Associate professor of psychology Elizabeth L. Hillstrom, in her book Testing the Spirits, was even more inflexible on comparisons between “alien” experiences and historical demonic activity, quoting an impressive list of scholars from various disciplines who conclude the similarities between ETs and demons is unlikely coincidental. Hillstrom cites authorities of the first rank including Pierre Guerin, a scientist associated with the French National Council for Scientific Research, who believes “The modern UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical,” and veteran researcher John Keel, who reckons, “The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon.” [19]
Then there is the question of alien-demoniality and Bible prophecy. When former college professor and BBC correspondent, Dr. I. D. E. Thomas, in his highly recommended book, The Omega Conspiracy, chronicled the burgeoning of so-called “alien abduction” activity in the 1980s, he made enlightening connections between the phenomenon and end-time prophecy concerning a return of the Nephilim, something other writers have since built upon. Documentation by “abductees” worldwide and the stories of DNA harvesting by “aliens” reminded him of the history of biological misuse by the Watchers. Dr. Thomas told me personally that the special desire by the “aliens” for human and animal molecular matter could explain “why animals have been killed, mutilated, and stolen by the aliens,” a point Vallée repeated in his book, The Invisible College: What a Group of Scientists Has Discovered About UFO Influences on the Human Race, when he wrote:
In order to materialize and take definite form, these entities seem to require a source of energy…a living thing…a human medium… Our sciences have not reached a point where they can offer us any kind of working hypothesis for this process. But we can speculate that these beings need living energy which they can reconstruct into physical form. Perhaps that is why dogs and animals tend to vanish in [UFO] flap areas. Perhaps the living cells of those animals are somehow used by the ultraterrestrials to create forms which we can see and sense with our limited perceptions. [20]
Ultimately, Vallée and his contemporaries determined that whatever the modern alien presence represents, its goal is the collection of DNA for what appears to be a Breeding Program... http://www.newswithviews.com/Horn/thomas165.htm
Are these races only semi-human, so that in order to maintain contact with us, they need crossbreeding with men and women of our planet? Is this the origin of the many tales and legends where genetics plays a great role: the symbolism of the Virgin in occultism and religion, the fairy tales involving human midwives and changelings, the sexual overtones of the flying saucer reports, the biblical stories of intermarriage between the Lord’s angels, and terrestrial women, whose offspring were giants? [17]
Another highly respected and often quoted UFO researcher, John Keel, echoed the same when he stated in Operation Trojan Horse:
Demonology is not just another crackpot-ology. It is the ancient and scholarly study of the monsters and demons who have seemingly coexisted with man throughout history… The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar, if not entirely identical, to the UFO phenomenon itself. Victims of demonomania (possession) suffer the very same medical and emotional symptoms as the UFO contactees… The Devil and his demons can, according to the literature, manifest themselves in almost any form and can physically imitate anything from angels to horrifying monsters with glowing eyes. Strange objects and entities materialize and dematerialize in these stories, just as the UFOs and their splendid occupants appear and disappear, walk through walls, and perform other supernatural feats. [18]
Associate professor of psychology Elizabeth L. Hillstrom, in her book Testing the Spirits, was even more inflexible on comparisons between “alien” experiences and historical demonic activity, quoting an impressive list of scholars from various disciplines who conclude the similarities between ETs and demons is unlikely coincidental. Hillstrom cites authorities of the first rank including Pierre Guerin, a scientist associated with the French National Council for Scientific Research, who believes “The modern UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical,” and veteran researcher John Keel, who reckons, “The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon.” [19]
Then there is the question of alien-demoniality and Bible prophecy. When former college professor and BBC correspondent, Dr. I. D. E. Thomas, in his highly recommended book, The Omega Conspiracy, chronicled the burgeoning of so-called “alien abduction” activity in the 1980s, he made enlightening connections between the phenomenon and end-time prophecy concerning a return of the Nephilim, something other writers have since built upon. Documentation by “abductees” worldwide and the stories of DNA harvesting by “aliens” reminded him of the history of biological misuse by the Watchers. Dr. Thomas told me personally that the special desire by the “aliens” for human and animal molecular matter could explain “why animals have been killed, mutilated, and stolen by the aliens,” a point Vallée repeated in his book, The Invisible College: What a Group of Scientists Has Discovered About UFO Influences on the Human Race, when he wrote:
In order to materialize and take definite form, these entities seem to require a source of energy…a living thing…a human medium… Our sciences have not reached a point where they can offer us any kind of working hypothesis for this process. But we can speculate that these beings need living energy which they can reconstruct into physical form. Perhaps that is why dogs and animals tend to vanish in [UFO] flap areas. Perhaps the living cells of those animals are somehow used by the ultraterrestrials to create forms which we can see and sense with our limited perceptions. [20]
Ultimately, Vallée and his contemporaries determined that whatever the modern alien presence represents, its goal is the collection of DNA for what appears to be a Breeding Program... http://www.newswithviews.com/Horn/thomas165.htm
Saturday, July 23, 2011
“It’s just been one disaster after another…”
''An article from The American Thinker dated July 14, 2011 entitled, The Purposeful Flooding of America’s Heartland” by Joe Herring reveals how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers threw reasoning aside and succumbed to the radical environmentalist’s desire to return the rivers to a natural (pre-dam) state. Why?'' In researching the unusual weather we’ve been hearing about, I’m finding a pattern of government intervention is the cause of many of our problems and well may have begun with HAARP. In the book Angels Don’t Play This HAARP (High frequency Active Auroral Research Program) has 230 fact-filled pages with 400 footnotes written by a leading opponent of this system, Dr. Nick Begich who sounded an alarm how HAARP, initiated in 1992, may be subjecting the ionosphere to a form of scientific madness! The July 2011 Newswatch Newsletter said HAARP is a weather-modification program run by the military. It uses Nikola Tesla’s patents from around the 1900s to divert the jet stream so that one section of the country can be flooded while another has severe drought.
Those not familiar with HAARP may wonder if this book would be displayed in the UFO sightings and alien abductions in the library. I have a cartoon showing animals that were on Noah’s Ark being elevated into the air to some space ship. The caption underneath says, “It’s just been one disaster after another this year…”
“At a remote facility ringed with barbed wire, a brand-new array of 36 antennas rises from the black spruce forest that stretches hundreds of miles across central Alaska,” says Mark Farmer in a 1995 Popular Science magazine article, “Mystery in Alaska.” This little-known Pentagon-sponsored radio-physics project is officially intended to expand knowledge about the nature of long-range radio communications and surveillance using the fluctuating ionosphere, the portion of the upper atmosphere extending from 35 to 500 miles above Earth’s surface but Farmer says that’s just the publicly announced part of the program. HAARP also has a secret agenda: pursuing more exotic military goals, such as locating deeply buried weapons factories thousands of miles away – and even altering the local weather above an enemy’s territory.
HAARP is jointly operated by the U.S. Air Force and Navy and in addition to what is stated above, some claim it has the ability to physically and mentally disable populations. Local protest groups accuse the military of mucking around with the environment and maintain that it is a dangerous attempt to control both the weather and the minds of U.S. citizens. I don’t claim to understand how it works but is it possible HAARP may be the cause of more angrier people today than ever before since the discovery of all this new technology? We used to be such a civil society but no more! Never before in my lifetime at least have we seen mass shootings in public places that seems to be an ever-increasing occurrence with the shooter having no remembrance of the event. And then there is the anger exhibited towards Casey Anthony. We still don’t know how little Caylee died but I wonder how many of those women angry with Casey have had abortions? http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf196.htm
Those not familiar with HAARP may wonder if this book would be displayed in the UFO sightings and alien abductions in the library. I have a cartoon showing animals that were on Noah’s Ark being elevated into the air to some space ship. The caption underneath says, “It’s just been one disaster after another this year…”
“At a remote facility ringed with barbed wire, a brand-new array of 36 antennas rises from the black spruce forest that stretches hundreds of miles across central Alaska,” says Mark Farmer in a 1995 Popular Science magazine article, “Mystery in Alaska.” This little-known Pentagon-sponsored radio-physics project is officially intended to expand knowledge about the nature of long-range radio communications and surveillance using the fluctuating ionosphere, the portion of the upper atmosphere extending from 35 to 500 miles above Earth’s surface but Farmer says that’s just the publicly announced part of the program. HAARP also has a secret agenda: pursuing more exotic military goals, such as locating deeply buried weapons factories thousands of miles away – and even altering the local weather above an enemy’s territory.
HAARP is jointly operated by the U.S. Air Force and Navy and in addition to what is stated above, some claim it has the ability to physically and mentally disable populations. Local protest groups accuse the military of mucking around with the environment and maintain that it is a dangerous attempt to control both the weather and the minds of U.S. citizens. I don’t claim to understand how it works but is it possible HAARP may be the cause of more angrier people today than ever before since the discovery of all this new technology? We used to be such a civil society but no more! Never before in my lifetime at least have we seen mass shootings in public places that seems to be an ever-increasing occurrence with the shooter having no remembrance of the event. And then there is the anger exhibited towards Casey Anthony. We still don’t know how little Caylee died but I wonder how many of those women angry with Casey have had abortions? http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf196.htm
Friday, July 22, 2011
Addicted to government: Finding a Cure
Thank God that I learned most of what I know about the agonies of withdrawal from drug addiction from the movies and TV. The dramatized depictions convinced me that it's an experience no sane person would wish upon themselves or anyone else they didn't passionately hate.
I found myself thinking about this as I read another story about the ongoing mimicry of deliberation we're supposed to accept as serious congressional action on the debt-ceiling issue. I remembered the oscillation between pathetic entreaty and angry abuse the suffering addicts heaped upon the friend or other interested party who took on the thankless task of nursing them through the physical and emotion seizures that marked their journey to and through the gates of self-inflicted hell.
Their pathetic entreaties played on the natural sympathy of those weak in will or understanding. Such weakness might lead them to succumb to a delusory impulse of compassion long enough to "help" the tortured souls get the "fix" that offers deceitful relief. On the other hand, tirades of abuse treated the Good Samaritans as though their unwillingness to do so made them no better than torturers. Of course, both these extremes come from a place blind to the fact that the real cause of the torture is the addiction, and whatever syndrome of personal passion, treacherous experience and moral confusion betrays people into the pitiless chains of drug enslavement.
These days, power-addicted politicians (and the media claques that toe their party line) are heaping all kinds of abuse on anyone who sincerely insists that their ever-increasing orgy of ambition-driven debt increases must stop here and now. Getting and spending, these fiscal mad-bellies lay waste the nation's power. They abuse America's resources to pursue the wily stratagems whereby they lure more and more of our people to get hooked on the habitual expectation that another dose of government spending will fix whatever ailment they fear most. Whilst America's strength ebbs, while its economic sinews weaken and waste away, whilst the internal organs of its productive life gradually shut down and fail, these self-serving pols maneuver to expand the lucrative power-profiting empire through which they distribute the soul-destroying drug of government dependency.
Anyone who stands against this expansion they blast as incompetent or heartless, inexperienced or crazy. Meanwhile, among the people at large, the subservient addicts enthralled by government "fixes" take up the cry. They join in media-manipulated mobs gathering to attack those resolved to withhold the politicians' drug of choice, a fiscal discipline that offers the way truly to escape the steadily constricting meshes of government control and domination.
It's encouraging that an ever-growing number of Americans are prone to agree that the fiscal mad-bellies must be stopped. Sadly, though, too many of them have yet to realize that the twin-party politicians (mostly in the GOP) now scrambling to pose as their champions are themselves utterly addicted to resources of political influence they cannot obtain except by constantly expanding the government's control over the nation's money and other resources. Like vampires in search of new supplies of blood, they must have expansive government to feed the existing political system's endless pursuit of power after power.
What are we to make of those who promise larger cuts when they, too, live upon the blood that flows from them? Promised cuts in spending serve only to fill the buffers of anxiety used to keep up the steady pressure of fear and hope America's would-be masters now use to manipulate the American people. And their manipulation will succeed as long as gullible people cooperate in their way of doing politics, which uses the lion's share of spending to sustain the regime of special-interest bribery on which both the Republican and Democratic parties base their power.
Instead of the politics that uses public resources to bribe people, we need to forge a way of doing politics that restricts public resources to uses that serve the good of the whole people (their common good), while leaving it to individuals and their private associations to take primary responsibility for special interests that fall short of or transcend that common good. This means that instead of a budgeting approach based on squabbling about increases and cutbacks, we need to make good on the approach that: a) specifies, in terms of the common good (i.e., the good of the whole people), the priorities for government expenditures; b) allocates government revenues in accordance with those priorities; c) eliminates all government expenditures substantially intended to fix the problems, alleviate the cares or address the concerns of particular individuals or groups, instead of the common good. Read more: Addicted to government: Is there a way out? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=324529#ixzz1SoyZJoC1
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Star Struck at the Cross
Star Struck at the Cross
''We are sooo starved for a star, we Christians. Let me nail it down. This star-centered Christianity that is sweeping across the nation is making the average Christian impotent. The idea that some people are better in the eyes of the Lord than others flies in the face of Scripture.''
If I have to look at one more billboard with a pastor on it I swear I am going to throw a rock through it. I don’t know what it is like where you live, but they are popping up all over the place in our area. You know what I am talking about...the smiling face of Pastor So and So and his “First Lady” inviting you to his place of business...er...I mean worship... where the two members of God’s Royal Family will train you in the fine art of Christianity. Heck, I guess Jesus isn’t good enough. It takes an “anointed teacher” to help lead you to your destiny. The thought of getting out a Bible and getting on your face just doesn’t seem to do the job anymore. I’ve always found eating carpet to be an effective way of getting in touch with my destiny. But no one wants to work out their own salvation any more. They want a formula, a quick fix, three-steps to help, hope, and happiness as spelled out by some shiny-haired, sparkling tooth, charlatan promising prosperity, popularity, and promotion. Sometimes I wonder who the real Devil is. Personality is driving the church. Instead of a “Christ-centered” church most of the mega churches are Pastor-centered, personality-driven, and prosperity focused. It is as if the man in the pulpit has a pipeline to God and you too can get in the good graces of God if you follow the man with the plan. Just turn on Christian TV. The cult of personality is alive and well on the airwaves. “Let Pastor Glitter-Teeth show you how to get in touch with Jesus.” His anointing is the mediator between you and the Lord. Let’s face it. America loves stars. I hate to pile on, and it really is not my intention, but look how the cult of “American Christianity” is flocking to hear the wisdom of Bristol Palin as she instructs our young people on the virtues of abstinence. Lord knows our kids need the message, but is Miss Palin really the one to teach our young people? Can anyone explain what her qualifications are?
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
American torture
''President Obama – like President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney before him – has given no indication he gives a damn about these disappeared human beings. He refuses to look "backward," preferring instead to blindly "look forward." A Wall Street Journal editorial, "Vindicating the CIA" (July 2), praised "Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to pull the plug on the investigation into most CIA interrogations. The disgrace is that this probe was ever undertaken."
Agreeing, Republican Mike Rogers, head of the House Intelligence Committee, said: "The Justice Department's decision to close the book on all but two of the remaining cases 'has finally substantially lifted an undeserved cloud of doubt and suspicion from all of our intelligence professionals.'" (New York Times, July 1)
As a longtime reporter on the U.S. policy of torture, I refuse to ever close that book.
On Dec. 26, 2002, the Washington Post's Dana Priest and Barton Gellman were the first to expose in detail this form of the Bush-Cheney war on terrorism at our Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan.
In an editorial the next day, the newspaper said of this previously secret torture site: "The American people ought to know and ought to be able to respond through their representatives and through individual and organizational voices. It shouldn't be the administration's unilateral call."
Former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald, an exceptionally penetrating and persistent revealer of the Bush-Cheney authorization of torture – still continuing, as the BBC and I have reported, under Obama at Bagram – has reacted to the current administration's closing of the book on unilateral torture with this plain, appalling record of our international disgrace:
In "Torture crimes officially, permanently shielded," he unmasks what Obama and Holder have done: "American war criminals, responsible for some of the most shameful and inexcusable crimes in the nation's history – the systematic, deliberate legalization of a worldwide torture regime – will be fully immunized for those crimes."
Greenwald goes on – as I often have here and in occasional exchanges with law students – that: "The Obama administration has spent years just as aggressively shielding those war criminals from all other forms of accountability beyond the criminal realm: invoking secrecy (state secrets to shut down lawsuits) and immunity doctrines to prevent their victims from imposing civil liability, exploiting their party's control of Congress to suppress formal inquiries, and pressuring and coercing other nations not to investigate their own citizens' torture at American hands" (as in the CIA kidnapping suspects from their countries for transport to other countries to be tortured – using CIA-provided demands for answers). Read more: American torture: Which side are you on? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=323909#ixzz1SdMBWNib
Agreeing, Republican Mike Rogers, head of the House Intelligence Committee, said: "The Justice Department's decision to close the book on all but two of the remaining cases 'has finally substantially lifted an undeserved cloud of doubt and suspicion from all of our intelligence professionals.'" (New York Times, July 1)
As a longtime reporter on the U.S. policy of torture, I refuse to ever close that book.
On Dec. 26, 2002, the Washington Post's Dana Priest and Barton Gellman were the first to expose in detail this form of the Bush-Cheney war on terrorism at our Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan.
In an editorial the next day, the newspaper said of this previously secret torture site: "The American people ought to know and ought to be able to respond through their representatives and through individual and organizational voices. It shouldn't be the administration's unilateral call."
Former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald, an exceptionally penetrating and persistent revealer of the Bush-Cheney authorization of torture – still continuing, as the BBC and I have reported, under Obama at Bagram – has reacted to the current administration's closing of the book on unilateral torture with this plain, appalling record of our international disgrace:
In "Torture crimes officially, permanently shielded," he unmasks what Obama and Holder have done: "American war criminals, responsible for some of the most shameful and inexcusable crimes in the nation's history – the systematic, deliberate legalization of a worldwide torture regime – will be fully immunized for those crimes."
Greenwald goes on – as I often have here and in occasional exchanges with law students – that: "The Obama administration has spent years just as aggressively shielding those war criminals from all other forms of accountability beyond the criminal realm: invoking secrecy (state secrets to shut down lawsuits) and immunity doctrines to prevent their victims from imposing civil liability, exploiting their party's control of Congress to suppress formal inquiries, and pressuring and coercing other nations not to investigate their own citizens' torture at American hands" (as in the CIA kidnapping suspects from their countries for transport to other countries to be tortured – using CIA-provided demands for answers). Read more: American torture: Which side are you on? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=323909#ixzz1SdMBWNib
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Treating Muslims like Nazis?
''....an astonishingly inaccurate understanding of Islam is contributing to the spread of hate and fear in this country. As the Al Jazeera ruckus in Maine shows, the United States still has a way to go before it can live up to its ideals of pluralism and openness.''
Prejudice is flourishing in the United States.
A tempest brewing in Maine illustrates this. A decision to invite the Al Jazeera Washington bureau chief, Abderrahim Foukara, to speak at a museum fundraiser in the state has generated such a strong reaction that the public reception has been moved to a private, undisclosed location. The protesters’ beef? According to them, Al Jazeera is nothing more than a front for Islamic radicalism.
“A lot of people are not real happy with extremist Muslims (substitute Nazi here), and Al Jazeera seems to have a tendency to promote terrorist acts,” explains Pete Harring of the Maine tea party, expanding the movement’s agenda beyond its supposed fiscal conservative goals. Another Maine resident, Mackenzie Andersen, is convinced that Al Jazeera is actually a jihadist recruiting front.
It is based on such absurdities that these crusades are launched. Serious media analysts have long disposed of the canard that Al Jazeera is spreading a radical Islamist agenda. “I would challenge anyone who feels that these networks are apparatuses for terrorism to first see if they’ve ever watched it,” says Professor Justin Martin, adding, “There’s not very much agenda pushing. I’m more shocked when I watch Fox News.”
The cheek of professors to unfavorably compare Fox to Al Jazeera, even when the Murdoch media empire is in such trouble!
Seriously, there are deeper undercurrents here. Anti-Islam and anti-Middle East prejudice (the religion and the region are perpetually confused in the mind of bigots) have hampered the free flow of information in the United States. (I have written an entire book to counter the association of Islam and violence.) As a result, Al Jazeera English is available in only four communities in this country. http://www.progressive.org/ap071711.html
A tempest brewing in Maine illustrates this. A decision to invite the Al Jazeera Washington bureau chief, Abderrahim Foukara, to speak at a museum fundraiser in the state has generated such a strong reaction that the public reception has been moved to a private, undisclosed location. The protesters’ beef? According to them, Al Jazeera is nothing more than a front for Islamic radicalism.
“A lot of people are not real happy with extremist Muslims (substitute Nazi here), and Al Jazeera seems to have a tendency to promote terrorist acts,” explains Pete Harring of the Maine tea party, expanding the movement’s agenda beyond its supposed fiscal conservative goals. Another Maine resident, Mackenzie Andersen, is convinced that Al Jazeera is actually a jihadist recruiting front.
It is based on such absurdities that these crusades are launched. Serious media analysts have long disposed of the canard that Al Jazeera is spreading a radical Islamist agenda. “I would challenge anyone who feels that these networks are apparatuses for terrorism to first see if they’ve ever watched it,” says Professor Justin Martin, adding, “There’s not very much agenda pushing. I’m more shocked when I watch Fox News.”
The cheek of professors to unfavorably compare Fox to Al Jazeera, even when the Murdoch media empire is in such trouble!
Seriously, there are deeper undercurrents here. Anti-Islam and anti-Middle East prejudice (the religion and the region are perpetually confused in the mind of bigots) have hampered the free flow of information in the United States. (I have written an entire book to counter the association of Islam and violence.) As a result, Al Jazeera English is available in only four communities in this country. http://www.progressive.org/ap071711.html
Monday, July 18, 2011
Fling with the Welfare State
''The roll call of miracles that surrounds us today—the vaccines and the pills that have vanquished infections, the devices that let amputees run marathons, the organ transplants and the open heart surgeries, the techniques that replace hips, knees, and heart valves, not to mention the treatments that make so many public men cancer survivors, that saved Bob Dole years ago, are saving Dick Cheney, and once kept John Kennedy able to function—all of these are the result of the time, sweat, and strain of doctors and nurses, technicians and scientists, inventors and makers of drugs and devices, administrators of hospitals and large corporations, whose time is expensive, and who need to be paid.''
The intentions of Democrats are only the best. They want all of the old to have lavish retirements, all of the young to have scholarships, verse-penning cowboys to have festivals funded by government, and everyone to have access to all the best health care, at no cost to himself. In the face of a huge wave of debt swamping all western nations, this is the core of their argument: They want a fair society, and their critics do not; they want to help, and their opponents like to see people suffer; they want a world filled with love and caring, and their opponents want one of callous indifference, in which the helpless must fend for themselves. (“We must reject both extremes, those who say we shouldn’t help the old and the sick and those who say that we should,” quips the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg.) But in fact, everyone thinks that we “should” do this; the problem, in the face of the debt crisis, is finding a way that we can. It is about the “can” part that the left is now in denial: daintily picking its way through canaries six deep on the floor of the coal mine, and conflating a “good” with a “right.” Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt linked “freedom from want” to “freedom of speech” and “freedom of worship,” the left has been talking of everything that it thinks would be nice to have in terms of an utter and absolute right: a right to a job and a right to an income, a right to retire in comfort in Florida, a right to the most advanced health care without paying much for it, and a right to have your children taken care of while you work all day at your job. The problem is that these are all goods and services, though of varying importance, and goods and rights are not the same things. People tend to concur upon rights (except for the speech rights of those who oppose them), and they do not depend upon others to supply and pay for their rights. With goods, there is always a political argument: about the value of the good, who is to get it and who is to pay. And all this comes down to the question of “fairness,” about which there is no end of disputation and grief. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/fling-welfare-state_576909.html?page=1
Friday, July 15, 2011
4 socialist anti-Semites
1. Karl Marx
“What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in the face of which no other god may exist… The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world.”
Marx’s influence on the socialist movement and its various streams cannot be underestimated, and neither can the extent to which his view of Jews as the embodiment of capitalism became embedded on the left.
In a handful of sentences, Marx depicted Jews as the anti-thesis of Socialism, a theme that he was to repeatedly revisit, and more poisonously in such essays as “The Russian Loan”, where he implicitly suggested that war would continue for as long as the Jews existed.
“Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew… In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.”
Coded forms of this thinking can still be found among leftists who blame wars on Wall Street and assemble Jewish neo-con war conspiracies. The linkage of capital, war and the Jews made Anti-Semitism a permanent part of Socialist thought. Since the Holocaust its expressions have become more coded, but the essence remains.
While Marx did not invent Socialist Anti-Semitism, he helped grant intellectual legitimacy to left-wing populists who merged worker’s rights rhetoric with bigotry. But Marx’s formulation implicitly set the elimination of the Jews as a necessary step to the end of war and capitalism.
2. H.G. Wells
“And yet between 1940 and 2059, in little more than a century, this antiquated obdurate culture disappeared. It and its Zionist state, its kosher food, the Law and all the rest of its paraphernalia, were completely merged in the human community.”
While H.G. Wells is best remembered today for a handful of futuristic novels, some of his more significant work of the time envisioned the creation of a utopian, yet totalitarian socialist state. And arguably the European left has followed his plan a little too closely.
Wells follows Marx’s linkage between Jews, capital and war. The elimination of the Jews as a separate people is necessary for Wells’ modern world state to come into being. So while in “The Shape of Things To Come”, he disposes of Christianity in a single paragraph, and Islam in another (Wells supposed that Islam would disappear as Arabic fell into disuse), but several paragraphs are devoted to the elimination of the Jews.
The hostility toward Israel is manifestly there. The Jews are described as abandoning the Socialist cause of creating the world state, preoccupied instead with “the dream of a fantastic independent state all of their own”. “Only a psycho-analyst could begin to tell for what they wanted this Zionist state,” Wells sneers.
Wells’ solution to Marx’s Jewish Question was to wipe out the Jews as a distinct people, without engaging in physical extermination. But religion, state and even a distinct ethnic identity had to go.
Even as the Nazi Holocaust had begun, H.G. Wells wrote in The New World Order (1940);
“The hostile reaction to the cult of the Chosen People is spreading about the entire world to-day… there has never been such a world-wide—I will not use the word anti-Semitism because of the Arab—I will say anti-Judaism… it is becoming world-wide and simultaneous… Until they are prepared to assimilate and abandon the Chosen People idea altogether, their troubles are bound to intensify.”
It was a more elegant phrasing of a Julius Streicher quote from that same year, “The time is near when a machine will go into motion which is going to prepare a grave for the world’s criminal – Judah – from which there will be no resurrection.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/14/how-four-influential-socialist-anti-semites-shaped-the-left/
Thursday, July 14, 2011
I call them evil
''...we are dealing with small-minded, dysfunctional little people who simply get off at the prospect of imposing their twisted will on millions. They are criminals who would make criminals out of law-abiding Americans, and dispose of them accordingly. I call them evil. You can call them what you like.'' Author M. Scott Peck is best-known for his 1978 book, "The Road Less Traveled," but in 1998, he published another called "People of the Lie." In this book, he encapsulated the presence of evil in individuals in one trait: narcissism. Although I'm not a psychologist, I have studied the work of those who are and know that a great deal of the difficulties we currently face in America have their genesis in narcissism and the deliberate cultivation of same within people in our society.
In the days before moral relativity reared its ugly head, it was a simple matter for people to discern why those who cruelly wielded power over others did so: They were evil, period. Since good and evil have become relative, the motivation for someone wishing to stultify our liberties, confiscate the fruits of our labor and devalue our lives remains largely unexplored.
Another baser trait that's part of human nature is indolence, or laziness. Our founders understood how tenuous liberty and freedom can be, as do people who have lived in oppressive regimes, but like the Israelites of the Old Testament, Americans quickly grew comfortable in their relative peace and prosperity.
Why do modern liberals think and act as they do? Find out in Dr. Lyle Rossiter's book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."
As has become apparent to some of us, the situation is now quickly approaching critical mass. Scenarios that were dubious or even fantasy 30 years ago are now surrealistically real, and those who do not acknowledge our peril lend to the surrealism even more.
In California, acceptance of people who engage in homosexual acts is becoming state-mandated glorification. While our debt spirals out of control, putrid lizards in government continue to play the games of fearmongering and class warfare; if the debt ceiling is not raised, Democrats say, the Earth may be flung from its axis and careen off into the Sun. At the very least, the poor will suffer when their entitlement checks don't arrive.
They're lies – but no one seems to care about being outed as a liar anymore.
Our president employs real, live communist czars and Cabinet members. This is not name-calling, or even discernment; that is the political philosophy that some of Obama's Cabinet members and advisers hold. What might be the best way to ensure the failure of American industry? One would think that appointing a communist as Manufacturing Czar would be an excellent start.
It's insanity – but it is barely discussed. Read more: The inmates are running the asylum http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=321849#ixzz1S4iohxWd
In the days before moral relativity reared its ugly head, it was a simple matter for people to discern why those who cruelly wielded power over others did so: They were evil, period. Since good and evil have become relative, the motivation for someone wishing to stultify our liberties, confiscate the fruits of our labor and devalue our lives remains largely unexplored.
Another baser trait that's part of human nature is indolence, or laziness. Our founders understood how tenuous liberty and freedom can be, as do people who have lived in oppressive regimes, but like the Israelites of the Old Testament, Americans quickly grew comfortable in their relative peace and prosperity.
Why do modern liberals think and act as they do? Find out in Dr. Lyle Rossiter's book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness."
As has become apparent to some of us, the situation is now quickly approaching critical mass. Scenarios that were dubious or even fantasy 30 years ago are now surrealistically real, and those who do not acknowledge our peril lend to the surrealism even more.
In California, acceptance of people who engage in homosexual acts is becoming state-mandated glorification. While our debt spirals out of control, putrid lizards in government continue to play the games of fearmongering and class warfare; if the debt ceiling is not raised, Democrats say, the Earth may be flung from its axis and careen off into the Sun. At the very least, the poor will suffer when their entitlement checks don't arrive.
They're lies – but no one seems to care about being outed as a liar anymore.
Our president employs real, live communist czars and Cabinet members. This is not name-calling, or even discernment; that is the political philosophy that some of Obama's Cabinet members and advisers hold. What might be the best way to ensure the failure of American industry? One would think that appointing a communist as Manufacturing Czar would be an excellent start.
It's insanity – but it is barely discussed. Read more: The inmates are running the asylum http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=321849#ixzz1S4iohxWd
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Raid on Entebbe +35
''Western heroism and sacrifice is played down, even in popular culture. It took Hollywood about five months to produce a film on Entebbe. It took it five years to produce United 93. It did not take Hollywood until 1946 to produce its first World War Two film. Perhaps a film about the elimination of Osama will come sooner.''
Thirty-five years ago last week, Israeli commandos flew into the heart of Africa to the old terminal building at Uganda’s Entebbe Airport. In a lighting operation, they freed 103 hostages. 248 passengers and 12 crewmembers had been hijacked a week earlier aboard Air France Flight 139 en route from Athens to Paris. The hijackers were German and Arab -- this was a collaboration between Baader-Meinhof and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist-Leninist PLO faction that is now part of Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA).
Once in control of the plane, the terrorists refueled with help from Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government and diverted the flight to Idi Amin ’s bloodthirsty dictatorship. The PLO terrorists gradually released most passengers, retaining only those with Israeli passports or Jewish surnames -- no "we’re anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic" pretensions here -- plus the Air France crew of Captain Michel Bacos, who refused to abandon any of his charges.
The hijackers demanded the release of jailed Palestinian terrorists in an assortment of Israeli and European jails and threatened to start murdering the hostages if their demands went unmet. With the passengers captive in the middle of a seemingly inaccessible African tyranny, there was no reason to suppose anyone, the Israelis included, would have any choice but to cave in.
Instead, only hours before the deadline, Israeli commandos flew the 2,500 miles to Uganda in four C-130 Hercules military transport planes, taking the terrorists and their Ugandan enablers by surprise. The terminal building holding the hostages was stormed and all but four were safely spirited away. It was the stuff of movies (and three were duly produced in quick succession). Israel basked, perhaps for the last time, in international acclaim and sympathy for resolutely fighting terrorism.
Much has changed in 35 years. Once determined never to negotiate with terrorists (even to redeem Israeli captives), Israel has, in recent years, unilaterally ceded for nothing what it would not have previously yielded even for hostages’ lives. And still the rockets fall and the bombings and kidnappings continue with no foreseeable end in sight.
Terrorism has also changed, creating a more hostile and panicked international environment. It has evolved from spectacular hijackings to generalized massacres, from hostage taking to suicide bombing. A daring commando operation -- the elimination of Osama, for example -- can at best be but one successful skirmish in a prolonged war. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/11/entebbe-celebrated#
Once in control of the plane, the terrorists refueled with help from Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government and diverted the flight to Idi Amin ’s bloodthirsty dictatorship. The PLO terrorists gradually released most passengers, retaining only those with Israeli passports or Jewish surnames -- no "we’re anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic" pretensions here -- plus the Air France crew of Captain Michel Bacos, who refused to abandon any of his charges.
The hijackers demanded the release of jailed Palestinian terrorists in an assortment of Israeli and European jails and threatened to start murdering the hostages if their demands went unmet. With the passengers captive in the middle of a seemingly inaccessible African tyranny, there was no reason to suppose anyone, the Israelis included, would have any choice but to cave in.
Instead, only hours before the deadline, Israeli commandos flew the 2,500 miles to Uganda in four C-130 Hercules military transport planes, taking the terrorists and their Ugandan enablers by surprise. The terminal building holding the hostages was stormed and all but four were safely spirited away. It was the stuff of movies (and three were duly produced in quick succession). Israel basked, perhaps for the last time, in international acclaim and sympathy for resolutely fighting terrorism.
Much has changed in 35 years. Once determined never to negotiate with terrorists (even to redeem Israeli captives), Israel has, in recent years, unilaterally ceded for nothing what it would not have previously yielded even for hostages’ lives. And still the rockets fall and the bombings and kidnappings continue with no foreseeable end in sight.
Terrorism has also changed, creating a more hostile and panicked international environment. It has evolved from spectacular hijackings to generalized massacres, from hostage taking to suicide bombing. A daring commando operation -- the elimination of Osama, for example -- can at best be but one successful skirmish in a prolonged war. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/11/entebbe-celebrated#
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Terminal Media Delusion
''The only way the mainstream media can recover from its accelerating death spiral is to begin eliminating its overt bias and to have the economy make a dramatic recovery, as it did under the policies of Ronald Reagan, so there will be more wealth and discretionary income for all Americans to spend.''
Among the most myopic of the various factions within the American ruling class is what is generically known as the mainstream media. Over the past ten years it has become painfully obvious that as a group they are determined to self-destruct while willing to accommodate, promote, or as necessary, turn a blind eye towards the devastating policies of the Left that will be the catalyst for their potential demise.
A majority of the media chooses, either deliberately or out of ignorance, to obscure the reality that the American Left and Barack Obama are destroying the viability of the economy and culture, and ultimately their own future and standard of living.
This lack of coherence was never more manifest than the media's slavish fawning over an unknown, but politically correct, Barack Obama in the 2008 election. Their continued loyalty despite his myriad failings, his palpable disinterest in the job of President and his obstinate dedication to disastrous policies reveals their ideological blindness. Meanwhile the landscape of the once mighty journalism community is one of utter devastation brought about in great part by their overt liberal bias and this kind of sycophantic behavior over the past twenty plus years.
Among many examples of this unreported decline and fall are:
The New York Times Company, often considered the bellwether of the national media, has reduced its labor force by 47% (6,600 jobs) since 2000. The average daily circulation for the Times has dropped by over 20% (226,000 readers) during the same period. The Company has been liquidating as many assets as possible in order to stay afloat -- they now have few viable assets left to sell.
The Washington Post, the other most influential newspaper in the country, has seen its average daily circulation drop by 30% (237,000 readers) since 2000. More devastating has been the plummet in print advertising revenue which has dropped by over 55% since 2000. They too have made major reductions in their labor force.
Among the largest chain of newspapers in the country, the McClatchy Company has experienced a similar downturn. Since acquiring the Knight-Ridder chain in 2006 the Company has seen its average daily circulation decline from 2.84 million readers to 2.05 (a drop of 28% in only four years). Many of the individual papers within the group have resorted to massive layoffs and selling assets as not only circulation but ad revenue has dropped precipitously.
The Gannet family of newspapers (the largest in the country) has lost over 2 million in paid circulation since 2000 (28%) while their ad revenue has dropped by 44%.
Since 2000 total U.S. newspaper circulation has fallen by nearly 11 million readers (20%).
The traditional news magazines (Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report) have experienced even more devastating results since 2000. Their readership has declined by over 3.6 million (40%). Advertising revenue has dropped by nearly 65%. A clear indicator of the demise of this media sector is the sale of Newsweek by the Washington Post Company for $1.00.
The three network evening news broadcasts have suffered a similar fate. (Since 1991 they have lost 12.6 million viewers (34%). http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/terminal_media_delusion.html
A majority of the media chooses, either deliberately or out of ignorance, to obscure the reality that the American Left and Barack Obama are destroying the viability of the economy and culture, and ultimately their own future and standard of living.
This lack of coherence was never more manifest than the media's slavish fawning over an unknown, but politically correct, Barack Obama in the 2008 election. Their continued loyalty despite his myriad failings, his palpable disinterest in the job of President and his obstinate dedication to disastrous policies reveals their ideological blindness. Meanwhile the landscape of the once mighty journalism community is one of utter devastation brought about in great part by their overt liberal bias and this kind of sycophantic behavior over the past twenty plus years.
Among many examples of this unreported decline and fall are:
The New York Times Company, often considered the bellwether of the national media, has reduced its labor force by 47% (6,600 jobs) since 2000. The average daily circulation for the Times has dropped by over 20% (226,000 readers) during the same period. The Company has been liquidating as many assets as possible in order to stay afloat -- they now have few viable assets left to sell.
The Washington Post, the other most influential newspaper in the country, has seen its average daily circulation drop by 30% (237,000 readers) since 2000. More devastating has been the plummet in print advertising revenue which has dropped by over 55% since 2000. They too have made major reductions in their labor force.
Among the largest chain of newspapers in the country, the McClatchy Company has experienced a similar downturn. Since acquiring the Knight-Ridder chain in 2006 the Company has seen its average daily circulation decline from 2.84 million readers to 2.05 (a drop of 28% in only four years). Many of the individual papers within the group have resorted to massive layoffs and selling assets as not only circulation but ad revenue has dropped precipitously.
The Gannet family of newspapers (the largest in the country) has lost over 2 million in paid circulation since 2000 (28%) while their ad revenue has dropped by 44%.
Since 2000 total U.S. newspaper circulation has fallen by nearly 11 million readers (20%).
The traditional news magazines (Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report) have experienced even more devastating results since 2000. Their readership has declined by over 3.6 million (40%). Advertising revenue has dropped by nearly 65%. A clear indicator of the demise of this media sector is the sale of Newsweek by the Washington Post Company for $1.00.
The three network evening news broadcasts have suffered a similar fate. (Since 1991 they have lost 12.6 million viewers (34%). http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/terminal_media_delusion.html
Monday, July 11, 2011
Kings of the East
''The leaders and generals of Turkey, Iran and China clearly recognize what neither American citizens nor American politicians do: The strength and the capabilities of the U.S. military depend upon American wealth and American will, both of which are now completely overdrawn after a decade filled with a series of pointless and ineffective wars whose only relation to the national interest is a negative one.''
Supporters of the ongoing Bush-Obama wars have often said that one of the reasons the United States needed to attack Afghanistan and Iraq (and now Libya and Yemen and Somalia) is because failing to do so would exhibit weakness and encourage our enemies.
Now that the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is into its 10th year, intrepid supporters of the American empire are claiming that American troops must continue to occupy Afghanistan (and Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Somalia) because the post-withdrawal collapse of the indigenous forces presently being propped up by the U.S. military will exhibit weakness and encourage our enemies.
These childish arguments reveal that the bellicose neocons who have been pushing foreign military adventures for more than a decade are not only chicken hawks innocent of any military service, but also know nothing about military history or the military aspects of geostrategy.
In the schoolyard, it is not the slow-witted boy who lashes out with his fists at every possible provocation, no matter how petty, who is feared. It is, rather, the one who wins every fight in which he engages in rapid and brutal fashion. As with children, so with nations.
The martial success of 2001 in Afghanistan was only impressive in that it was largely accomplished at relatively little cost in men and money. It was the invasion and rapid defeat of Iraq in 2003 that made a very big impression on the world, a flexing of military speed and muscle that was daunting indeed, even in light of Hussein's defeat in the Gulf War 13 years before. At the time, only a few observers, most notably the epically cynical John Derbyshire, recognized that with rapid defeat of the Iraqi army and the hanging of Hussein, the United States military had already accomplished as much as it possibly could. It had gone in, it had broken things and killed people, and it should have gotten out in 2004.
But instead of rightly declaring victory over Saddam Hussein's corpse and coming home, the Bush administration decided to embark upon a new campaign of "winning hearts and minds." All it has accomplished, of course, is to demonstrate how woefully ineffective the U.S. military is once it is forced to fight a foe who is not willing to play fair according to the Western way of war and line up its forces on the battlefield as if combat were nothing more than a lethal sporting event. The inability to defeat enemy forces in Afghanistan (and Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Somalia) since 2004 has already done precisely – and predictably – what the supporters of the various kinetic conflicts claim that withdrawal does. Read more: The rise of the East http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=320641#ixzz1RnDVBJAN
Supporters of the ongoing Bush-Obama wars have often said that one of the reasons the United States needed to attack Afghanistan and Iraq (and now Libya and Yemen and Somalia) is because failing to do so would exhibit weakness and encourage our enemies.
Now that the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is into its 10th year, intrepid supporters of the American empire are claiming that American troops must continue to occupy Afghanistan (and Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Somalia) because the post-withdrawal collapse of the indigenous forces presently being propped up by the U.S. military will exhibit weakness and encourage our enemies.
These childish arguments reveal that the bellicose neocons who have been pushing foreign military adventures for more than a decade are not only chicken hawks innocent of any military service, but also know nothing about military history or the military aspects of geostrategy.
In the schoolyard, it is not the slow-witted boy who lashes out with his fists at every possible provocation, no matter how petty, who is feared. It is, rather, the one who wins every fight in which he engages in rapid and brutal fashion. As with children, so with nations.
The martial success of 2001 in Afghanistan was only impressive in that it was largely accomplished at relatively little cost in men and money. It was the invasion and rapid defeat of Iraq in 2003 that made a very big impression on the world, a flexing of military speed and muscle that was daunting indeed, even in light of Hussein's defeat in the Gulf War 13 years before. At the time, only a few observers, most notably the epically cynical John Derbyshire, recognized that with rapid defeat of the Iraqi army and the hanging of Hussein, the United States military had already accomplished as much as it possibly could. It had gone in, it had broken things and killed people, and it should have gotten out in 2004.
But instead of rightly declaring victory over Saddam Hussein's corpse and coming home, the Bush administration decided to embark upon a new campaign of "winning hearts and minds." All it has accomplished, of course, is to demonstrate how woefully ineffective the U.S. military is once it is forced to fight a foe who is not willing to play fair according to the Western way of war and line up its forces on the battlefield as if combat were nothing more than a lethal sporting event. The inability to defeat enemy forces in Afghanistan (and Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Somalia) since 2004 has already done precisely – and predictably – what the supporters of the various kinetic conflicts claim that withdrawal does. Read more: The rise of the East http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=320641#ixzz1RnDVBJAN
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Faith, Hope and Humility
''If all of the church behaved exactly as you behave, what kind of church would we have? What if every Christian attended services as faithfully as you do? Would the church be full or empty? What if all of the church worshiped like you do? Would the church be quiet, or would it be filled with the praise of God? What if all of the church shared the Gospel as faithfully as you do? Would people in your community be hearing about Jesus Christ? What if everyone in the church gave as faithfully as you give? Would we find ministries being supported?''
On more than one occasion during my childhood, people would say to me, "Greg Laurie, will you just grow up?" I heard that because I was often goofing off or pulling a prank on someone.
Growing up is something every kid looks forward to. Kids can hardly wait until they are old enough to hang out with the big kids and do the things they do. But as they get older, they will look wistfully back on those days of childhood as the good old days.
We get old and have to mature and grow up, which is a good thing. Yet Jesus used a child as an example of what our faith should look like. Jesus and the disciples had been at Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus revealed that he would be betrayed, tortured, crucified and would rise from the dead on the third day. Without question, it was a heavy topic. Yet afterward, the latest topic of discussion among the disciples had been who was going to be the top dog.
It was as though they were saying, "Oh, yeah? Fascinating. By the way, who will be number one among us?"
Jesus effectively bypassed the question and did something completely unexpected. He called over a little child and put the child among them. Imagine the scene. The child was probably wide-eyed as he or she looked around at the disciples. Then Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 18:3–4 NLT). Jesus was telling them they needed to be childlike.
Children, especially when they are very small, have a sense of awe and wonder. That is why I highly recommend that you do not go to Disneyland with only adults. Always take a child with you, because adults are, well, cynical. First of all, we will complain about how much it costs to get in. Then we will wonder what we are going to eat. We will say things were better in the old days. But when you take children to Disneyland, they are seeing it all for the first time. Children see things in a different way.
The idea Jesus was communicating was that we should always maintain a childlike faith. Jesus was not saying we should be childish. There is a big difference between being childlike and being childish. The fact of the matter is that we need to grow up spiritually. The apostle Paul wrote to the believers at Ephesus, "We should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting" (Ephesians 4:14 NKJV). We have to grow up. Yet at the same time, we want still to be childlike in our faith.
The disciples were arguing about greatness and who would be the best. So Jesus brought a child over to illustrate humility. He said, "Anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven." He was saying they needed to have the humility of a child.
Little children, very young ones at least, know they need their parents' help. They know they need someone to pick them up when they get tired of walking, someone to get them out of their car seat and put them back in their car seat. They need someone to cut up their food and to be there for them when they are scared in the middle of the night. They understand that. They are fine with that. They depend on that and accept the role of their parents. Read more: Humility – or humiliation? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=320153#ixzz1RbSON5xG
On more than one occasion during my childhood, people would say to me, "Greg Laurie, will you just grow up?" I heard that because I was often goofing off or pulling a prank on someone.
Growing up is something every kid looks forward to. Kids can hardly wait until they are old enough to hang out with the big kids and do the things they do. But as they get older, they will look wistfully back on those days of childhood as the good old days.
We get old and have to mature and grow up, which is a good thing. Yet Jesus used a child as an example of what our faith should look like. Jesus and the disciples had been at Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus revealed that he would be betrayed, tortured, crucified and would rise from the dead on the third day. Without question, it was a heavy topic. Yet afterward, the latest topic of discussion among the disciples had been who was going to be the top dog.
It was as though they were saying, "Oh, yeah? Fascinating. By the way, who will be number one among us?"
Jesus effectively bypassed the question and did something completely unexpected. He called over a little child and put the child among them. Imagine the scene. The child was probably wide-eyed as he or she looked around at the disciples. Then Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 18:3–4 NLT). Jesus was telling them they needed to be childlike.
Children, especially when they are very small, have a sense of awe and wonder. That is why I highly recommend that you do not go to Disneyland with only adults. Always take a child with you, because adults are, well, cynical. First of all, we will complain about how much it costs to get in. Then we will wonder what we are going to eat. We will say things were better in the old days. But when you take children to Disneyland, they are seeing it all for the first time. Children see things in a different way.
The idea Jesus was communicating was that we should always maintain a childlike faith. Jesus was not saying we should be childish. There is a big difference between being childlike and being childish. The fact of the matter is that we need to grow up spiritually. The apostle Paul wrote to the believers at Ephesus, "We should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting" (Ephesians 4:14 NKJV). We have to grow up. Yet at the same time, we want still to be childlike in our faith.
The disciples were arguing about greatness and who would be the best. So Jesus brought a child over to illustrate humility. He said, "Anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven." He was saying they needed to have the humility of a child.
Little children, very young ones at least, know they need their parents' help. They know they need someone to pick them up when they get tired of walking, someone to get them out of their car seat and put them back in their car seat. They need someone to cut up their food and to be there for them when they are scared in the middle of the night. They understand that. They are fine with that. They depend on that and accept the role of their parents. Read more: Humility – or humiliation? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=320153#ixzz1RbSON5xG
Friday, July 8, 2011
Very different views of immigration
''In Pasadena, California, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams faced each other. The audience, mostly composed of American citizens of Mexican ancestry born in the U.S.A., overwhelmingly supported Mexico. Anti-American unsportsmanlike conduct was rampant.''
The U.S. Mainstream Media, and certainly the Mexican media, presents any sort of opposition to legal or even illegal immigration as evidence of "racism," "xenophobia," or "hate." Immigrants, including illegal aliens, are regularly presented as innocent victims.
This sort of knee-jerk melodrama is quite unfair to the majority of American citizens, who certainly do not hate Mexico or Mexicans, but do believe their immigration laws should be respected.
I learned a lot about the subject while residing in Mexico, listening to regular Mexicans and the media talk about the subject.
What I finally concluded was that Mexicans have completely different views of immigration from that of ordinary Americans, whereas the American media/political elite has very different views from that of most Americans.
The traditional view of immigration in the U.S. is that immigrants come to our country because they want to become Americans, and then they become Americans. Most Americans still believe that immigrants should assimilate, that is, learn English and become loyal Americans.
In contrast, the U.S. political/media elite support multiculturalism and think regular Americans should accomodate the immigrants.
Living in Mexico, I learned how Mexicans viewed emigration to the U.S. Mexicans don't believe that Mexican emigrants who become U.S. citizens cease to be Mexicans. They are always considered Mexicans. Even grandchildren or great-grandchildren of Mexican immigrants, born in the U.S., are still considered Mexicans.
Meanwhile, the Mexican government, through its diplomatic corps, openly meddles in U.S. immigration policy. Disturbingly, the Mexican government also claims jurisdiction over Mexican-Americans. What objective observe would not think this is a problem?Act
In Mexico, contradictory messages are sent out. On the one hand, it's said that Mexicans are treated horribly in the United Statese. On the other hand, they shouldn't leave the United States, and they fight to remain. What's going on? If Mexicans were treated so horribly in the U.S., why would they be going there in droves and fighting to stay ?
Middle-class Americans don't want their neighborhoods overrun by illegal aliens who don't speak the language, drive down wage levels, and disproportionately use government services. For this they are called "racist". But would Mexicans allow the same thing in their own country?
Regarding immigration in general, it's highly doubtful that mass emigration to the United States is helping Mexico develop. I think it impedes Mexico's development. Mass emigration doesn't encourage Mexico's political and business elite to solve Mexico's problems and develop Mexico's economy. In fact, it causes many social problems by splitting up families and encouraging Mexicans to leave Mexico rather than solve the problems in their own country. http://www.newswithviews.com/Wall/allan147.htm
This sort of knee-jerk melodrama is quite unfair to the majority of American citizens, who certainly do not hate Mexico or Mexicans, but do believe their immigration laws should be respected.
I learned a lot about the subject while residing in Mexico, listening to regular Mexicans and the media talk about the subject.
What I finally concluded was that Mexicans have completely different views of immigration from that of ordinary Americans, whereas the American media/political elite has very different views from that of most Americans.
The traditional view of immigration in the U.S. is that immigrants come to our country because they want to become Americans, and then they become Americans. Most Americans still believe that immigrants should assimilate, that is, learn English and become loyal Americans.
In contrast, the U.S. political/media elite support multiculturalism and think regular Americans should accomodate the immigrants.
Living in Mexico, I learned how Mexicans viewed emigration to the U.S. Mexicans don't believe that Mexican emigrants who become U.S. citizens cease to be Mexicans. They are always considered Mexicans. Even grandchildren or great-grandchildren of Mexican immigrants, born in the U.S., are still considered Mexicans.
Meanwhile, the Mexican government, through its diplomatic corps, openly meddles in U.S. immigration policy. Disturbingly, the Mexican government also claims jurisdiction over Mexican-Americans. What objective observe would not think this is a problem?Act
In Mexico, contradictory messages are sent out. On the one hand, it's said that Mexicans are treated horribly in the United Statese. On the other hand, they shouldn't leave the United States, and they fight to remain. What's going on? If Mexicans were treated so horribly in the U.S., why would they be going there in droves and fighting to stay ?
Middle-class Americans don't want their neighborhoods overrun by illegal aliens who don't speak the language, drive down wage levels, and disproportionately use government services. For this they are called "racist". But would Mexicans allow the same thing in their own country?
Regarding immigration in general, it's highly doubtful that mass emigration to the United States is helping Mexico develop. I think it impedes Mexico's development. Mass emigration doesn't encourage Mexico's political and business elite to solve Mexico's problems and develop Mexico's economy. In fact, it causes many social problems by splitting up families and encouraging Mexicans to leave Mexico rather than solve the problems in their own country. http://www.newswithviews.com/Wall/allan147.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)