Occupy J Street

"I am appalled that Democrat politician after Democrat politician, including the president and vice president, are embracing these protests, even claiming to understand their supposed concerns and motivations, when so many of these people are using, among other things, anti-Semitic slurs of the oldest kind,” .... It is appalling and I hope the public takes note.” Mark Levin

While democrats rush to embrace the Occupy Wall Street movement, they never once considered what these clowns actually stand for or if they did, they just said 'to heck with it' and decided to show their own true colors...

"Take the Occupy Wall Street movement. This uprising was sparked by the magazine Adbusters, previously best known for the 2004 essay, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?” — an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy."

The Daily Caller follows up this particular revelation up with...

"Yeshiva World News, an Orthodox Jewish news outlet, explained in an editorial Thursday that “many Jews” are feeling a bit uncomfortable with the growing protests because of hateful video footage claiming the U.S. economy is organized for the benefit of Jews.

“The reasons for these ‘uncomfortable feelings’ don’t need to be elaborated on this page,” the editorial reads. “Suffice to say that Jews have been blamed for the world’s troubles for thousands of years, and many are nervous that this finger-pointing will soon start — or , maybe it already has.”

National Review Online and The Blaze have published online video footage this week showing Occupy Wall Street protesters saying and shouting anti-Jewish slurs.

“Go back to Israel,” shouted one protester at an elderly Jewish man."

One thing that I've learned from this ongoing circus is that the word 'banker' can be a code word for 'Jew' in some instances in the New World Order as Rush Limbaugh explains...

"To some people, banker is a code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s – if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there."

What Does Sarah Palin Read Her Daughter From the Bible?

Let me start off by saying that I'm not exactly a huge Sarah Palin fan. She's "OK" in my book. A more accurate idea of who I believe, among the leading candidates out there, is best able to lead this nation (US) can be determined by clicking on Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America emblem on the left margin.

That being said, I generally like Palin. I do not doubt at all that she would stand up for the sovereignty of the United States if she were ever in a position of leadership on the national level. I cannot say the same about our current president.

The above title is from an article by Benyamin Korn who has this to say about Governor Palin...

"When Governor Sarah Palin spoke to 16,000 Christian evangelical women in Louisville, Kentucky on April 16, guess which book she mentioned as the one she reads to her daughter at bedtime?

Try the biblical Book of Esther.

That’s right — Sarah Palin, mocked and pilloried by Jewish liberals as a danger to world Jewry because of her Christian beliefs, reads to her 8 year-old from a book that most Jews should probably spend a little more time with....

..to Sarah Palin, the well being of Israel and the Jewish people is an integral part of her worldview. Israel is not just another cold run-of-the-mill foreign policy matter, like trade with Mexico or aid to Sri Lanka. What happens to Israel matters to her as a Christian. Threats to America’s moral fiber and threats to Israel’s national security are all part of the same challenge that she wants Americans to address.

Governor Palin takes her Bible seriously. Not in the sense of someone who wants to impose her beliefs on anyone else, but simply as someone who believes that both the Hebrew Bible an the New Testament provide moral guideposts for our lives. She reads the Book of Esther to Piper because she wants her daughters to emulate Jewish history’s most famous heroine.

In her speech to the Women of Joy, Palin included a few quotes from the New Testament. But Jewish scripture figured much more prominently. She quoted twice from Psalms, as well from Proverbs and Malachi. She spoke to Piper about how Esther, an orphan, overcame steep odds and difficulties in order to save the Jewish people. And she took issue with President Obama’s policy of “poking our ally Israel in the eye.”

Fear-mongers with political agendas want to drive a wedge between Governor Palin and American Jewry. Sometimes they do it with quotations that leave out key sentences. Sometimes they do it with distorted depictions of her religious beliefs.

Jews have nothing to fear from Sarah’s Palin religion. But we have plenty to fear from those political leaders who not only have no interest in Esther or Proverbs, or Sarah, but who think that poking Israel in the eye makes for good foreign policy."

I find it odd that America, for all of it's talk about freedom, does not do more to support the best example of democracy and women's rights in the Middle East by more vocally supporting Isreal. It's Arab neighbors could learn a thing or two from Isreal's success, however it seems the Obama administration couldnt possibly care less.

Regarding Isreal, the Bible tells us, "cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee" (Genesis 27:29), and this has been the hallmark of America's relationship with Isreal since it's founding in the modern era. Certain past president's have seen the existance of Isreal and the the well being of United States as being linked to one another. If one wishes to discuss weening Isreal off of subsidies that it receives from the United States, then fine, let's talk about it. However the nation that is by far our closest ally in that part of the world should be supported, no matter what the chorus of hate of those nations that surround it are braying in only the latest edition of their unhinged and hate filled anti-Jewish rantings.

Selective enforcement

As if they didnt have better things to do, Montreal's Bureau du taxi is fining an elderly, culturally Jewish taxi driver the equivalent of $1,400 USD for displaying religious items in his cab. The article states that......

"Mr. Perecowicz says he's not especially religious, but he's comforted by having articles of his Jewish faith in the car, including photos of the late Lubavitcher spiritual leader and two mezuzahs affixed to the car frame between the front and back doors. (A mezuzah, typically affixed to doorframes of Jewish homes, is a tiny prayer parchment that, according to Jewish beliefs, offers protection.)
"I am secular but I do have roots and a culture," he said. "These items mean something to me and that's why I've always had them in my car."
As for the photos of his wife, daughter and son, Mr. Perecowicz says he spends 15 hours a day in his cab. "What's the point of putting photos in an album? I don't have time to look in an album. I'm away from home all day. This is my home." "

It's sad that it has come to this. Am I the only one who believes that if instead of Jewish symbols, a Muslim star and cresent were openly displayed that the Bureau de taxi would not be nearly as quick to slap a fine on him?

The Road to War

In today's article by Benny Avni we see that Syria has grown bolder in it's dismissal of international law and couldnt care less about any veiled threats coming from the Obama administration.

"US sources have confirmed the news broken last week by Israeli President Shimon Peres, who said in Paris that even while Syria talks of peace, it's sending Scuds to Hezbollah. With a range of 435 miles, the missiles are a significant addition to Hezbollah's known arsenal: During the 2006 Lebanon war, the terror group could only hit northern Israeli towns; with the Scuds, it can reach all of Israel's populated areas.

Israel reportedly mulled bombing a recent convoy carrying the missiles from Syria to Lebanon, but decided against it -- for now. But Jerusalem is unlikely to permit Hezbollah to possess arms that threaten every man, woman and child in Israel, complicating any military plan for ending the far greater threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Using intermediaries, Jerusalem sent warnings to Damascus. So did Washington: Sen. John Kerry expressed concerns about weapons transfers to Hezbollah during a Damascus visit in early April. An American UN diplomat, Alejandro Wolff, publicly told the Security Council last week that the United States is concerned about the "sophistication" of the weapons Syria's giving Hezbollah -- which, he said, "risks sparking a conflict that no one needs."

Apparently when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon broached the subject with Bashar Assad (pictured above), Assad blew it off by stating that it must be "smugglers" who are supplying SCUD missles to Hezbollah. When Obama took office during his Bow, Curtsey and Apologize World Tour, "Obama's emissaries to Damascus started hinting that America would soon lift sanctions, and that other goodies were on the way. And in February came word that Washington would be sending a new ambassador to Syria, a job that America had pointedly left vacant since the (Rafik) Hariri killing."


The US needs somebody strong in foreign policy the White House and the world knows that Obama just doesnt have the stomach for it. Why else would a second-rate power like Syria be so carelessly flaunting what passes for their influence in the region?


On a related note, it seems that Jews in the United States are being driven into the arms of Sarah Palin of all people hot on the heels of the Obama regime's administration's recent, reported snubbing of Bibi Netanyahu and cozying up with Isreal's neighbors.

"President Obama’s recent demarche designed to increase pressure on Israel is having one immediate impact in the Jewish community — it is hastening the formation of an organization called Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin.

Plans for the new group are set to be announced on Sunday by a Philadelphia-based journalist and activist named Binyamin Korn, a former executive director of the Zionist Organization of America. The announcement is unlikely to make big news, as the group is embryonic, with an advisory committee of several journalists and academics.

Its aim, however, is to take advantage of the growing alarm within the Jewish community at what Mr. Korn, in an interview this week with the New York Sun, called an “escalation of rhetoric” criticizing the Jewish state. The group also hopes to counter suggestions — by, among others, such opposite figures as the widely read Atlantic magazine blogger Jeffrey Goldberg and the left-of-center, anti-Israel publication Counterpunch — that Mrs. Palin’s support for Israel is animated by “end of days” theology that believes an in-gathering in Israel will precede the apocalypse and the destruction of the Jews." Link to full article.

None of this inspires confidence in a presidency that one blogger decribed as less of an administration and more of a parody of one. To top it all off, it seems that Obama has broken GWB's record for aloofness and has now played his 32nd round of golf since taking office. George W. Bush played 24 games in 8 years in office by comparison. Link

It's probably what Nero would have done instead of fiddling if they had golf back in his day. God help us all.

Just Who is Uri Brodsky?

In a letter to the Irish newspaper The Independent, Pat Malone of Dublin sounds off after repeatedly hearing the loud chants of "free, free Palestine" while living just a few doors down from the Isreali embassy...

"I am concerned that those protesting are unclear on certain facts and the overall picture. In 1922, after World War One, a legal document known as the British Mandate for Palestine was drawn up by the League of Nations. This agreement came into effect on September 26, 1923. It formalised British rule in Palestine (1923 -- 1948) and required the British to set up a "Jewish homeland" there.

After World War Two, Jewish survivors of the death camps were not given back the property that had been appropriated by others in their absence. Neither were all survivors taken in as refugees by the allied states. Instead they were encouraged to return to their "homeland", Zion.

Subsequently, in 1948, Britain chose to withdraw from Palestine and the aforementioned mandate was taken over by the United Nations Trust Territories. The result was civil war between the new state of Israel and its Arab neighbours.

When I hear protesters and European media sources stating Israel is a "rogue terrorist state" I find this appalling. For me it seems that the Jewish people were handed a poisoned chalice and that Europe and America have a lot to answer for in the ongoing atrocities in Israel and Palestine.

To stick a traumatised race in the middle of the Islamic world, in a territory that wasn't really ours to give, and then wag our collective finger at them when they act nervous and trigger-happy, is a travesty."

One can debate whether or not that area was "really ours to give" until the cows come home. It doesnt really change the reality of the situation on the ground one little bit. Fresh on the heels of last week's flotilla incident comes news out of Poland of the arrest of a man identified as 'Uri Brodsky' whom Germany is seeking the extradiction of on preliminary charges of "espionage" and "forgery". It is being reported that Brodsky was allegedly involved in a plot by the Isreali Secret Service, (the Mossad) involving the death of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, one of the founding member of the so-called "Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades" which comprise the military wing of the terrorist organization Hamas, in a Dubai hotel room last January. According to the US State department "The armed element [of Hamas], called the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, conducts anti-Israeli attacks, including suicide bombings against civilian targets inside Israel."

In an editorial in today's New York Sun, the following history lesson is laid out regarding the background of the German government in these type of matters...

"Robert Dean Stethem is the first person we thought of when news came over the wires of the arrest in Poland of a man the Associated Press characterizes as an alleged Mossad spy, who is sought by Germany in the case of the terrorist who allegedly was murdered in a hotel room in Dubai. Stethem is the heroic United States Navy petty officer who, 25 years ago on Monday, was seized by terrorists of Hezbollah aboard a hijacked TWA aircraft, beaten, tortured, and then pushed out a door onto the Beirut airport tarmac, where he perished. Stethem is a hero because he gave his own life to save others. One of Stethem’s killer’s, Mohammed Ali Hamadi, was eventually captured in Germany. President Reagan sought his extradition to America, but the Germans refused.

Instead, the Germans themselves put Hamadi on trial and convicted him of, among other crimes, Stethem’s murder. They gave him what was supposed to be a life sentence. But, after holding him less than 20 years, they all too characteristically released the killer, an agent of the Iranian backed terrorist organization Hezbollah, and actually escorted him back freedom at the scene of the crime....


The man being held by the Poles — his name, according to the Associated Press, is Uri Brodsky — is wanted in connection with the alleged murder of a leader of the military wing of Hamas, a terrorist organization backed by the same Iranian regime that backed the organization for which Hamadi worked. Why would the Germans want to help prosecute that case? Do the Germans regret the assassination that is alleged to have taken place against the leader of Hamas? Why did they refuse to hand Hamadi over to America? Why did they let Hamadi go after less than 20 years in prison? And escort him to go back to Lebanon? Where do they stand?



We don’t know whether Uri Brodsky is an agent of Massad or did or didn’t play a role in helping the Mossad in the assassination, if it was an assassination, in Dubai. But we do know that there is a broad war on against Israel and the rest of the Free World. And if Uri Brodsky is a partisan in that fight on the Free World’s side, the right thing for Poland to do would be to get him to where he can get back into the fight. If he needs transportation out of Poland, we know of a vessel that might be able to give him a lift — the guided missile destroyer of the Arleigh Burke class that sails under the name United States Ship Stethem" (pictured above).

So indeed friends, we are left asking 'Just who is Uri Brodsky?'. To those who support the efforts of those who would aim Katusha rockets in the area of a children's playground, then perhaps the person known as Uri Brodsky is someone who should be arrested and face the stiffest punishment possible.



For those who stand against such reckless acts of violence and it turns out that Brodsky was was a bit player in the removal of a certain terrorist leader known for this type of indiscriminate destruction, the question is, what type of punishment, if any, should he receive? Maybe he can expect the same spirit of leniency from the Germans that was extended to Mohammed Ali Hamadi? Perhaps, but I'm not holding my breath people.

Quite possibly the worst atheist argument out there

One of the silliest excuses for an argument raised by historically inept atheists is to question the actual existance of Jesus of Nazereth as an actual, historical figure. I've encountered this complete nonsense line of questioning before and I personally find it to be staggeringly dishonest. If youre going to deny the existance of Jesus Christ, then you might as well through out all of recorded history if that is your standard.

Proving the old adage that even a stuck clock is right twice a day, I actually find myself in complete agreement with a piece that appeared in The Huffington Post yesterday. Craig S. Keener does a masterful job of carving up this canard and I love how he does it...

"Contrary to some circles on the Internet, very few scholars doubt that Jesus existed, preached and led a movement. Scholars' confidence has nothing to do with theology but much to do with historiographic common sense. What movement would make up a recent leader, executed by a Roman governor for treason, and then declare, "We're his followers"? If they wanted to commit suicide, there were simpler ways to do it.

One popular objection is that only Christians wrote anything about Jesus. This objection is neither entirely true nor does it reckon with the nature of ancient sources. It usually comes from people who have not worked much with ancient history. Only a small proportion of information from antiquity survives, yet it is often sufficient...

Josephus, the only extant first-century historian focused on Judea, mentions both Jesus and John the Baptist as major prophetic figures, as well as subsequently noting Jesus' brother, James. Later scribes added to the Jesus passage, but the majority of specialists agree on the basic substance of the original, a substance now confirmed by a manuscript that apparently reflects the pre-tampering reading. Josephus describes Jesus as a sage and worker of wonders, and notes that the Roman governor Pilate had him crucified. On the cause of crucifixion Josephus remains discreet, but mass leaders were often executed for sedition -- especially for being potential kings. Perhaps not coincidentally, Jesus' followers also insisted, even after his death, that he was a king. Josephus was not a Christian and does not elaborate, but his summary matches other sources.

Writing even earlier than Josephus, Syrian philosopher Mara bar Sarapion claimed that Jesus was a wise Jewish king. Tacitus later reports on events from 31-34 years after Jesus' ministry, associating Roman Christians with him and noting that he was executed under Pontius Pilate. These and other sources provide only snippets, but they address what these sources cared about. By comparison, Tacitus mentions only in passing a Jewish king on whom Josephus focused (Agrippa I); nor was Tacitus interested even in Judea's Roman governors. Tacitus's mention of Pilate in connection with Jesus' crucifixion is Roman literature's only mention of Pilate (though Pilate appears in Josephus and an inscription)."

I believe that when Keener writes (re: Josephus) that "Later scribes added to the Jesus passage", he is referring to Josephus definatively mentioning Jesus as 'the Christ' in his writings.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Josephus, Antiqities, 18.3.3

If I'm not mistaken, there are absolutely no copies of Antiquities that that do not contain this specific reference to Jesus as the Christ. None at all going back to the very earliest manuscript copies that we have and thus there are no contradictory writings that exist concerning this passage, it is merely theorized that the relevant passage up above was interpolated later. (Although I think it's a reasonable theory).

Check out Keener's entire article if you get the chance, it's quite good if you have an interest in this sort of thing. Also, if anyone would like to discuss these particular writings of Josephus, I think this entry by Tektonics would be a good place to start.

Obama White House gives shout-out to Nazi sympathizer

Fresh off the recent embarrasment of opting for a slogan utilized by the Hitler Youth, the Obama administration demonstrates it's ineptitude by celebrating a known Nazi sympathizer...

"The presidential proclamation commemorates “the enduring legacy of Jewish Americans,” and links to a website called JewishHeritageMonth.gov. It has since been edited, but the original version of President Obama’s proclamation added, “Their history of unbroken perseverance and their belief in tomorrow’s promise offers a lesson not only to Jewish Americans, but to all Americans. From Aaron Copland to Albert Einstein, Gertrude Stein to Justice Louis Brandeis.”

Gertrude Stein?

..“Stein’s closest friend,” (Alan) Dershowitz continued, “and a man who greatly influenced her turn toward fascism was Bernard Fay, who the Vichy government put in charge of hunting down Masons, Jews and other perceived enemies of the State. Fay was more than a mere collaborator as suggested by the Met exhibit. He was a full blown Nazi operative, responsible for the deaths of many people. After the war, when the horrendous results were known to all, Gertrude wrote in support of Fay when he was placed on trial for his Nazi war crimes.”

Joining Dershowitz in criticism of the Met for whitewashing Stein’s Vichy past from their exhibit, Alexander Narzaryan at the New York Daily News reminds us that Stein nominated Adolf Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938. And she wasn’t tepid about it. Stein told the New York Times in 1934, "I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize, because he is removing all the elements of contest and of struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left element, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace ... By suppressing Jews ... he was ending struggle in Germany."


I'm sure this was a mere oversight on Obama's part and a mistake by one of his subordinates.  But the pattern emerging here is troubling and causes one to wonder who is pulling the strings behind the curtain in this administration. 

Faith of the Fatherless

It's Father's Day again and a hearty Happy Father's Day to all the dads out there. I think we can all agree that fathers have a very powerful effect on the upbringing of children. As my pastor noted this morning, imagine if you walked outside and you saw a giant man, 20 feet tall that can pick up up with one hand. You would be in awe of such a person. Dads are like giants in that way to their young children, so the sway that they have over them during their formative years is considerable.

In the book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism, author, psychology professor and former atheist Paul Vitz researches the influence of the father figure upon the most influential atheists of the past several centuries. The results are quite interesting...

"When one looks at famous atheists and their families, a grim picture emerges. Vitz looks at what he calls the “dead father” syndrome. Friedrich “God is Dead” Nietzsche, for example, lost his father at a very young age. Sadly, so too did many evangelical atheists. David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre (above), Albert Camus and Arthur Schopenhaeur could be added to that list. The biographical evidence is frightening. Is this just a mere coincidence?


Obviously, there were prominent atheist thinkers who didn’t loose their fathers at an early age. Thomas Hobbs, Jean Meslier, Voltaire, Jean d’Alembert, Baron d’Holbach, Ludwig Feuerbach, Samuel Butler, Sigmund Freud and H.G. Wells all spring to the author’s mind. Still, when one takes a closer look at the biographical evidence, as Vitz does, we find more disturbing patterns. All of these renowned secularists came from homes with weak or abusive fathers. Again, is this just purely coincidental?


As the reader ploughs through the defective father hypothesis, one wonders how famous Jewish and Christian intellectuals were raised. Do they have any family secrets? Surprise, surprise: we find that 21 of the prominent theistic thinkers came from relatively healthy backgrounds! Blaise Pascal, for instance, was home-schooled by a dedicated father and flourished as an outstanding mathematician and erudite religious writer. Similarly, Moses Mendelssohn, the renowned Jewish scholar, spoke against materialism and fought successfully against punitive German legal traditions and customs. His father was instrumental in nurturing a strong sense of justice within him. Alexis de Tocqueville, Soren Kierkegarrd, G.K. Chesterton and Abraham Heschel are also recognised for their rich lives and contributions, which stemmed from their father-son relationships."

While checking out some of the reviews out there on the internet for this book, I came across this particular review that sheds light on some of the specifics that Vitz mentions when describing the biographical histories of the atheists that he profiles....

"Vitz warns about over-simplification, and recognises that there are a multitude of factors that explain or determine how we develop. However, the fact that so many atheists have similar background does make for an intriguing hypothesis. And the details Vitz provides are quite revealing. Consider but a few examples.

• H.G.Wells was contemptuous of both his father and God. He wrote this in his autobiography: “My father was always at cricket, and I think [mum] realized more and more acutely as the years dragged on without material alleviation, that Our Father and Our Lord, on whom to begin with she had perhaps counted unduly, were also away: playing perhaps at their own sort of cricket in some remote quarter of the starry universe”.
  
  
  
• Jean-Paul Sartre’s father died when he was just 15 months old. Throughout much of his adult life he mentions fathers, and denigrates fatherhood. His philosophy promotes the idea that man can become God, that we are self-made men. More than one biographer has noted his obsession about fathers and his atheism may well tie in to his own absent father.
  
  
  
• According to her son (who later became a Christian), Madalyn Murray O’Hair intensely hated her father. In his memoirs, he records an ugly fight in which she tried to kill her father with a ten-inch butcher knife. She failed but screamed, “I’ll see you dead. I’ll get you yet. I’ll walk on your grave!” Her son says he does not understand why she so hated her father. "
  

Might some of the skeptics that peruse these pages please take the time this Father's Day to try to become closer to the Father?He is waiting to hear from you and your experience with him would be like another son who sought out his father after a long period of estrangement..."So he went at once to his father. While he was still at a distance, his father saw him and felt sorry for him. He ran to his son, put his arms around him, and kissed him. Then his son said to him, 'Father, I've sinned against heaven and you. I don't deserve to be called your son anymore.' "The father said to his servants, 'Hurry! Bring out the best robe, and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let's celebrate with a feast. My son was dead and has come back to life. He was lost but has been found.' Luke, Chapter 15

Doubting the Gospel of Thomas Part II

Pardon me for taking so long. I've gotten a little sidetracked by a project and I haven't had much the time to comment lately, but I can squeeze in a quick entry here. Tristan Vick has posted a response to my earlier entry titled Doubting the Gospel of Thomas in which I took issue with both the dating and authenticity of the Gospel attributed to Thomas. You can read TV's entire criticism here.

In order to move the discussion along, I have decided to concentrate a just a few of the points raised in the rebuttal by Vick. I don't wish to become bogged down, debating every jot and tittle and it really doesn't make for very interesting conversation when a debate becomes like that. Should we make progress on these points we can move on to others. However, I think we could all agree that the points I wish to raise to Vick's rebuttal are quite germane to the discussion of the authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas. They cut right to the heart of the matter and if either Vick's or my points cannot be reconciled with the vast majority of those who are/were qualified to write extensively on the subject, then the arguments begin to break down and it can be clearly shown that one of us is not on the side of the clear majority of serious scholarship on the matter. First, TV mentions that...

"I don’t quite see how using GTh (if truly an independent source pre-dating the Gospels) to establish that Jesus was a real historical figure, is in anyway a canard. In fact one would have to question the agenda of any Christian who’d deny the GTh as evidence which supports the claim that Jesus of the Bible may have actually been a real historical person—even as such a claim is on shaky ground."

I didnt state that the document proported to be from Thomas did not support the historical existance of Jesus. I merely raised doubts concerning it's authorship and any early dating assigned to it.

"Although the authenticity of the Jesus sayings of GTh may be in dispute, it should not go overlooked that so are the Jesus attributed sayings in all of the Gospels."

In this quote of yours, you cite Robert M. Price as your source. I specifically requested that "that we take off the table any so-called "expert" that is even loosely affiliated with the highly dicredited "Jesus Seminar"" whose work "is so quirky and so severely criticized by non-Seminar members-probably 90 percent of Gospel scholars around the world."[1]

Even the secular publication The Atlantic stated that the Jesus Seminar "draw[s] on the liberal wing of the New Testament academy." [2]

"As many as 200 scholars participated in the JS over the years, but the final group dwindled to 74. People dropped out for various reasons. Some expressed discomfort with how the most radical fringes of New Testament scholarship were disproportionately represented on the JS. Others voiced disagreement with Funk’s propagandistic purposes of popularizing scholarship in a way designed explicitly to undermine conservative Christian credibility." [3]

"Of the remainder, eighteen had no published papers on the subject at all. Thirty-six of the scholars came from Vanderbilt, Harvard, and Claremont Universities, which were criticised for having the most-liberal New Testament study programs in any university." [4]

One former (JS) Fellow stated that "Although its founding ethos stressed the importance of open, public debate among professional participants, publicity prior to and during meetings often set up findings well in advance of discussion, with results that distorted, not only the conduct of the Seminar, but the way in which its findings were reported. For example, Fellows were known to deny to the press that Jesus had ever prayed; he was portrayed as a Cynic philosopher despite evidence to the contrary that was always overwhelming; and Galilee has been treated as an urban, non-Jewish environment despite archaeologists’ findings to the contrary. Added to all these factors, the drive for results sometimes led to a retaking of votes, both within a given meeting, and from meeting to meeting, producing the effect of a push-poll in an election campaign." [5]

I think that these above statements speak for themselves and there is no shortage of others should anyone wish to look it up.. Either the Jesus Seminar is well accepted as representative of scholarship on the subject of the New Testament, or they are far outside the mainstream of the vast majority of scholars. I will now leave it to you to demonstrate if the latter is true or not.

"...due to the fact that The Gospel of Thomas is at least as old as the Synoptic tradition, perhaps earlier (as we’ll discuss below), then Christians need to account for the similarity in over half of the 114 of the sayings of Jesus which Thomas shares with the Gospels and Johannine sayings."

Tristan, either you are arguing on a whole other level than me and thus leaving me behind in the dust of my own confusion, or you are demonstrating that you fail to understand this entire subject on a very fundamental level. The vast majority of Bible scholars date the Gospel of John around the year 90 A.D., which of course was a few years after Mark, Matthew and Luke are believed to have been written. The dating of John really isn't disputed in any meaningful way and if it is, it's only by a couple of years. [6] Could you please explain to me how Thomas could possibly predate the synoptic Gospels when it contains material from the Gospel of John which unquestionably was written later? I admit, I'm a bit perplexed here by your method of argumentation along with your unique dating technique and a bit of clarity on the matter would be greatly appreciated in order to move the discussion along.



[1] Strobel, Lee; The Case for the Real Jesus, pg. 31, 2007, Zondervan

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96dec/jesus/jesus.htm

[3] http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t017.html

[4] http://www.conservapedia.com/Jesus_Seminar

[5] http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/chilton1.shtml

[6] http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-answers/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

The Whitewash of History Continues..

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that the whitewash of history is as alive and well in Berlin as in other parts of the world.

"The publicly funded Multicultural Center's (Werkstatt der Kulturen) decision to remove educational panels of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini, who was an ally of Adolf Hitler, from a planned exhibit, sparked outrage on Thursday among a district mayor, the curator of the exhibit, and the Berlin Jewish community.
The curator, Karl Rössler, told The Jerusalem Post that it is a "scandal" that the director of the Werkstatt, Philippa Ebéné, sought to censor the exhibit.
"One must, of course, name that al-Husseini, a SS functionary, participated in the Holocaust," said Rössler.
The exhibit covers the "The Third World during the Second World War" and three exhibit panels of 96 are devoted to the mufti's collaboration with the Nazis.
The grand mufti delivered a talk to the imams of the Bosnian SS division in 1944, and was a key Islamic supporter of Nazi Germany's destruction of European Jewry.
Ebéné denied that there was an "agreement " reached with the local German-Muslim community to shut down the exhibit. She termed media queries regarding an agreement as "Eurocentric."

Meanwhile, the TimesOnline is reporting that Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has been 'set free for oil'.

"The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.
Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards."

The first inkling that I got about the al-Megrahi deal not being on the up and up were articles like this one which stated that...

"It emerged that the prognosis that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had a life expectancy of only three months or less was supported by an unnamed doctor who had no expertise in terminal prostate cancer. The final report on al-Megrahi's condition, which went to Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was drawn up by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care with the Scotttish Prison Service."

I seemed to like it better when it was assumed that the public had some common sense and an elaborate ruse had to be staged in order to pull the wool over everybody's eyes. Now, they just go ahead and do whatever and hope that Brittany/Jessica/Lindsay do something mildly outrageous in order to divert media attention and coverage.

Questions posed by an atheist..

Jay D. Homnick writes about a recent phone conversation he had with a young man who states that he is an atheist but still has some doubts concerning the validity of his position. It's an interesting article and I highly encourage you to check it out on your own time. In the meantime, I will highlight a few of the points raised in order to pique your interest in it. For instance, right off the bat, the young man states...

"I was brought up Jewish but I rejected that and became an atheist," he begins. "This friend of mine is very positive about her religion and now I am beginning to wonder who is right."

"Well, were your parents knowledgeable about religion?" I (Homnick) asked.

"No, not at all."

"Did you attend religious school?"

"No."

"So you never really rebelled against Judaism. You rebelled against your parents' attempt to saddle you with a religion without an explanation."

"I guess you're right."

"What it amounts to is that you need to get enough information about the claims of the religion so you can make an informed judgment. The problem is that it's hard for you to find the time to essentially go back to college and study a new discipline."

Religiosity is in decline in the West and as the old adage goes, 'If you don't believe in something, you're liable to fall for anything', in this case, the lie of atheism. Dr. Norman Wise once said, "It doesn't matter to the devil what lie you believe in. You can believe in Hinduism with it's plethora of gods, or you can believe in atheism with it's idea that there is no God. Both are a lie. The only thing that he doesn't want you to explore and more fully understand is the Christian gospel". I wholeheartedly agree that there are many Christian theists out there who have no idea how to defend their beliefs when asked hard questions about it. Of course, that in and of itself does not make their belief in the Christian God invalid, it just means that there are very many out there that seldom engage those who have points of view that are in opposition to theirs. Unfortunately for the state of discourse, certain (yet not all of course) atheists seize upon the lack of a profoud answer and this in some way reinforces their worldview. The young man goes on to ask Homnick, "How can you prove to me that God exists in the first place?", to which Homnick replies...

"In a way the Bible itself proves God. Once you accept the Jews could not have made up the story of what happened at Sinai, then you have to believe it was true revelation. Either that or a genius theatrical production which not only fooled a few million very sharp cookies in the audience, it also left behind a book of such superior literary quality that it still moves people to live nobly thousands of years later."

As a literary work alone, the Bible is unlike anything else we know of. It is almost beyind comprehension how 66 books written over the millenia in three different languages could be so harmonious.

I think the key thing here is that Homnick stated that the guy approached him with "an open mind". Is your mind at least open to the possibility that God exists? I believe that stating with certainty that God does not exist is folly and I don't see how one could ever prove this universal negative. Vox Day has said that he always found agnosticism to be a much more reasonable position than atheism and for the afore mentioned reason, I agree.


Feel free to leave your thoughts on the article or any legitimate questions one might have concerning today's topic here on this thread. I'll check back in later.

The Nazi party as a left-wing phenomena. The comparison to other political parties

While it may seem contraversial to view the Nazi Party as being to the left of the political spectrum, it is not entirey unheard of. For example, on pgs 74-75 of Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism, we read..."The notion that communism and Nazism are polar opposites stems from the deeper truth that they are in fact kindred spirits. Or, as Richard Pipes has written, "Bolshevism and Fascism were heresies of socialism." Both ideologies are reactionary in the sense that they try to re-create tribal impulses. Communists champion class, Nazis race, facists nation. All such ideologies-we can call them totalitarian for now-attract the same types of people.

Hitler's hatred for communism has been opportunistically exploited to signify ideological distance, when in fact it indicated the exact opposite. Today this manuever has settled into conventional wisdom. But what Hitler hated about Marxism communism had almost nothing to do with those aspects of communism that we would consider relevant, such as economic doctrine, or the need to destroy the capitalists and bourgeoisie. In these areas Hitler saw largely eye to eye with socialists and communists. His hatred stemmed from his paranoid conviction that the people calling themselves communists were in fact in on a foreign, Jewish conspiracy. He says this over and over again in Mein Kampf."

While looking through different articles on this subject, I came across one from libertarian columnist Vox Day which gives us a pretty good indication of how we can view the Nazi Party when compared to the communist, democrat, republican and libertarian parties over 10 different areas. Day ranks them 0-10 with zero meaning total state control and incrementally less control as we move closer to a ranking of 10. The final tally when all ten factors were considered and added up?



Communism- 0

Nazi Party-15

Democrat Party-36

Republican party-52

Libertarian-85



Read 'em and weep ladies.

"This political spectrum of freedom is by no means complete, and I would certainly welcome any suggested modifications or additions from thoughtful readers. What it does provide, however, is a reasonable starting point for a discussion of the left-right political spectrum based on identifiable facts and philosophy instead of ignorance, deception and half-baked history." Vox Day

A Form of Bigotry You Seldom Hear of

I have long known that the idea of impartiality on the part of academics when it comes to denouncing the villians of this world was a complete and utter farce. They are quick to denounce those who are within the confines of unacceptability if it happens to be a person or group that does not squarely fit with their leftist worldview. Anyone else? Fuhgeddaboutit. They will turn a blind eye and completely ignore them just as quick as you can say Jack Robinson. Today's article citing an experiment by Prof. Fred Gottheil shows statistically that this is in fact the case....

"Prof. Fred Gottheil told Front Page Magazine that he compiled a list of 675 email addresses from 900 signatures on a 2009 petition authored by Dr. David Lloyd, professor of English at the University of Southern California, urging the U.S. to abandon its ally, Israel. Prof. Gottheil discovered that six of the signers, who hailed from more than 150 college campuses, were members of his own faculty.

“Would these same 900 sign onto a statement expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians?” he wondered. “I felt it was worth a try.”

The results? “Almost non existent,” he told Front Page editor Jamie Glazov. Only 27 of the 675 “self-described social-justice seeking academics” agreed to sign Gottheil’s Statement of Concern – less than 5 percent of the total who had publicly called for the censure of Israel for human rights violations.

The refusal of women’s studies professors to publicly condemn honor killings, or academic advocates of gay rights to speak out against the treatment of homosexuals in Muslim countries, is just about as hypocritical as it gets. Their loathing (dare we call it hate?) of the UN-created Jewish state is so deep that it “trump[s] their professional interests,” leading them into a “ideologically discriminatory trap of their own making,” Prof. Gottheil added."

Anyone with an open mind could have seen this coming if they would have just gauged the amount of rhetoric coming forth from academics against Israel and weighed it against the amount of criticism they reserve for the Muslim world. I think that such people fall into one of two categories for the most part.

1. Their leftist behaviour and pretentions to a supposedly high degree of intelligence allow them to disguise their anti-Semitism much better than those who do not care if the entire world knows that they are anti-Israel. Or..

2. They are sissies who are scared to speak out against a potential target of their consternation that might take offense to their criticisms and actually do something about it, violent or otherwise. Thus, they are content to pick "soft targets" for their scorn and condemnation and the real root of the problem (radical Islam) continues to fester.

On Obama, Political Suicide and the Mosque at Ground Zero

Fresh on the heels of back-to-back home runs by Nile Gardiner on his recent articles comparing the Obama administration with L' Ancien Regime along with listing 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown, Chairman Zero has unexplicably decided to weigh in on the contraversy to build a thirteen story mosque and Islamic center a mere stone's throw away from Ground Zero of the attacks on 9/11. Quote...

"We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack – from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam – it is a gross distortion of Islam."
President Barack H. Obama

Is this some sort of sick joke?

Seriously. Please explain to me why we should show deference in this particular matter to a religion in which the very idea of "Freedom of Religion" is anathema to it's very core. It staggers the imagination. Unless President Obama could guide me toward the largest Episcopal church in Saudi Arabia or the 3rd largest Pentecostal gathering there, I'm calling Complete BS on this one.

Not to be outdone by the above columnists, Fred Dardick explains in perfect clarity how such an idea of the construction of a mosque on this site sets in the minds of many people on these shores...

"For you liberals who somehow got forwarded this column and still don’t know what Sharia law is, allow me to enlighten you. It is the literal interpretation of Islam that leads to the widespread abuse and enslavement of women. It’s also called the reality of “that woman in Iran who’s waiting to see if she’s going to get stoned to death for adultery” rules. Who knows if she really committed adultery? In Islamic societies all a man has to do to give his wife the proverbial dirt nap, is simply claim she did.

Under Sharia law, men are the judge, jury and executioners of women, and Obama apparently thinks Americans are too stupid to know this. While Obama may be able to lawyer his way around the Ground Zero mosque as a “religious tolerance” issue, the rest of us know a load of bs when we see one...

Not only do Americans view the structure as anything but a bridge to understanding, Islamists around the world will also rightly perceive the mosque in a very different light than the simple “right to build a place of worship”. They will see it as spitting in the face of evil America and hold it up as a shining example in their enslaved societies to promote hatred of the West. It will become a “stupid Americans let us build a mosque on their graves, so let’s finish the job and kill them all” kind of thing.

Ever wonder how the Islamic Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem got built smack dab on top of the ancient Jewish temple mount? I can promise you, it was no attempt to “build bridges” either that put it there. It was more like “let’s take over the Jews most treasured religious site and plant a mosque on it to show them who’s boss”. That’s why Jews pray at the Western Wall, because if they tried to visit the top of the temple mount, the Arabs would riot.

Every time Obama speaks to Muslims, it’s always how wonderful and understanding Islam is compared to our knuckle dragging Judeo-Christian customs. Rather than apologizing endlessly for America, and in this case our opposition to the Ground Zero mosque, how about being honest for a change, champ?

Over the past 100 years, America has brought peace and prosperity to billions around the world, while at the same time Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors, especially women, wholesale. Talk about the war that never ends. Shia vs. Sunni violence has been going on for centuries and, by the looks of Iraq, will continue for centuries more.

The irony is if our President, who clearly feels his #1 job is reaching out to the Muslim world, had half a brain in his communist head, he would be out there speaking forcefully against Sharia law and educating his fellow Islamists to the dangers of a literal interpretation of the Koran."

Not that I thought that Obama stood a good chance at re-election before this latest display of political ineptitude, I think that he completely destoyed his chances at another term with his position on this particular matter. Time will tell, of course, but I think that all attention would wisely be focused on the upcoming Republican primary to gauge who will be the next US president. Thats IF of course, the Lizard Queen doesn't smell blood in the water and attempt to dethrone the usurper-in-chief herself.

On Atheists and the Amalekites

"Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 1 Samuel 15:1-3 (NIV)

If there's one point that atheists positively love to hop upon their collective Moral High Horses about and criticize the Christian God over, boy is this ever the one. It's almost as if they think they have a magical ace up their sleeves that they love to play at what they deem to be the appropriate time during online, internet argumentation and then its throw it down with an implied AH-HA! Gotcha! WhuddaboutheAmalekitessmartguy?!

Well? What about the Amalekites? Let's examine the issue, shall we?

Point #1-The Amalekites were not sitting around playing tiddly-winks, committing various, pagan inspired acts of charity and leading the Ancient Near East toward any sort of awe-inspiring enlightenment. Quite the opposite in fact. A famous archeologist, William F. Fullbright, once noted that the Amalekite religion was "perhaps the most depraved religion known to man.” Or, as Mike Woodruff describes for us...

"..the primary reason the Amalekites were to be punished is because they were wicked. The tribes that fall under “the ban” and are to be wiped out are vile. We certainly see that with the Amalekites. They were distant cousins of the Israelites who gained God’s ire by going out of their way to provoke him. They likely knew that the promise God had made was to bless everyone through the blessing of Israel, and they certainly heard of the way God was providing for the Jews; but the Amalekites did not fear God. Instead, they attacked the weakest of God’s people. After giving their promise not to attack, they waited for the Jewish slaves to file through their land on the way to Sinai and then attacked the stragglers—the sick, tired, and elderly. This actually became a bit of a pattern for the Amalekites. They preyed on the weak, and they never missed a chance to attack the Jews.

Even if we leave the Jews out of it, the Amalekites were vile. They burnt their children in front of statues of the idol Molech."

The act of defending child sacrifice never seems to make it's way into the atheist psyche as this item is somehow conveniently glossed over and apparently forgotten. One technique utilized by atheist apologists is to cite what they feel is a lack of evidence that the Amalekites were actually that evil. Paul Edwards encountered this type of, *ahem*, reasoning while discussing the matter with arch-atheist Christopher Hitchens.



"His (Hitchins') initial response was to suggest that the historical record relative to the Amalekites and child sacrifice could not be trusted because it was in the Bible. Interesting that Hitchens trusts the Bible relative to what it says about what Israel did to the Amalekites, but the same Bible can’t be trusted on what it says relative to what it says the Amalekites had done to their own children. (Here is an excellent exposition of the question of whether or not the actions of Israel against the Amalekites constituted war crimes.)"

So You see folks, they just can't have it both ways.


Point #2-The killing of the animals owned by the Amalekites actually had a purpose. Chuck Colson, Norm Geisler, Hank Hanegraaff explain why...

"Why were the Isrealites to kill the Amalekites' animals? In a land without money and banks (these did not exist during the days of Saul), livestock-oxen, sheep, goats camels and donkeys-was a major form of wealth. But God did not want the Isrealites to go to war in order to enrich themselves at their enemies' expense. This solemn task was done to carry out a divine death sentence, not for personal gain."

Point #3-The weight of evidence suggests that God was being hyperbolic when he commanded the destruction of the Amalekites. Joel from Unsettled Christianity explains why he thinks this is most likely the case..

"The question, of course, being that if God said that He would so utterly wipe the Amalekites off the face of the earth – even the memory of them – then why do we remember them in our Sacred Texts? Even today, some Jews still see the Amalekites as those who opposed Israel – from Adolf Hitler to the Palestinians. Those who do so see no problem with the biblical text as they seemingly do not take it as literal as many Christians.



The author who penned the 83rd psalm didn’t see utter destruction for the Amalekites, instead asking God to humble them, among other names, to His Name:

"O my God, scatter them like tumbleweed, like chaff before the wind!
As a fire burns a forest and as a flame sets mountains ablaze, chase them with your fierce storm; terrify them with your tempest.
Utterly disgrace them until they submit to your name, O LORD.
Let them be ashamed and terrified forever. Let them die in disgrace.
Then they will learn that you alone are called the LORD, that you alone are the Most High, supreme over all the earth." (Psalm 83:13-18 NLT)

So, what do the biblical literalists do? Do we feign an answer and say that God hasn’t kept His promise yet but will? How could He when he put the history of the Amalekites into the Sacred Text which will never perish? Esther’s author changed the name of the Amalekites and the Psalmist instead sung of the day which they would submit to the Name of the Lord. Where they expecting a complete wipe of memory, especially seeing that they recorded the events?"

In the end, the Amalekites were not completely destroyed. They were however, diminished to the point that they werent quite the threat that they previously were.



If atheists are still going to cling to such a shoddy criticism of God as this one, then they must abandon another pet grievance of theirs, that of the problem of evil, pain and suffering. It seems that when God actually DID do something to a cruel, horrible people who caused pain and destruction, the best that atheists can offer up is that they think they certainly could have done better if they had the chance. Yeah right. Good luck with that line of reasoning. Keep believing that and there's a bridge on Brooklyn that I want to show you.

The Iranians at our Backdoor

Pat Buchanan gets us started by informing us of an important, yet somehow overlooked piece by the mainstream media, that China and Venezuela are becoming closer...

"Thank you, Hu Jintao, and thank you, China," said Hugo Chavez, as he announced a $20 billion loan from Beijing, to be repaid in Venezuelan oil.The Chinese just threw Chavez a life-preserver. For Venezuela is reeling from 25 percent inflation, government-induced blackouts to cope with energy shortages and an economy that shrank by 3.3 percent in 2009.

Where did China get that $20 billion? From us. From consumers at Wal-Mart. That $20 billion is 1 percent of the $2 trillion in trade surpluses Beijing has run up with the United States over two decades.Beijing is using its trillions of dollars in reserves, piled up from exports to America, to cut deals to lock up strategic resources for the coming struggle with the United States for hegemony in Asia and the world."

All of this comes fresh on the heels of an announcement earlier this week that Iran is apparently increasing the number of Quds troops in Venezuela. None of this comes as a suprise to me personally as I saw newly constructed mosques there during my last visit in '07.

" Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps has stepped up its presence in Latin America, especially in Venezuela, according to a Pentagon report to Congress. The Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force "maintains operational capabilities around the world," said the report on Iran's military power, released Tuesday by the Defense Department.

The force "is well established in the Middle East and North Africa, and recent years have witnessed an increased presence in Latin America, particularly Venezuela," the report said.

"If US involvement in conflicts in these regions deepens, contact with the IRGC-QF (Quds Force), directly or through extremist groups it supports, will be more frequent and consequential," it said. The report said Iran's top priority is to ensure "the survival of the regime" and that Tehran has ambitions to position itself as a regional power, while expanding its presence on the world stage.

The elite Quds force, which serve under the authority of the supreme leader Ali Khamenei, has been accused in connection with a 1994 attack on a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires."

Isnt it wonderful to know that the sheer idiocy of White Liberal Guilt put the most foolhardy appeaser on the world stage since Nevil Chamberlain into the Oval Office to protect the United States as well as the free world? Teddy Roosevelt is probably spinning in his grave at the thought of allowing such threats to fester in our sphere of influence. 2012 is right around the corner people. Hopefully we won't make the same mistake twice. I'm leaning toward Romney, but I'm going to keep my eyes open in the meantime.

CINO Nonsense in Kentucky‏

It has been reported that the proposed merger of the University of Louisville Hospital with Catholic Health Initiatives has some people feeling uneasy. Chiefly among those who have misgivings about the merger are two Catholic In Name Only state representatives (who are both democrats) named Thomas Burch and Mary Lou Marzian who apparently suffer from self-identity issues. Some excerpts of what passes for persuasive argumentation in the op-ed piece that they jointly submitted to Kentucky.com are as follows...

"Representatives from Jewish Hospital, University Hospital and the University of Louisville have been reassuring patients that reproductive health services will not change after the merger with a Catholic medical institution, St. Mary's Healthcare. Their reassurances have not worked. Several hundred people have signed a statement opposing the move."

Isn't it interesting to see how effortlessly they replace the decidedly violent option of the killings of innocents with such sterile and Orwellian terminology like "reproductive health services"? Who could be against that? If I described the local meth dealer here as an "undocumented pharmacist", that makes him not sound so bad either and I seem like a heavy if I criticize him.

"..an advertisement released by the heads of the three hospitals assured readers "the merger partners are committed to expanding, not limiting, services," including tubal ligations performed at the time of Caesarean sections. We applaud their intentions, but we fear they may be somewhat naive."

If anyone in this discussion is "naive", it is you two. You seem quite content in criticizing the party that places emphasis on how precious human life is without ever examining the Culture of Death that is slowly, yet steadily creeping forward in western society. For instance, I would bet my bottom dollar that neither one of you could tell me what percent of babies that are euthanized in the Netherlands are done so without parental consent. From the cited article..

"It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg. For those who object to this assertion by claiming that German doctors killed disabled babies during World War II without consent of parents, so too do many Dutch doctors: Approximately 21 percent of the infant euthanasia deaths occurred without request or consent of parents. Moreover, since when did parents attain the moral right to have their children killed?



Euthanasia consciousness is catching. The Netherlands' neighbor Belgium decided to jump off the same cliff as the Dutch only two years ago. But already, they have caught up with the Dutch in their freefall into the moral abyss. The very first Belgian euthanasia of a person with multiple sclerosis violated the law; and just as occurs routinely in the Netherlands, the doctor involved faced no consequences. Now Belgium is set to legalize neo-pediatric euthanasia. Two Belgian legislators justify their plan to permit children to ask for their own mercy killing on the basis that young people "have as much right to choose" euthanasia as anyone else. Yet, these same children who are supposedly mature enough to decide to die would be ineligible to obtain a driver's license."

Please explain to me how this can't possibly happen here. Also, would an agency that has Catholic oversight be more or less likely to see such horrific, moral failure?

"At St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, Sister Margaret McBride lost her job for approving abortion care that saved a woman's life. Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted had her removed. Do we want local hospital workers to obey an authority that puts anything above the life of the patient?"

Given the nature of doctor/patient confidentiality rules, I doubt that either of you had any greater access to the patient's medical records than the rest of us and you are simply reporting second hand information. Carefully left out of your assertion are the facts that the Catholic Physicians Guild in Phoenix fully supported the bishop in this case and that at least one neonatalogy expert has questioned whether the abortion was really necessary.

Although I'm just some schmuck sitting in his undershirt in Florida, allow me to make a suggestion. Instead of advocating, in your own words, "a full range of reproductive health care", why not side with that the majority of pro-aborts who now agree that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are just plain wrong and support life for a change?

Why not try and be a representative of your denomination by following the example of New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and pledge to help any pregnant woman in need? Carpe diem!

A tangled web

It's the title of today's thought-provoking article from Thomas Sowell.

"In other words, if group X doesn't pass a test nearly as often as group Y, then there is something wrong with the test, according to this reasoning or lack of reasoning. This implicitly assumes that there cannot be any great difference between the two groups in the skills, talents or efforts required.... Does anybody seriously doubt that blacks usually play basketball better than whites? Does anybody seriously doubt that the leading cameras and lenses in world have long been produced by Germans and Japanese? Or that Jews have been over-represented among the top performers in various intellectual fields?...In a number of countries, powerless minorities have so outperformed the dominant majority that group preferences and quotas have been instituted to favor the majority group that has otherwise been unable to compete. This has happened in Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Fiji, among other places. Before World War II, quotas to benefit the majority were common in a number of European universities, where Jewish students outperformed others. "

Never could I imagine that the left would nominate someone so supremely unqualified as Sotomayor for the SCOTUS. Even with the numbers needed in the Senate to pass her confirmation, it still seems like it's far from a done deal and the Obamunists just might have a nice little suprise when the vote is finally taken.