A Job Description Even Gandolf Could Handle

Provided the guy is caucasian, of course.....

"For a day, a weekend, a week, up to even a month or two, Chinese companies are willing to pay high prices for fair-faced foreigners to join them as fake employees or business partners.

Some call it "White Guy Window Dressing." To others, it's known as the "White Guy in a Tie" events, "The Token White Guy Gig," or, simply, a "Face Job."

And it is, essentially, all about the age-old Chinese concept of face. To have a few foreigners hanging around means a company has prestige, money and the increasingly crucial connections -- real or not -- to businesses abroad.

"Face, we say in China, is more important than life itself," said Zhang Haihua, author of "Think Like Chinese." "Because Western countries are so developed, people think they are more well off, so people think that if a company can hire foreigners, it must have a lot of money and have very important connections overseas. So when they really want to impress someone, they may roll out a foreigner."

Or rent one....The requirements for these jobs are simple. 1. Be white. 2. Do not speak any Chinese, or really speak at all, unless asked. 3. Pretend like you just got off of an airplane yesterday."

And ladies, there's hope for you as well, provided the recently ingognito Tinkbell is at least light-complected anyway...

"White women are also a hot commodity, sometimes to pose as phony foreign girlfriends, or, in the case of Vicky Mohieddeen, to pretend to be an oil tycoon.

Mohieddeen, who is Scottish, took a job in 2008 to attend what she describes as some sort of "oil drilling conference" in Shandong province for 300 yuan ($44). Several busloads of foreigners, with nationalities ranging from Pakistani to Nigerian, were trucked to the event, she said. They were greeted by brass bands and feted with a sumptuous dinner.

"I was like, 'Yeah, we have a lot of oil in Scotland.' I didn't know what to say. It was a bit nerve-racking. We were guests of honor of the vice mayor. We were put in a nice hotel. It was quite fancy."

All of this adds up to opportunities for the intellectually dicey should that attempt at social engineering fail to generate the income that was hoped for.

Why is This Man Being Deported?

I made brief mention of this the other day, but it's a matter that warrants further examination as Cal Thomas explains in his article out today as found in the Washington Examiner...

"What should be done with a man who infiltrated the terrorist group Hamas, spied for Israeli intelligence and broke up terror attacks, saving countless Israeli, as well as Palestinian, lives? Most people would say he should be honored.

Not the U.S. government. It's trying to deport him.

Mosab Hassan Yousef was more than a spy. He is the son of a founding leader of Hamas, which made him among the highest prizes for Israeli intelligence. Yousef and his Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) handler, Gonen Ben Itzhak, were in Washington last week, meeting with whomever would listen to them.

Yousef told me -- and Itzhak confirmed -- that he never killed anyone and, in fact, prevented many from being killed while providing useful information that thwarted numerous terror attacks.

In San Diego on Wednesday before an immigration judge, the government will charge that because of Yousef's "terrorist associations," he should be deported. Yousef tells me, "I acted like a terrorist in order to fool terrorists," but again emphasizes he never committed a terrorist act."

Hassan Yousef, a convert to Christianity, has stated "I found that I was really drawn to the grace, love and humility that Jesus talked about,". He further related in an interview with The Wall Street Journal his motivations for working against Hamas from the inside...

"Mr. Yousef has some of the evangelist in him, even as he insists he is not a particularly devoted Christian and is still learning about his new religion. He wants Palestinians and Israelis to learn what he did from the Christian God.

"I converted to Christianity because I was convinced by Jesus Christ as a character, as a personality. I loved him, his wisdom, his love, his unconditional love. I didn't leave [the Islamic] religion to put myself in another box of religion. At the same time it's a beautiful thing to see my God exist in my life and see the change in my life. I see that when he does exist in other Middle Easterners there will be a change.

"I'm not trying to convert the entire nation of Israel and the entire nation of Palestine to Christianity. But at least if you can educate them about the ideology of love, the ideology of forgiveness, the ideology of grace. Those principles are great regardless, but we can't deny they came from Christianity as well."

Mr. Thomas goes on to point out in his article that "President Obama's "Muslim adviser," Dalia Mogahed, has endorsed a movement started by Turkey's Fethullah Gulen that seeks to restore the Ottoman Empire and establish a universal caliphate, but Yousef, a Christian convert, faces expulsion from America. The administration has it backward." Keep in mind that this is the same administration that is meeting secretly with Hamas and treats the democratically elected, head of state of our closest ally in the region by hustling him out through a side service entrance at the White House. All of this gives one pause to wonder, as Thomas Sowell once pointed out re: Obama, exactly when does one stop making excuses for the guy and begin to connect the dots?

'Peace activist' Flotilla Organizers Begin to Abandon the Pretense

This picture is worth a thousand words. As if we needed confirmation of the evil that plots against Israel, flotilla supporters provide it in "johnny-on-the-spot" fashion and with amazing clarity...

"Turkish supporters for flotillas aimed at breaking Israel’s maritime embargo on Hamas-controlled Gaza recently raised the Nazi flag with an expression of gratitude. The Turkish language slogan on the flag is a common expression of gratitude, according to the [Islam] Religion for Peace.com website.



Turkey was not allied with the Nazi regime but retained important trade agreements that allowed Nazi Germany to import key materials until the pact was broken one year before the end of World War II.

The web site states that Muslim jihadists have committed 15,533 attacks around the world since the September 11, 2001 aerial suicide bombings on the United States. Turkey and the terrorist-linked IHH organization organized the last flotilla May 31, when IHH members, many of them with training by terrorist groups, attacked Israeli Navy commandos who prevented the Mavi Mamara ship from continuing on course to Gaza."

I once blogged awhile back about grand mufti Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini who "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." Thank you for showing your true colors again this time guys. This Bud's for you.

UPDATE: Providing even more clarity on the lines being drawn and sides being taken on this topic is a statement by the increasingly unhinged Hugo Chavez who's latest screed relates that "one day the genocidal state of Israel will be put into its place". No Hugo. You couldnt seem more insane if you tried.

When "pro-choice" is more than merely a choice

According to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we just can't help poor children around the world. No. That would be assistance without pushing her preferred ideology and we can't have that now, can we? Instead we have to push for unfettered access to the death of prenats and then deal with the consequences afterward. NRO's Greg Pfundstein and Anna Halpine report...

"On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements?


The numbers are shocking: In Sierra Leone, 16 percent of all infants perish, and 28 percent of all children die before they reach the age of five. In thirteen countries in sub-Saharan Africa, more than 1,000 women die in childbirth for every 100,000 live births. In Afghanistan, one in eight women will die as a result of bearing children. All in all, 99 percent of maternal deaths worldwide occur in developing countries.


There is good news: Much can be done, and much has been done, to bring these numbers down. This spring, The Lancet published a new study that demonstrated significant progress in reducing maternal deaths. The article announced that worldwide, maternal death figures are on the decline; rates have fallen from 526,300 in 1980 to 342,900 in 2008. The reasons for the reduction in maternal deaths are many, including lower pregnancy rates for some countries, greater access to education, improved access to nutrition and health care, and the increasing number of skilled birth attendants. Abortion has not been identified as a factor in the reduction of maternal deaths. A study on the question was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and at the recent Women Deliver conference, Melinda Gates pledged a further $1.5 billion for maternal health, specifying that no funding would be provided for abortion."

But of course, such 'free thinking' runs smack into the face of "progress" as defined by a far-leftist agenda where abortion is viewed as a detached "answer" to the "problem". The "problem" of course is the only entirely innocent party in the consideration of such matters, the recently conceived child....

"one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs. But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus. Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”

It is surprising that Hillary Clinton would insist on funding for abortion and risk derailing an initiative that is poised to generate unprecedented commitments in both the private and public sectors. It is especially surprising considering the body of recent scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of various straightforward, uncontroversial, and achievable means to reduce maternal and infant mortality."

You see people? Bottom line, we have to kill kids. Period. There's a greater good to be done by the massacre of the innocents than by giving food aid to poor single mothers. Scumbags. I spit on all of them.

On Pederasts and Wikipedia

Wikipedia? HATE IT! I rarely use it and I wouldnt cite it as a source in anything I would like to be taken seriously. Only if there is no other source readily available do I even bother to look at it and then I check the sources cited for credibility and any apparent biases. While pointing out the unreliability of Wiki recently in a different forum, I came across the following excerpt from Marcel Berlins writing in The Guardian (UK) concerning Wiki...

"The "spirit of Wikipedia" is at risk, we're told; its fundamental philosophy is under attack. Good. About time. Allowing anyone to contribute to it without checking his or her credentials was always a flawed concept, encouraging inaccuracy, unreliability and irresponsibility... I don't think there's a way of telling what proportion of Wikipedia entries are deficient, whether because of the writer's bias, mischief or lack of knowledge. It's clear that a significant number are questionable, sufficient to lead us to suspect all entries."

I couldn't agree more. Never mind that there is an entire website dedicated to cataloging the biases of Wikipedia to be found at wikipediabias.com and that Wiki isnt allowed to be cited as a source by students, along comes another reason for me to dislike the favorite tool of the faux intelligent and wannabe intellectual .....

"Wikipedia has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in their favor and are trying to lure more people into their world, an investigation by FoxNews.com confirms.

Chat room posts show a clear effort by pedophiles to use Wikipedia, which can be accessed unfiltered in public schools across the country, to further their agenda. Message board posts often include links to specific Wikipedia articles that the participants say need to be edited to "normalize" pedophile behavior in the public eye and to recruit more pedophiles into their community.

“Pedophiles have campaigned to push their point of view that 'pedophilia is OK and doesn’t hurt children' on Wikipedia,” says Xavier Von Erck, director of the online pedophile watchdog organization Perverted Justice Foundation and Wikisposure.com, its offshoot project devoted to tracking pedophiles and pedophile activism on Wikipedia. “This has been a problem since Wikipedia started."

Can anyone actually think of a worse site to go to for information?

What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? The Vikings

The next installment in a series I began some time ago (and unfortunately have gotten away from recently) centered around the book What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? authored by Dr D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, concerns one of the most fierce group of people to ever walk the face of the earth, the Vikings. While intellectually honest, internet skeptics will credit the impact of Christianity for making the world a better place, the so-called "new atheists" are less likely to do so and are either forgetful or selectively ignorant to the great service that Christ's church has contributed to mankind over the years. Concerning the Vikings, in Chapter 11 of the book titled The Civilizing of the Uncivilized, Kennedy and Newcombe wrote......

"In the ninth and tenth centuries the Vikings, who were marauding adventurers, terrorized much of the coastline of Europe in their quest for plunder. They would plant crops in the spring, then go raiding, and then return for the harvest. The Christians in the pillaged lands would pray, "God, save us from the Norsemen [Vikings]." Religious institutions (e.g. monasteries) were a particularly favorite target of the Vikings because they often housed treasures and were often poorly defended. The Vikings pillaged, raped, and killed men, women, and even children! They would systematically put to the torch what was left. Their fighting men, berserkers, were so fierce in battle that our word beserk comes fom them. What changed this horrible scourge of humanity? Jesus Christ did. The gospel managed to penetrate even the Vikings-not without some resistance-and not even without some violence on the part of the new converts who didnt know better! Nonetheless, over time, many of the Scandinavians became true Christians, and so the Vikings stopped their terrible raids. Virtually every Norwegian, Dane, Swede, and even many British people are descendants of these formerly fierce and warlike people.


In A.D. 1020, the Norwegians had their first national assembly in their history. At this gathering, presided over by King Olav, Christianity became law. "At the same time," writes Norwegian historian Sverre Steen, "old practices became illegal, such as blood sacrifice, black magic, the 'setting out' of infants', slavery and polygamy."

Kennedy and Newcombe then go on to quote the following from history professor Dr. Joseph Reither (NYU) in his book, World History at a Glance who wrote on page 144...

"When we contemplate the violence and chaos which attended the disruption of Charlemagne's great empire, and we recall that distracted and disunited Europe was beset upon all sides by enemies-Vikings to the north, Saracens to the south, Magyars and Slavs to the east-we marvel that out of this confusion there arose a great civilization. Throughout these early centuries of turmoil one institution above all others patiently and persistently labored to combat the forces of disintegration and decay. During the era that has long been known as the Dark Ages, it was the Latin Christian Church which succeeded little by little in restraining violence and restoring order, justice, and decency. A distinguished and critical student of the Latin church has acknowledged that in all the history of mankind no other institution "has exercised so vast an influence on human destinies."

Should anyone be interested in further reading about the conversion of the Viking people(s) click here. If any skeptics would be willing to argue that the conversion and subsequent wholesale change of the Vikings was much more related to some type of organic, secular causation, I would be glad to see them cite their source here. Although I am not aware of anything specific on this topic, the wide range of atheist apologetics explanations never ceases to amaze me and if there is something more substantive than the odd "witch burning" reference, feel free to mention it on this thread. Though somehow I think that the existance of such material would be scant at best.

Our First Muslim President?

While earlier this week, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit stated that President Obama informed him in confidence that he (Obama) was a Muslim, Pieder Beeli's article today examines some more consistencies in the Obama-Muslim background connections.....

"Often we can tell the truth about what someone believes by performing an inferential or forensic analysis. We analyze what is implied rather than what is explicitly stated. This is especially helpful for the case of Obama for whom there are over 150 documented lies.

In light of the Islamic sanction of taqiyya, this sort of analysis could be especially valuable. Taqiyya has its origins in the prophet of Islam who allowed one of his followers to lie in order to kill someone who mocked the prophet.


When speaking of the origins of Islam, why does Obama use the word "revealed"? In his Cairo speech, Obama said, "I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed [emphasis added]." One does not expect a Christian to suggest that God revealed Islam to Muhammad for the simple reason that if God did such, then Christianity is wrong...Why would not Obama instead choose to say, "when Islam was invented" or "fabricated – or at least use the more equipoise "when Islam began…"? I find this especially telling in that I have not been able to find Obama use the term "revealed" to speak of God's doings in a Judeo-Christian context.


Similarly, when referring to the foundational book of Islam, why does Obama regularly and forcefully append the word "holy"? Obama calls the Quran, "the holy Quran." Again, one does not expect a Christian to suggest that the Quran is holy, because the Quran and the Bible contradict each other. If the Quran is holy, it should also be true – and if the Quran is true, then the Bible is incorrect. So while Obama's use of the term "holy Quran" is telling in itself, it is especially telling when contrasted with Obama's description of the foundational book of Christianity. In contrast, I have not heard Obama append the world "holy" onto the Bible.


Likewise, why is the Obama administration directing that ex-Muslim, Christian and firstborn son of one of the founding sheikh's of Hamas, Mosab Hassan Yousef – who has saved thousands of Israeli and Palestinian lives from Islamic suicide bombings – be extradited from the U.S. and send to Palestinian territories where he is sure to face certain death? (Note: Supporting link as to the goodwill efforts of Hassan Yousef, click here.. Link)"

Beeli wraps up the article by citing Matthew 7:16, You shall know the tree from its fruits. Indeed, to any impartial observer, it's plain to see, as Beeli notes "By examining Obama's fruits, we find his faith to be far more rooted in Islam than in Christianity."


UPDATE: It would appear that the link to the New York Times article by Nicholos Kristof in which " Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’ and in which Kristof wrote "Obama recited, ‘with a first-class [Arabic] accent,’ the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer." is now back up and accessible on the website of the Times after earlier being taken down for some unknown reason. Link

Black Christian News 'Gets It'. Why Can't Others?

Buried within the text of President Obama's Fathers Day proclamation was the following rather interesting definition of fatherhood...

"Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step-father, a grandfather, or caring guardian."

Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association points out that "This is the first time in our nation's history that a president has used Father's Day as an excuse to promote the radical homosexual agenda and completely redefine the word 'family,'" and to my knowledge, he is absolutely correct on that account. Black Christian News asks the following, probing question ...

"Question: Where are the Megachurch Pastors and Prophets of God to Publicly Rebuke this Unwise President?

Where is T.D. Jakes, Eddie Long, Charles Blake, Joel Hunter, Creflo Dollar, Charles Stanley, Noel Jones, Jack Graham, Pat Robertson, Kenneth Ulmer, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen and James Dobson? Where is Tony Evans, Frank Page, Al Sharpton, Kirbyjon Caldwell, Ed Young Sr., Ed Young Jr., Jonathan Falwell, Dwight McKissic, Jesse Jackson, Floyd Flake, Frederick Haynes III, David Jeremiah, and John Hagee? Where are the preachers and prophets who know that homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight and is also against nature itself, and that two homosexual men cannot be "fathers" in the normal sense of the word?"

Indeed, there seems to be an appalling lack of criticism from America's leading pastors in the wake of such shameless political manuevering by Obama. To be fair, although we are just a few short days after Father's Day, I really don't see many of the above mentioned Christian "leaders" launching criticisms at Obama's for politicizing Father's Day in such a way.

I'm sure Obama will make mention that children raised by gay parents are significantly more likely to become gay themselves along with statistics that bear out that....

1. "Almost all child sexual abuse is committed by men; and
   
   


2. Less than three percent of American men identify themselves as homosexual; yet
   
   


3. Nearly a third of all cases of child sexual abuse are homosexual in nature (that is, they involve men molesting boys). This is a rate of homosexual child abuse about ten times higher than one would expect based on the first two facts."Link
   

The authors of the study go on to point out that "This does not mean that all, or even most, homosexual men are child molesters--but it does prove that homosexuality is a significant risk factor for this horrible crime" which seems like a pretty fair statement based upon the statistics provided.

All of this points toward a much less than optimal situation for children being raised in such an environment and for Obama to equate such couples with heterosexual ones is nothing short of "Orwellian verve".

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

The Decline of a Denomination

Although I'm not a Methodist myself, I watch their decline into something other than Christianity with a passing interest that resembles viewing a horrific trainwreck one might encounter when out and about.

""A United Methodist school in California is reportedly the first seminary in the United States to become multi-faith. Featured in a recent Los Angeles Times article, Claremont School of Theology outside Los Angeles will begin clergy training for Muslims and Jews this fall, and hopes for future Buddhist and Hindu programs. Concerned about the new direction, United Methodism's oversight agency for its 13 official seminaries cut off funding to Claremont early this year and will reevaluate the cut-off later this month. Claremont was getting about $800,000 annually from the denomination... About 70 of Claremont's 275 or so students are United Methodists...


Founded in 1885 as a Methodist seminary, in the 20th century it followed most other Mainline Protestant seminaries into theological liberalism, which morphed into radicalism in the 1960s. Claremont became especially renowned for Professor John Cobb, one of the architects of Process Theology, which asserts that God is constantly evolving and mutating rather than immutably sovereign...


Besides Process Theology, Claremont has been host to countless other theological fads and isms over the last half century or more, with its main stumbling block being primarily orthodox Christianity... But thanks partly to Claremont's revisionist theological influence, which de-emphasizes evangelism and Christianity's uniqueness, United Methodism has lost about half its membership in California and elsewhere on the West Coast over the last 40 years. Less than 4 percent of all United Methodists are now on the West Coast or in Rocky Mountain states. The few remaining evangelical United Methodist clergy in that region typically attend a non United Methodist seminary, including evangelical Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, which has about 4,500 students...


Claremont insists it will continue to cherish its Methodist "presence" on campus and will remain under the governance of the United Methodist Church. The school's board includes the United Methodist bishops of Phoenix and Pasadena, both of whom presumably supported or did not resist the new interfaith direction when the board approved it in 2008. Unsurprisingly, both bishops preside over dwindling flocks and are renowned advocates for homosexual causes and liberalized immigration advocacy, while failing to attract many homosexuals or immigrants to their United Methodist churches...


Another issue is whether Claremont's multi-faith initiative will reproduce new adherents of religious pluralism or provide an opening for orthodox Muslims who, unlike the liberal Methodists who run Claremont, believe in proselytism and the objective truth of their own religion. And if the latter, how will dedicated pluralists who largely reject Christianity's unique truth claims accommodate Islam's own potent truth claims?" Link to full article.

I don't want to appear like I'm picking on this particular denomination because this sort of thinking is prevelant in other mainline churches. I especially like how the author wrapped up his article by asking how Claremont can reconcile the fact that Islam thoroughly embraces absolute truth claims and yet they seem to be members of a particular camp inside of Christianity that rejects such ideals. If we had the ability to fast forward a decade or so, which of the competing claims offered by different religions being taught there do you think would be much more widely held at this institution? The school of thought that adheres to absolute truths or the one that holds that it's all subjective? The board members at Claremont would be well served to ask themselves, "What would John Wesley (pictured above) do?"

An Argument against Gay Marriage

As closing arguments are being heard in a California court concerning the future of gay marraige in that state, an interesting article appearing in The American Spectator by David Gutmann raises an interesting argument against it. In an earlier post I mentioned that homosexuals enjoy much shorter life expectancies and a higher risk of mental disorders for such a liberating choice of lifestyle. Mr Gutmann however, approaches the issue from a societal level...

"In short, heterosexual marriage acts to bring and hold the sexes together, despite the centrifugal forces that would (and often do) pull them apart -- the same forces that would split society into chronically hostile, gendered camps.

But despite any superficial resemblances, in ritual and contractual language, to heterosexual unions, homosexual marriages have the opposite effect: they function to confirm, deepen and even celebrate the gender split, and import it from childhood into adulthood. Gay marriage perpetuates into later life the homoeroticism of the pre-pubertal boy and girl: men marry men; women marry women, and -- except at Lesbi-Gay street demonstrations -- rarely if ever the twain shall meet.

No life-way that splits men from women, and celebrates their separation, should be granted equal dignity with heterosexual marriage, which brings and binds them together.

So Let homosexuals have their special unions, and the civil rights that properly go with them; but we should not grant those unions the title and sacramental status of Marriage. The institution of marriage is already in enough trouble as it is, and -- as indicated by falling birth-rates, single parenthood, and welfare dependency -- it is weakest in those enlightened societies which also accredit gay marriage. We should not -- in order to please a minority -- mix a social pathogen and its antagonist into the same medicine, and continue to call it a cure. Americans are voting, across our states, and with good reason, to keep the two forms of association separate."

Before continuing on, I feel it necessary to bow 3X to the Altar of Political Correctness by stating...

1. I do not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
   
2. I do not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
   
3. I do not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.

There. I would go even a bit further by saying that such matters as inheritance and life insurance should be extended to domestic partners. Mr Gutmann raises some interesting points in his article. If anyone is aware of a society that granted wholesale, societal acceptance of homosexual marriage and that country went on to be a moderate, if not spectacular success, please mention it here. I'm not personally aware of any though.

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.

The Liberal-Fascist Axis Part II

I completely missed commentary on Part I but here's the link should anyone want to backtrack and start reading this series by columnist Ellis Washington from the beginning. Part II's article came out last weekend and I thank Mr. Washington for posting the accompanying picture (above) in which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is clearly seen speaking before a Ku Klux Klan rally. I've mentioned in several different, discussion forums in the past that it's a verifible fact that Sanger spoke before the Ku Klux Klan as she was inclined to buy into the pet, junk-science "raceology" theory, clap-trap that was somewhat popular at that time and thus, she found a kindred spirit with "the Klan".

Washington raises an interesting point in his article when he states...

"Abortion is the act of a woman causing the premature termination of her baby and pregnancy. Despite volumes written on abortion, few writers have made the unmistakable connection between the twin evils of abortion and slavery – such as, for every 1,000 black babies born in America, there are 472 unborn black babies aborted, or for every two black babies born, one black baby is aborted.

The NAACP and the civil-rights movement essentially support the genocide of their own race....."

And in reference to Eugenics: "Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species." Eugenics was founded by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. Margaret Sanger zealously propagated eugenics before becoming the founder of Planned Parenthood, one of the largest abortion providers in the world. Sanger's entire idea for eugenics (of which abortion is its logical consequence) was to bring genocide to the black race, which Sanger and many progressive intellectuals believed was by nature unworthy of full participation in civilization."

Washington raises other issues that connect modern, leftist liberalism to fascism (an association which has been discussed in this forum before). Some of the other issues cited by Washington include...

• Slavery
  
• Social Darwinism (evolution)
  
• and how they relate to Fascism

Consider this site to be "Ellis Washington Central" and this particular entry to be an open thread for an honest and frank discussion of the points raised by Professor Washington. If it generates some interest and good discussion, then I'll post Part III as soon as it comes out.

On the Tobacco Tax and Radical Islam

I'm puzzled by certain arguments put forward by some members of the limited number of readers of this forum that mild criticism of a certain lifestyle like homosexuality, equates to 'hate' or 'intolerance'. If that were the case and I actually am a closeted bigot, then why do I link (and always have since this blog began, BTW) to the archive of one, Mr. Deroy Murdock? In addition to being black, Murdock also happens to be gay. None of this detracts form Murdock's writing ability as Mr. Murdock is a prolific writer and one of the best columnists in the English speaking world IMHO. Today's article from him regarding the liberal proclivity to tax, tax, tax without thinking of possible, undesirable outcomes only serves to bolster any critical acclaim that Murdock so richly deserves.

"..tobacco taxes create a perfect arbitrage opportunity that radical Muslims exploit to collect money for terrorist groups.


Consider the first Twin Towers attack, which killed six and injured 1,040. As Patrick Fleenor recalled in a Cato Institute study, "Counterfeit cigarette-tax stamps were found in an apartment used by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad cell that carried out the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center."

Smugglers buy cigarettes in low-tax states, disguise them with bogus tax stamps, sell them in high-tax locales and pocket the difference. A $2.70 spread separates Virginia's 30-cent-per-pack cigarette tax and Connecticut's at $3.00. Driving 1,500 cartons from Arlington to Hartford yields $40,500 a trip.

Terrorists move cigarettes because they are light, portable, otherwise legal and produce cash. "Law-enforcement officials in New York state estimate that well-organized cigarette smuggling networks generate between $200,000 and $300,000 per week," a 2008 House Homeland Security Committee staff report concluded. "A large percentage of the money is believed to be sent back to the Middle East, where it directly or indirectly finances groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda."

I believe that the law of unintended consequences applies here and although I'm sure that state and local governments do not intend to support Hamas or Al-Qaeda, that is the unfortunate, end result. Greater vigilance by the authorities concerning coupon clipping scams is also needed...

"Currently, U.S. authorities are investigating a number of small retailers for "coupon-clipping" scams. The fraudsters clip literally thousands of coupons from every source available to them. These in turn are provided to a retailer-accomplice who forwards them to the issuer and gets reimbursed, when no products were ever purchased by a consumer."

Think about that the next time you pass by the small local Halal food store that you wondered how they stay open for business when so few people are actually seen shopping there.

PTA stifles input from ex-gays

It would appear that the Pink Hand has more sway over the minds of our nation's young people than previously imagined...

"The National Parent Teacher Association has denied a pro-family organization that advocates for the ex-gay community, Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays, the right to exhibit at the PTA's national convention, June 10-13, in Memphis, Tenn.


PFOX was told in a letter from the PTA's president, Charles J. "Chuck" Saylors, that PFOX's mission, goals and objectives were "not in harmony with the National PTA's Diversity and Inclusion Policy."...


A PTA spokesperson said the organization had no additional comment regarding PFOX, and neither Saylors nor PFOX could be reached for comment. However, the PTA's list of exhibitors for the national convention includes the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). Asked why PFLAG was allowed to be an exhibitor but not PFOX, Martinez said only that PFOX's mission and goals did not line up with the PTA's....



Why is it gay groups meet the PTA Diversity and Inclusion Policy but our families do not? 'Diversity' and 'inclusion' should mean exactly that -- diversity and inclusion of everyone," PFOX executive director Regina Griggs said in a statement. "... The PTA has become a left-wing advocacy group instead of serving the needs of all children."

Indeed, why does such liberal, group-think mentality that submits to the meaningless mantras of "diversity" and "inclusion" steadfastly refuse to heed it's own advice? The world is rife with the testimonies of people who were formerly gay and have later renounced such a destructive lifestyle. Why do I have a feeling that PFLAG will conveniently gloss over the fact that gays have dramatically lower life expectancies than heterosexuals along with much higher risks of mental disorders ? I believe the term we are looking for here is that such statistics represent "An Inconvenient Truth" that to face and meaningfully address would be eventually wind up questioning the commonly accepted, conventional "wisdom" on the topic that is churned out like political propaganda by left-wing elitists with their heads in the sand.

The Ethicist, Bill Clinton

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this one...

"Bill Clinton calls La. senator 'sinner' in fundraising letter



"Former President Clinton has sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under his own name warning that Republicans are trying to "derail' President Obama's agenda.

Not much unexpected there.

But along with the letter, Clinton has included a flyer from the DSCC that's bound to raise eyebrows.

"DSCC funds go towards efforts to unseat far-right Republican senators like admitted sinner David Vitter..." the flyer says, referring to the Louisiana senator who admitted patronizing a prostitution service when he was in the House.

Vitter has been a Clinton foe for a long time, calling on President Clinton to step down in 1998 because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

In 2009, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16-1 to approve President Obama’s nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State.

Casting the sole “nay” vote was Vitter, who was concerned about Bill Clinton’s “multimillion dollar minefield of conflicts of interest.”

Next time, Clinton -- an admitted sinner in his own right -- might want to check the small type in campaign material he distributes."

Indeed, he would be better off proof-reading the literature that his cronies send out with his name on it. Is this the same Bill Clinton of soiled, blue dress fame who looked right at you and said "I never had sex with that woman", and then sparked national debate on the definition of the word "sex"?



But it's not all bad news people. Last night in New Jersey, former Philadelphia Eagles offensive lineman, John Runyan has won the Republican nomination to run for a House seat in in the third congressional district. As anyone can deduce from my email address, I've spent many a Sunday afternoon watching the Eagles play and I know the guy is a hard worker. He's the type of guy you would hate to play against and yet love to have on your team. Good Luck John!

Something's Rotten in Brazil

As oil and ethanol revenues have increased over the years, Brazil is starting to emerge as a player (or wannabe player) on the world scene. Their addition of 2,600 peacekeeping troops in Haiti helps relieve the US do the heavy lifting in other parts of the world rather than having to coordinate such efforts in our own hemisphere.

With the election of Barack Obama there were hopes that he would be able to work well with a fellow leftist like socialist president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. There were hopes that Lula might be able to work well with such leftists in the US like Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when it came to international relations. However the reality is that Brazil is joining the "Blame America First" crowd and is casting their lot in with the Hitler of out time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While the US is trying to initiate "crippling sanctions" on Iran through the United Nations Security Council

"Ankara, Brasilia, and Beirut have yet to declare whether they would vote against the resolution or merely abstain, but they indicate that they do not intend to support the sanctions. In the aftermath of the council resolution’s passage, several Iran-enablers beyond Turkey, Brazil, and Lebanon could yet declare that the resolution does not apply to them.

Mr. Obama, who came in promising to “heal” the rift that his “unilateral” predecessor opened with the rest of the world, will end up with pronounced divisions at the most prominent international body, over the most important foreign policy matter of his presidency to date. The comparison will make Mr. Bush seem like a world “uniter.” Link

Brazil has ambitions to develop nuclear technology as well. However the Brazilians seem to have diffculty in understanding that the United States probably wouldnt be nearly as worried by such efforts by a nation that hasnt fought a major international war since 1865-1870 against Paraguay and another country that rages Jihad 24/7/365 and promises to wipe a country "off the map".

It's not all bad news though. Although Lula has indicated he is against sanctions, he also stated "that he will try to convince Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a visit in Tehran...to restart negotiations to ease concerns about the nation's nuclear program." Right. Good luck with that.

Thomas Sowell sums it up best in his article from today when he stated...

"A newspaper headline said: "U.S. Growing Impatient with Iran." Boy, won't that scare them to death? If they keep going, and make enough nuclear bombs to blast us to smithereens, we will go to the United Nations and get a resolution passed, condemning their actions-- or, if the U.N. won't go that far, deploring their lack of cooperation."

I couldnt agree more.

Britain only the latest in a long line of those Thrown Under the Bus by Obama

After Jeremiah Wright, Jim Johnson and his own "typical white person" grandmother, Britain now joins what has become a long, distinuished list of those thrown under the bus by our 44th president of the United States...

"Thanks in large part to a deadly debacle at sea, things are getting shockingly tense between the US and a critical ally.

Israel? Yes. But also Britain.

President Obama’s drill-sergeant policy toward BP — yell more, maybe they’ll shoot straighter — has started to annoy British writers who say Obama’s attacks on BP do more harm than good.

“This crisis has injected an animus into transatlantic relations unseen since the days of George III,” said Telegraph columnist (and former BP exec) George Trefgarne.

Daily Mail columnist Stephen Glover said Obama harbored “anti-British prejudice” dating all the way back to Obama’s allegation in “Dreams from My Father” that his grandfather was tortured by the British army during the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya....

Immediately after taking office, Obama insulted Churchill (a bust of whom he returned to Britain), (pictured above) the Queen (by giving her an iPod loaded with his speeches) and then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown (whom he dismissed after a 30-minute chat, giving him a bunch of DVDs that won’t even work in the UK).

Last year a State Department official told Britain’s Daily Telegraph, “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

BP has said from the beginning that it will bear the cost of the Gulf spill. It will also face huge civil suits. Obama doesn’t need to act in order for BP to be punished.

Nevertheless, to make the boss look like he’s in charge, his administration keeps threatening BP with thuggish language (“We will keep our boot on their neck”) and made public a criminal probe — something the Justice Department doesn’t normally do until it actually files charges....

Why announce a criminal case that may result in no charges, or minor ones? (Attorney General, Eric) Holder’s little hissy fit helped knock $18 billion off the market value of BP stock. (Exxon spent $4.3 billion on the Valdez cleanup and litigation.) Holder also spooked other oil stocks, which dragged down the Dow Jones average with them.

Even if you think being buried headfirst in an oil well is too good for BP execs, every time Obama lashes out at them, he’s knocking down innocents. BP is Britain’s largest company and the biggest holding in most British pension funds. About one-seventh of all the dividends paid out in the British equivalent of the Dow, the FTSE 100, came from BP. In Britain’s The Independent, a left-wing environmentalist newspaper, columnist Andreas Whittam Smith wrote, “BP has been trying to do the right thing,” “BP’s success is a national interest,” and “We don’t want to lose BP."

None of this is helping the matter at all. All resources of the federal government should be directed at stopping the leak. Investigations can begin afterward. As if on cue, democrats are already blaming George W. Bush for the spill and conveniently leaving out that the Obama administration awarded the platform in question a safety award just last year. Exactly where does the buck stop with this administration and when is Obama held accountable for what happens on his watch? Anybody?

Episcopal Church ordains lesbian bishop

Basically, I'm a "live and let live" sort of person. I couldnt possibly care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. However, it's with a little more than a little tripedation that I read the following in an article today......

"A West Coast diocese of the Episcopal Church has become the first to ordain an openly lesbian bishop, further straining the relationship between the U.S. branch and the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Mary Douglas Glasspool, 56, was consecrated as an assistant bishop at the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles in May with about 3,000 people in attendance. While she is the first openly homosexual woman to be promoted to such a status, she follows the ordination of the church's first openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson, who was consecrated in 2003.

"I am a reconciling person and I will seek to reach out and engage with people who believe or think differently than I do, and try to build a relationship with them," Glasspool said, according to Reuters.

Glasspool will assume her post at the 70,000-member diocese July 1. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said her ordination "raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion but for the Communion as a whole," but he did not elaborate."

Can anyone discern for me what the Hell Archbishop Williams is saying here? It's as ambiguous as Ms. Glasspool's gender if you didnt know any better and just had a quick glance at her above picture. The world is slowly going to Hell in the proverbial handbasket. This is just another mile marker on the way.

UPDATE: I see that Fr Longenecker (who's blog I link to on the right) has posted the video of her "ordination" if you want to call it that along with the following dire disclaimer... "Warning: liturgical abuse, heresy, elderly hippies and open Episcopaganism on display." Ha!

Israel Alone

Spelled it right this time, right Froggy? Anyway, one of the columnists that I link to on the left margin, Larry Elder (pictured above), brought up an interesting question that I'm going to throw out to you regarding the recent "flotilla" incident off the coast of Gaza... "In 1962, the United States imposed a naval blockade -- a "quarantine" -- on Cuba. What would we have done to a "humanitarian" flotilla determined to help Fidel Castro place Soviet missiles 90 miles from Florida?"

It's a legitimate question. The only difference that I can tell is that the threat to the US back then was nuclear missles whereas in Israel's present day case it would be from a terrorist organization (Hamas).

Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated "the right of the State of Israel's to defend itself" so what is to be done in a situation like this? Buehler? Anyone?

The Coming Resignation of Barack Obama

Although I am personally not so bold as to predict that which Peter Ferrara is predicting in today's article in The American Spectator, I respect his opinion. I find his analysis to be interesting nonetheless...

"Months ago, I predicted in this column that President Obama would so discredit himself in office that he wouldn't even be on the ballot in 2012, let alone have a prayer of being reelected. Like President Johnson (pictured above) in 1968, who had won a much bigger victory four years previously than Obama did in 2008, President Obama will be so politically defunct by 2012 that he won't even try to run for reelection.

I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it that far. I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012. Like my previous prediction, that is based not just on where we are now, but where we are going under his misleadership.

Watergate was supposed to have established that Presidents are not above the law. If that is so, President Obama may have to resign for breaking the law in the Sestak affair.

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is now the Democrat nominee for the Senate seat held far too long by Arlen Specter. President Obama induced Specter to switch parties and give the Democrats their very temporary, 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority, in return for endorsing him for reelection and promising him no opposition in the Democrat primary. But Sestak had already announced that he was running for the seat, and he refused to get out. Two week ago, Sestak defeated the unprincipled, opportunistic Specter for the Democrat nomination, continuing the perfect string of everyone who Obama endorses and campaigns for going down to defeat.

For months now, Sestak has publicly claimed that President Obama tried to keep his promise to Specter by offering him a high-ranking Administration appointment if he would get out of the race. The rumor is that Sestak, formerly an Admiral, was offered appointment as Secretary of the Navy. The problem is that a federal statute explicitly provides that it is a federal felony, punishable by up to one year in prison, to attempt to bribe a candidate with a federal job, or anything of value, to influence an election."

The article goes on to point out what can be conscrued as either incompetency or outright negligence on the part of the administration insofar as plugging an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Just where is all of this compentency we were promised? Rush Limbaugh muses...

"..a column in the New York Post today by Kirsten Powers (she of the liberal persuasion). Her column was entitled, "Where was Plan A?" and here's the pull quote from the piece: "It also shouldn't be a secret that no matter how many inspections and safety requirements you have, you can't ever completely prevent disasters like this one. If you're going to permit offshore drilling, be prepared to respond to a spill. If he promised us anything, Obama promised us competence. Instead, we've gotten the Keystone Cops." This is a body of thought that is starting to permeate throughout the political sector, including even people on the leftist side of things. There clearly has not been any federal presence here oriented toward solving the problem. There has been no "competence" on display.

There's just been a bunch of petulance, finger pointing, blaming, and demand (doing Obama impression), "Plug the damn hole! Just plug the hole," and as I pointed out yesterday: We don't have a leader here. A community agitator and organizer is not a leader. You know, everything has gotten done for Obama throughout his life. Things have been taken care of. If he's a C student in reality, he got an A or a B probably. There have been people around to take care of things. Now he's in charge, and even though he promised all this competence, we don't see any of it, and a lot of people are noticing."