Jihad in the UK Deconstructed via Acts 17 Apologetics and Pat Condell

Via Creeping Sharia:

Video Description:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com

British soldier Lee Rigby was murdered and beheaded on a London street by two Muslims. Prime Minister David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson have assured the world that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. Yet the Qur’an clearly states that the penalty for “making mischief” in a Muslim land is death (5:33), and Rigby had served a tour in Afghanistan and was actively recruiting more soldiers for the British Army. How can Western leaders deny the obvious?

The Obama Admin. Makes Nixon Look Like an Amateur (Updated)

The above UPDATE is with thanks to GayPatriot and Bruce’s Twitter page. Are people exaggerating the similarities? The only difference is the responsibility level… Nixon showed he was a man. Obama? Not so much.

The above audio is Hugh reading from the following article in the New Yorker Magazine:

The Justice Department and Fox News’s Phone Records

The Obama Justice Department has seized the phone records of numbers that are associated with White House staffers and, apparently, with Fox News reporters, according to a document filed in the case of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, on October 13, 2011. Kim is a former State Department contractor accused of violating the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking classified information to James Rosen, a Fox News reporter. Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is prosecuting the case, has seized records associated with two phone numbers at the White House, at least five numbers associated with Fox News, and one that has the same area code and exchange as Rosen’s personal-cell-phone number (the last four numbers are redacted).

In all, Machen has seized records associated with over thirty different phone numbers. In the filing that included the new information, the last four digits of each telephone line targeted by the Obama Administration are redacted. Two of the numbers begin with area code 202 and the exchange 456, which, according to current and former Administration officials, are used exclusively by the White House. (The phone number for the White House switchboard is (202) 456-1414.)

At least five other numbers targeted by the government include the area code 202 and the exchange 824. The phone number for the Fox News Washington bureau, which is publicly available, is (202) 824-0001. Rosen’s work phone number at Fox News begins with the same area code and exchange.

William Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney, told The New Yorker this afternoon, “Because that information is sealed, I can’t confirm the owner or subscriber for any of those records.” Asked if the phone numbers of any reporters had been targeted in the Kim investigation, Miller said he could not comment.

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that, as part of the investigation of the Kim leak, Obama’s Department of Justice seized e-mails from Rosen’s personal Gmail account. In the search warrant for that request, the government described Rosen as “an aider, and abettor, and / or co-conspirator” in violating the Espionage Act, noting that the crime can be punished by ten years in prison. Rosen was not indicted in the case, but the suggestion in a government document that a reporter could be guilty of espionage for engaging in routine reporting is unprecedented and has alarmed many journalists and civil libertarians….

…read more…


Washington Blog does a bang-up job in showing how many liberals are saying that Obama’s “buck stops here” makes his admin waaayy worse than Nixon’s:

In the wake of the twin scandals of the IRS targeting conservative groups and the Department of Justice spying on AP reporters, the comparisons between Obama and Nixon are everywhere.

But what do experts say?

Former New York Times general counsel James Goodale – who represented the paper during its Pentagon Papers fight with the Nixon administration – said in an interview yesterday that Obama is worse than Nixon when it comes to press freedoms. And see this.

Former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald noted last year:

We supposedly learned important lessons from the abuses of power of the Nixon administration, and then of the Bush administration: namely, that we don’t trust government officials to exercise power in the dark, with no judicial oversight, with no obligation to prove their accusations. Yet now we hear exactly this same mentality issuing from Obama, his officials and defenders to justify a  far more extreme power than either Nixon or Bush dreamed of asserting: he’s only killing The Bad Citizens, so there’s no reason to object!

Jonathan Turley – perhaps the top constitutional law expert in the United States (and a liberal) – writes:

The painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an “imperial presidency” with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

I will bullet point Jonathan Turley’s points that you can read his expanded thoughts on for yourself:

  • Warrantless surveillance
  • Unilateral military action
  • Kill lists
  • Attacking whistle-blowers

…More…

Nixon’s “Enemies List” is famous, and the former head of the National Security Agency’s global digital data gathering program says that Obama also has an enemies list … which has been used to take down a wide variety of people, including the head of the CIA. The Washington Post’s Ed Rogers notes:

Obama doesn’t need a traditional Nixonian enemies list. In the digital age, with the Obama machine’s much-celebrated technological capabilities, the president can sort his enemies by keywords.

You’ve heard about the AP spying scandal, and the head of the Department of Justice implies that the government has spied on many other reporters.

Reporters who criticize those in power are being smeared by the government and targeted for arrest (and see this).

Indeed, the Obama administration is treating real reporters as potential terrorists.

…read more…

If Dan Savage`s Attack on Jesus is `Healing,` I (as a Christian) Would Hate To See Salvation!

No Different Than Westborough Baptist

Just what Savage feels he is accomplishing by using obscenity about the Bible at a journalism conference for high school students is beyond me. But what I do know is that the answers to homosexuality and faith do not lie either with religious haters like Fred Phelps who insult God by hating gays, nor with secular fanatics like Dan Savage who insult homosexuals by falsely portraying them as angry bigots. ~ RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH

I wasn’t going to post on this, but, since the refutation of WaPo spread to the very leftist magazine, the New Republic, I will post NewsBusters pices on the topic.

One wonders — before posting the stories below — the outrage level WaPo would show if in the fictitious conversation taken from Savage’s book, were Jesus cussing about gays and the gay lifestyle WHILE putting Peter in his place, how “healing” the book would be considered. Will they ever use the term of books like What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, or, Clash Of Orthodoxies: Law Religion & Morality In Crisis? Somehow I doubt it. It is only “healing” when you expressly attack Christianity, I guess “salvation” in WaPo terms would be the gas chambers? But of course the Obama Admin supports this stuff with tax-payer funds.

First is the original post by by Tim Graham, followed by his follow up article noting the editorial from the left:

Preposterous: WashPost Claims Dan Savage Is All About ‘Healing’ and ‘Reconciliation’

The Washington Post occasionally must enjoy sounding completely preposterous. In a Tuesday book review, we’re told in the headlines that gay activist and sex columnist Dan Savage is “on a healing mission” and underneath his “wit,” he only “wants reconciliation.”

[….]

The Post doesn’t apparently require its book reviewers to read the book in question — or at least acknowledge what’s in it. You don’t have to go too far in the publisher’s online excerpt to find him condemning the Family Research Council as an “anti-gay hate group” and its leader Tony Perkins as “full of shit.” He laments the religious right this way:

Whenever someone asks me why the United States is such a mess about sex and everything that touches on sex—why the United States, out of all Western industrialized nations, will never stop fighting about abortion, sex education, birth control, the sex lives of politicians, the existence of gay people—I shrug and say, “Canada got the French, Australia got the convicts, the United States got the Puritans.” [Thank God!]

Can’t you feel the healing and reconciliation?

Here is the updated story:

WashPost Refuted: New Republic Notes ‘Healing’ Dan Savage Book Includes Tale of Profane ‘Jesus and the Huge A–hole’

The New Republic has easily demonstrated just how ridiculous The Washington Post’s book review of the new Dan Savage is to claim that  “reconciliation is at the heart of everything Savage writes and says.”

In “The Waning Power of Dan Savage,” Daniel D’Addario dismisses the new book as “a very public act of self-love.” Later, he explained “The nadir of American Savage comes when Savage prints a one-act play called ‘Jesus and the Huge A–hole,’ about religious objectors to Obamacare.” 

[….]

This sounds like a rerun of last October’s column attacking conservative Christian blogger and activist Peter LaBarbera, who had tweeted about the founder of Jimmy John’s sandwich shops saying Obamacare would cost him 50 cents a sandwich:

JESUS: “You are an asshole.”

PETER: “Excuse me, Jesus?”

JESUS: “Are you deaf? I said, ‘YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.’ You’re seriously standing there bitching about having to pay a little bit more for a sandwich?”

PETER: “You don’t understand, Jesus, why should I have to pay for—”

JESUS: “Shut the fuck up. I was crucified for your sins and all I asked in return was for you people to be nice to each other—”

PETER: “But—”

JESUS:Shut the fuck up, Peter. All I asked was for your people to be nice to each other. And you’re telling me that you’re not willing to pay fifty cents more for a fucking sandwich so that the guy who made it for you—and his kids—can go see a doctor? You’re not a Christian.”

PETER: “But I go to church, Jesus, and I hate gay people so hard!”

JESUS: “Not good enough, Peter, not nearly good enough. Stop bothering me and go worship Thor or Mars or Zeus instead, okay? I don’t want you calling yourself a Christian. You’re a dick.”

PETER: “I can’t believe Jesus just called me a dick.”

JESUS: “Yeah, well, you are a dick. I sacrificed my life for you and you can’t sacrifice a bag of chips for the sandwich guy? Or scrounge up the extra fifty fucking cents? Dick.”

PETER: “But Jesus!”

JESUS: “Love one another as I have loved you, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, take care of the poor, take care of the sick, give away all that you have and follow me—does any of this shit ring a bell, you stupid asshole?”

PETER: “Okay! Okay! I’m sorry! I’ll go worship Thor!”

In fact, the above shows that it is sooo “politically-correct” in the rooms at the Washington Post that one couldn’t even mention in the review that this (the above) was not healing. Freedom of press? Yeah right!

Here is more “Dan Savage ‘healing'”

Melanie Phillips Touches on the Problem in the UK and Abroad

Denial is still a river in Londonistan

On one thing the British liberal class is certain – the hacking to death of a soldier in a Woolwich street yesterday had absolutely nothing to do with religion.  The murderers screamed ‘Allahu akhbar’ as they tried to decapitate the soldier (a barbaric hallmark of Islamic terror), announced proudly that ‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you’ and quoted the Koran as religious justification.

But the atrocity, we have been repeatedly told, had nothing to do with religion. Ever since 9/11, the UK and US political and media establishment, along with much if not most of the British security service and increasingly the US security establishment, has repeated this mantra. Killing in the name of Islam is a warped hijacking of the religion, a perversion of the religion, the very antithesis of the religion. But based on the precepts of the religion itself? Good heavens, no.

For more than two decades, the British political and security establishment has gone to extreme lengths to deny the true religious nature of the Islamic jihad, or holy war, against the free world and ‘backsliding’ Muslims (who are the jihad’s most numerous victims). There are several reasons for this state of denial, of which in my view the key is that to the official mind a holy war is such a fearsome prospect – it’s uncontrollable, can last for decades, is driven by wholly irrational motives immune to negotiation and is characterised by unmitigated savagery — they cannot admit that this is what it actually is.

So instead they come up with absurd statements like the one made to me some years ago by a very senior security official, who said this couldn’t be an Islamic religious war because to say it was would demonise all Muslims.

This was clearly a risible non sequitur. The fact that many Muslims not only do not support the jihad but are being themselves persecuted by it does not make it any less of a holy war against their perceived backsliding or heresy.

…read more…

To defeat Islamic terror, we must first acknowledge what it is

Ever since the spectre of Islamic terrorism in the West first manifested itself, Britain has had its head stuck firmly in the sand.

After both 9/11 and the 7/7 London transport bombings, the Labour government promised to take measures to defend the country against further such attacks.

It defined the problem, however, merely as terrorism, failing to understand that the real issue was the extremist ideas which led to such violence.

Accordingly, it poured money into Muslim community groups, many of which turned out to be dangerously extreme.

When David Cameron came to power, his Government raised hopes of a more realistic approach when it pledged to counter extremist ideas rather than just violence.

This approach, too, has failed. The Government still has no coherent strategy for countering Islamist radicalisation.

Following last week’s barbaric slaughter of Drummer Rigby on the streets of Woolwich by two Islamic fanatics, the Prime Minister has announced that he will head a new Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force.

And the Home Secretary has said she will look at widening the banning of radical groups preaching hate.

But at the heart of these promises remains a crucial gap. That is the need to define just what kind of extremism we are up against.

The Government has been extraordinarily reluctant to do this — because it refuses to face the blindingly obvious fact that this extremism is religious in nature.

It arises from an interpretation of Islam which takes the words of the Koran literally as a command to kill unbelievers in a jihad, or holy war, in order to impose strict Islamic tenets on the rest of the world.

[….]

Of course, there are fanatics in all religions. Within both Judaism and Christianity, there are deep divisions between ultras, liberals and those in between.

In medieval times, moreover, Christianity used its interpretation of the Bible also to kill ‘unbelievers’, because early Christians believed they had a divine duty to make the world conform to their religion at all costs. 

That stopped when the Reformation ushered the Church into modernity, and today no Christian wants to use violence to convert others to their faith.

The problem with the extremist teachings of Islam is that the religion has never had a similar ‘reformation’.

Certainly, there are enlightened Muslims in Britain who would dearly love their religion to be reformed. But they have the rug pulled from under their feet by the Government’s flat denial of the religious nature of this terrible problem.

Some people instead ascribe the actions of the Woolwich killers to factors such as thuggish gang membership, drug abuse or family breakdown. 

But it is precisely such lost souls who are vulnerable to Islamist fanatics and who provide them with father figures, a sense of belonging and a cause which gives apparent meaning to their lives.

Many people find it incomprehensible that such fanatics remain free to peddle their poison. 

Partly, this is because the Security Service likes to gather intelligence through their actions. But it is also because of a failure to understand what amounts to a continuum of extremism.

There are too many British Muslims who, while abhorring violence at home, nevertheless support the killing abroad of British or American forces or Israelis, regard unbelievers as less than fully human, and homosexuals or apostates as deserving the death penalty.

Such bigotry creates the poisonous sea in which dehumanisation and religious violence swim.

To the failure to understand all this must be added the widespread terror of being thought ‘Islamophobic’ or ‘racist’.

…read more…

The Apostle Paul Needs Some `Diversity Training` for Healing a Demon Possessed Girl in Acts 16

You can almost hear the faint calls of imperialism or xenophobia happening: Of course! How dare Paul say that this girls culture or viewpoint needed changing to begin with! Paul obviously needs a diversity training course.

ACTS 16:21

“They advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice.” (ESV)

“They are telling people to do things that are not right for us as Romans to do.” (ETRV)

Political Correctness is nothing new. Now here is the story sent me via FaceBook found on CP Church & Ministry:

The head of the Episcopal Church has garnered outrage from some in the Anglican Communion over her claim that St. Paul of Tarsus’ curing of a demon-possessed slave girl as described in the Bible was wrong.

In a sermon delivered before the Diocese of Venezuela on the island nation of Curaçao, Presiding Bishop The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori said that by driving the demon out of her Paul was “depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness.”

“Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness,” said Jefferts Schori.

“Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it. It gets him thrown in prison. That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so!”

The passage that Jefferts Schori was preaching can be found in the Book of Acts, chapter 16. The chapter provides an account of some of the mission Paul of Tarsus did in the early church.

In the incident described in Acts 16, Paul cures a slave girl of a demon that had given the girl the ability to fortune-tell and made money for her masters.

[….]

Some commented on-line about the sermon:

“Paul cast a demon out of the slave girl, an agent of Satan, a force of darkness, and didn’t deprive her of some spiritual gift…this sermon is not a Christian sermon,” posted Fr. Will McQueen.

“It is terribly stunning to read that the Presiding Bishop elevates the sinful practice of necromancy to the Holy Spirit inspired territory of spiritual gifts. This is eisegesis of a demonic sort,” posted Fr. Trent Overman.

This comment brought to mind this verse in Isaiah:

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who substitute darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who substitute bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter. (5:20, HCSB)

Continuing:

“How can the Presiding Bishop miss the point that the woman was exploited – the slave woman was in physical, spiritual and relational bondage – she was being used for profit and her incessant shouting was disruptive and insincere,” posted a user doting the name “BabyBlue.”

Charlie Jackson, a poster who identified himself as “a pretty theologically liberal Episcopalian”, nevertheless concluded that Jefferts Schori’s interpretation of Acts 16 “is just too much.”

…read more…

h/t — J. Giordano

Scientist Corrects Los Angeles Times Reporter On the Connection Between Global Warming and Tornadoes

Video Description:

This is a story from NewsBusters (http://tinyurl.com/noo9bdo), and I decided to isolate the portion that the story references. A Los Angeles Times reporter, Stacey Lessca, asks a question about the connection between hurricanes and tornadoes in regards to climate change/global warming. The research climatologist from the National Severe Storms Laboratory, Robin Tanamachi, corrects this understanding mentioning that the data does not support this idea.

Not to mention this in from Max Plank’s institute on climate (http://tinyurl.com/ps2kxqr):

Max Planck Institute For Meteorology: “Prognoses Confirm Model Forecasts” Warming Postponed “Hundreds Of Years”

Now that global temperatures have not risen in 15 years, a number of scientists find themselves having great difficulty coming to terms with that new reality.

The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) in Hamburg is no exception. For years the institute insisted that the man-made climate catastrophe was real and happening now. Today it finds itself scrambling for a backdoor.

[….]

“Jochem Marotzke is part of a team of the world’s most renowned climate scientists who have taken the most recent development of the surface temperature into account in order to forecast how the Earth will heat up from the greenhouse effect, foremost from carbon dioxide (CO2). These prognoses confirm that the climate models correctly forecast global warming trend over multiple decades, that is until the middle or the end of the 21st century. There is no wise reason for calling off the alarm. Because the climate has a very high thermal inertia and the oceans warm up only very slowly, it’s going to take some time before the effects of the greenhouse gases completely take hold. A warming from the greenhouse effect will be amplified by numerous feedbacks, and weakened by a few processes. Only when this complicated interaction quiets down will the climate come to a stable condition. This long-term reaction by the climate is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ESC) and is calculated by climate scientists. It is the final temperature increase that comes from a doubling of CO2  concentration, and will probably occur first after a few hundred years.

The English Defense League (EDL), Like in Other Countries, Are the Front Line

And as Libertarian Republican says… it begins. Can you blame them?

And so it begins… The English Defense League marched in the thousands on the streets of New Castle earlier today. 

Chants:

“Long Live Native Brits!”

UPDATE!! 

Crowd estimates are over 15,000.  Crowd heard chanting:

“Revenge Lee Rigby”

UPDATE!!! 

Scattered reports native Swedes are taking to the streets to defend Stockholm, suburbs from rioting Muslim youth.

Tommy Robinson simply states that “something has to be done.” He’s right. The question is, where will it end? However, at this point, it doesn’t matter… he’s still right:

So this is how I see it… even thought the EDL (English Defense League) has a varied ethnic group, nationalism will take hold and Europe will be faced with a choice: annihilation via the immigration policies and the State [proper] funding welfare mothers (4-to-1-man) having many multiple kids, versus the ethnically white woman having an abortion before having maybe one kid… or, join a group that will grow in its adamant proclamations and promises of beating back a real threat. While the net will be the “ultimate good,” it will merely incorporate a “cultural Christianity.” Remember, in Europe Christianity has been dying for generations. We will see something akin to the child killer, Anders Behring Breivik saying:

“Well, I am a militant Christian; to prevent the de-Christianisation of Europe is very important,” he said.

“But this does not mean we want to introduce a Christian theocracy. We are not Christian fundamentalists. I believe in God and I believe in a life after death.”

Answering questions from a judge he described himself as an “anti-Nazi”.

“A National Socialist would say, ‘Norway for the Norwegians’. I am more liberal, I would accept 2% perhaps (of the population not being ethnically Norwegian).”

But that is any war… walking the line of what could happen versus fighting evil. Fighting evil should be the first step… and when government cannot declare an evil action (political correctness), youth will do it. March on youth.