Author: Papa Giorgio

Muslim Brotherhood=Christian Conservatives (Chris Matthews Update-Video)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


NewsBusters has this story:

Daily Beast’s Aslan: Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt Like Christian Conservatives in U.S.

The Daily Beast contributor who once insisted that there’s “no such thing as sharia law” is at it again, dismissing the threat of radical Islam presented by the political instability in Egypt.

In a January 30 post at Washington Post/Newsweek’s “On Faith” feature yesterday, Reza Aslan dismissed fears that the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical group that could take Egypt in a theocratic direction should strongman Hosni Mubarak be forcibly ousted from power, even though members of the Brotherhood have expressed admiration for Osama bin Laden.

Aslan, a creative writing professor at the University of California Riverside, particularly singled out two socially conservative Republicans who are rumored 2012 presidential contenders, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.):

GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum is already drawing parallels between the young protesters calling for an end to the brutal and repressive Mubarak regime, and the popular protests that, three decades ago, brought down another despicable dictator and former American ally, the Shah of Iran. “We abandoned [the Shah] and what we got in exchange was… a radical Islamist regime,” Santorum said. Mike Huckabee, another GOP presidential hopeful, joined in the hysteria, warning Americans that, “if in fact the Muslim Brotherhood is underneath much of the unrest [in Egypt] every person who breathes ought to be concerned.”

[…]

[H]owever the current uprising in Egypt turns out, there can be no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. And that is good thing.

Despite the wide array of political and religious views on display on the streets of Cairo, Giza, Alexandria, and Suez, the one thing about which the overwhelming majority of Egyptians agree – 95 percent according to a 2010 Pew Research Center poll – is that Islam should play a role in the country’s politics. At the same time, a similar Pew poll taken in 2006 found that while the majority of the Western public thought democracy was “a Western way of doing things that would not work in most Muslim countries,” pluralities or majorities in every single Muslim-majority country surveyed flatly rejected that argument and called for democracy to be immediately established, without conditions, in their own societies.

For Huckabee and Santorum, as well as for a large segment of the American public, these two polls present a contradiction. How could Egyptians want both a democracy and a role for religion in their government? After all, in the United States it is axiomatic that Islam is inherently opposed to democracy and that Muslims are incapable of reconciling democratic and Islamic values. Never mind that the same people who scoff at the notion that religion could play no role in the emerging democracies in the Middle East are the same people who demand that religion must play a role in America’s democracy. Ironically, one of the most vocal proponent of religious activism in politics is Mike Huckabee himself, who has repeatedly called Americans to “take this nation back for Christ” and who, while running for president, proudly declared that “what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards.”

In fact, when it comes to the role of religion in society, Americans and Egyptians are pretty well in agreement. An August 2010 Pew poll found that 43 percent of Americans believe that churches should express political views and play an active role in politics, while 61 percent agreed that “it is important that members of Congress have strong religious beliefs.”

There is no doubt that giving religiously inclined organizations and politicians a seat at the political table poses risks. And certainly, problems can arise when religion becomes entangled with the state, as those who recall the Bush administration’s evangelistic foreign policy can attest. Nevertheless, since a state can be considered democratic only insofar as it reflects its society, if the society is founded upon a particular set of values, then must not its government be also?

…(read more)…

Of course Aslan (different from CS Lewis’ Azlan) is a radical in disguise. For instance, Jihad Watch has this story of Prof. Aslan calling Ahmadinejad a “liberal reformer.” I have posted on UC Irvine in the past, and since then the Muslim Student Union was suspended for their blatant antisemitism. Below is another event that went wrong at UC Irvine:

 

Zo-Nation~Not Black Enough?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Lyrics from song (See: Macho Sauce Productions):

Though you might have been born with skin that’s black.
You’re not to Bill Maher – who tells blacks how they should act.
You may not have white genes at all.
Just remember brothers and sisters that if you don’t bang your black card defaults.
Just be thankful for what Bill Maher says you got.
Your skin may be black but if you don’t bang you’re not.

If you were born black you gotta face facts. You were conceived with the gangsta gene.

Gangsta Bill Maher, who tells blacks how they should act. You may not have white genes at all. Just remember brothers and sisters, that if you don’t bang your black card defaults. Just be thankful for what Bill Maher says you got.

If you were born black you gotta face facts. You were conceived with the gangsta gene.

See I’m a black man, an American
Get my grind on the best way I can.
Bang, bang, bang, and I was conceived-
Comin’ from the hood, I chose to succeed.
According to Bill Maher, I’m not black enough.
I should be slangin’ dope and packin’ gats n’ stuff.
Got me C-Walkin, straight chicken hawkin’, in a backyard full of pitbulls barkin’.
Cause Bill says I’m black and I should act mean. What can I say man? It’s the gangsta gene.
Pants on the ground, face all frowned, runnin’ round, terrorizin’ the whole damn town.
Bills got jokes, and he’s a funny man, but I’m sure glad he’s not the president.

Parody by AlfonZo Rachel

3rd verse by Nate Smoove.

Based on “Just Be Thankful” William Devaughn

Health-Care Mandated Penalties via Commerce Clause Unconstitutional (Classic Ann Coulter Commentary)

Published by Papa Giorgio

“Obviously, I find the two that hold it unconstitutional more compelling, but I mean for logical reasons, Which is to say the interstate commerce clause – there’s no point in having even any limits on Congress’ authority if they can force citizens, all citizens to buy a product,…. By the way, if this is constitutional, then Republicans should turn around and mandate all citizens be forced to purchase a gun and a Bible. And, there’s a lot more evidence that owning a gun and a Bible is better for society than everyone having to own health insurance. But, if that’s what Congress has the right to do, we can have all kinds of mandates. The interstate commerce clause says Congress can regulate either something that affects interstate commerce or the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. I think the judge, Judge Vinson makes a good case as apparently the plaintiffs did that simply not buying insurance is not an activity.” ~ Classic Coulter! (video at bottom)


Scared Monkeys has this:

OBAMACARE DELT CRUSHING BLOW….

As speculated earlier today, a second judge has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled today that President Barack Hussein Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional. To add insult to “health care” injury, the federal judge used Obama’s past words against him.

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.Hey Barack, words do have consequences don’t they and you do not get to have it both ways. Actually, as stated by Weasel Zippers, some one just got their butt handed to them. During the Democrat primary, Hillary Clinton’s insurance plan required that purchase insurance, Obama’s did not. Since the passage of Obamacare, the president has been singing a different tune and defending the government forcing Americans to purchase a product and claiming regulation authority for inactivity. However,

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.

However, Judge Vinson did not just strike down the federal mandate, he struck down the entire health care law, Obama’s crown jewel, as unconstitutional.  Judge Vinson concluded that the federal mandate insurance requirement was so “inextricably bound”to other provisions of Obamacare that its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law. OUCH! What is the LEFT to do, as they are all whine and no legal argument?

But unlike a Virginia judge in December, Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., concluded that the insurance requirement was so “inextricably bound” to other provisions of the Affordable Care Act that its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law.

“The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker,” Judge Vinson wrote.

(“Like” Scared Monkeys on Face Book.) Here is the ruling that Scared Monkeys linked to:

Vinson Ruling

This ruling may be used almost as is to go to the Supreme Court. It is also a study in original intent as it references many cases from and including the debate on this clause in the Federalist Papers. As such, Constitutional law professors are scrambling to incorporate this in some manner into their class routines. Greta Van Susteren interviewed new Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and made the point that this should go straight to the Court in about 60-days, max. Great great point!

What should be of note is that the Judge used Obama’s own words against his own health-care plan. The Washington Times notes in their story, “Judge rules against health law, cites Obama’s words,” this:

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.

Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.

Much of Judge Vinson‘s ruling was a discussion of how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, saw the limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli. (emphasis added)

…(read more)…

Great Stuff!!

A Growing Nail in the Global Warming Coffin

Published by Papa Giorgio


(HotAir) The reasons people see global warming alarmists are less credible is not limited to the “Climategate” fraud or cold winters. Better scientific studies are turning the tide from faith-based politics and toward — dare I say it — a more reality-based position (via memeorandum).

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world’s highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at “a rapid rate”, threatening floods throughout north India.

What’s more, the new study, which included almost 290 glaciers, showed that global warming isn’t the chief reason a glacier melts, but terrain and how much debris covers the glacier’s surface. That makes sense, if you take a few moments and noodle it through.

…(read more)…

essentials in unity,in the non-essentials have liberty,but in all things they do,try to do in love (Footnote #18)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is footnote #18 from a chapter in my book. I reference it a lot in conversation, so I am posting it here for ease of reference without having people — nor myself —  having to search through pages or programs to see it. Enjoy:

I like to say, “I am a Baptist at heart, just not in dress or drink.”   Which is a humorous way of saying I am a product of the hippie/boomer generation while at the same time I very much enjoy doctrinal orthodoxy.  Being at a church that defends the major aspects of the faith and allows at the same time the grace and space needed to grow and learn — which often times is a lifetime — has been a blessing.  So what we defend is God the Father and the Revelation He gave us (the Bible), Jesus Christ the Son and the work he wrought on the Cross for us, and the Holy Spirit and the daily regeneration He works in us. Let me, if you will, share a response to a young man whom contacted me via email.  He seemed a bit confused and almost demanded that people know and accept inerrancy before taking them as believers.  Here is my response to him, it is long but still in abridged form:

I myself am still learning about theology, God, relationships in the Body, etc.  What I believed about God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit 10-years ago I have matured in.  Would you have run me through a list of doctrinal beliefs (10-years ago) and if we didn’t agree on this list would I be your friend?  Would I be allowed a place in your church to be able to hash out life issues, theology, and the like; a place where relationships can grow and spurn understanding and deeper knowledge about God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit as well as all the dynamics (or egos) between the body of Christ?  I suspect, because I am a finite being, that in 10-years from now I will have matured and reformulated peripheral beliefs about my faith as well as growing in understanding of the shared Christian’s doctrinal foundations.  In fact, Paul says that we look through a clouded mirror and that one day we will see as we are seen.  I will not fully comprehend everything I need to until I stand before my Creator. On that day I suspect that even the knowledge of this perfect theology will give way to that relationship I was originally intended for.  Dennis Prager has a neat saying, he says often to “not let the perfect get in the way of the good.”  That small sentence has a big meaning. When I first started going to this church 12-years ago [from the date of this writing], I tested my pastor.  One of my tests I gave was this question during general conversation (thinking all-the-while that it would reveal an all-important issue that would tell me if he was orthodox or not): “do you believe that Noah’s flood was universal.”  He responded back that he “didn’t see an issue with the Flood being local.”  For years that bugged me and I thought that while I enjoyed his preaching I didn’t agree with his stance on a Biblical issue that was crucial in my mind’s eye.  During this time my wife and I were reunited after three-years of separation, this three-time felon went to seminary — in other words, God was working on me.  I finally was in a deep conversation with him and others in a membership class and it hit me like a ton of bricks.  He mentioned that separating on issues like the age of the earth is not important in the grand scheme of things (salvation), although they are fun and interesting topics to discuss, and he enjoys doing such with members who are mature enough not to find a church that they think is “perfect.”  (Don’t ruin the good with the perfect, in other words.)  What is important is what God the Father provided us with, what Jesus accomplished on the cross (and thusly who He is), and how the Holy Spirit is regenerating our lives through Him and the body of Christ, the kinesthetics of God touching our lives, so-to-speak.  God won’t deny a person into heaven if he or she believes the earth to be 4.5 billion years old… they nor I will not really care how old the earth is at that point anyhow — he or she gets in because they know Jesus, not doctrine.  Jesus is preeminent, doctrine is secondary.  Secondary in that it may take a life-time in a healthy-well-balanced church to really know and understand doctrine.  My pastor, I found out later, is a committed young-earth creationist like myself, after finding this out I felt embarrassed about my list of questions I asked 12-years ago. There are people that I rub shoulders with at church that do not believe the following like my or I believe.  In fact, they may never learn how to express this truth as well as Norman Geisler until the day they die:

Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths. Infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and [a]reliable rule and guide in all matters. Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.  We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise. (Geisler)

However, if conversation comes up with a person or family of our church who doesn’t know all the aspects of the doctrine of inerrancy/infallibility, they may know at least this much after a discussion with myself or another person whom loves theology: “that inerrancy means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” (Grudem).  In case you didn’t catch what that sentence meant, it means that the Bible always tells the truth, and that it always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about (Grudem).  However, to run down a list with a family that has gone to the church for 2-years, or for 10-years about where they stand on inerrancy would cause more harm than good in my mind’s eye.  These persons need a safe environment where they can grow, disagree, hash things out, learn, inculcate… all the while learning about the essentials in unity, in the non-essentials have liberty, but in all things they do, try to do in love (Rupertus Meldenius/Augustine).

The Hammer (read here: The Krauthammer) Strikes Again

Published by Papa Giorgio

NewsBusters h/t:

Here is a portion from NB:

Moments later:

KRAUTHAMMER: Colby.

KING: Sir.

KRAUTHAMMER: Colby said it was a good speech. We really have to talk about the quote-unquote “investments,” which of course is what Democrats say when they want otherwise to say spending but they won’t use the word. And then he said it was okay on that, except that it didn’t address spending, which is a bit like saying, “Yes, but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

KING: Cranky, cranky, cranky.

KRAUTHAMMER: Spending and debt is the issue of the day. That is the President’s own deficit commission had said, and I thought all of you un-cranky liberals had approved their conclusions.

Indeed they had, which raises another interesting point.

Totenberg said the electorate is not serious about trimming the budget. She later commented that the cuts being discussed are trivial because discretionary spending is a small part of the budget, and no one wants to talk about reducing entitlements.

We’ve been hearing this a lot lately from liberal media members. Now that the Republicans control the House, folks that came out en masse against any plans to reform Social Security in 2005 are now teasing this subject again.

As such, it is really the press that want entitlement cuts generically but are going to balk and balk loudly at the specifics. This is important because what we saw in 2005 is how powerful the media can be in impacting public opinion and preventing legislation.

George W. Bush was re-elected with a strong mandate having been the first President since Roosevelt in 1936 to win back the White House while expanding his Party’s majority in both chambers of Congress.

The public was ready for significant Social Security reform, but the media wasn’t having any of it. Instead, so-called journalists – led by minority leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid – went on a full-court press to shamefully convince the American people the program was fiscally sound for decades to come, and Bush was lying about its imminent insolvency to scare the public into supporting his agenda much as he did with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Now, six years later, these same folks are mocking any attempts to cut spending by ridiculing Republicans for not going after Social Security and Medicare.

It makes you wonder not only how they sleep at night, but also how they so effectively manage their hypocrisy instinctively knowing which side of an argument they need to be on when it fits the prevailing template.

Gotta hand it to ’em – this takes talent.

…(read more)…

(Emphasis Added)