Is Your Local Mosque ‘Moderate’ or ‘Radical’?

The following article is THE BEST approach to the problem of militant Islam I have ever encountered. If it were actually implemented we could seriously begin to address the most pressing problem of our time; Radical Islam.

The solutions offered are reasonable, realistic and effective for identifying who the enemies of a more peaceful world are.

Dr. Hamid has done us a great service; if we will listen.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

After the problem of Ground Zero Mosque has escalated it becomes an urgent necessity to distinguish ‘Moderate’ from ‘Radical’ Islam. Without making such a distinction the US and the rest of the world will remain divided regarding this issue. Debates about the issue can be endless unless we define the words ‘radical’ and ‘moderate’.

Mosque leaders, Islamic scholars, and organizations who want to be considered Moderates MUST clearly and unambiguously declare the following declaration in their media outlets and on their websites.

Declaration of Beliefs of Muslim Moderates:

We are Muslims who want contemporary understandings of Islam to replace currently predominant harsh and radical (Salafi/Wahabbi) interpretations of our religion. We therefore declare that:

1. Redda Law, the Sharia Law that allows the killing of Muslims who convert to other faiths, must be banned in Islamic teachings and in Sharia legal doctrine.

* Islamic countries that practice Sharia must stop the practice of this law and must admit that Freedom of belief and the right to convert to other faith or believe is a basic right that must be given to all Muslims.

2. Current mainstream Sharia doctrines justify the use of violence against women; these teachings must be ended by reinterpreting the Islamic text that justifies such violence.

* They encourage men to beat their wives to discipline them.
* They allow women accused of adultery to be stoned to death.
* These doctrines are barbarically inhumane, non-egalitarian, and teach Muslim children to be violent.

3. Traditional Sharia doctrines teach Muslims that they must engage in war so that Islam will dominate the world. This understanding of Jihad that seeks domination of Islam over other peoples must no longer be regarded as an Islamic value and its teaching as a duty for Muslims must end.

* When Islam becomes dominant, Non-Muslims are offered three options:

1. to convert to Islam
2. to pay Jizzia (a humiliating tax)
3. to be killed

* These doctrines run contrary to modern respect for diversity and for personal freedom of speech and belief.
* The early Islamic wars known as “Futohaat Islameia” were fought to implement this doctrine of Jihad.

o These wars therefore should now be regarded as un-Islamic and un-justifiable.

4. Jews are individuals who deserve the same respect accorded to all individuals. All Islamic teachings that encourage anti-Semitic attitudes, violence or disrespect toward Jews must be declared un-Islamic.

* They should not be called “pigs and monkeys.”
* The Islamic teaching that Muslims must fight and kill all Jews before the end of days is totally incorrect and unacceptable as it does not exist in the Quran.

5. Slavery is a crime against humanity. All Sharia laws that justify slavery in our modern times must not be taught any more.

* Muslim scholars must have a clear and loud voice against slavery.

6. Islamic Sharia laws currently permit the killing homosexuals. They must be declared un-Islamic and their implementation must be considered criminal.

* These laws also are advocating a crime against our fellow human beings.

Signed,
Dr. Tawfik Hamid

The above violent teachings, which currently are taught in mainstream Islamic books in America, are implemented in countries that allow governance according to Sharia Law. Future Muslim generations must be protected from these destructive doctrines, interpretations and customs.

These violent Sharia doctrines must be replaced with clear and unconditional explanations of why they no longer are valid.

Anything short of a fully clear and unequivocal stand against these doctrines indicates passive approval. Therefore, all Islamic leaders who genuinely consider themselves to be Muslim moderates must post these principles in English and in Arabic in full public view on their websites and declare them in their media outlets.

Failure to publically post and support these principles should be interpreted as clear evidence that a leader’s mosque or Islamic organization must be considered radical.

Is Your Local Mosque ‘Moderate’ or ‘Radical’? By Dr. Tawfik Hamid, Muslim reformer, CI Centre instructor and author of Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam and The Roots of Jihad

Global Markets and Economy Facing Rough Ride

By Ron Coby & Denny Lamson May 18, 2010 12:45 pm

This is a summation of an article written by Coby and Lamson for Minyanville.com on the current state of affairs for the economy on May 18, 2010. Never let it be said, "Nobody told me!" Or, "Nobody saw this coming!"

In summary, it’s time to put your safety belt on because it’s very likely going to be a rough ride for the global markets and economy over the next six to nine months. It's said that no one ever rings a bell at the top of the market. We believe that in this case, not only was a bell rung, but that last Monday’s news of the European trillion-dollar bailout will prove to have been a giant gong! Why? The reason is that the highest-ranking government officials worldwide have acknowledged that sovereign debt is out of control and has the ability to sink the world economy as it breaks the European Union apart. We hear no modern day Herbert Hoover declaring “the worst has passed," and there are no “Happy Days Are Here Again” songs being written. Instead we hear Merkel declaring that the trillion-dollar bailout will only “buy us time." All nations burdened by excess debt are either in trouble or will soon be in very big trouble, and that's bad news for everyone around the globe.

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/global-markets-economy-grail-timing-indicator/5/18/2010/id/28364

FINALLY, CNN GETS REAL!!!

The Successful Subversion of America By Progressives is Almost Complete

These are the most disturbing videos I have ever seen. No violence, no sexual deviancy, no drug use, only a startling revelation of truth.

Here the veil is lifted so that anyone with eyes can SEE the truth behind the events to which we have been witness in the last few years.


The Art of War
Sun Tzu

The Principles of Subversion

1. Cover with ridicule all of the valid traditions in your opponent’s country.

2. Implicate their leaders in criminal affairs and turn them over to the scorn of their populace at the right time.

3. Disrupt the work of their government by every means;

4. Do not shun the aid of the lowest and most despicable individuals of your enemy’s country.

5. Spread disunity and dispute among the citizens.

6. Turn the young against the old.

7. Be generous with promises and rewards to collaborators and accomplices.

BEWARE!!!

"Normalization" may be coming sooner than we dare think!

(PS Be sure to watch part 7 for Yuri Brezmenov provides a strategy for a way out of the coming crisis)

Part 1


Part 2

Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7

Your Cellphone: "No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy"

The latest position of the Obama Administration on cellphone privacy.

Add this to the things that make you go hmmm....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is there an “expectation of privacy” pertaining to your cell phone’s records? Or any records held by a third party provider?

The Obama administration is arguing that there isn’t:

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their—or at least their cell phones’—whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

In other words, since the provider keeps the records (not you) as mandated by law, those records belong to them and thus should be open to government inspection without permission from you or a court.

Now, there’s an argument to be made in terms of law enforcement needs. For instance, a series of bank robberies took place over a wide area. Combing the records for cell towers in the area of each robbery allowed law enforcement to narrow it down to two cell phone users who made calls in each area just before the robberies. Good police work. But shouldn’t they have to go before a judge and justify their desire to look at these records? I’m not sure they didn’t, but essentially the Justice Department is trying to argue that such a justification and court order should be unnecessary.

Ironic from an administration that was so strident about opposing warrantless wiretaps.

The question is, should those records be considered private? Jim Harper argues at Cato that those records are the modern equivalent of “papers and effects” protected by the 4th Amendment and that the court has misinterpreted that since 1967.

These holdings were never right, but they grow more wrong with each step forward in modern, connected living. Incredibly deep reservoirs of information are constantly collected by third-party service providers today. Cellular telephone networks pinpoint customers’ locations throughout the day through the movement of their phones. Internet service providers maintain copies of huge swaths of the information that crosses their networks, tied to customer identifiers. Search engines maintain logs of searches that can be correlated to specific computers and usually the individuals that use them. Payment systems record each instance of commerce, and the time and place it occurred. The totality of these records are very, very revealing of people’s lives. They are a window onto each individual’s spiritual nature, feelings, and intellect. They reflect each American’s beliefs, thoughts, emotions, and sensations. They ought to be protected, as they are the modern iteration of our “papers and effects.”

I agree with Harper. Technology has changed how those records are kept, but they are still private records between the provider and the subscriber – especially since, for the most part, much of the data recorded is gathered without our permission. What I see in the case by the Obama administration is another attempt at government data mining – domestic intelligence – something which Democrats and libertarians were adamantly against when various schemes were uncovered during the Bush administration.

This attempt is subtly different. Instead of just assuming that there is no expectation of privacy and going ahead and demanding the information, the administration is attempting to have the court okay it first. But the result will be the same – unimpeded access by government to your location at any time (as long as you have a cell phone). It is but a short step from there to do what Harper outlines: data mining from various other providers based on the same argument and with this case as precedence. Result: a profile of you containing private data about your movements, spending habits, places visited on the internet, etc that are really none of the government’s business.

Of course, we all know that Big Brother government would never misuse or abuse this information, don’t we?

As Harper concludes, this is an imporant case which needs to be watched closely:

This is a case to watch, as it will help determine whether or not your digital life is an open book to government investigators.

http://www.qando.net/?p=7079

The Coming Perfect Economic Storm

Maybe you caught Henry Paulson and Alan Greenspan on "Meet the Press" last Sunday morning, or maybe you didn't. Either way you didn't miss much, except the fact that they both looked like they were lying through their teeth. Paulson was VISIBLY shaking as he answered questions in that halting delivery of his, there were times when he seemed almost too frightened to speak. He was hiding something. Something BIG.

NOTE: Watch Paulson's left thumb as he tries to speak at about 3:15 into the video!

Then I found this from Minyanville in my email:

Last week, Ron Coby talked about how US markets were developing large head and shoulder tops.

In this video (SEE BELOW: They have made changes to the internet where you can't download stuff like you used to.), Ron Coby talks about how this played out across weekly charts and the global markets, and why he believes we could be seeing a perfect storm for global markets. If so, what's the upside of down in 2010?

Click here to watch the video.

Kondratiev Waves

I won’t bore you with the details of the makeup of K-Waves, just that the primary data points are related to wholesale prices which, as you can see in red in the chart above, have sky-rocketed since 1940. But the author briefly describes the general theory of Kondratiev waves…

A Kondratiev economic cycle is divided into four “seasons”, spring, summer, fall and winter. The analogy of the seasons is consistent with what you would expect. Spring is a time of re-birth after a long hard winter, time to sow, plant and produce. Summer is lazy and full of doldrums. Autumn is a time to reap the harvest and store the results of the spring work and winter is a dangerous time when those that survive are the ones that successfully harvested what they produced and safely hunkered down against the bitter elements.

The four seasons in a 50-60 year Kondratiev Wave are:

•Spring (20-25 years) – Inflationary phase with rising stock prices and increased employment and wages.
•Summer (3-5 years) – Stagflation phase with rising interest rates, rising debt and stock corrections. Imbalances lead to war.
•Autumn (7-10 years) – Deflation phase where falling interest rates lead to a plateau and stock prices increase sharply.
•Winter (3-5 year collapse and 12-15 year readjustment) – Depression phase with stock and debt markets collapsing and commodity prices increasing.

Those that argue for the validity of Kondratiev waves say we are just entering the Winter Phase. Note that the above chart indicates the winter has started and will perhaps bottom around 2016.

In 1929, the a wave collapsed from $386 dollars to $195 dollars, a total of $191 dollars, or almost 50% of its value in a single drop.

In 2007, the a wave collapsed from $14280 dollars to $6440 dollars, a total of slightly more than 50% of it’s value in a single drop.

This is a chart showing the Dow Jones Industrial Average during the 1929 Crash and the Great Depression









This is a chart showing the 2007 Crash and the projected Great Depression II

In 1930, the b wave rallied back from $195 dollars to $297 dollars regaining approximately 53.5% of the value it had lost. In 2010, the b wave rallied back from $6440 dollars to $10767 dollars regaining approximately 55% of the value it lost.

As interesting as those comparisons are, even more uncanny is the comparison of the moving averages and Bollinger band properties. Looking at the dashed inserted area copied from the 1929 chart, you can see that the Bollinger bands, the 55 day and the 233 day moving averages are a nearly identical fit and the 21 day average is very close. Only the 144 day average is slightly askew due simply to a difference in the internal price fluctuation between the 55 and 233 day averages. While the visual and technical continuity are quite astonishing, the predictive implications are just as amazing…

Remember that the K-waves and the constant dollar Dow charts both pointed to the stock market bottoming around 2016? Well, note that the bottom of the inserted portion of the 1929 chart appears to bottom in the early part of the year 2016.

And finally, Robert Prechter’s group at Elliott Wave International predict that the Dow will bottom at around $400 dollars. Note that a projection of the bottom of the inserted chart section points to approximately $400 dollars.

http://www.thepanicnews.com/

It's that last part, the $400 value DOW! It's now valued at over $10,000! If this is even CLOSE to being right we haven't even begun to see the bottom regardless of what Paulson, Greenspan, Bernake or Geithner say.

It looks to be an awfully stormy summer!

(And many summers to follow.)

I HATE Horror movies so I add this with trepidation not wanting to cause undue fear but, the truth is truth and it is the truth that sets us free. May God have mercy on His people!

Why?

I have been asking myself, "Why?" Why all of this garbage coming from Barrack Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company? Where does all of this come from? What is really going on here? So, I started doing my own research and found some very disturbing correlations between current events and events that occurred in the early 20th century. It seems as if were repeating the mistakes of those before us...hmmm.

Auguste Comte

It all began in earnest with Auguste Comte who lived from January 19,1798 to September 5, 1857. Comte was a philosopher who developed the idea of what he called 'positivism.' His positivism was a philosophy that evolved into a political movement which gained a considerable following in the second half of the nineteenth century which became known as the "Progressive Movement." Crudely stated, the positivist philosophy basically believes in man's ability to reason himself into a worldwide utopia if we all just cast aside our silly notions of God and country and work together for the greater good. Sound familiar? Problem, it has been tried and it just doesn't work!

The Religion of Humanity

Comte believed in what he deemed "The Religion of Humanity" where man was at the center of all things and through man's knowledge and wisdom (read science here) a worldwide utopia could be achieved, i.e. a literal heaven on earth.

The System's subtitle is Treatise on Sociology Instituting the Religion of Humanity. While the different forms of deism preserve the idea of God and dissolve religion into a vague religiosity, Comte proposes exactly the contrary: a religion with neither God nor the supernatural. His project had little success; he even accomplished a tour de force by uniting both believers and non-believers against him. The many ridiculous details of Comte's religion made the task of his opponents even easier. But this aspect of Comte's thought deserves better than the discredit into which it has fallen (Wernick 2000; de Lubac 1945).

Comte defines religion as ‘the state of complete harmony peculiar to human life […] when all the parts of Life are ordered in their natural relations to each other’ (1851, v. 2, 8; E.,v. 2, 8). Comte also defines religion as a consensus, analogous to what health is for the body. Religion has two functions, according to the point of view from which one considers existence: in its moral function, religion should govern each individual; in its political function, it should unite all individuals. Religion also has three components, corresponding to the threefold division of the cerebral table: doctrine, worship, and moral rule (discipline). Comte's discussion is mainly about the first two. If one considers the first to be related to faith and the second to love, their relation takes two forms: ‘Love comes first and leads us to the faith, so long as the growth is spontaneous; but when it becomes systematic, then the belief is constructed in order to regulate the action of love’ (1852, v. 2, 152; E., v. 2, 83). At first, Comte had followed the traditional order and presented doctrine before worship, but he soon gave priority to worship, and saw this change as a considerable step forward.

In the positivist religion, worship, doctrine and moral rule all have the same object, namely Humanity, which must be loved, known, and served. Already the General Conclusions of the Course compared the concept of Humanity to that of God, affirming the moral superiority of the former. But only in 1847 does Comte make the substitution explicitly; sociological synthesis comes to replace theological synthesis. Membership of Humanity is sociological, not biological. In order to belong to what is defined as the continuous whole of convergent beings — Comte's term for (mainly human) beings who tend to agree — one has to be worthy of it. All ‘producers of dung’ are excluded; conversely, animals that have rendered important services can be included. Strictly speaking, it is to sociology that one should turn for knowledge of the laws of the human order but, as the final science recapitulates all others, it is the whole encyclopedic scale (échelle ; it is the result of the classification of sciences), that constitutes the doctrine of the new religion, which thereby becomes demonstrated and is no longer revealed or inspired. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comte/#RelHum

Thus, according to Comte, if you do not "belong" to the collective "membership of society" as defined by him and his followers you are not human! You are simply a producer of dung! To be treated no better than an animal and disposed of accordingly. Message: Get with the program or suffer the consequences!

Charles William Eliot

Enter Charles William Eliot who lived from March 20, 1834 to August 22, 1926 was an American academic who was selected as Harvard's president in 1869 and served the longest tenure to date. It was during his tenure at Harvard that Harvard became what we now think of as Harvard. Under his tutelage sweeping reforms were implemented and a new philosophy began to emerge as the dominating ideal; Progressivism. Before long progressives were in every nook and cranny, then they became the norm, soon they were in control and cranking out more and more progressive minions with each graduating class. It continues today unabated.

Herbert David Croly

Enter Herbert David Croly who lived from January 23, 1869 to May 17, 1930. Croly was a progressive-liberal writer and leader of the Progressive movement in early twentieth-century America. He is best known for co-founding the magazine The New Republic and for his extremely influential book The Promise of American Life. His political philosophy influenced many Progressives including Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt as well as his close friends Judge Learned Hand and Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. He attended Harvard only to drop out, then reapply and drop out again. Though he never actually graduated from Harvard, he did receive an honorary degree later recognizing his contribution to the Progressive cause.

Croly eventually joined calls for American involvement in World War I, but he became pessimistic and frustrated by the costs of war. In late 1917 and 1918, Croly began questioning his own beliefs about nationalism and democracy. The Treaty of Versailles resulting from the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 was a devastating dose of reality for Croly who declared it to be the "apocalypse of liberalism."

The vicious treatment of unions during the labor movements in the 1920s was difficult for Croly, who was a big union supporter. Then the issue of prohibition put Croly’s beliefs about the role of the national government to the test. But, for Croly, the reality of how prohibition was handled was the final straw in his losing faith in the progressive vision.

In 1920, Croly worked on another book called The Breach in Civilization. It was the result of a compilation of the ideals Croly once held but by then had come to believe were unrealistic positions. It is believed that in it he proclaimed legislation as a solution for social issues was unimportant, and abandoned his own core philosophy that central government could create human utopia. He condemned progressivism as a failure. As the book was on its way to the publisher, Felix Frankfurter persuaded Croly to withdraw the manuscript. It was never published, and only part of the text remains today.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Croly]

But it was too late for Croly to undo the damage that he had done. For by now Progressivism had taken root. With him, or without him Progressivism was here to stay.

Edward Mandell House

Enter Edward Mandell House who lived from July 26, 1858 to March 28, 1938. He was an American diplomat, politician, and presidential advisor. Commonly known by the purely honorific title of Colonel House, although he had no military experience, he did have enormous personal influence with U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as his foreign policy advisor and instrumental in drafting The Fourteen Points leading to the formation of the League of Nations and eventually the United Nations. He was generally considered the 'power behind the throne" in the Wilson administration until Wilson removed him in 1919 following unauthorized negotiations with foreign dignitaries during the Paris Peace Conference resulting in the disastrous Treaty of Versailles.

Edward M. House was a true believer in the progressive doctrine and anonymously wrote a book published in 1912 called Philip Dru: Administrator. In his book the title character, Dru, leads the democratic western U.S. in a civil war against the plutocratic East, with Dru eventually becoming the dictator of America. As dictator Dru imposes a series of reforms which strikingly resemble the Bull Moose platform of 1912. At the end of his book, having implemented the sweeping changes needed for a 'humane' society, Dru surrenders his dictatorial powers and literally sails into the sunset. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House]

With the work of Edward M. House progressive ideals had gone mainstream and were now firmly entrenched in American politics. Progressivism would go through periods of ascendancy and then decline, only to come back again, but it would never really go away. The Progressive Movement would change names from Progressive, to Liberal to Democratic, and back to Progressive but the core doctrine always stays the same: If you do not "belong" to the collective you are not really human. You are simply a producer of dung needing to be dealt with. Get with the program or suffer the consequences! (See Joe the Plummer, or Sarah Palin, or...)

History

History has shown us the results of this line of thought when followed to its logical conclusion. They litter the ash heap of history. Communism, Socialism and Fascism are all the descendants of Comte's progressive philosophy. They all can trace their basic forms of philosophy back to the notion that the "State knows best" and you had better get with the program or suffer the consequences. (Logo for The Progressive Labor Party)

The National Socialist German Labor Party

When Adolf Hitler found the German Labor Party it was a small organization seeking leadership for is fledgling ideals. Ideals originating in the "Labor" movement. A socialistic movement. A movement with a left leaning idealism. An idealism shared with progressives. To be sure the Nazis added Antisemitism to the mix, but they share the same father. Upon discovering his powers of oratory, Hitler soon became the party's leader, changed its name to the National Socialist German Labor Party, helping to shape its anti-Semitic, antidemocratic, authoritarian doctrine.

In 1939 Time selected Adolf Hitler as their "Man of the Year" and wrote:

What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to Germany in less than six years was applauded wildly and ecstatically by most Germans. He lifted the nation from post-War defeatism. Under the swastika Germany was unified. His was no ordinary dictatorship, but rather one of great energy and magnificent planning. The "socialist" part of National Socialism might be scoffed at by hard-&-fast Marxists, but the Nazi movement nevertheless had a mass basis. The 1,500 miles of magnificent highways built, schemes for cheap cars and simple workers' benefits, grandiose plans for rebuilding German cities made Germans burst with pride. Germans might eat many substitute foods or wear ersatz clothes but they did eat. What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to the German people in that time left civilized men and women aghast. Civil rights and liberties have disappeared. Opposition to the Nazi regime has become tantamount to suicide or worse. Free speech and free assembly are anachronisms. The reputations of the once-vaunted German centers of learning have vanished. Education has been reduced to a National Socialist catechism.

Those who now hold the levers of power in America have a sweeping vision of "fundamental change" in America and disparage those news organizations who disagree. They seek to change rights and liberties threatening free speech and assembly. Education is reduced to a catechism with little regard for truth and historical fact. The parallels are disturbing.

Included in the article in Time is the following:

Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539-6,00.html#ixzz0dGDP28Ic

Ripped From Today's Headlines

President Barack Obama proposed new limits on the size and activities of the nation's largest banks, pushing a more muscular approach toward regulation that yanked down bank stocks and raised the stakes in his campaign to show he's tough on Wall Street.

With former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker at his side, Mr. Obama said he wanted to toughen existing limits on the size of financial firms and force them to choose between the protection of the government's safety net and the often-lucrative business of trading for their own accounts or owning hedge funds or private-equity funds. Mr. Volcker has been an outspoken advocate of such rules; until recently Mr. Obama's top economic advisers, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, were less than enthusiastic.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016983630045768.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&

(Note: Paul Volcker and Lawrence Summers are both Harvard alumni as is Barrack Obama. Timothy Geithner's father, Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation's micro-finance programs in Indonesia being developed by Ann Dunham, President Barack Obama's mother, and they met in person at least once. Cozy little circle isn't it?)

Conclusion

Let us assume for the moment that you and I can agree that fascism and communism are not desirable forms of government. That fascism and communism have revealed themselves to be inefficient, heavy handed, cruel and completely ineffective as providing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people under such regimes. As an example we need only look to the greatest social experiments under such regimes; the old Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. We can only estimate how many millions were murdered and the billions that were brutalized under the old USSR, and the Nazis serve as the epitome of humanity's inhumanity to man.

It serves as a point of interest to note that the moniker USSR is an abbreviation for The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, also known as the Soviet Union (Советский Союз), and was a constitutionally socialist state, ("soviet" in Russian: сове́т, meaning "council" and was derived from the "local workers' council" on collective farms, factories, etc.)

One final point of interest: The term Nazi derives from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, NSDAP) Thus they were concerned about National issues from a Socialist perspective concerning themselves with the welfare of the German Workers. Additionally, the second volume of Mein Kampf is entitled The National Socialist Movement. Hitler did not tell the German people that he really wanted to come up with a "Final Solution" to the "Jewish Problem." As a matter of fact the Nazis tried as best they could to keep it a secret from the German people for as long as they could. The concentration camps were not, but the gassing and the ovens were kept secret. Everything the Nazis did was motivated by a sense of what was "good" and "right" in their eyes for the German people, no matter how twisted and depraved it may be seen from the perspective of history. Yet proving again, that Socialists, in their attempt to create a Utopia, create a living hell on earth for the rest of humanity.

Thus, in the ultimate sense the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Progressives are all socialists. The thing that differentiates them is how they go about TOTAL STATE DOMINATION! Which inevitably leads to total power in the hands of an elite few. Which in turns leads to resistance to that total control. Which in turns leads to a crack down on the resistance. Which in turn leads to more resistance. Which in turn leads to a spiraling of violence and oppression, until there is nothing left of freedom but a smoldering heap of ashes.

Say what you will about their differences, Communism, Socialism, Nazism and Progressivism all have this one thing in common; they deny God as the Supreme Being and in their denial of God's authority they assume it for themselves over the rest of humanity. They would usurp God from His throne and sit in His place dictating to the human race what they deem to be best, whether we like it or not thank you very much.

But just like Nimrod of old, Obama and his progressive friends are in for a rude awakening. For despite the best laid plans of men, "Unless the Lord builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the Lord guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain." Psalm 127:1 But at what cost to America as the land of the free? What will it cost the world to learn the lessons of history yet one more time?

Question:

The last time we went through this we didn't have nuclear weapons thus I am compelled to ask, "Will there be anyone left to learn from our latest mistakes?"

Ever Wonder What The World Thinks of You?

Here are a few "man-on-the-street-interviews" seeking responses to questions about Jesus and Christians.



It appears that the 'mainstream media' have been largely successful in perpetuating a negative stereo-type of anyone claiming faith in Jesus Christ.

What are YOU doing to change that?

Obama On Homosexual Relationships

“Just as Real and Admirable” As Heterosexual Marriage

Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com. Tuesday October 13, 2009) - President Obama delivered an unprecedented message to the Human Rights Campaign Saturday night. Sounding more like a homosexual activist than a sitting president, Obama went well beyond his expected message of “I’m here with you” on the homosexual agenda.

“My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians -- whether in the office or on the battlefield,”

Obama told an estimated audience of 3,000. “You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.” Even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese was stunned at the breadth of Obama's statement, calling it “something quite remarkable.”

"This was an historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States,” Solmonese said in a post-speech statement. “It’s simply unprecedented."

But Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, called the President's remarks “appalling.”

“Barack Obama is basically declaring that these relationships are basically equal to the real thing,” LaBarbera told CNSNews.com. “I think this is the ultimate Obama audacity play–for him, just declaring it seems to make it so.

The President pointedly used the pronoun “we” – not “you”–throughout much of his speech.

“Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach,” Obama said at one point.

"For despite the real gains that we've made, there's (sic) still laws to change and there's (sic) still hearts to open,” the president said at another juncture.
Obama also talked about homosexual “families” – two men and children or two women and children.

“If we are honest with ourselves we'll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That's why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered) families -- and not just in front of gay audiences,” Obama said.

The president said he and his wife Michelle had made a point of inviting homosexual “families” to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll – “because we want to send a message.”

Obama noted that his administration had extended benefits to the domestic partners of homosexual federal workers and that he had appointed an open homosexual, John Berry, to serve as director of the federal Office of Personnel Management.

As expected, he also mentioned his support for a laundry list of homosexual activist issues, including bringing an end to the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals serving in the military and overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“I will end ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell.’ That’s my commitment to you,” he said. But the president also characterized those who oppose the homosexual agenda in terminology reminiscent of last year’s presidential campaign, when then-candidate Obama, campaigning in Pennsylvania, referred to “bitter” residents of small-town America who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.”

Obama told Saturday's event that there are still people "who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted."

He ended by telling the story of a young man struggling with homosexuality -- "wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember.

“I believe the future is bright for that young person,” Obama added. "For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow.”

LaBarbera said Obama's comments went far beyond using the presidency as a bully pulpit.

“The condescension is glaring, "LaBarbera said. "He’s really putting down millions and millions of faithful, moral-minded citizens and dismissing traditional beliefs with such arrogance, it is almost indescribable. It reallyis amazing. “It's just hateful rhetoric,” LaBarbera added. “It’s a different kind of hate, to be sure, but it is hate – he hates our Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55346

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Here Larry Sinclair accuses Barack Obama of smoking crack cocaine and homosexual activity. Sinclair Alleges that in 1999, He and Barack Obama Shared Gay Sex and Cocaine.



Here Larry Sinclair gives a press conference and defends his claims of drug use and sexual activity with Barack Obama. (Clip ends at 10:31 because that's the YouTube time limit.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I believe based upon the claims made by Larry Sinclair and Obama's repeated use of the personal "pronoun “we” – not “you”–throughout much of his speech" these were Freudian-slips, i.e. an unintentional revealing of deeply held truth or belief, or it may even be a deliberate revelation of Obama's true-self with more yet to come.

Consider the quotes,

“Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach."

and

"For despite the real gains that we've made, there's (sic) still laws to change and there's (sic) still hearts to open.”

and

“If we are honest with ourselves we'll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That's why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT (lesbian/ gay/ bisexual/ transgendered) families -- and not just in front of gay audiences.”

SHOCKING BUT TRUE!

I would not be surprised if Obama were to "come out" and declare his bisexual, or even homosexual preferences before the end of his term in office to show his true colors and his genuine solidarity with the LGBT (lesbian/ gay/ bisexual/ transgendered) community to the everlasting disgrace of the United States of America!

Obama Hires Transgendered Woman Amanda Simpson

Amanda Simpson, who has served on NCTE’s Board of Directors for the past 3 years, has been appointed by the Obama Administration as a Senior Technical Advisor to the Department of Commerce. She’ll be working in the Bureau of Industry and Security.

“I’m truly honored to have received this appointment and am eager and excited about this opportunity that is before me. And at the same time, as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others.”

http://www.intraa.org/amanda-simpson/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I suppose that this is what he meant when he said he was going to "fundamentally change America"!