Sunday, February 27, 2011

Benai Elohim


Well, they've done it again. The Roman Catholic Church, playing the role of compromiser with false science, has yet again managed to get itself on the wrong side of a scientific argument. This time they have managed to do it before the scientific discovery in question has even been made! In doing so, they are inadvertently delivering the one billion Catholics worldwide right into the hands of the devil. Perhaps the Pontiff of the world's largest Christian church is inevitably destined to play the role of the infamous "second beast" in the forthcoming "end-times."

"The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory. Funes, a Jesuit priest, presented the results Tuesday of a five-day conference that gathered astronomers, physicists, biologists and other experts to discuss the budding field of astrobiology — the study of the origin of life and its existence elsewhere in the cosmos. Funes said the possibility of alien life raises "many philosophical and theological implications" but added that the gathering was mainly focused on the scientific perspective and how different disciplines can be used to explore the issue.

Chris Impey, an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona, said it was appropriate that the Vatican would host such a meeting. "Both science and religion posit life as a special outcome of a vast and mostly inhospitable universe," he told a news conference Tuesday. "There is a rich middle ground for dialogue between the practitioners of astrobiology and those who seek to understand the meaning of our existence in a biological universe." Thirty scientists, including non-Catholics, from the U.S., France, Britain, Switzerland, Italy and Chile attended the conference, called to explore among other issues "whether sentient life forms exist on other worlds." -Associated Press

It's bad enough that most of our juvenile society is excited over the prospect of extra-terrestrial life, after all, we have been conditioned through movies, television, and other assorted science fiction media to accept this as an almost certainty...but shouldn't the Christian Church know better? Should it not recognize that the discovery, and subsequent acceptance, of the existence of intelligent life on other planets would represent an existential threat not just to Judeo-Christianity but to our civilization as a whole? In fact, if we are to consult the Bible for information about such a prospect, we would realize that not only is such a discovery likely, it is almost a certainty. However, it is the interpretation of that realization that will become a matter of life and death.

As Christians we should KNOW that there is extra-terrestrial life and, just as has been postulated by Erich Von Daniken in his famous work "Chariots of the Gods," we likewise KNOW that these extra-terrestrials have been to earth before and have left behind evidence of their mingling with the affairs of mankind. Where we differ, slightly, is in the interpretation of the evidence. Those in Von Daniken's camp postulate that the extra-terrestrials originated on some planet elsewhere in the galaxy. We KNOW better.

It is one of the most damning eras in earth's history, and the Bible has much to say about it...including the extreme likelihood that we will physically see these creatures again.

GENESIS: 6:1-4: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Ahh yes...the infamous sons of God (also known by their Hebrew name Benai Elohim). Apparently they liked our women and decided to come and take them for themselves. It is this mixing of "extra-terrestrial" flesh with human flesh that created the situation that was so unacceptable to God that he had to put a stop to it:

GENESIS 6:12-13: And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

If we were to take the Bible literally, and there is no reason to do otherwise, it would appear that the Benai Elohim were,in fact, introducing unacceptable DNA into the human gene pool. This would explain why Noah was considered to be particularly eligible to be selected as the one to be spared from the coming annihilation.

GENESIS 6:8-9: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Noah was said to be "perfect in his generations." That the writer of Genesis went out of his way to make this statement would seem to verify that none in Noah's family lineage had participated in the forbidden couplings that produced the genetically unacceptable offspring.

This, of course, begs the obvious question: Who and what were these "Benai Elohim?" For the secular conspiratorialist, these would be a race of extra-terrestrials likely from a planet in the Orion star system. Zechariah Sitchin fans may want to claim they arrived from the infamous planet X, also called "Niburu." For those from the Judeo-Christian philosophy, the answer is simple and given:

JUDE 1:6-8: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

That's right. They were simply angels who violated the estate of Heaven to corrupt the earth. Not only do we know who and what they were, we know that their actions were considered such an offense to God that he would destroy ALL of their offspring, completely re-engineer the earth and lock away the offending angels. That should be considered a strong warning to anyone who should encounter such "visitors" in the future. Certainly, the fact that they made "breeding" with humans a major element of their criminal enterprise hints of a peculiarly nefarious intent. Were they attempting to destroy the human race by genetically altering it? If humanity were wiped out in favor of a new race of angelic humans would not this defeat the plan of God to redeem us all through the blood of Jesus Christ.?

GENESIS 3:14-15: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In God's plan of salvation, there is the promise that sin would ultimately be overcome by one of Eve's descendants. It would appear that the rebellious Benai Elohim intended to thwart that redemption, even before it began. These are not things to take lightly when considering the ramifications of initiating contact with extra-terrestrials a third time...did I say a third time? Then perhaps you are wondering what happened in the second biblically revealed instance of contact with extra-terrestrials.

GENESIS 6:4: There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There was a second instance of contact. The giants (also known as Nephilim) spoken of as being the result of the offspring of these forbidden encounters also show up when Moses and the Israelites prepare to take the land assigned to them by God. Moses sent twelve spies to observe the land before their invasion. Their report was astonishing:

NUMBERS 13:32-33: And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

As I am sure most of you are aware, the fear that all but two of Israel's spies possessed offended God. He had, after all, delivered Israel from the Pharaoh's bondage in Egypt and had repeatedly delivered these people from further dangers. The spies searched the land for forty days and as a reward for their lack of faith, God sentenced them to forty years of wandering aimlessly in the desert. One year of wandering for each day the spies spent in the land of Canaan. Everyone over the age of twenty was to die off before Israel would be led back to make its entrance into the promised land. There were two exceptions to this punishment. Because they alone did not act in fear but tried to encourage the others to invade the land, both Caleb and Joshua would be allowed to live and participate in the actual invasion.

This invasion would, in fact, be commanded by Joshua. He would take over leadership of Israel after the death of Moses. The invasion would be conducted according to the law of Cherem, which was the practice of consecration by total annihilation. This was issued by the command of God and carried out against the people who inhabited the land and had also followed after the angelic beings just as was done in Noah's time. There was to be no looting nor mercy. Everyone was to be killed and everything was to be destroyed. This is the price of worshiping angels and bearing their offspring. Gold could be kept but only after it had been melted into a non-offending form.

The totality of the destruction of this land and its' inhabitants is consistent with the judgement first administered to the earth in Noah's time. The Cherem carried out by Joshua is likewise to be seen as a judgement against the inhabitants of the land for following after false particular the Benai Elohim. The annihilation of the land and its inhabitants consecrated it for its new purpose. It would now and forever be known as the Holy Land. It is clear from a Biblical perspective that mingling with angelic extra-terrestrials does not lead to good fortune. However, the Bible indicates that there may yet be more angelic interference to come.

In the previous incidents of contact with the Benai Elohim, the angels were more than willing to present themselves as gods and demand the worship and tribute afforded such status. In the ancient texts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls the book of Enoch sits alongside the oldest known manuscripts of the Old Testament in such a way as to indicate that those who lived at the time of Jesus paid considerable attention to its' tale of angelic temptation. The book of Enoch goes into considerably more detail as to the behavior of these rogue angels and in doing so suggests that most of the mythology about amorous, disagreeable, violent and arrogant gods that permeates ancient cultures did, in fact, happen. It is clear that the original caretakers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the society that spawned them, were well aware of these beings...and their true nature.

Unfortunately, we are smarter than they were...or so we have led ourselves to believe. We are not susceptible to "gods" in our modern age of reason. Or as captain James T. Kirk would say: "we don't bow to every creature who happens to have a bag of tricks." So if the Benai Elohim were to make yet another appearance in the flesh, they would have to modify their plan. And they do have a plan...they must! For you see, unlike the educated godless intellectuals who dominate our intelligentsia, they KNOW the truth about God and his word. They read the Bible. Therefore they know very well what destiny awaits them...

REVELATION 12: 7-9: And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Hmm...Whatcha reckon that would look like to us?

It should occur to any reasonable person that an angel of Lucifer's calibre is not going to enter into his combat with Michael unprepared. He has been aware that he will lose the engagement and be cast out of the heavens for over 2000 years. It would seem reasonable to assume that he might have cultivated and nurtured the earth in such a way as to guarantee himself and his fallen compadres a warm reception upon their forced arrival...and so he has.

The plethora of science fiction and pseudo-scientific entertainment that postulates the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life on other planets is no accident. You are being conditioned for the arrival of just such creatures. The modern world has no appetite for the worshiping of "gods," but a crew of aliens on a spaceship will be happily greeted by all! The cat and mouse game of seeing UFO's only to have them disappear, along with the allusions to government "cover-ups," has kept the thought of extra-terrestrial visitation in our imaginations for over half a century. Unfortunately, when we are at last openly contacted, these "extra-terrestrials" will have an agenda that has been knowable for 2000 years...and yet most people will not know it. They will prefer to believe the stories told by the angels.

Of course the Benai Elohim will initially claim they are here to help us. They will also claim to have been watching over us all along, which of course is true. They will tell us they came from someplace that will have plenty of religious significance to the ancient mystery religions from cultures like Egypt and Babylon. Almost certainly it will be from the star system of Sirius. They likewise will claim to have been, or been in contact with, every major religious figure of every religion since the beginning of time. In many instances they will not be lying. You can be certain that Joseph Smith, Muhammad and so many more HAVE been "instructed" by them over the centuries. Their sorcery, designed to look like a technology far beyond our capability, will appear impressive. It will, however, be an illusion. The "spaceships" and the appearance of technology is a deception presented entirely for our benefit.

Naturally the world will follow after these extra-terrestrials and believe every word they say. So impressive will be their illusion that even those who should KNOW better will beleive it as well...

MATTHEW 24:24: For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

How many of you are prepared to resist the entire world when it tells you God is an extra-terrestrial and the spaceships are there for all to see? Did you really think this "Immaculate Deception" would simply be some bearded guy in a toga claiming to be Jesus? Now you will learn what it was like for Noah to stand against the whole world...or will you?

We need not be the victims of these false spirits, for we have been given a weapon that can unmask their fraud if we are prepared to use it...

1 JOHN 4:1-3: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Yes, that's right. We can, and must, test these spirits. For if the Bible is true enough that this great deception comes upon us, likewise we can use it to point out to the people of the earth that these creatures and their impressive spaceships are, in fact, earth bound. They can't go anywhere off the planet. If you will recall from REVELATION 12, the angels have been cast out of the heavens and they are not to be found in the heavens anymore. We are already armed with the method of proving that the alien's claims are lies. Of course, pointing this out can get a lot of us killed but this is the fight that awaits us.

I write this knowing full well that many Christians among you believe in such trojan horse doctrines as a pre-tribulation rapture that would, if true, relieve a good portion of you of the burden of living through these events. Such a topic is in itself a large debate too great to enter into here. Suffice it to say that I believe such ideas have been planted into the churches to make them more susceptible to the deception. Christians who believe they will not be here for these events will react to them weakly...if at all.

Whether actual contact with the Benai Elohim will be as visible and theatrical as I have described it here cannot be known yet. I present this merely as a possibility...a warning. The truth is that the technology now exists to manufacture the illusion of an extra-terrestrial invasion without ever having to have any real extra-terrestrials. What better way to encourage the collapse of international boundaries and cause the whole world to willingly pursue international co-operation? Of course, international co-operation of this magnitude will require an international government. It has been suggested before:

"If only extraterrestrials were about to invade, then our two countries could unite against the common enemy." -Ronald Reagan to Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev.

Don't dare think that message went unheard.

Fallen angels have always been with us. The physical manifestation and open manipulation is what has been unique to certain Biblical times. Always remember...

LUKE 17: 26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

Since the active participation of the Benai Elohim was a major factor in the corruption of the earth in the days of Noah, you can reasonably expect them to be around in the days leading up to Jesus' return. You could even look upon the passage of REVELATION 12:7-9 as their official invitation.

I will leave you with these words of warning from the well known physicist Stephen Hawking. This is a man with no love for Christianity or the word of God. Yet even he knows nothing good will come from an encounter with extra-terrestrials:

“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach. If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.” - Stephen Hawking

It's much worse than that Mr. Hawking. Worse than even someone with your impressive intellect could ever conceive. Whether the extra-terrestrials are the real Benai Elohim or a manufactured hoax, you can rest assured they are not going to be who they claim to be.

Be very afraid.

V - tv show

Sunday, January 2, 2011



Awww...According to our Attorney General, Eric Holder, the one thing that keeps him awake at night is the alarming rise in the number of Americans who are more than willing to attack, kill and otherwise do malicious damage to their fellow citizens. Sadly, our esteemed Attorney General is more likely to be spending his restless nights worrying over conservative Christian Tea Party grandmothers rather than those people with a proven record of treacherous and damnable behavior. Take, for instance, modern America's current socially privileged group: homosexuals. Democrats with the cooperation of a few spineless Republicans, have decided to invite this minority out in the open to celebrate, as acceptable and normal, a lifestyle that is anything but normal. By repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy they have taken the first, dangerous step in unleashing this "lifestyle" upon us. Unfortunately, a quick look into homosexuality's history reveals homosexuals to be exactly the sort of people willing to attack, kill and otherwise do malicious damage to their fellow citizens.

We have heard, over and over, about the poor unfortunate homosexual soldiers who just wanted to serve their country only to be booted from the service when they proved to be unable to keep their private sexual choices to themselves. You should be careful where you place your sympathies. The inconvenient truth is that homosexuals who wanted to be soldiers can and have had successful careers in the military. It's those whose loyalties to their lifestyle superceded their oaths to their country who have consistently proven to be dangerous. Consider the case of Private Bradley Manning. He is the mole who gave Wikileaks hundreds of thousands of secret documents...the latest in a long illustrious line of homosexual traitors.

According to Manning's on-line chats he considered himself to be in "an awkward place."

"Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a 'a member of a minority' treated unfairly by the military." - Montreal Gazzette

Ahh yes. The ole' victimization excuse that those who perceive themselves as persecuted feel compelled to bring up as a justification for their choice to commit crimes in the name of "social justice." So even though Bradley Manning willingly volunteered to join the military and abide by the rules he clearly understood when he joined, he proceeds to blame the military and, in a fit of rage, hatch a plan to betray his country by creating the biggest leak of classified documents in U.S. history. He obviously considered the lives he would place in jeopardy by his actions to be a justified retribution for HIS mistake of choosing to join an army that he knew was not going to throw a parade to celebrate the enlistment of a homosexual. Boo-hoo.

If you are wondering how someone like Bradlee Manning could ever get the clearance necessary to get in the presence of such sensitive information then perhaps you might want to lay some of the blame at the feet of former president Bill Clinton. In 1995 he signed an executive order removing sexual orientation as a grounds for disqualifying someone for a security clearance. As we are about to show, this was one of the stupidest actions ever initiated by a president, especially coming from a democratic party that likes to portray itself as intellectually superior to its political opponents.

You may be wondering why homosexuals were denied security clearances prior to President Clinton rescinding the ban. A series of Senate committee reports dating from the 1950's called for enhanced efforts to ELIMINATE all homosexuals from the federal service. The committees concluded that:

"moral perverts are bad national security risks ... because of their susceptibility to blackmail" (Wherry 1950, 2), that homosexuals were "vulnerable to interrogation by a skilled questioner" due to their emotional instability and moral weakness, and that they were "easy prey to the blackmailer" (U.S. Senate 1950, 5).

Colonel Ron Ray in his 1993 book Military Necessity and Homosexuality also noted:

“Even if homosexuals are not ‘turned’ by foreign agents, evidence exists that homosexuals, as a group or subculture, can and do turn against their country simply on account of the nature of homosexuality and its hostile attitude toward the existing moral order. This fact is illustrated by a well known group of preeminent writers, thinkers, artists and high social figures known as Bloomsburys who began to reform English tastes before the second world war. That period, termed modernity, saw the supplanting of the fixed moral norms with another ethos. The key to understanding modernity and Bloomsbury is sodomy: Bloomsburys wanted to ‘live as they wanted to live.’ Along with their homosexuality they developed an amoral, irreligious attitude and were unpatriotic as well. E.M. Forster, a member of the Bloomsbury, was quoted as saying, ‘If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country."

As you can see the suggestion that homosexuals were easy to blackmail was based on solid history of a then recent vintage. The most notorious traitors who sided with the Nazi fascists against their own governments were all homosexuals. This would include future KGB spy Guy Burgess and John Macnamara in England. Edouard Pfeiffer and Jacques Doriot in France. Leon Degrelle in Belgium. Artur Seyss-Inquart in Austria, and in Norway it was the infamous Vidkum Quisling, whose surname is even to this day synonymous with “traitor” much the same way as Benedict Arnold's name resonates in America.

The most damaging spies in British history were a band of homosexuals known as the Cambridge Five. (Although in particularly arrogant homosexual fashion they referred to themselves as "The Magnificent Five.") The five were Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, John Cairncross, Anthony Blunt and lone heterosexual Kim Philby. These wonderful chaps all turned out to be on the KGB payroll. Anthony Hunt was in fact a member of the aforementioned Bloomsburys and his security breech cost the lives of many. Guy Burgess was so useful to the Soviets that upon his defection to the Soviet Union he was promptly set up with a boyfriend as a reward for his service. Fantastic.

The American's were just as riddled with homosexually compromised spies such as the ironically named Michael Straight, who was a speech-writer for President Franklin Roosevelt, and Whittaker Chambers who claimed that he gave up homosexuality when he gave up communism and later became the star witness in the infamous Alger Hiss case.

As impressive as the treachery of homosexual espionage appears there is a lot more blood on the hands of those who pursue these abominable relationships. In his book, Germany’s National Vice, historian Samuel Igra claims the outbreak of World War I was a direct consequence of homosexual intrigues in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Revelations that a coterie of homosexuals acquired a Rasputin-like control of the Kaiser immersed the nation in a perverse scandal that spanned from 1907 to 1914. It resulted in a series of very public criminal trials.

Igra states that the scandal grew so big that Germany felt it had to choose war as the only way to resolve it’s domestic crisis. He cites, among other sources, The Diary of Count Robert Zedlitz-Truetzschler, Lord Chamberlain at the Court of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wrote:

“Yesterday while hunting at Springe the Crown Prince had a long conversation with General von Moltke, the Chief of the General Staff, about the political situation (the internal political situation, he means) and committed himself to the opinion that only war can clear up the confused situation of the country.”

That's pretty damning. Whether or not this was the true cause of The First World War is really not the issue. It is enough that a homosexual scandal caused so great a national crisis that war was contemplated as a solution.

Before supporters of progressive social policies get too proud of themselves for introducing the concept of open homosexuality into the US military they should consider the under-reported story of the Srebrenica massacre, the worst act of mass murder committed in Europe since the second world war. General John Sheehan, a retired marine corps officer who was NATO's supreme commander at the time of the 1995 atrocity said that homosexual soldiers in the Dutch military were one of the reasons for the Srebrenica massacre.

"They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialise their military – that includes the unionisation of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since world war two." - General John Sheehan

The General, testifying earlier this year in a Senate hearing added that the Dutch chief of staff had told him that having gay soldiers at Srebrenica had sapped morale and contributed to the disaster.

Of course such a politically incorrect statement was dismissed as total nonsense because it contradicts the inevitable conclusion that has always been at the end of this debate. No one was going to let any evidence come between homosexuals and their cherished desire to get revenge against the United States military for failing to recognize their "special" status.

However, there is more treachery awaiting the military as the fallout from the repeal of DADT works its way into the system. The beauty of DADT was that it allowed the military to remain neutral. The military didn’t have to approve or disapprove. Now, the military will be forced to review its codes of conduct, and you can rest assured they will be rewritten in favor of homosexual rights, giving special treatment to homosexuals.

Forcing the services to accept openly gay members will also make it impossible to overcome the effects of inevitable homosexual networking. This is the preference that homosexuals give to one another based on their sexual contacts. The Marine Corps had to fight long and hard to rid themselves of a "lesbian mafia" that controlled the assignments and promotions of female Marines for years until an IG investigation finally gave the leadership the tools needed to break up the network. These network connections crossed ranks, units and services as they took priority over everything else. These networks destroyed evidence, lied, and obstructed investigations to protect one another. As always, homosexuals' loyalties lie with themselves and their carnal confidants, not to the service or their duty.

The most well known example of homosexuals infiltrating and networking within an organization for their own ends is, of course, the example of the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, American Roman Catholic Bishops and officials at the Vatican were being inundated with accusations of clerical sexual abuse in the United States. However the problem was not isolated to the U.S. Ireland and other European countries have experienced problems relating to instances of Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing children. This was constantly mis-reported in a press that is openly supportive of the homosexual agenda as being a crisis of "pedophilia." The blame has consistently been placed upon the Catholic church for "tolerating" and obfuscating alleged pedophile abuses.

However, the data collected by John Jay College of Criminal Justice shows that from 1950 to 2002, 81 percent of the victims of these priests were male and 75 percent of them were post-pubescent. Puberty, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, begins at age 10 for boys. Therefore it is more correct to say that three out of every four victims have been abused by HOMOSEXUALS.

"The (New York) Times continues to editorialize about the "pedophilia crisis", when all along it's been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay." - Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League

During the 1970's, renowned singer and former Miss America contestant, Anita Bryant, was excoriated in the media for her crusade against homosexuality. One of her primary complaints against homosexuals was that they were out to "recruit" children into their lifestyle. Well, the data is in and it appears she was right. They are recruiting children into this lifestyle by the most diabolical means possible:

In 2001, the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior published a study entitled Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. The abstract for this article states the following:

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.

That homosexuals prefer such occupational careers as priests and teachers is no accident. Homosexuals preying upon the young and the weak is not something that is either rare or new. It is, in fact, how their "peculiar species" has always preserved itself.

In the societies of ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was openly tolerated and even encouraged. Men of the time understood sex to be a matter of sexual penetration and phallic pleasure. The physical act of sex itself required a two tiered system to divide the roles of sexual partners into the categories of penetrator and the penetrated. This can also be referred to as "active" verses "passive" or, more appropriately, as "dominant" verses "submissive." Insertion of the phallus expressed social domination, superiority and seniority. So Roman law placed the sons of Roman citizens off limits to men. Citizenship status could be removed from a Roman male who allowed himself to be penetrated.

In ancient Athens, by contrast, free boys could be openly seduced, however an elaborate set of peculiar interpretations of the rules of engagement for this behavior protected adolescents from the shame associated with bodily penetration. These convenient and self-serving protocols allowed adolescent boys to gratify their male suitors without compromising their future status as adult citizens. These relationships ended once the boy could grow a beard because the Greeks, like their future Roman counterparts, considered a mature adult in a submissive homosexual role as weak and effeminate. These were dishonorable and unacceptable character traits in a society that praised virility. Hence, the discouragement of homosexual oral sex and the complete humiliation of any effeminate or "flaming" submissive homosexuals. So as you can see there is a two tiered system of justice. Penetrator homosexuality is fully acceptable, whereas submissive homosexuals suffered persecution for their weakness. Knowing this, how can you describe homosexuality as anything other than predatory?

It is actually the Christian apostle Paul who broke this two tiered system of homosexuality for the future of Western Civilization. He equated all homosexual acts as a violation of the natural use of the body and made no distinction between the dominant or submissive partner in the abominable copulation:

Romans 1:24-27 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Since both Roman and Greek societies had slave classes it should be remembered that one of the sanctioned and accepted roles of slave boys was to make themselves available for anal sex to their free masters. Young male slaves were often purchased entirely for the purpose of pleasuring their masters. Homosexual rape was also common in this world and the victims were chastised and punished for their weakness. The Greeks even had certain kinds of parties called Komos, where groups of drunken men would wander the streets looking for someone to kidnap and rape. Wealthy Roman families often bought large male slaves for the sole purpose of escorting their young male children through the dangerous streets so they wouldn't be raped. These homosexually tolerant societies were very predaceous by design...and the homosexuals designed it!

Even though these were societies that were highly permissive of homosexual behavior it should be noted that there were no such things as homosexual households or "families," no homosexual institutions or anything remotely resembling a "gay " culture. These are all fabrications of a modern homosexual movement aggressively attempting to promote itself as a "persecuted" minority in search of "special" rights that have never existed in any culture.

There was a lot to consider before repealing the DADT policy in the military. Unfortunately the history and damage homosexuality, and homosexuals, has done to planet earth was not allowed to intrude on the discussion. Allowing maladjusted, predatory narcissists to display their sexual preferences while enlisted in the armed services can produce no benefits, save the questionable one of giving them leverage over those who are repulsed by their behavior. It is inevitable that there will be an "us versus them" mentality amongst homosexuals, which offers no benefit to to the military.

One of the many values the military cherishes is that of selfless service. The ability to put the good of the nation above personal desires is as admirable as it is an essential trait of a good soldier. After all, at any time he or she may be called upon to give his or her life for the nation's defense. When you start openly accepting and actively recruiting people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above their duty and the needs of their country, then you have the dangerous combination that has and will again cause great harm. That's how we got PFC Bradley Manning. Because of his homosexuality and his bitterness toward the military, he decided to seek retribution and leak the 250,000 classified documents that have done our country irreparable harm. And yet he is a hero to his homosexual brethren, for he struck a blow against their enemies in the fight for their special privileges. Homosexuals are today as they always have been. It's all about them...they're special.

If homosexuals are willing to serve and die for this country is it right to deny them the right to marriage? That’s sure to be the next question presented by the advocates of homosexual superiority. Vice President Joe Biden already stated that he believes the legalization of homosexual marriage is inevitable. That is why repealing DADT is such a mistake. These so called "progressive" policies require an ignorant and/or apathetic population to gain traction. This is also how so many steps backward keep being mistakenly called progress. Once in place, all opposition to homosexuality will be disregarded as a bigoted relic of the past. Then these policies cannot ever be deemed to have failed, despite the misery and suffering that they cause.

There are those who suggest we must hate the sin and love the sinner. Unfortunately some sinners love their sins too much. It may be true that some homosexuals have done things that benefited their spite of their homosexuality. However it is also true that homosexuality itself has not produced one thing on this earth that we are not better off without. There is nothing commendable about sodomy or the homosexual lifestyle and it shouldn't be elevated as a preference in the US military or anywhere else! There is a direct connection between homosexuality and the demise of a society. You will get the government and country you choose.

Homosexuals have fashioned your tolerance into a knife and stuck it in your back...can you feel it yet?

Meet your new Army

Sunday, November 21, 2010

All In


We have a gambling problem in Alabama. The state's governor, Republican Bob Riley, began a crackdown on illegal gambling 23 months ago. He declared, with the backing of the state's Supreme Court, that thousands of electronic bingo machines located in 16 of the state's 67 counties are, in fact, slot machines. Slot machines are illegal in Alabama. Nevertheless, thousands of them crept into our state under the phony label of “charity bingo.” Since charity bingo is allowed for things such as church fund-raisers, the gambling industry thought they could put the word "bingo" on a slot machine and get away with it.

Over the years people have played these phony bingo machines as state officials looked the other way. Governor Riley, nearing the end of his second term as governor, has chosen, at last, to address the issue. The state defines a slot machine as a gambling device that, as a result of the insertion of a coin or other object, operates, either completely automatically or with the aid of some physical act by the player, in such a manner that, depending upon elements of chance, it may eject something of value. Any fool can see that "bingo" machines are in fact slot machines.

The governor's critics point out that his claims that the machines are morally and legally unacceptable would have had more credibility had he pursued the issue during his first term...before he sought re-election. Certainly the machines were just as illegal in 2004 as they are today, however, his critics are merely making a political argument. There is no valid legal defense for allowing these machines to continue to operate.

The state Supreme Court has, time and again, validated the governor's claim that not only are the machines illegal but that he has the authority to get rid of them when local authorities prove unwilling to enforce the state's laws. This has resulted in many theatrical raids on gambling facilities across the state. The bingo operators, having already built large and impressive looking facilities that employ thousands of workers essentially dared the governor to come after them and, to his credit, he did.

Governor Riley's anti-gambling task force, led by Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson, launched raids on both the Country Crossing and VictoryLand bingo emporiums. In Chickasaw, a city of 6,000, a bingo casino opened in February. The task force raided it the same day.

"We are now free to go enforce the laws against illegal gambling in this state from one end of Alabama to the other." - Task Force Commander John Tyson

As always, proponents of gambling claim that it benefits the state both in the employment it provides as well as the tax revenue that it generates. Though there is some truth to these claims, there is also a considerable downside to gambling that has reared its head here in Alabama, just as it does everyplace that has gambling. Corruption has blossomed fantastically.

Everywhere that gambling travels its' revenues inevitably end up purchasing political favors from the government officials whose responsibility it is to regulate the "fairness" of the gambling industry. However "fairness" in the eyes of casino owners is quite a bit different than "fairness" in the eyes of others.

For all of the howling over the benefits that gambling supposedly provides through employment and tax revenues it must be remembered that this revenue is largely being earned from those least able to afford it...the poor. Whereas our tax structure is designed to progressively increase the tax rates of higher earners and essentially leave the poorest earners free of any tax responsibility. Gambling, on the other hand, entices earners of the least income to risk all they have on a shortcut to wealth. One would be hard pressed to find a more immoral business model than that. Which brings us back to the concept of fairness. Consider this:

Former Mayor Larry Langford, who was ousted after being convicted of bribery, won 555 electronic bingo jackpots over three years at a casino run by a longtime friend and supporter, according to newly disclosed tax records. The tax returns show he claimed winning about $1.5 million gambling at various casinos from 2006 to 2008, but he says he lost at least that much. On one day in 2008, he won 36 jackpots totaling $96,000 at VictoryLand, owned by Milton McGregor. - Associated Press

Ahh, fairness... If you were gambling in the same casino as the esteemed former mayor of Birmingham do you believe you would have had a "fair" chance of winning? After all, certain machines were rigged to win for the former mayor. Would it not likewise be reasonable to assume that the rest of the machines were just as rigged to lose in order to replace the revenue that was needed to bribe the former mayor? Or do you really believe he was that lucky? You are not gambling when the outcome is pre-determined. The rest of the patrons in the gambling establishment were essentially unwitting conspirators in the bribe. This is fairness in the eyes of the gambling industry.

Since our governor has been winning his legal fight against illegal gambling the casino owners in Alabama decided their next best idea was to work to get the laws changed to make it legal. This too ultimately led to failure as they were unable to get either the laws changed or a ballot referendum that would have allowed voters to have a say in the matter. Keep in mind that the state of Alabama voted against a state lottery in spite of the fact that we are surrounded on all sides by states that do have a lottery. A state that rejects a lottery is not likely to choose to legalize slot machine gambling.

However, the failed battle in the Alabama legislature has resulted in yet another fantastic debacle of corruption. Once again the air is afoul with indictments:

A vote-buying scheme in the Legislature involved four state senators, two casino owners, lobbyists and millions of dollars in bribes in an attempt to legalize electronic bingo, according to an indictment announced Monday by the Justice Department.
Federal agents swept across Alabama on Monday arresting the 11 people charged in the indictment, including Sens. Larry Means, D-Attalla; Jim Preuitt, R-Talladega; Quinton Ross Jr., D-Montgomery; and Harri Anne Smith, R-Slocomb.

Also arrested were Ronnie Gilley, developer of the Country Crossing casino in Dothan, and Milton McGregor, owner of VictoryLand casino in Shorter and a financial backer of Country Crossing.

Others arrested were lobbyists Jarrod Massey, Tom Coker and Robert “Bob” Geddie Jr.; Legislative Reference Service analyst Ray Crosby; and Country Crossing spokesman Jarrell W. “Jay” Walker.

The 39-count indictment stems from a federal corruption probe involving attempts to pass bills in 2009 and 2010 that would have allowed electronic bingo games to operate in Alabama. The bills failed, but federal prosecutors said that behind the scenes, operators of the two largest private casinos — McGregor and Gilley — and teams of lobbyists were offering millions in campaign contributions, benefit concerts by country music artists, free polling and hidden $1 million-a-year payments in return for votes.

“The alleged criminal scheme was astonishing in scope,” said Lanny Breuer, the head of the Justice Department's criminal division. “Indeed, as alleged in the indictment, the defendants' corrupt conduct infiltrated every layer of the legislative process in the state of Alabama.”
- The Tuscaloosa News

A statement on behalf of Gov. Bob Riley said he had called the gambling bill that passed the Senate earlier this year, "the most corrupt piece of legislation ever considered by the Senate," and the action by the Justice Department shows he was exactly right. This is what happens everywhere gambling goes. But there are more ways to gamble. Some of the worst involve gambling with that which does not belong to you. There is another story making the rounds in Alabama and the rest of the country. It too involves gambling. It is the story of Auburn University's star quarterback Cameron Newton.

I'm sure that many of you are aware the sordid details of this evolving scandal. It is alleged that Newton's father, Cecil, (the latest in a long line of Reverends behaving badly) solicited upwards of $200,000 for his son to sign a letter of intent to play college football at Mississippi State University. Unfortunately for the younger Newton, the evidence piling up seems to, at the very least, implicate his father in this scheme whether or not any of the allegations suggesting that someone on behalf Auburn University fulfilled his demands prove true or not. As of yet there is no proof that anybody paid anyone anything. However, just the act of soliciting payment is a violation of NCAA rules that could lead to Cameron Newton being declared an ineligible player and subsequently void every game in which he participated.

New allegations and supposed evidence is is coming out daily, yet Auburn University and the fans that make up the Auburn nation have circled their wagons in defense of Cameron Newton. At the recent game against Georgia many fans could be seen holding signs suggesting that they were "All In" for Cam. The use of this gambling terminology is a suggestion that they are willing to risk everything on this one player. The look on former Heisman Trophy winner Bo Jackson, as he embraced Newton following an Auburn touchdown, was one of defiant arrogance. I've seen this look before. Democrats were wearing this look as they rammed their Health Care Law down the throats of an unwilling nation. It is clear that Auburn University and its' supporters are embracing their roles as martyrs...but for what? Some may find this display of support for the embattled quarterback admirable. I suffer no such admiration.

You see, Auburn was aware there was a problem before the season started. They knew that Mississippi State had reported the improper solicitation to the NCAA. They knew that if it were true that Cameron Newton could be declared ineligible to play. A cautious program would have suspended him pending an investigation. If, as they now claim, they truly believed in his, and their, innocence they could have just as quickly asked for him to be re-instated. That would have shielded the university from the consequences of any wrongdoing...assuming that some wealthy Auburn booster did not fulfill the elder Newton's request.

The NCAA is notoriously slow with their investigations. Had Auburn chose the cautious yet wise path, they could have been without the services of their superstar quarterback for several, if not all, of their games. Did I fail to mention that Auburn is undefeated, 11-0, and ranked #2 in the nation as of this writing? Without Newton Auburn would be lucky to be 6-5. So Auburn did what they had to do to win...they gambled.

But it's worse than that. It has become known that when Newton was a player at the University of Florida he broke the student honor code three times by getting caught cheating. It was also public knowledge that Newton was caught in possession of a stolen laptop. To be sure, it is somewhat despicable that Newton's private college records were made public in furtherance of this scandal. After all, a mountain of Freedom of information requests have failed to pry President Obama's college records out into the open, much like his mythical long form birth certificate. However, Auburn University was entitled to view Newton's college records. They were well aware of his previous behavior. Considering the seriousness of the solicitation allegations as well as an awareness of what kind of person Cameron Newton had proven to be just over a year before they sought his services, there was no justification for Auburn to gamble the reputation and integrity of their football program by playing him...yet they did.

Auburn's achievements on the field may prove to be all for naught. The NCAA is very likely to declare Cameron Newton an ineligible player and force Auburn to forfeit every game that they played with him. An 0-11 team might be about to play for the SEC championship. Perhaps LSU deserves to be there. Auburn might even play for a national championship. They would then be doing to someone else exactly as was done to them when an undefeated Auburn team was denied a chance to play for the title in 2004 because a University of Southern California team with an ineligible player was taking their spot. Auburn is at the mercy of the NCAA's interpretation of its' rules. If they are as consistent with their recent history of serious penalties for Alabama and USC, then Auburn's War Eagle is about to be cooked and served as a Thanksgiving meal.

College football in the south is big business and Cameron Newton was Auburn's shortcut to the top of that world. The people responsible for making the decision to play Cameron Newton are no different than a man or woman squandering their family's food and rent money to pull the lever on a bingo slot machine. They are no different than an elected official collecting unearned jackpots in defiance of the law. The people responsible for playing Cameron Newton are gamblers. Gamblers who were gambling with that which does not belong to them. Even if this whole thing were to magically go away and everyone were declared innocent it would not make the actions of Auburn University any less despicable. How dare they risk everything for THIS one man with documented past of questionable integrity? Regardless of what the NCAA chooses to do, someone needs to be fired. This was recklessness...but thats how gamblers behave. Perhaps Governor Riley ought to make Auburn University the target of his Gambling Task Force's next raid.

There are those who would suggest that we should just go ahead and pay college football players. After all, it is true that football and basketball programs rake in millions of dollars due to the efforts of these athletes. But I thought we ARE paying them already...or is a college education now considered to be of no value? I would dare say that a full scholarship to attend Auburn University is worth a lot more than the $200,000 Cecil Newton was looking to make by exploiting his son. I no more want to pay money to college football players than I want to legalize gambling, marijuana or homosexual marriage. Lowering standards is not the sign of a quality society. It is reflective of a society that is not as good as the one its' predecessors bequeathed to it. The people who had this world before us learned something over the first 6000 years of history. To accept lowered standards is to discard all of the knowledge that our ancestors acquired and admit our inferiority to them. If that is our choice then we are most definitely NOT the ones we have been waiting for.

We have a gambling problem in Alabama. Legalizing it won't fix it.

Cam Newton for heisman

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Duplicitous Maneuvers


It was probably the most damning morning of television ever broadcast...but was anyone paying attention? PJTV broadcast the testimony of Christopher Coates, the former voting chief for the Department Of Justice's Civil Rights Division. Coates was testifying in spite of the fact that his bosses in the Department of Justice had issued instructions for him to ignore the subpoena requesting his appearance. After his testimony it became quite clear why his superiors in the Justice Department wanted to maintain his silence.

Christopher Coates was testifying before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. This commission is tasked with investigating complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. Coates was subpoenaed to testify in regards to the ongoing investigation into the alleged New Black Panther voter intimidation that occurred in the 2008 election. His testimony given on September 24 just may have destroyed the presidency of Barack H. Obama. Can testimony this damning be suppressed for long?

"President Barack Obama’s handpicked U.S. Justice Department officials are ignoring civil rights cases in which the alleged victims are whites and they abandoned a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party that resulted in a “travesty of justice.” -Christopher Coates

Coates is alleging that Department Of Justice officials dismissed the intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers for political reasons. The New Black Panthers were videotaped outside a Philadelphia voting precinct dressed in military-style uniforms and one was brandishing a nightstick and hurling racial slurs. He was emphatic that the dismissal of the Case against the New Black Panthers "was ordered because the people calling the shots in May 2009 were angry at the filing of the Noxubee case and angry at our filing of the New Black Panther Party case." But it gets worse...

"In the spring of 2009, Ms. (Loretta) King, who had by then been appointed Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights by the Obama Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the Voting Rights Act. Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA and had been highly critical of the filing and prosecution of the Ike Brown case." -Christopher Coates

Why did Coates feel compelled to ask whether job applicants could enforce the law in a race-neutral manner? The question became necessary because of a lack of enthusiasm among the career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division for enforcing the law when it resulted in African-American defendants rather than victims. This was an attitude that Coates said he first encountered during the administration of George W. Bush:

"Opposition within the Voting Section was widespread to taking actions under the Voting Rights Act on behalf of white voters in Noxubee County, MS, the jurisdiction in which Ike Brown was and is the Chairman of the local Democratic Executive Committee. In 2003, white voters and candidates complained to the Voting Section that elections had been administered in a racially discriminatory manner and asked that federal observers be sent to the primary run-off elections. Career attorneys in the Voting Section recommended that we not even go to Noxubee County for the primary run-off to do election coverage, but that opposition to going to Noxubee was overridden by the Bush Administration’s Civil Rights Division Front Office. I went on the coverage and while traveling to Mississippi, the Deputy Chief who was leading that election coverage asked me, “can you believe that we are going to Mississippi to protect white voters?” What I observed on that election coverage was some of the most outrageous and blatant racially discriminatory behavior at the polls committed by Ike Brown and his allies that I have seen or had reported to me in my thirty-three plus years as a voting rights litigator." -Christopher Coates

A judge agreed with Coates assessment of the case and the Department Of Justice won an injunction against Ike Brown and the Democrat Executive Committee which subsequently was upheld on appeal. That was the first time in the history of the Department Of Justice that it pursued a prosecution of an African-American defendant under the Voting Rights Act. Apparently it did NOT sit well with many within the Civil Rights Division who did not have any desire to prosecute non-traditional voting rights violations. In other words, they only wanted to prosecute white people. I suppose you could file this among those foolish claims that black people cannot be racists.

When Coates was promoted to head the Civil Rights Division, he began asking the offending question in job interviews as to whether applicants could pursue cases in a race -neutral manner in the future. This is what led Loretta King, an Obama political appointee, to order him to stop asking the question.

Coates testimony was confirmation of earlier testimony by former Department Of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams who left the department in protest after the dismissal of the New Black Panther case. Coates himself was ordered not to testify before the commission and was transfered to the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina, a move that was designed to get Coates out of sight and out of obviously failed. Now the Obama administration, which was once promoted as the first post-racial presidency, now finds itself an enabler in the worst sort of racial discrimination.

However bad the blatant discrimination within the Department Of Justice may be, according to Christopher Coates there is something else afoot which could directly affect the upcoming election with regard to the potential for voter fraud on a massive scale:

"In June 2009, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) issued its bi-annual report concerning which states appeared not to be complying with Section 8's list maintenance requirements. The report identified eight states that appeared to be the worst in terms of their non-compliance with the list maintenance requirements of Section 8 [of the Voting Rights Act]. These were states that reported that no voters had been removed from any of their voters’ list in the last two years. Obviously this is a good indication that something is not right with the list maintenance practice in that state. As Chief of the Voting Section, I assigned attorneys to work on this matter, and in September 2009, I forwarded a memorandum to the CRD Front Office asking for approval to go forward with Section 8 list maintenance investigations in these states."

"During the time that I was Chief, no approval was given to this project, and my understanding that approval has never been given for that Section 8 list maintenance project to date. That means that we have entered the 2010 election cycle with eight states appearing to be in major noncompliance with the list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA, and yet the Voting Section which has the responsibility to enforce that law has yet to take any action." -Christopher Coates

Apparently the weeds that ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) planted in the last election are not going to be pulled, but instead will be fertilized and harvested...and the harvest is coming fast! Voter rolls that are not properly maintained are ripe with the deceased, illegal aliens and duplicate registrations. All have the potential for showing up and illegally influencing the outcome of elections. However this is of no concern to the Department Of Justice. Don't be surprised to find out that our elections are being manipulated...they have been for quite some time!

Christopher Coates specifically mentioned Missouri's Robin Carnahan during his testimony. He told the commission that Mrs. Carnahan, acting in her current position as Missouri's Secretary of State, has refused to remove deceased people from Missouri's voter rolls. Carnahan was entitled to this special mention because she is currently running for the office of U.S. Senate against republican Roy Blunt. Wouldn't everyone running for public office love to be in a position to influence the outcome of their own election by collecting a stash of dead voters and have them "vote" as needed? Democrats rationalize these kind of shenanigans by calling it "leveling the playing field." This is how a dangerous freedom-hating minority seizes power. They can not win elections by telling the truth or pursuing fair voting practices...and they know it.

This is not an issue that will go away. You can expect every closely contested race in this November's election to be challenged by Democrats who will be able to "find" all sorts of "extra" ballots for their candidates on the recounts they subsequently demand. They perfected this method of operation in the close 2008 race for the U. S. Senate in Minnesota. As you will recall, republican Norm Coleman had a slim lead going into the recount but Al Franken ended up with the lead after many new votes were "discovered." Some of these votes were "discovered" in the most ridiculous the trunk of a poll workers car! Don't be fooled. Ill maintained voter lists are the vines that bear the fruit of election fraud. When votes are needed, they will be found...count on it. As the old axiom states: It's not the voters that decide the outcome of elections, it's the counters.

Hopefully a Republican wave is going to be strong enough to overcome these difficulties and allow them to retake control of the House of Representatives. Once that happens, they will be in a position to launch serious official investigations into the corruption within the Department Of Injustice's Uncivil Wrongs Division.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Constantinople Falls...Again


The whole world is aware of the controversy surrounding the proposal to build a Muslim mosque on the Ground Zero site that sustained the attack of September 11, 2001. Suddenly people who despise the idea of religion in public life and who become squeamish at the thought of public prayer are becoming misty eyed in their support for the religious freedom of the Muslims whose motives for building this mosque are rightly being questioned. Strangely, the clash of three civilizations is repeating itself at the site of Islam's expansionist rebirth. Surely you recognize the conflict of Islam and Western Christianity as it boils over into the streets of New York. But what of Eastern Christianity? It too has a role in this controversy just as surely as it was at the center of the storm that resulted in the Medieval Crusades, and once again we see how little man has "evolved" in the 915 years since the Western Christian powers came to the aid of the Christian East. It looks disturbingly as much like 1095 as it does 2010.

Apparently Father Mark Arey of the St. Nicholas Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't get it. He doesn't understand why the Muslim Mosque is all the rage in the media while his little church struggles in obscurity. You see, the St. Nicholas Church was actually located at Ground Zero BEFORE the attack of September 11, 2001. It was annihilated when the South Tower fell and consumed it. In the nine years since, the same Port Authority that so enthusiastically supported the proposal to install a Muslim Mosque at the site of one of Islam's great successes has failed to authorize the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church to rebuild.

“I dare say this, if this were a Roman Catholic church or a Baptist church or even a synagogue, we would not have had this problem. I’m not sure we haven’t been a little bit bullied because we’re tiny.” -Father Mark Arey, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

And you thought the liberal media were standing up for the minority underdog.

In the tradition of most Orthodox churches, St. Nicholas held relics of saints, including the one for which the church was named: St. Nicholas of Myra (270-346 AD). This Saint was known for his love of children and was particularly beloved by the Dutch, who called him Sinterklaas and believed that he delivered treats to children on a special night every December. Sinterklaas? Sound familiar? He was the patron saint of Amsterdam and I am sure that most of you remember your history well enough to know that New York was originally a Dutch settlement called New Amsterdam.

However I bet most of you didn't know that a church containing relics of the actual St. Nicholas was amongst the collateral damage inflicted by those Islamic barbarians on that fateful day. Had this been made known then perhaps the American public would not have weakened its resolve in the subsequent years following the attack. It's one thing to strike a blow against the economic center of capitalism in the heart of the "Great Satan," but they also attacked...Santa Clause!!! Barbarians indeed.

Soon after the Towers fell, Port Authority officials, and then Governor George Pataki, vowed to build a new St. Nicholas Church on the World Trade Center site. A location at 130 Liberty Street was agreed upon. Apparently that location would allow for a larger structure with a traditional Greek Orthodox dome, and a non-denominational center for visitors to ground zero. It was felt the church would likely attract thousands of pilgrims to the World Trade Center site who might appreciate the secular memorial but who also thirst for a spiritual memorial. If the raising of a new World Trade Center Monument is meaningful to us, then the resurrection of the site's ONLY original sacred structure would also have to be considerably meaningful. Unfortunately, that meaning may well be too politically incorrect for our time.

In 1054 the two great churches of Christendom split when the Western Church broke away from the Eastern Orthodox. The Western Church became forever known as the Roman Catholic Church. The cause of this division can be found in primarily one issue: the Primacy of the Pope of Rome.

Until the Fifth Century A.D. there was never a single instance of dissension or antagonism between the two Churches. The Bishop of Rome had always been considered the First in the order of hierarchy. This was a natural consequence of the position of Rome as the capital of the Roman Empire. When Constantinople became the new capital of the Byzantine State its Bishop assumed the second position in the ranks of the hierarchy. However, with the rise in prominence of Constantinople the Pope of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction was soon to be contested.

The influence of Greek thought on Christian thinking led to all sorts of divergent and conflicting opinions. Theology was also used as a weapon against opponent bishops, because being branded a heretic was the only sure way for a bishop to be removed by other bishops.
The opinion of the bishop of Rome was always sought, and his approval often desired. However the Bishop of Rome's opinion was not always accepted by all.

Divisions and arguments fomented for centuries until the two entities essentially excommunicated each other. All this is fascinating in that just a few decades after the split, Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus would ask the Christian West for military assistance to help him resist Islam's expansion into Byzantine territory. An expansion that was becoming a threat to Constantinople itself. Constantinople, you will recall, is named after the Roman Emperor Constantine who himself converted to Christianity and legalized it in Rome. The help that the Christian West provided to the East has been forever known as the Crusades.

The Crusades had their own political intrigues that involved repeated betrayals by the Byzantines who were quite fearful of the Crusaders. Eventually these betrayals would lead to the Crusaders actually sacking Constantinople themselves during the fourth Crusade on April 12, 1204. In spite of all the distrust and infighting, the city remained in Christian hands until May of 1453 when Sultan Mehmed II finally conquered the city with a massive slaughter of the Christians inside. The city was renamed Istanbul and, interestingly, The Church of the Holy Wisdom, also called the Hagia Sophia, was converted into the Ayasofya Mosque. This was done in keeping with the Muslim tradition of building mosques on the sites of their great victories.

Throughout history, Muslim conquerors have demonstrated their dedication to "multiculturalism" and "inclusiveness" by purposefully erecting mosques over some of the most sacred and hallowed places of Jewish and Christian worship. The al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is built on top of one the holiest site Judaism, the Temple Mount. The Cordoba mosque in Spain was a former Christian cathedral. Muslims have engaged in this practice for centuries, symbolizing their victories over the infidels. Significantly, the Muslims proposed to name their Mosque at Ground Zero the Cordoba House until the symbolism behind that name was brought to everyone's attention. Islam is nothing if not consistent.

Symbolism is important to Muslims. You should not believe that the date of September 11 was some random choice by Osama bin Laden. That date held an important symbolic meaning...and no, bin Laden was no fan of legendary football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant who was born on that day in 1913. Rather bin Laden was well aware that on September 11, 1683 The King of Poland, Jan III Sobieski, attacked the Muslim army that had besieged Vienna, Austria. He subsequently routed the Muslims and this defeat would represent the end of Islamic attempts to expand their territory westward. To the Muslims it was a humiliation. The attack on the World Trade Center was delivered on that date to send a message to the West that "The Religion Of Peace" is back on the offensive. How many of us got the message?

The founders of the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque at Ground Zero say they want peace and reconciliation. They got approval for their project, and look what’s happened. They have created nothing but conflict and divisiveness. Or as Jesus might say, by their fruits you will know them. I propose that they have generated the exact results they were seeking.

The liberal politicians and media personalities that have suddenly discovered their religious tolerance are not lecturing to us because of their love for Islam. In fact, it is their continuing hatred for Christianity that motivates their support for the Ground Zero Mosque. In their world of moral relativism ALL religions are equal. Therefore their support is not intended to raise Islam up in the eyes of the public. It is rather to bring Christianity down to Islam's level. The United States was founded on Christian principles, not Islamic ones. Yet they would equate the two. As always, the evil religion of equality is behind their actions. They have offered ZERO support for the St. Nicholas Church.

“The Port Authority may be Goliath, but we’re David and you remember how that story ended.” -Father Mark Arey

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that negotiations between the St. Nicholas Church and the Port Authority had resumed, but Father Arey says no one has reached out to him. "We are very concerned. We’re not going to be pushed out. We are very determined to rebuild the church at Ground Zero.”

How little has changed. Once again the Christians of the West are needed to rescue the Christians of the East. The Mosque itself may be a constitutional right, however, the right of the St. Nicholas Church is just as protected and, of course, they were there first. Can we be motivated like those Crusaders of old to act in defense of our brethren of the East? Or do we watch as Constantinople falls again, right before our eyes? Islam is once again wrapping itself around Christianity and constricting the life out of it. If we cannot rise to the aid of St. Nicholas Church and insist that IT have priority at Ground Zero, then Islam truly will own the battlefield and be the clear victor in the battle of New York City. A Battle they started by attacking on September 11, 2001.

C,mon...rise up and defend Santa Claus!

Thursday, September 9, 2010



As always everyone gets it wrong. Where Islam is concerned it seems everybody feels compelled to bend over as far as they can to accommodate this religion and the children that follow it. Witness the outcry over a small church that had the bright idea to burn a few Qu'rans. The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, says it will burn copies of the Qu'ran on this weekend's ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks in protest at what it calls "the evil of Islam". This small congregation's pastor, Terry Jones, has insisted the burning will go ahead as planned in spite of the enormous amount of protest that this little demonstration in free speech has generated.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan. It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community." - General David Petraeus"

Protests have already gone ahead in the Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, and in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim-majority country, while Iran has warned that the burning could unleash an uncontrolled Muslim response.

Why has this expression of free speech generated so much attention? The ONLY news that should have EVER gotten attention is not “Burn a Qu'ran Day”, but the REACTION of Muslims threatening suicide bombings over this silly publicity stunt. This sort of thing happens all the time in the United States. As well it should. In a free society people will often express themselves in extreme ways. In this case Islam "doth protest too much."

We see American flags burned routinely. Politicians and their images are often altered in obscene ways...and of course religious symbols are regularly assailed by insensitive public acts of disapproval. Worse still, we have endured the infamous "Piss Christ" exhibit where a crucifix was summarily submerged in a jar of piss and we were told that this was an elaborate artistic expression. And if burning Qu'rans is considered an expression of free speech who could not love Marilyn Manson's desecration and destruction of a Bible as he coronates himself as the Antichrist Superstar?


Why does Islam have to be treated with kid gloves? Just because Muslims act like children by throwing tantrums doesn't mean that the rest of us are obligated to accommodate them.

"This is a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaeda. You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities." -President Barack Obama

Ahh, the ole' recruitment tool argument again. This is what cowardly progressive types bring up whenever we dare to say or do anything that displeases our enemies. You know, things like invade Iraq, imprison terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, interrogate jihadists or publish Muhammad cartoons. I suppose whipping the Japanese in battle of Midway likewise increased enlistments in the imperial Japanese Navy too but our ancestors didn't seem to worry about that. They understood that they were fighting ALL the Japanese and not just the ones who show up on battlefields. We fight wars more "civilized" these days. That is why jihadists come to America posing as students and fly airplanes into our buildings. We still believe in the myth of a moderate Islam.

"People have a constitutional right to burn a Quran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation — much like building a mosque at ground zero." -Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin at least recognizes that the building of a mosque at Ground Zero is indeed an act of provocation. As such it certainly is justified to burn a few Qu'rans as Terry Jones wants to do or even build Greg Gutfeld's gay bar next door to the mosque as reciprocal acts of sensitive outreach.

The Dove World Outreach Center is an insignificant church of about 50 people. How impressive that by threatening burning some Qu'rans they could conceivably get a personal call from the President of The United States. Thats right, a personal call from the President of the United States. Pastor Terry Jones indicated he could be convinced to call off his burn a Qu'ran demonstration if he received a call from the White House. No need to worry. That call will come to pass. All Muslims have to do is throw a tantrum and we will appease them.

There is some worry amongst those in the White House that acceding to the Pastor's request for a call from the President might legitimize him and further encourage other people to try outlandish stunts just to get presidential attention. Still, why should the President call at all? These type of things happen all the time. In a free society people are offended constantly...especially the religious. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. Once you appease one group of people as unoffendable, you legitimize their superiority. The last thing we should ever do is allow Islam the illusion that we recognize their superiority over us.

This may have started out as relatively silly protest but now it has become bigger than the burning of a few Qu'rans. Pastor Terry Jones needs to finish what he started and President Obama needs to butt out of the issue entirely. If Muslims the world over feel the need to protest, then let them. If they attack us and ours...kill them. But we absolutely must not allow them to see us as weak and themselves as strong. Doing that guarantees more Muslim aggression...and there will be more.

When all is said and done I really like this story. It shows that a few motivated individuals can generate a huge amount of attention by shining a light on Islam. Islam and its followers do not accept criticism and their public threats and protests do a lot to destroy the Progressive Left's myth of equality. All religions are not equal. The weak ones, the ones whose god is false, have to depend on their followers to get even. The real followers of the true God just sit back and enjoy the show...we know how it ends.

Burning Books

Burning Books

Sunday, August 29, 2010

A Reflection Of God?


In the world of shocking headlines this one comes as a real snoozer:

POLL: 1 in 5 thinks Obama is a Muslim

These results were derived from a Pew Research survey that was taken BEFORE the President stepped into the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque in New York City. One can only assume that it would have been a lot higher had the survey been conducted after Obama unsurprisingly affirmed his support for the project.

A growing number of Americans now believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim while the number of people who believe he is a Christian is declining. Perhaps more impressively, a size-able segment of the public is unwilling to commit Obama's religious conscience to any particular all!.

A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama's recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center. -Pew Research Center

Obama  Religion Poll

Unsurprisingly, White House officials are expressing dismay over these results. Did you know that the president has an official "faith adviser?" Well he does. His name is Joshua Dubois and he apparently blames this state of affairs on "misinformation campaigns" by the president's opponents.

"While the president has been diligent and personally committed to his own Christian faith, there's certainly folks who are intent on spreading falsehoods about the president and his values and beliefs." -Joshua Dubois

Dubois went on to claim that the president's Christian faith plays an important part in his daily life. He referred to six speeches that the president has given in which he talks about those beliefs. However true it may be that the president has made references to some alleged allegiance to Christianity, the fact is that he has no one to blame but himself for the public's refusal to perceive him as a Christian.

When Barack Obama became president, he promised to try and change the relationship between Islam and the West. He said his goal was to build bridges, lessen hostility, create trust, and generally reduce the volume level in the conversation between the two cultures. Shortly after becoming President he gave his first formal interview to to Al Arabiya. That was followed by the now infamous speech he gave to the Muslim world in Cairo. Obama’s speech was laced with references to the Qur'an and his own "Muslim roots.”

And just what are these "Muslim roots?" Obama's grandfather was a Muslim. His father was raised a Muslim before becoming, by Obama’s account, “a confirmed atheist.” Obama’s stepfather was a Muslim. His half-sister Maya told the New York Times that her “whole family was Muslim.” Obama spent two years in a Muslim school in Indonesia and later, in a conversation with the New York Times, described the Arabic call to prayer “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” Given all that, it is entirely accurate and fair to describe Obama as having Muslim roots.

But it doesn't end there. Since becoming president his policies have turned decidedly against Israel. His administration came out against Benjamin Netanyahu's government after it announced a new expansion of a Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem. He likewise insists on dithering with the Iranians almost as though he WANTS to provide them the time necessary to develop an atomic weapon and, perhaps strangest of all, he instructed NASA chief, Charles Bolden, that NASA’s “foremost” mission is Muslim outreach. With all of this public affection being demonstrated toward the Islamic world, and yet again affirmed by his coming out in support of the controversial Ground Zero Mosque, is it any wonder that someone with his acknowledged "Muslim roots" might be perceived to be, in fact, a Muslim?

Strangely, some evangelicals have come out in defense of President Obama. Television pastor T.D. Jakes and Kirbyjon Caldwell, a spiritual adviser to George W. Bush, have released a letter condemning "misrepresentations" of President Obama's faith.

"We are deeply troubled by the recent questioning of President Obama's faith. We understand that these are contentious times, but the personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate. Obama has been unwavering in confessing Christ as Lord and has spoken often about the importance of his Christian faith. Many of the signees on this letter have prayed and worshipped with this President. We believe that questioning, and especially misrepresenting, the faith of a confessing believer goes too far."

Too far? Absolutely NOT! The fact that the president claims to be a Christian means absolutely nothing. No politician would dare to claim otherwise if he holds any serious ambition to be elected to high office. This letter, signed by more than 70 pastors and other Christian leaders, calls on the media and other public officials to offer "no further airtime" or attention to those who suggest Obama is a Muslim, not a Christian. That's right, when in doubt shout down the opposition and tell them to shut up. Did you really expect this from supposedly Christian pastors? Now you can see, in the open, what I was referring to on the Babylon Mystery Orchestra record "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy Of Satanic Christianity." Not every church with a cross hanging on it is a tool of God. These pastors have come to the defense of their Lord.

It amazes me how quickly some people will turn to a god when they can find his influence useful, likewise, this president's religious convictions are merely a matter of political expediency. He joined Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church not out of any appreciation for Christian ideology but for its political philosophy known as Black Liberation Theology." This brand of "Satanic" Christianity teaches the lie of "collective" salvation among others. People like Obama who appreciate the redistributionist ideology of Marxism turn to such churches to get their ears "tickled." Whereas true Christianity convicts the heart of sin, Liberation Theology justifies revenge for those who comfort themselves by claiming oppression. Does that sound like the Jesus of your Bible?

The most impressive information revealed in Pew Survey, however, is not the rising number of people who suspect the president is a Muslim. It is the number of people who say they do not know what religion claims the president's true allegiance. These people, in their confusion, have actually arrived at the correct conclusion..."none of the above." Apparently the American people can see that the president's religious views are as flexible as any given situation requires of them.

This president is not a mystery. He often reveals his true religious convictions in such statements as this one made to a group of Rabbis in August of 2009:

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death." - President Barack Obama

Absolutely NO Christian could, would or should describe their relationship with God as a partnership. The president was, once again, trying to utilize religion as a tool to further his own agenda. In this case it was the monstrosity he called Health Care Reform. This is the kind of language used by someone with an ambition that knows no limits...and we have heard it before...

ISAIAH 14: 13-14 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Even as our president shows his impatience and contempt for the people who foolishly elected him, he has his sights set on something greater. He has already established a "partnership" with God. Obviously he perceives the presidency as a job that is undeserving of his unique talents. The penultimate narcissist has made it clear that he will not be bound by constitution or country.

"We are the ones we have been waiting for." -Senator Barack H. Obama

Well what did we expect? He was at least honest with us. There is no need to waste time concerning ourselves with President Obama's religious affiliations. People who are capable of saying "we are the ones we have been waiting for" find their gods in their mirrors.