Hope for a change? We'll see, since it's a different dose of the same socialized medicine

Does anyone really believe that the guy who did "for" Massachusetts what Obama's done to the Republic will deliver on this video's implied promise?

What choice do we have? When the patient is hemorrhaging to death, you've got to stop the bleeding. Our chance to do so is this November. Vote out B. Hussein Kevorkian. And if Romney lacks the sense and courage to restore the Rule of Law, vote him out, too, and every other politician who promises to "take care of" the American people, when what they're really doing is coaxing voters into selling their God-given liberties for a bowl of soup.

Politicians' positions exist to protect our rights, we do not exist to provide them position.

Roberts' treasonous plunge left a nail in someone's coffin

Thomas Jefferson warned, "Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Well, we've given our political elites enough chain to hang someone.

Either the Republic will go the way of Greece, or this unconscionable, unconstitutional power-grab by our elected tyrants will motivate citizens to reclaim their Constitutional rights and beat back Cerberus into its proper, specified limits.

Liebau notes Obama's subversive mendacity here:

1. Obama ran against Hillary Clinton saying that he would not support an individual mandate.

2. After he won, he said he would support an individual mandate -- but it wasn't a tax.

3. In the Supreme Court, to make his legislation constitutional, he instructed his Solicitor General to argue that it was a tax, after all -- thereby violating his pledge against a middle class tax increase.

The slaughter of innocents: Our own modern, maternal holocaust

Pharaoh, Molech, Herod, America. It may have been possible to self-deceive when the facts of abortion were hidden, but they're secret no longer.

Tens of millions of babies butchered by their own mothers in the name of convenience, commerce, and the Constitution. This is one small victory for those telling the truth about our own modern, maternal holocaust.

Judge protects videos exposing ‘savage’ abortions:

the screen cuts to a video clip in which it appears that a fetal hand reaches out of the birth canal and gloved fingers – ostensibly those of a doctor – expose more of the hand before using forceps to rip off the appendage.

Obama humiliates Marines as degenerates defile Reagan

Just another fabulous moment in Obama's heartfelt, lifelong middle-fingered "salute" to the American people.

The First Homosexual President never misses an opportunity to violate America's honor. This time, he brought a few of his sexually-deviant supporters into the White House to insult Reagan, with the Marine Corps Band providing the soundtrack to their insolence.

Notice Hart's admission that AIDS was primarily a homosexual affliction (or his own cold indifference toward Straight-Americans).

From here:

This wasn’t Segal’s first trip to the White House, having twice visited during Bill Clinton’s gay-friendly tenure. “One of the things on my bucket list was to dance with my boyfriend at the White House,” remarks Segal.”And this is the second time I got to do it. We come up to the main foyer, and what do they play? Barbra Streisand. ‘The Way We Were.’ And I thought, Are they going to play nothing but Barbra, Bette and Lady Gaga? I was waiting for ‘Over the Rainbow.’ I mean, this is the Marine band!”

Clearly, Segal, a dedicated activist but also an astute political hobnobber, wants to be invited back. But his counterparts couldn’t seem to care less. Hart posted his photo on Facebook with the caption, “F[sic] Reagan.” Strauss simply posted hers without commentary. After all, the murderous facial expression and double-barreled bird-flipping seem to speak for themselves. Comments ranged from “you forgot to add with a chainsaw” on Hart’s “F[sic] Reagan” note, to my personal favorite, “star wars … up yours,” on Strauss’s. ...

“Yeah, f[sic] Reagan,” reiterates Hart one week after the reception. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so."

Someone whose lifestyle and agitation promote depravity and death calling someone who promoted Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness a "murderous fool"?

Now, that's ironic.

And that's all you need to know about the suicidal Left

Another reply to those delighting in the undermining of Western Civilization without realizing that when the American system of government is replaced finally with some sort of faux-secular or pseudo-religious ideology -- Communism, Socialism, Islam, or some other fascism, it doesn't really matter -- their rights will die, too:

Speaking of meds, if the anonymous coward Brainwashed or any of his multiple personalities offer something substantive, I'll respond as time allows. For now, a few points:

1) Unwilling or unable to address my arguments on the facts, and lacking the courage to admit the implications of his irrational self-loathing, Brainwashed turns to absurd ad hominem and name-calling, the (second-to-) last resort of tyrants.

2) For the record, Saudi ownership of a significant portion of Fox is not news to me (punny, but a baseless lie; Brainwashed must be desperate); jihad's agents have embedded themselves throughout all levels of American government, academia, and media. (See the bald-faced, outright lies at the California Science Center in Los Angeles and Obama's hosting the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated purpose is to bring down Western Civilization from within, for examples.)

If our brave friend had been paying attention at all, he would have known that many on the so-called Right are bought-and-sold to Islam (the natural convergence between the Left and Islam renders discussion of their ties superfluous):

-New Jersey governor Chris Christie appointed to public office a jihadist lawyer and mocked those expressing reservations about shari'a;

-Texas governor Rick Perry is in deep with a leading proponent of shari'a, having worked with him to develop Islamic propaganda for Texas schools;

-Texas representative Ron Paul thinks that if we leave Islam alone, it'll leave us alone. That flies in the face of nearly one-and-one-half millennia of the rape, slavery, and slaughter of non-Muslims in Allah's name around the world and our own experience:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"'It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.'"

(Jefferson reported this revelation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who reported it to Congress. America's oldest military monument is dedicated to our first effort against Islamic jihad.)

-apparent Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has spoken publicly about there being nothing inherent to Islam that inspires violence. (Though I have no reason to believe that he's a shill for shari'a, the one person most responsible for our national defense ought to know and speak the truth about the existential threat facing Western Civilization.)

-Grover Norquist, a darling of the Right, belongs to Islam heart-and-soul and has made discussion of our mortal foe verboten (see recent CPACs for examples).

In other words, the Enemy Within is found on both sides of the political divide.

3) How is it possible to "demonize" "Islamists," again? (Would Brainwashed have crowed about "the Nazis you demonize"?)

Muhammad sacralized genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, theft, extortion, polygyny, wife-beating, religious and gender apartheid, sedition, treason, and blasphemy, claiming that, "Allah made me do it, and you will too ... or else!"

If claiming that the God of the Bible chose Muhammad to make "holy" the violation of all Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and Christ's Bride, the Church isn't "demonic," then nothing is.

4) I defend our God-given, unalienable rights, and I oppose anti-Semitism, genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery on theological grounds, yet our felicitous scholar and pharmacist Brainwashed claims that I should "stick to topics [I] actually know something about."

If there had been any doubt, that tells us all we need to know about Brainwashed.

And it should tell Brainwashed something about himself.

Another domestic skirmish in defense of the West

So, have you heard the one about two guys go to a football 'blog and a political debate breaks out?

No, it's not funny (even so, it's more humorous than John Malkovich's Siri commercial), but neither is the nescient venom with which the suicidal Left attacks anyone who believes in Man's God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

From here:

@Brainwashed, Facts are facts, regardless of "belief system." Since I write in defense of every person's God-given, unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, and -- by your own admission -- you don't share my belief in those, then you are, by definition, "on the other side." Thanks for admitting that.

Now, since you're trying to impugn my character and judgment, let's consider my latest "rant": I noted that someone writing for the Miami Herald misrepresented the status of a bill intended to defend the citizens of Florida against shari'a.

Since that is a statement of fact, then you must support either "news organizations" lying to the public, or the implementation of shari'a, or both. Which is it? Whatever the case, you would clearly be "on the other side." (That's not a "tactic," that's called "logic.")

(To be clear, Brainwashed, I'm not defending Fox. But if I were, I'd have to thank you for admitting that stating facts is one of Fox's "tactics.")

I'd prefer we were on the same side in defense of Liberty.

An obvious case of presidential projection

Look out! Here comes some Hope and Change.

As the linked article points out, allowing massive illegal immigration takes jobs from less-skilled Americans in need of work. That's neither just nor wise as a matter of principle, but it's especially perverse during the "Greatest Economic Crisis Since the Great Depression."

According to The Daily Caller, in ignoring questions about his amnesty-by-executive-fiat, "Obama depicted the immigrants as Americans except for their legal status."

Who can blame him? That's how he got his current job.

Congratulations, Keith Olbermann! Osama hearts you

If firing Keith Olbermann displeases deranged, heartless murderers who worship a god which calls raping prepubescent nine-year-olds "beautiful," then shouldn't everyone be firing Keith Olbermann?

What's that word for giving one's enemies "Aid and Comfort," again?

Don't worry, Keith. You're in good company.

Possible captions:
A trusted resource to genocidal pedophiles everywhere.
Loved by the Worst Person in the World.
Gadahn hates Fox. bin Laden hates Fox. Why doesn't Olbermann like Fox?
How long until we find documents revealing that Adolf Hitler had a man-crush on Anderson Cooper?
Keith Olbermann, poster boy for the natural nexus between jihadists and their Useful Idiot leftists.

From the "Hello, and welcome to last decade" file:

Osama bin Laden pondered the merits of US television news channels as he considered how to extract the best propaganda benefit from the tenth anniversary of 9/11 last year, and concluded that CBS was "close to being unbiased". But an American-born media adviser for al-Qaeda warned Bin Laden to beware of the broadcasters' "cunning methods" as he described Fox News as a channel in the "abyss" that should "die in anger", CNN as too close to the US government and MSNBC as questionable after it fired one of its most prominent presenters, Keith Olbermann.

And that tells you all you need to know about the leftists in media.

The Miami Herald lies to protect shari'a from Florida's citizens

And that's not "news," is it?

The Herald claimed that a bill forbidding the use of foreign law in Florida courts was dead when it wasn't.

A few thoughts from here:

Why would anyone resist shari'a? It's firmly grounded in equality for all, regardless of creed or gender.

Isn't it?

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

And in response to a lying Muslima named "Anisah":

Your mendacity is embarrassingly-transparent.

The Ten Commandments -- along with the rest of the Bible -- are the foundation of Western Civilization, both of which your coreligionists have worked long to destroy.

Instead of demonizing Americans for wanting to defend their YHWH-given rights, you ought to be demonstrating from Qur'an, ahadith, and sira how shari'a is murderously-opposed to Western ideals of morality, Liberty, and equality.

Stop trying to divert attention from the illiterate and demoniacal ravings of an anti-Semitic, seventh-century, genocidal pedophile.

ABC News proves Newt's point about media bias

Of all the many photos they could have chosen to represent the candidates in their banner, look at the expressions ABC selected:

Which person should be our next president? The cheerful guy on the left or the one who has an actual chance at winning? I wonder what ABC thinks?

Don't count on A Biased Corporation -- or any of their co-ideologues -- to tell you the truth.

Ron Paul is not the answer; he thinks the Barbary Wars were George W. Bush's fault

America's oldest military monument, carved of marble from a quarry used by Michelangelo.
Dedicated to those who perished in our Republic's first War of Self-Defense Against Allah, the First Barbary War.

Interesting images on the monument dedicated to defending America against jihad.
Are those Buddhists? After all, why would Religionists of Peace appear on an American war memorial?

In response to some comments on an article regarding Obama's trampling of the Constitution:

I've always admired Ron Paul for his defense of the Constitution.

However, I cannot support him as Commander-in-Chief, since he's stated his belief that if we leave Islam alone, it will leave us alone.

Nothing is further from the truth. Islam exploded out of Arabia nearly one and one-half millennia ago and has since waged war against the non-Muslim world on the basis of universal, open-ended commands like "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Paul's position on jihad is essentially the Left's: When Muslims attack us, it's our fault.

If you really believe that, then how do explain the Barbary pirates attacking American shipping just after the Revolution? (George W. Bush wouldn't be born for another two centuries!) You historians will recall what Adams and Jefferson discovered when they asked our Muslim antagonists why they were attacking us, since we had done nothing to them:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"'It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once'" ("First Barbary War," Wikipedia; Jefferson reported this revelation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who reported it to Congress. America's oldest military monument is dedicated to our first effort against Islamic jihad).

Obama says, "Respect Islam." Paul says, "It's our fault." Romney says, "There's nothing inherently violent about Islam." That's utter nescience (or worse, treason).

We need to fill the Oval Office -- and the Congress! -- with citizens who understand not only that government exists to protect our rights (and not that we live as a resource for the State to exploit), but that while there may be moderate Muslims (research "taqiyya"), Islam itself is not "moderate."

Yahoo promotes those who would deny religious liberty to Christians (and other theists), but denies access to those pointing out the absurdity -- and intolerance -- of their position

Those enjoying the benefits of the freedom founded on Christ's teachings would deny that liberty to those who follow Christ. Shameful hypocrisy.

The article in question was approved by Yahoo's editors, but some comments critical of their intolerance have disappeared. My response to the nonsense hosted here:

To declare oneself an "atheist" is to declare a belief regarding deity. So, to be consistent, the author must advocate that only agnostics be allowed in government. They're the only ones not asserting a position on god(s).

Besides the obvious self-disqualification of his "argument," this atheist would protect religious liberty by denying it to Christians and other theists, the overwhelming majority of humanity. Brilliant.

It was Christians who founded a "nation conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Who professed the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

(What can you expect from someone who considers both the Skeptics Annotated Bible a reliable source of information and the slaughter of the most innocent and helpless among us something worth defending?)

Godless ideologies (Nazism, Communism) resulted in the extermination of tens of millions of innocents in the last century. On the other hand, it is the Bible's teachings that have resulted in the equality, liberty, and prosperity of Western Civilization.

The ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are the direct result of the Christian worldview of their creators. Even those Founders who were not some sort of traditional Christian (nearly all were) were shaped in their thinking by the Christianity which permeated their civilization. Recall Thomas Jefferson, cited often in arguments against Christianity and religion in public life, who called Christ's teachings the most sublime in human history and most freeing for Science, Liberty, and the human mind.

As for violence in the Bible, (besides accounts of human evil) none was committed in service to religious intolerance. Capital punishment under the Mosaic Law was for the people of Israel only, a contract into which they entered voluntarily. Divine judgment against Egypt was carried out by God, not Man. Judgment against Canaan was for unspeakable evil (child sacrifice in devotion to Molech, for example; it is worth noting that Israel itself later suffered the same fate for the same sins). Nowhere do you find commands to war against unbelievers to make the world Hebrew.

Defaming Christ has to be the most vile and ridiculous element of this slander. The Son of God committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies and going so far as to not only pray for His murderers, but to die for the sins of all (even those who hate Him). Jesus taught a separation between the civil and the religious ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's"), the equality of all ("Treat others as you want to be treated"), and the value of all ("What you do to the least of these, you do to Me.").

Perhaps it is the suicidal ignorance of the Christ-hating left who, in their zeal to destroy Christians and Christianity, will ally themselves with genocidal, totalitarian pedophiles, but there is one major "religion" which commands the enslavement and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. That's the only belief system which has -- for fourteen hundred years -- waged offensive warfare against "unbelievers." That's Islam.

No, Andrew Riggio's confused. His false moral equivalence between Christianity/Judaism and Islam is absurd and despicable. Don't throw Muhammad's dirty bath water on the Baby.

Verbum Domini 1.5: What is the true God like?

THE BIBLE SHOWS US GOD'S NATURE

For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed (Malachi 3:6).

God is unchanging; eternal.

But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

God is omnipotent (all-powerful).

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17).

for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything (1 John 3:20).

God is omniscient (all-knowing).

"Am I a God at hand, declares the LORD, and not a God far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD (Jeremiah 23:23-24).

God is omnipresent (present everywhere).

Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy (Leviticus 19:2).

God is holy.

The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness . . . (Exodus 34:6).

God is merciful, gracious, slow to anger (patient), always loving, and always faithful.

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love (1 John 4:8).

God is love ("loving").

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

God is faithful, just, and forgiving.

DOES GOD WANT TO SAVE ALL OR ONLY SOME?

who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

God wants ALL people to be saved.

ONE GOD, OR THREE?

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one (Deuteronomy 6:4).

The word translated as "God" here is "Elohiym"; literally "gods." The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge states regarding this verse:

Simeon ben Joachi says: "Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim. There are three degrees, and each degree is by itself alone, and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other."

This parallels part of the explanation of the Trinity in the Athanasian Creed:

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance . . . .

"Elohiym" is found also at the Creation:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" (Genesis 1:26).

(Some try to argue that "elohiym" used here is the royal "We" or that God is speaking to the angels. The latter doesn't fit at all, since God and the angels would be creating Man in their image and likeness.)

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20).

(New Advent notes regarding this passage:

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.)

Here Christ names the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Baptism.

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, Thus you shall bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them, The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace (Numbers 6:22-26).

And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory" (Isaiah 6:3)!

Just as with "elohiym," we see again the use of three in YHWH's blessing His people and in describing His nature.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Here the Apostle Paul names the Trinity in his benediction.

And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16-17).

In Christ's baptism, we see all three Persons of the Trinity present.

REVIEW
YHWH reveals Himself as one God, three Persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. All three are called "God," all three do the acts of God, and the characteristics of God apply to each equally.

Christians use the word "triune" to describe God: "Tri" means "three," "une" means "one." "Trinity" is the "Three-One."

The Church has summarized its understanding of YHWH in three major creeds, the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian. Here is the Athanasian Creed, from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library:

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic[*] faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

*"catholic" means "universal"

Now it's official: Obama befriends the Muslim Brotherhood

More good news, from here:

The Muslim Brotherhood? Even Mubarak knew they were bad news, outlawing them for their "Islamist ideology" (just plain "Islam") and historic ties to militants (read "obedient Muslims").

As Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, how can Obama be unaware that the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within"?

Befriending those sworn to your destruction? Neville Chamberlain tried something similar. How'd that turn out?

This is like Jews befriending Hitler. Or Ukranians befriending Stalin. Or hens befriending the fox.

What is Obama thinking? First, he gives a speech from Al-Azhar, the head of Sunni Islam -- which, by the way, makes genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah's name "beautiful" -- and demands that the Brotherhood attend. Then he helps overthrow the despots of various Islamic states, the end result of which is the B'hood's rise to power. (But when the people of Iran protested against Islamic Allahocracy? Obama was eating ice cream.)

Now, he's making it official: B. Hussein Obama is Islamic terrorism's BFFWB*. He thinks that you're too stupid to realize it or too perverse to care. Obama's counting on your hatred of Christians and Jews to lead you to ignore the fact that ascendant Islam tolerates nothing but Islam. That means no atheists, homosexuals, progressives, etc.

Will you defend Obama's alliance with Islamic jihad and your own destruction?

*Best Friend Forever . . . With Benefits

Verbum Domini 1: God tells us about Himself

Is there a God?
An atheist says: “There is no god.”
An agnostic says: “I don’t know if there is a god.”

What does God say?

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good (Psalm 14:1).

THE NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
How can we know about God?

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork (Psalm 19:1).

For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God (Hebrews 3:4).

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

All people know about God from Nature.

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . (Romans 2:15).

And all people know about God from Conscience.

The natural knowledge of God tells us that there is a God Who is wise, powerful, and holy.

THE WEAKNESS OF THE NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
What is the weakness of the Natural Knowledge of God? We don’t know:

1. Who the true God is
2. About the promised Savior from sin (Jesus)

Why does God give people natural knowledge about Himself?

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us . . . (Acts 17:24-27)

God gives people knowledge about Himself from Nature and Conscience to lead them to seek Him.

THE REVEALED KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
How can we know what God is really like?

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known (John 1:18).

Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father' (John 14:8-9)?

God shows us what He is really like through Jesus.

From where does this Revealed Knowledge come?

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me . . . (John 5:39).

no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:16-20).

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world (Hebrews 1:1-2).

God reveals Himself to us through the Scriptures. These were written by His Prophets and Apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Apostles told the world about what Jesus said and did.

"Bible" means "book."
"Scriptures" means "writings."

REVIEW
The Bible tells us:

"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22).

1. Who the true God is

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name [Jesus] under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

2. Who our Savior is: Jesus

Islamic propaganda on Blu-ray and in 3D

Hello, Martin,

I am a fan of yours. I always appreciate your reviews; of all the critics here, your tastes match mine most closely.

I'm writing tonight in response to your review of Arabia 3D, specifically the characterization of Arabia and its role in the world, especially with regard to Islam.

As someone familiar with Islamic history and theology, it is clear that this BD is best described as propaganda in service to fourteen hundred years of Islamic slavery and slaughter.

Muhammad was a genocidal pedophile, a vicious warlord. When he managed to recruit enough followers to conquer his neighboring tribes, he did, until he possessed most of Arabia. At that point, the only options left to pagans was conversion or death; the "People of the Book" -- Jews and Christians, mainly -- had a third option: Slavery as dhimmis.

The much-touted "golden age" of Islam was golden only to Muslim males, as jihad and shari'a (Islamic law) require the rape, enslavement, and murder of all non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to convert and makes Muslim women (and little girls) nothing more than sex slaves, chattel to be used and abused at the whim of their "husbands."

As for the often-claimed-but-rarely-substantiated "scientific advancements" under Islam? Any genuine discoveries were stolen from the non-Muslims suffering under Islamic rule or from the Greeks, whose cultural legacy was stolen by Islam's armies as they raped and decapitated their civilization. (For example: our "Arabic" numerals? Stolen from Hindus, seventy to eighty million of whom were butchered by Muslim armies.)

I know that you are a fair and decent man, and my comments here must be revolting, but every one is true. Please investigate for yourself. Google "Asma bint Marwan" to see what Muhammad had done to a poetess who mocked him. Research 'Aisha, Muhammad's favorite "wife." She was only six when the monster "married" her (he was in his fifties), and a prepubescent nine when he began raping her.

And here's a little something that goes a long way toward explaining the causes of the "conflict in the Middle East":

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews" (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (Qur'an 5:82).

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

"Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path" (Qur'an 5:60)!

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."

Regards,

Santiago

The Church had the full benefit of its sacred texts in the first century

A complete Isaiah, c. 100 B.C. - 50 A.D.

From here:

Hello, Ard,

You claimed that Christianity lived on "oral cultures for the better part of a century without the full benefit 'of its sacred texts' and for centuries without either an Old Testament or New Testament canon."

That's simply not true.

You admit that the early Church had the Septuagint and the writings of the Apostles, the documents that form Christendom's canons (plural, which I'll discuss later). That was during the lifetime of the Apostles. Unless they lived for "centuries" and didn't compose their Gospels and Epistles until the ends of their lives, the Church had the "full benefit" of its sacred texts in the first century.

A few examples:

-Galatians was authored c. 51-53 a.D. That's less than two decades after Christ's ascension, not "the better part of a century."

-Papias referred c. 125 to the Gospel of John (c. 90). That's less than one century after Christ's earthly ministry, not "centuries."

-The last document to be received by the Church was John's Revelation, c. a.D. 95. That's less than six decades after Christ's death and resurrection. (And the reason that it came so late is because John did not receive it until then).

Since you're focusing on "canon" as in some grand poobah/council declaring something official (are you repeating the Muslim lie regarding Nicaea?), then it's clear that you misunderstand the term. "Canon" simply means "measure" or "rule." If it's something official you want, then the Church had -- and has -- no "canon." Luther struggled with James (and a few other books). In reaction to Luther's rearranging of the apocryphal books as an appendix in his translation, the Church of Rome declared certain texts "canonical" which even Jerome, the translator of its official Bible, considered less-than-inspired. And what of the rest of Christendom?

There is no one, official "Canon" (though there's a lot of overlap). Depending on whom you ask (Roman Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Slavic Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, or Ethiopian Orthodox?), you'll get varying canons. Does that mean that the Church has gone two thousand years "without the full benefit 'of its sacred texts' and [. . .] without either an Old Testament or New Testament canon"?

One last point: Considering that the Apostles used the Septuagint and many of the "reformers" were actually "deformers" [heretics], it seems to me that Reformation-era opinion is, for the most part, irrelevant.

"Hallelujah," Canadian Tenors

Islam or "Islamism" the difference between Liberty and death

"Give me shari'a, or give me death"? "Forbid it, Almighty God!"
We know what course Mr. Henry would take.

Islam forbids anything critical of the genocidal pedophile Muhammad, even if it's true. When non-Muslims refuse to state plainly that Muslims' killing, maiming, and raping in Allah's name is Just Plain Islam, when they try to distinguish falsely between true, historical, Qur'anic, Islam-the-way-Muhammad-intended Islam and a fiction like "Islamism," they're implying that Islamic supremacism and violence in service to it are merely aberrations carried out by "extremists highjacking a great world religion of peace" (Thank you, President Bush).

In fact, McCarthy, et al. are self-imposing Islamic law. More importantly, they're aiding its establishment over the rest of us.

You can't defeat an enemy you cannot name, and you can't survive an enemy you let in the gates. A genocidal, pedophilic, totalitarian ideology by any other name is just as odious.

Two cents on the Spencer vs. McCarthy debate over misdefining Islam:

The problem with non-Muslims' putting all their hopes for avoiding the inevitable Armageddon with Islam in some sort of "reformation" is that the success of the Protestant one -- Luther's, at least -- was in pointing the Church back to the Word of God, which leads to truth, the forgiveness of sins, and freedom.

Attention paid to Islam's core texts is exactly what the non-Muslim world and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls (and boys) don't need. Muslims pointing to Islam's "sacred" texts are directing their coreligionists to "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight . . . the People of the Book until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued . . . [Paradise] belongs to those who slay and are slain [fighting in Allah's cause]" (Qur'an 9).

To Andy McCarthy and the rest of you alleged Islamorealists: Don't wish for an Islamic reformation. You're already in one.

American ideals for an ideal America: An American Reformation

[DRAFT]

Our Founding Fathers declared that we believe that the Christian God gives to all certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. They created a Constitution to protect our rights from enemies foreign and domestic, including our elected officials.

We, the American people, have allowed them to violate those laws with impunity. It is time for an American Reformation.

Following are propositions which, if enacted, would restore, preserve, and enhance American independence and prosperity for all.

Acknowledge publicly that the United States federal government has, over the last century, ignored, violated, and debased the United States Constitution bequeathed to us by our forefathers and apologize to We the People.

End all government agencies/bureaucracies existing in violation of the Constitution.

End all illegal immigration. Expel all illegal immigrants. Secure the borders.

Declare publicly that shari'a is genocidally-incompatible with the American Bill of Rights and Western Civilization's concepts of freedom of speech, religion, and conscience, and all propaganda, apologies, incitement, and infrastructure in support of it is illegal.

End all individual, corporate, and international welfare, including to the United Nations.

Abolish the Federal Reserve. Allow free market forces -- individuals acting in their own best interest according to their best judgment, knowledge, skill, and effort -- to encourage and reward prudence, hard work, and savings.

Return to a Gold Standard to preserve what is left of the value of the U.S. dollar.

All members of Congress shall be term-limited.

No member of Congress shall receive any sort of retirement benefits upon the end of their term(s).

While in office, Congress shall submit to all mandates imposed on the American people.

Congressmen can receive a stipend (tied to the average private sector wage at the time of their election, or some other equitable, conscientiousness-inducing amount), but shall receive no taxpayer dollars for travel, celebrations, dining expenses, petty cash, or slush funds.

The federal budget must be balanced.

No deficit spending.

No bill proposed in Congress (or law when ratified) shall be longer than 500 words.

All bills, negotiations, deliberations of Congress will be live-streamed, archived, and transcripted and posted online for all to view in perpetuity.

All presidential executive orders shall be limited to the same requirements Congressional laws.

End Eminent Domain.

A Resolution regarding Islam

[DRAFT]

WHEREAS Qur'an is considered by Muslims the perfect, immutable (by men), and eternal word of Allah,

WHEREAS Muhammad is declared by Allah (by way of himself) to be a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please it and therefore considered by Muslims to be the "Ideal Man," and so his words and deeds as recorded in Hadith (sayings) collections and Sira (biographies) are considered prescriptive for Islamic life and doctrine,

WHEREAS Muhammad -- according to those texts -- preached and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, theft, extortion, polygyny, wife-beating, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, treason, and blasphemy on religious grounds against non-Muslims and Muslim apostates, women, and children,

WHEREAS no major schools of Islamic jurisprudence reject those words and deeds as inhumane or unlawful,

WHEREAS Muslims who reject Muhammad's words and deeds are considered apostates and therefore deserving of death,


WHEREAS shari'a, Islamic law, is derived from Qur'an, ahadith, and sira,

China's honest language regarding the "jihad" against it

A Communist state doesn't understand Man's God-given, unalienable rights or government's responsibility to protect them, but they do understand self-defense, unlike us. For how can we defend ourselves against an enemy we can't even name? No wonder they're not afraid of us. Not only are our gutless and compromised leaders unwilling to tell the truth about the Religion Which Shall Not Be Named, but we elect as our president someone who at best is an Islamophilic former Muslim.

(And notice the bias in this article's title: "China blames Muslim extremists" rather than "Muslims kill again in Xinjiang.")

From here:

Captured suspects confessed that their ringleaders had earlier fled to Pakistan and joined the separatist "East Turkestan Islamic Movement," and received training in making firearms and explosives before infiltrating back into China, the Kashgar government said.

"The members of this group all adhere to extremist religious ideas and adamantly support Jihad," said the statement, referring to the Arabic term for struggle used by advocates of militant Islam to describe their cause.

In memoriam, September 11, 2001 a.D.

Father Mychal Judge, murdered by devout Muslims practicing their "faith" as Muhammad intended, September 11th, 2001.

Honor those whose lives and loved ones were taken violently from them ten years ago by allowing no one to lie about why those innocents perished.

It was neither American interventionism, European colonialism, poverty, disenfranchisement, the Jews, nor George W. Bush.

It was Islam.

We are all Belgium now: B. Hussein Obama, America's $27 trillion* mistake

Samson's cut his own hair, and Delilah wasn't even cute this time, just a scrawny illegal immigrant from Kenya with a teleprompter and a dream.

America's credit rating has been dropped to AA+ status, equal with Belgium's and below England and Australia's. But don't worry: Obama's work is not done. Let him be clear: He'll not rest until we're Greece.

Standard and Poor's merely acknowledged the truth about how absurdly unsustainable is our national debt, and what is Obama's response? Not something honorable, like resignation and an apology. Not even an "Oops." Instead, S & P's made a "two trillion dollar mistake."

No, the mistake is America's.

Even if the federal government's total spending commitment will be $48 trillion instead of $50 trillion, what difference does two trillion make? The chains of oppressive, enslaving debt are still bound to our children and our children's children for generations, and they're still unbearable. This economic disaster was completely foreseeable -- and avoidable -- but the American people continued to elect and re-elect thieves and destroyers.

When every act an executive performs undermines his organization, only two possible explanations for that malfeasance exist: titanic, colossal, unprecedented, cataclysmic incompetence or intent.

Regardless of why, Obama and his fellow statists have been working diligently to bankrupt and disarm America, and they've succeeded now in crippling our economy, an achievement King George III, Hitler, Khrushchev, and Usama bin Laden only dreamt of.

How much time do we have left? Why is no one calling for impeachment? Where is the outrage, America? No one's going to save us from ourselves; our enemies are drooling at our demise and our rivals are grinning smugly behind our backs.

How much more evidence does the electorate need -- do leftists themselves need -- that Socialism/Communism/Marxism is suicidally destructive? Whom do they think will protect them when the savages are at the door? When you bind the strong man, who is left to protect you?

We had a Republic, for as a long as we kept it.

*The current $14.5 trillion debt + the $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling (how long do you think it will take our elected tyrants to squander that?) + the additional $10 trillion in 10 years = $27 trillion in suicidal debt

To Democrats, preventing them from spending us into oblivion is the same as holding hostage, raping, and butchering little children in Allah's name*

Joe Biden calls patriotic Americans who want to preserve the Republic "terrorists," here:

"We have negotiated with terrorists," an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. "This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money."

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists."

 *Like the Muslims of Beslan.

Muhammad Ali lies, since obeying Islam leads naturally to the mass murder of non-Muslims, not "mutual understanding"

Either the disabled former boxer is being used by his spokesman to propagandize for Islam, or he's doing it himself. From here:

In a letter to the people of Norway written under his name, the boxing great says his "heart goes out to each of you as you deal with the unimaginable grief of your loss."

Ali wrote that the richness of diversity is something that makes the world a better place and that no one should fear multiculturalism. People, he said, have the same ideals no matter what religion or race they are.

The "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery of non-Muslims and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls do not "make the world a better place." And somehow, I don't think Islam's victims share those "ideals."

And notice that "multiculturalism" here means "Islam." Has it always been so?

"I see the same wishes for our children to have happy, healthy lives; I see the same concerns for others less fortunate than ourselves; I see the same desire for peace and dignity," Ali said.

How does "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9"5) promote "peace and dignity," again?

And note the pathetic attempt to imply that following Islam is good, but opposing it is bad. This is utter nonsense, since it is Islam which leads to mass suffering and death, not resisting its evil:

The man who confessed to carrying out the massacre, Anders Behring Breivik, has said the attacks were part of a plan to start a cultural revolution and purge Europe of Muslims while also punishing politicians who have embraced multiculturalism.

Ali, a Muslim, said those who commit unspeakable acts in the name of race and religion "fail to understand that we share far more with our fellow beings than those aspects that set us apart."

How can that be, since Muhammad preached and practiced mass slaughter, child-rape, serial rape, slavery, mutilation, torture, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, blasphemy, and treason in Allah's name?

I suppose that to someone inured in Islam, such ghastly crimes are not "unspeakable," but -- judging from the way in which Muhammad's atrocities are glorified in the Islamic texts -- worth bragging about.

He went on to say that the best way to honor the victims in Norway is to reach out and embrace others in a celebration of common human values and aspirations.

Did you notice that, dear reader? Honor innocent, dead non-Muslims murdered (inexplicably) in opposition to Islam by . . . embracing Muslims!

Next is some Islamospeak worthy of a college student completing a written exam:

"The collective power of such individual proactive acts can have a tremendous aggregate impact and provide a lasting honor to those who are no longer able to take such action themselves," Ali wrote.

Ali's spokesman, Craig Bankey, said the former heavyweight champion, who suffers from Parkinson's, communicated his thoughts in the letter to his wife.

If Ali's writing to his wife, why is the letter "to the people of Norway"?

Statists in both parties selling out the American people

"Sales pitch" is right, since the greedy fiends in both parties are selling out the Republic. At least China might find a bargain or two.

When passed, this deal with the Marxist devil will be the largest debt-limit increase in American history (it and the second-greatest both coming during the Obama reign). To illustrate how depraved our politicians have become, the United States treasury lacked the legal authority to hold a total debt of $2.4 trillion until 1987. This is a $2.4 trillion increase.

John Boehner's right about something else: His deal with Obama doesn't violate any of the principles exhibited in recent years by the Republican establishment. It's too bad that burying the nation, our children, and our children's children into perpetuity under crushing debt doesn't violate any of their "principles."

Subversive, exploitative fools. Emasculating America removes the only bulwark protecting them from the barbarians. I suppose they're hoping to ingratiate themselves to their new masters by feeding on whatever's left of us.

"There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles," he [Speaker Boehner] said. "It’s all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down. And as I vowed back in May – when everyone thought I was crazy for saying it – every dollar of debt limit increase will be matched by more than a dollar of spending cuts. And in doing this, we’ve stopping a job-killing national default that none of us wanted."

It's too bad Ron Paul doesn't understand jihad and shari'a, because he gets duplicitous crooks enslaving the electorate for their own political and financial benefit. Nothing's changed in thirty years:

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.

No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the "cuts" being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family "saving" $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.

The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith and credit of the United States is being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever, in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family's income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.

In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of "cuts" that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to "cut". It would only take us 5 years to "cut" $1 trillion, in Washington math, just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.

A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply returned to that year's spending levels, which would hardly be austere, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending, and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.

We pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger "cut" than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.

Imperious Obama

Breathtaking arrogance. What right does any politician have to tell free people that they must give away their time, talent, and treasure? Is there no limit to the ways in which this tyrant and his accessories seek to violate the American people? Is there anyone in either party who will oppose Obama's imperial overreach? Where are the calls for impeachment? Where's the plain speech pointing out the fact that the current occupant of the Oval Office is an illegitimate usurper and an enemy of the Republic, a demagogue, a thief, and a fraud? (I'd use the word "treason," but to commit it, one must be a member of the group he betrays, and based on Obama's birth certificate forgery and social security number from Connecticut, it seems unlikely that the Marxist destroyer qualifies.)

There exists no guarantee that America should continue free and strong. This is the climax of a process that began nearly a century ago, when politicians found that they could lie, cheat, and steal, and the American people stopped caring to hold them accountable.

The latest nail in America's coffin, here:

Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women's preventive care under President Barack Obama's health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

"These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Isn't that odd? "President Barack Obama's health care law." Sounds like a royal edict, doesn't it? At least they're giving him credit for it now.

And a "requirement" is no "guideline," unless you're selling something.

Obama the grinch that tried to steal Social Security

It's surprising to see a Democrat say anything negative about the Usurper-in-Chief. It's shocking to see a Democrat say something fair regarding Republicans.

What is not surprising is that Obama would propose cutting Social Security (since the meetings were held behind closed doors, he probably thought that he could demonize Republicans with their acceptance of his indecent proposal). After all, he's nearly destroyed the Republic, on the verge of stealing from our posterity and the world the greatest civilization in the history of Man.

Democrat Representative John Conyers reveals that Obama, not Republicans, proposed cutting Social Security:

The Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-Mich.) said that President Barack Obama proposed cuts to Social Security in the debt limit negotiations, not congressional Republicans.

"Because everybody’s criticizing republicans. Guess what? Every Republican that’s in the Congress was legitimately elected like all of us – that was a choice that voters made,” said Conyers when speaking with the Out of Poverty Caucus at the Capitol on Wednesday."

Liberals eagerly exploiting Norway's dead innocents in order to defame Christians, Conservatives, and others who oppose slavery, rape, and genocide on "religious" grounds

Who's urging anyone to kill their own children in resistance to Islamic cultural and immigration jihad?

Is [the New York Times'] Scott Shane grossly nescient or perversely mendacious? No one of at least normal intelligence could possibly conclude that opposing the rape, slavery, and slaughter of innocent non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to convert [to Islam] leads logically to the mass slaughter of [your own] non-Muslim children.

And Marc Sageman, former CIA? No, opposing genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah's name is not the "infrastructure from which Breivik emerged"; neither is resisting great evil mere "rhetoric."

John D. Cohen, a counterterrorism coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security and another Times "expert" declared stupidly that the Norway massacre “is a dramatic reminder that in trying to prevent attacks, we cannot focus on a single ideology.” Really? What was Breivik's "ideology"? "Kill non-Muslims because you fear Islam?" How do you prevent the unidentified insane from going on a killing spree? But dozens of attacks have been carried out in the United States by Muslims acting in obedience to Muhammad and his allah. One nut like Jared Laughner versus thousands of Muslims. Why doesn't Cohen want us to defend ourselves?

One obviously insane non-Muslim in no way negates the fact of fourteen hundred years of violent jihad around the world, including seventeen thousand attacks since 9/11 alone.

Tell the truth.

Below are some interesting questions relating to the Left's obvious talking points: A jihad group takes credit for the mass slaughter but then retracts, and the Norwegian monster's Facebook page in English was edited to include "Christian" and "Conservative" before it was taken down, while the butcher was in custody:

The 3 Big Questions About Anders Behring Breivik’s Facebook Profile

1: Why is there a version of Anders Behring Breivik’s Facebook profile not showing Christian / Conservative? Even Google’s cache of the Facebook profile retrieved on Jul 22, 2011 23:52:36 GMT supports this factor.

2: How was Christian / Conservative added prior to the profile being removed from Facebook? If our PDF was printed out/saved at Jul 23 01:39 GMT, and the profile was deleted soon afterwards by Facebook, how was a detained Anders Behring Breivik able to change it?

3: Which then needs to be asked, Who had access to in changing the Profile before it was removed?

Who in the world would want to smear Christians and Conservatives as terrorists (and has tried before)? Who would fake documents in order to deceive the public and stifle political opposition? The Usual Suspects and their propagandists in the media.

Pakistani Muslim buying politicians from both sides of the aisle

Which takes some of the excitement from Christie's going to Iowa, since he's beholdin' to his own Muslims. And where were the reports of Obama's selling himself during the election?

If a politician's got political, financial, or familial ties to Muslims, and he doesn't explicitly condemn Islam, jihad, and shari'a, then you can't trust him.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. NRSC, Obama donor arrested as Pakistan agent:

Law enforcement sources say the FBI has arrested an agent of Pakistan's official state intelligence service, accusing him of making thousands of dollars in political contributions in the United States without disclosing his connections to the Pakistani government.

Syed Ghulam Fai will appear in federal court this afternoon in Alexandria, Va. He's not charged with being a spy. But he is charged with being an unregistered agent or lobbyist of the Pakistani government.

He's the exective director of a group called the Kashmiri American Council. ...

Fai's largest contribution, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, was to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to which he gave $5,000 in 2006 and $1,000 in 2008. He gave smaller sums more recently to the DSCC and the DNC, and has given $5,000 to Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), $250 to Barack Obama and $500 Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.).

UPDATE: Brian Walsh, NRSC Communications Director, emails: “This pre-dates the current leadership at the NRSC but nonetheless it’s very disturbing and we’re happy to cooperate with any of the appropriate authorities investigating this matter."

If you want to know if you're a Christian, look at yourself, see your sins, and then look to Christ

Anyone who can look at himself and find reason for confidence before God is a liar, for we sin daily and much. And so a gospel which depends on us in any way is no Gospel at all.

Offered in response to someone looking at himself to know if he is saved:

You’re making up your own canon and not simply stating what God has revealed.

What did Paul say when he inspected his own fruit?

“I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate [. . .] For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (Romans 7).

(The Greek for “keep on doing” is “prasso,” which means “to do habitually.”)

So, Paul hadn’t “licked” the “evil” he “hated” but committed it “habitually.” By your standard, he was no Christian.

What was Paul’s answer to this dilemma? “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7).

What does Christ say about what we should see when we look inside ourselves? Should we see our good works, or should we see our sin and then . . . our Savior?

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

“I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18).

God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be honest about just how bad your sins really are, because Christ paid for them all. Here’s great news for the wicked, from Martin Luther [. . .]:

“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.

“We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?

“Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”

Like the tax collector, St. Paul, and Martin Luther, when we look at ourselves, we should see our sin and then look to the Son of God Who gave His life for sins of the world. If you want to know if you are a Christian, see your sins, and look to Christ.

Jerry Brown facilitates homosexuals and other sexual deviants' assault on California's children

Why are the Democrats disenfranchising necrophiliacs? After all, their alternative lifestyle choice -- which is just as valid as yours, if not more so -- involves only consenting adults -- well, one, actually -- and no one's getting hurt. (It's hard to hurt your "partner" when they're already dead.)

This is the epitome of selfish: To destroy a society and its children, all for a moment's gratification.

The California legislature and its governor are at least accessories to sexual predation; to use American public schools as vehicles for homosexual indoctrination and recruitment is a crime against God and Man and an abomination the Founding Fathers never intended for the system they created.

To claim a reduction in bullying as justification for this atrocity is merely to blow smoke. Bullying is immoral, period. What reaction do the geniuses behind this legislation think that forcing their perversion on others will stimulate? (Just as 9/11 stirred Americans to discover the truth about Islam and mobilize against it, so too will this subversion motivate citizens to action.)

To claim historical justification is ridiculous, since what someone does with his genitalia does not make him historically-relevant or noble (indeed, what he doesn't do can be to his credit). To view great figures from the past in terms of their deviancy is to demean their accomplishments. And if Governor Brown wants to be truly historically-honest, he should state plainly which moral societies have ever endorsed sodomy.

To equate sexual practice with racial identity is a crime against logic and against those who've struggled for [racial] equality under the law, since the former is an act, the latter, phenotype. In fact, those attacking Michelle Bachmann and others who oppose [on religious/moral grounds] the legitimization of sexual deviance [. . .] must also demonize Martin Luther King, who gave the following advice to a young man concerned about the target of his "marital impulse":

Your problem [lusting for other males] is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired.... You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

Even an amoral, atheistic naturalist must reject homosexual behavior as literally deviant, since not only is it statistically unusual, but the survival of any species depending on sexual reproduction is threatened by widespread same-gender activity.

To claim, as one commenter on the article does, that "'gay' means two men or women love each other" is simply perverse and hellishly dishonest. I love my father, but we're not copulating.

This is one step closer to societal endorsement of NAMBLA. And how will senseless liberals stop Islam's Allah-sanctioned polygyny, pedophilia, and sexual slavery of non-Muslims?

It is not "hate" to state eternal moral truths. Addressing pernicious sin honestly is the loving thing to do, especially since Christ's mercy is greater than our sin.

Jerry Brown pushes California into the abyss here:

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation requiring public schools to teach students about the contributions of gay and lesbian people, making California the first state to adopt such a measure.

The bill was cheered by gay rights advocates, and Brown said in a written statement Thursday that it "represents an important step forward for our state."

The legislation requires instruction in the social sciences to include the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, as well as people with disabilities and members of other cultural groups.

It would prohibit teaching from textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on people because of their sexual orientation.

"History should be honest," the Democratic governor said in a written statement. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."

Written by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the legislation was approved in the Legislature along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

Republicans and conservative groups railed against it again on Thursday.

Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, said Brown is "out of touch with what I think are still mainstream American values."

"That's not the kind of stuff I want my kids learning about in public school," LaMalfa said. "They've really crossed a line into a new frontier."

Leno's Senate Bill 48 is similar to a proposal that was approved by the Legislature in 2006 but vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, argued that students were already protected from discrimination.

Existing California law requires public school instruction to include the contributions of women and other minorities, and it prohibits materials that reflect adversely on people because of race, gender or other characteristics. Leno's bill adds gay and lesbian people to that group.

"We are currently censoring a very important chapter of civil rights history about a community which has historically been demonized and discriminated against, and in recent decades has had success in fighting for its civil rights and first -class citizenship," said Leno, one of the first openly gay men to serve in the Legislature. "Excluding this from our textbooks and classrooms does a disservice to our students."

He said the law will result, for example, in lessons about gay rights advocates such as Harvey Milk, the slain San Francisco supervisor.

Site of Christ's baptism defended by Jews, mined by Muslims

So much for the dual myths of innocent "Palestinian" victimhood and Israeli oppression. How much longer will Western media and politicians sustain Muslim lies?

Christian Site Opened in the West Bank:

Israel opened the traditional baptism site of Jesus to daily visits on Tuesday, a move that required the removal of mines in the West Bank along the Jordanian border. The site is one of the most important in Christianity. Until now, it had not been regularly open to the public since Israel captured the site and the rest of the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war. Palestinian officials said the move was illegal and called it part of “Israel’s monopoly over our historic and touristic resources.”

No, Christ was a Jew in Israel. It's not your site, blasphemer.

Obama admits it: He's "sold" the Republic down the river

And he thinks that eight out of ten of us want to have more of our hard-earned income confiscated and squandered on individuals, corporations, and nations who neither deserve nor appreciate it.

Is this Obama's morbid sense of humor? A sly double entendre? Like when Muslims addressing non-Muslims refer to Islam as "peace," never explaining that Muhammad's idea of "peace" is that condition when there's no one left to disagree?

Here it is, straight from the Bankrupter-in-Chief:

"The American people are sold," President Obama said.

"The American people are sold, I just want to repeat that."

"You have 80% of the American people who support a balanced approach. 80% of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."