The Democratic National Committee, true to form, is working to foil the campaign to protect marriage in California. After contributing $25,000 to "Equality for All" for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed California marriage protection amendment, the Secretary of State's office in Sacramento (headed by staunch Democrat Debra Bowen) has decided to change the description of Proposition 8 in the ballot pamphlets.

The proposed change in the wording is supposed to reflect the May 15 California Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in California (even though the Courts are not supposed to be legislating from the bench). The old wording said that the initiative is designed to limit marriage to be between a man and a woman. The new wording says that the proposed constitutional change will "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry," and adds, "California could lose several tens of millions of dollars in sales tax if same-sex marriage were banned."

Not only is it no surprise that the Democrats would use such low tactics, but it is further proof that the Democrats are slipping further outside mainstream America. By advocating legalizing gay marriage they are going against the majority of Americans, who support a traditional historic definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Further more, by donating $25,000 to a radical pro-gay organization, they are actually promoting homosexual marriage, and are alienating a group of people that they are trying to court now as voters, specifically "values voters" and Evangelicals.

Despite all of their attempts to stop it, however, the proposition has remained on the ballot. If it passes in November, the May 15 California Supreme Court ruling will be null and void, and marriage will be defined in California as being between one man and one woman.

At least 28 people have been killed, and 92 wounded, when three female suicide bombers competed their mission of terror in Baghdad. In Kirkuk a suicide bomber killed at least 16 people, and wounded 112 others.

The attacks come despite the security gains in Iraq that are largely due to the American military surge. Though some contend that the gains in Iraq are at a fragile stage, it is important to note that violence in Iraq has fallen to four-year lows.

A shooting in a Church during Sunday Services occurred this morning.

None of the church-goers were killed, but seven people were sent to the hospital after an armed attacker opened fire during a church service.

The church was the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee. The weapon was a shotgun. Several of the injuries were head wounds, but the status of the injured has not been released at this point.

The gunman was tackled before he could get off any more shots, but had more ammunition on him should he have the opportunity to re-load.

There were about 200 people in the church at the time of the shooting watching a youth performance being put on by 25 children.

Thanks, George - - -

''You had these opportunities, America. You didn't do anything,'' FBI agent George Crouch Jr. testified Friday at Salim Hamdan's war crimes trial.

The United States could have killed bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, before he moved to Afghanistan in 1996, Hamdan told his interrogators. They could have killed him after al Qaida's 1998 twin bombings at the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Or after the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole, at the port of Aden in Yemen, which left 17 U.S. sailors dead.

Instead, ''Bin Laden was emboldened.'' So he struck with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, leaving nearly 3,000 dead.

It is bitter irony that lawyers are conveying such through a trial. Remote controlled Tomahawks, the illusion of safety beyond the sanctuary of oceans, and the hot pursuit via attorneys and law both remote and unrecognized by murderous men who seek our death. This was how we convinced ourselves of our certain and active defense.

We were offered bin Laden in transit from Sudan to Afghanistan. But we did not want him. Our lawyers had no battle, our leaders no mettle.

Most of us, though not all, have learned nothing. After thousands smote and seven years of war, we are back to our superior ways, demanding Habeas Corpus and noting in the very first trial that bin Laden's deputy was read no Miranda rights upon his capture - or was it arrest?

They say History repeats itself. Never before has it applied so swiftly, within the same generation and within the same conflict.

A selfish society incapable of sacrifice is equally incapable of self-defense. Our greatest concern is not the pursuit of madmen or the states which feed them. It is not even the cost of oil and its affect on our economy and future. It is the cost of the gasoline that cycles through our tanks and its affect on our personal checking account balances.

Cowardice, cloaked in arrogance and concealed behind self-assured brilliance, charts a troubled path; one which appears circular, where constant motion deceptively passes for progress. Progress towards what, we disagree, though our enemies do not, as they laugh.

Many say it will take another catastrophic attack to bring us to our collective senses. But it will likely not come. For, if al-Qaeda (et al) is smart - and they are - they will leave us alone on our own soil while we rip ourselves apart. No explosives, no bombs, no weapons of war required. We are, after all, suddenly and finally waging their centuries-long war upon ourselves.

Brilliantly.

We allow ourselves to be told that we are what is wrong with the world; torturous, greedy, destructive, with disregard for the poorest and bitter intolerance for anyone not like us. We Balkanize our society and point fingers at each other, laying these same charges against one domestic group or another with the venom and aggression once reserved for distant, oppressive enemies.

Can we awaken from our own self-destructive slumber? The decisive war is not in Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor Pakistan or any other distant place where we perceive our enemies to be. The decisive battle is right here, from Maine to San Diego, from St. Louis to Atlanta.

If we are incapable of rediscovering that which Constitutes us and what distinguishes America from every other nation on this planet, and acknowledging that America, her people, our liberty and our unequaled charity are indeed good and our values just, then what does Iraq or Afghanistan matter? Can we truly identify that which we are defending? For if we cannot, we are not. We are simply preserving soil and borders, protecting cities and people - that which can be found anywhere else on this planet.

What will America be, what will she look like when our children are thrust at the helm? Will they write that we defended her, or will they write that we devoured and discarded her? This, not al-Qaeda or the War on Terror, keeps me up at night.

For we can defeat al-Qaeda and yet have defended nothing at all in the long, painful process.

And our children will be compelled to write of us, ''You had these opportunities, America. You didn't do anything."

Steve Schippert

http://ThreatsWatch.org/

http://tank.nationalreview.com/

In 2004 the Philadelphia 11 decided to be heard at a Gay Rights Rally. They carried signs conveying God's Love, and preached to the homosexuals at the rally about the sin of the gay lifestyle. The group of Christians, for their actions, were arrested, jailed, charged with a "hate crime" for preaching the Gospel, and threatened with up to fifty years in jail for their thought crimes.

The law being used against them is HB 1493, and it states:

A PERSON COMMITS THE OFFENSE OF ETHNIC
INTIMIDATION IF, WITH MALICIOUS INTENTION TOWARD THE ACTUAL OR
PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION [OR], NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY,
MENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER OR
GENDER IDENTITY OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS,
HE COMMITS AN OFFENSE UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE. . .

So the original decision against the Christians were that by stating Homosexuality is a sin, they were being "malicious" and were committing a hate crime. Since when is God's Love, and His laws malicious intimidation?

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania also disagrees that preaching the Gospel is somehow malicious intimidation. The court declared that the "hate crimes" laws used to jail the Philadelphia 11 in 2004 violated the state constitution, and "Preaching to homosexuals about the sin of sodomy should not be made a 'thought crime' in Pennsylvania or any other state."

This is a small victory in a culture where politicians and the far left socialists are becoming increasingly hostile toward Christians.

I am still bothered, however, that the vote was 4-1. . . yes, there is actually one judge on that bench that believes being a Christian and proclaiming one's faith should be made illegal.

The first half of the 1st Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .

Let me repeat that second part: ". . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . "

In the current societal environment our religious freedom is at stake. I understand that persecution is nothing new. Christianity, during the period of 100 A.D. to about 314 A.D. (a stretch of time known by many as the "Martyr Period") lost literally thousands and thousands of courageous people of faith during persecutions designed to wipe out Christianity from the face of the earth. But, instead of growing weaker during this period, Christianity actually grew stronger. The persecution separated the real from the false, the genuine from the fake. A true follower of Christ does not back down in the face of persecution, and gains strength in the face of it.

The Christian message really bothers some people in today's society. It bothers them that God-given absolute morality is being taught by Christianity, because it fails to validate their immoral activities; and it bothers them when true, Bible-believing Christians say, "Jesus Christ is the only way to the father," of which Jesus proclaimed himself in John 14:6 - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." If you are a Bible-believing Christian, you can say no less.

This year, alone, we have seen in this country the Ten Commandments' presence on Court Buildings come under fire, Israel threatened as Christians worldwide are persecuted by Muslims, Communists, and Liberal Secularists, a possible return to the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion, the Pledge of Allegiance seriously targeted for removal (in some cases the words "One Nation Under God" specifically targeted), Churches intimidated into silence, Government-mandated speech through hate-speech laws being considered, and Christian literature coming under fire - specifically in Colorado.

In June of this year a new Colorado law forced Christians to teach biblical condemnation of homosexuality only behind the closed doors of churches. The law also made it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the "perception" of gender identity - meaning it had become legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation. In short, every female would have to fear a predator walking in and relieving himself in their presence.

The law provides an exemption for religion, as long as they teach the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality inside the doors of the church. However, at the time, religious publishers realized that in the fine print of the law they could be accused for "publishing" condemnation of homosexuality in their books, and even for publishing the Bible. The "public accommodations" clause also brought the fear that churches could be in danger should they deny use of a church's meeting rooms, auditorium, church schools, or recreation facility to anyone who are not in agreement with the church's religious beliefs.

Critics of the law stated that the intent of the law, which was pushed by homosexual activists, was to marginalize the church. Smaller churches would actually have to alter their programs for fear of the law, because the smaller churches do not have the resources to go to court to defend their beliefs.

Proponents of the law actually argued that the law didn't go far enough, and that they wanted Colorado's SB200 to also outlaw "bigotry" inside churches as well.

As stated by SlantRight.com, "Homosexual Activists can continue to do rallies anywhere in Colorado preaching their disgusting agenda. If a Christian protests he, she or they can be tossed into jail or fined or both under SB200."

Ultimately, the provision of the Law -- SB 200 -- that bans the distribution of any written material that discriminates based on "sexual orientation," which reads:

...any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript,
book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or
advertisement of any kind, nature, or description which is
intended or calculated to discriminate or actually
discriminates..."

means that a judge in Colorado has the power to ban the distribution of the Bible in that state!

In the meantime, the United Nations has its own Crackdown On Christians in the works, and currently the White House is reviewing this plan what would make Christians criminals under international law!

This plan is supported by the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and is called "Combating Defamation of Religions," and of course, Islam considers any disagreement with them "defamation."

The plan is essentially an attempt to institute sharia-based standards around the globe, and has been selectively and arbitrarily enforced most often against Christians. The plan establishes as the primary focus and concern the protection of ideas and religions generally, rather than protecting the rights of individuals to practice their religion. Specifically, according to the ACLJ, "this is a dangerous attack on faith that attempts to criminalize Christianity."

In the meantime, the perception of Evangelical Christians has become less favorable among young non-Christians, partially due to the constant negative portrayals of Christianity in the mainstream media. Christians, also, are largely to blame, for they have become luke-warm.

Christians have lost the skill of striking the right balance between grace and truth, proclaiming without the fruits echoing their words, and this is resulting in Christianity being purged from the public square. And to combat this, churches are beginning to water down the message. Universalism has crept into The Church. "Spiritual" no longer means "Christian," and "Religion" has become a man-made machine of confrontation.

The message simply is that Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life, and that path was provided by His sacrifice. Rejection of Christ is rejection of that gift.

If you wish to reject the Bible, and the Gift of God, that is your right. But the Gospel teaches that rejection of Christ separates you from the Father, and in turn will keep you out of Heaven. As a flawed species, we are unable to "Earn" our way to Heaven, hence the reason for the Gift through Christ.

A part of today's society has rejected that, and is intentionally ambiguous about faith. The trend is to believe that there is no right or wrong when it comes to some issues, or good and evil, for that matter. It is all up to the individual. Repenting is old-fashioned and so yesterday.

To long-time Christians, this is not a surprising development. There is ample evidence in Biblical Text that tells us the trends of the last days. But, as Christians, it is our task to pray for those that remain without Christ, and to spread the good news when we can. Persecution will come, but we must strengthen through it, as the "Paulicians" did. We must persevere, and continue to perform The Great Commission.

Christopher Laurie, the Son of Pastor Greg Laurie of the church I attend, Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, California, died this morning in an automobile accident.

The elder of two sons, Christopher Laurie was 33 years of age and leaves behind a wife and daughter. Recent news, provided by the family during the Church trip to Israel, also reveals that Christopher's wife is pregnant with the couple's second child.

Christopher's vehicle struck a Caltrans Truck from behind on the eastbound lanes of the 91 Freeway in Corona. The accident occurred this morning, but was not completely cleared until 3:00 pm.

Our prayers go out to the Laurie family.

Evolutionists can't get their numbers straight. I've heard estimates in the tens of thousands of years to millions of years when it comes to Science's estimation of how long the human species has been walking the Earth. Most Bible-believing Christians have determined, based on figuring out all of the "begets" and so forth in the Bible, that mankind has been on this planet for about six thousand years.

The estimation is about 2,000 years from Adam to Abraham. 2,000 years from Abraham to Jesus Christ. And about 2,000 years since Christ to our present day.

In an article passed to me by e-mail, an article that was originally published in a Christian publication over twenty years ago, a theological scholar came to a conclusion using population trends to figure it out.

According to the article:

Statistically, a couple must have 2.1 children to keep a population at the same level.

In practice, this means a minimum of three children per family.

Let us suppose for a moment that the Biblical account of the Genesis Flood in which just eight people survived is true.

Let us further suppose that each family from this point in history had 2.4 children on average. This very modest number will take into account all the deaths through infant mortality, plagues and war.

How long would it take to reach today’s world population?

Surprisingly, the answer is just less than five thousand years. This figure fits nicely into known historical records.

Now suppose we take the evolutionary view that mankind has been on this planet for two million years and we begin with two people – or eight, it will make little difference – and they also had the statistical 2.4 children per family.

We will finish up with a number so impossibly large that the universe itself would not hold them!

Aware of this problem, the textbooks explain it away by speaking of “population stability throughout this time.”

This is nothing short of an appeal to a miracle!

Frankly, the Biblical account is far more believable.

Anyway, I found this very interesting, and something to chew on.

By the way, if you are interested, my latest articles on three other websites are available as well:

Death of the Watch Dog on Conservative Crusader (which by the way earned main headline when it posted).

Why Some Evangelical Christians Are Supporting Obama on A Newt One.

US, UK, France launch sea exercise for naval blockade on Iran on American Pundit.

Socialism is Communism not realized. Marxism is the teachings of Karl Marx and is available in the writings of Marx in the Communist Manifesto. History shows that Communism is a failed system, failing in the Soviet Union, and failing throughout Europe. Communist China only saved itself through injecting bits and pieces of American Capitalism into its economic system. It, too, will eventually be doomed to fail.

When defining Socialism, or Communism, or Marxism, whichever you choose to identify it with, at the root of the system is the creation of a "collective social model." The "individual," in such a system, is not healthy for the socialistic society. Any remnants of individuality must be eliminated for the system to take hold. After all, in a communal, or communist, setting, the society (or village, or collective group) takes precedence over any "selfish" individual wants, desires, or needs. Serving the "community" is the most important thing to do as a member of the collective. This is not to say that serving the community is a bad thing, but it cannot be the only thing, or something not done on a voluntary basis.

Capitalism is the enemy to a Marxist system. A culture based on money, on making a better life for yourself on an individual basis through profit and success, is frowned upon and considered to be destructive to the collective. Marxism proclaims that it is better to serve the collective, than to separate yourself from the herd and chase after success, and any rewards of such success. This is not to say that one should not be "giving" once reaching success, but again, this must be an individual decision, not one that the government makes for you.

The Marxist believes that as a citizen of a communist society you have an obligation to allow anything you gain from success to be returned to the community. That way, all workers benefit, for the labor was performed for the community, not the individual. Any success, claims Karl Marx, was gained because of all of the help the successful citizen received from the collective, and it is your obligation to pay back the collective for helping you reach whatever level of success you achieved.

In a Marxist society one must cease to be an individual, and become a productive part of the collective. By being an individual, according to Communism, you are only thinking of yourself, and such ambition is bad for society as a whole. The community is larger than you are, and contributing to the community is the path to fulfillment. You will not be truly free, proclaims Communism, until you let go of your individualism, and take upon yourself your role in the great collective.

Many of Barack Obama's plans seem very similar to those of Karl Marx. Like the Communists, he supports a heavy progressive tax plan that hits all avenues, and would give the United States one of the highest tax rates among developed countries. He plans to restore the inheritance tax, which is a move in the direction of the Marxist plan of abolishing all rights of inheritance. Through his mortgage bailout plan it creates a move towards centralizing the banks. The Democrats, a plan Obama supports, are pushing for a return to the Fairness Doctrine, as well as censorship of the internet, which is an obvious move toward the centralization of communication and information transfer. He has called on all of us to share the equal liability to the community, has called for a civilian army not unlike the industrial and agricultural army that Karl Marx called for, and supports the mandatory attendance of all children in the free public schools (hence, eliminating home-schooling and private schools in the process).

I think Barack Obama summed up his Marxist aspirations, however, best in a speech he gave when subbing for Senator Kennedy at the Wesleyan (Connecticut) commencement ceremony in May, 2008.

In part of his speech at Wesleyan he proclaimed:

There’s no community service requirement in the outside world; no one's forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.

But I hope you don’t. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although I believe you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though I do believe you do have that debt to pay.

It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role that you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in the American story.


In other words, forget your good job, any of your silly notions of individuality - You need to be working for the collective. In the end, in the attempt to achieve what he sees as a noble move towards tolerance, understanding, and working together as a team in this nation (all of which in their selves are noble intentions), he will moves us closer to Marxism, and farther away from the liberty our founding fathers, and our honorable men and women of the military, have fought so hard to give us.

Below is a video of that portion of his speech:

Obama Quote: "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world."

This was a part of a speech Barack Obama gave on Wednesday, July 16, in West Lafeyette, Indiana. Read the quote carefully again. I'll wait.

Okay, did you catch it?

Yep, that's the one, the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor. Sure, it must've been a big bomb. After all, it took out all those boats. Perhaps he forgot that it was a lot of bombs (and kamakazees), and it was the Japanese who dropped them (they didn't "fall" on Pearl Harbor). Oh, wait, political correctness wouldn't allow him to say that! It might offend people if he correctly quotes history and said it was the Japanese that attacked us!

And the more shocking part is, this guy, Comrade Obama, was a long time resident of Hawaii. Surely, the history of Pearly Harbor, and being in the same state as the USS Arizona memorial, would have given him a clue as to what really happened December 7th, 1941. Wait, maybe he merely misspoke, or was confused. After all, it is hard to keep track of the history of all 60 states (57 of which he claims to have visited).

You know, if McCain had made this blunder, the leftist media would have been all over it, calling him a confused old man. It may have, like "potato" did for another Republican so long ago, ruined his political career. Did you hear a peep from them over Obama's revision of history? Of course not. Apparently, his teflon shield is still working at full strength.

And what's this "adapted" crap? We didn't adapt. We defended our nation. We faced the enemy and defeated them. Period.