Judios Musulmanes y Liberales Atacan Valores Cristianos

McCain's Controversial Comments Deserve Better than Ignorant Indignation

La intenciones de los fundadores de este pais fueron sin ninguna equivocacion cristianas. Sobre este asunto hay mucha evidencia, la cual ha sido editada, operada, y extirpada de nuestros libros de historia. Los recipients principales de este crimen son nuestros hijos que asisten a las aulas (escuelas) publicas que han sido asaltadas con crimenes que escuchamos a diaro. Maestras violando adolescents sin ninguna consecuencia. Que le parece?

Sobre el asunto de la fundacion de este bendito pais, curiosamente un Judio llamo Micheal Medved defendio al Republicano John McCain que confeso que las raices de este pais son Cristianas.

Ataques sin Fundamento

Torpedo numero uno, truenos y centellas le han caido al Republicano que se atrevio a confesar una realidad historica. El Concilio National Democrata Judio dijo que su comentario fue repugnante.

Torpedo numero dos, el Concilio Americano de Relaciones Islamicas condena al Sr. McCain diciendo que sus comentarios estan encontra de las tradiciones Americanas del pluralismo en inclusion.

Torpedo numero tres, el Comite Judio Americano asota con el siguiente comentario,“ argumentar que America es una nacion Cristiana pone esta nacion en peligro.

Torpedo numero cuatro, el Sr. Charles Haynes, intellectual mayor del “Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center” dijo lo mas absolutamente absurdo e anti historico; que la gran majoria han mal interpretado nuestra Constitucion. Los arquitectos de la Constitucion claramente querian una nacion secular.

Verdad Historica (M. Medved)

In order to put today's church-state controversies into proper perspective, we must first clear-away some of the ubiquitous misinformation that pollutes are present public discourse. Honest historians and fair-minded observers will acknowledge eight undeniable and sometimes uncomfortable truths: 1. THE FOUNDERS NEVER "WANTED TO ESTABLISH A SECULAR NATION." In fact, they repeatedly and insistently averred that the survival of liberty and the prosperity of the United States required a deeply religious society and a populace passionately committed to organized faith. In his Farewell Address of 1797, President Washington (who had also served as presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention) unequivocally declared that "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle...Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." His successor as president, John Adams (also known as "The Atlas of Independence") wrote to his wife Abigail in 1775: "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. A patriot must be a religious man." Thomas Jefferson, who disagreed with Adams on so many points of policy, clearly concurred with him on this essential principle. "God who gave us life gave us liberty," he wrote in 1781. "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?" Jefferson's friend and colleague, James Madison (acclaimed as "The Father of the Constitution") declared that "religion is the basis and Foundation of Government," and later (1825, after retiring from the Presidency) wrote that "the belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good.... is essential to the moral order of the World and the happiness of men." Far from insisting on a "secular nation," the founders clearly believed that any reduction in the public's fervent and near universal Christian commitment would bring disastrous results to the experiment in self-government they had sacrificed so much to launch. Elias Boudinot of New Jersey, who served as President of the Continental Congress in the last stages of the Revolution (1782-83 wrote: "Our country should be preserved from the dreadful evil of becoming enemies of the religion of the Gospel, which I have no doubt, but would be the introduction of the dissolution of government and the bonds of civil society." 2. THE FOUNDERS DIDN'T EVEN WANT A SECULAR GOVERNMENT, AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT PHRASE TODAY. John Marshall, the father of American Jurisprudence and for 34 epochal years (1801-35) the Chief Justice of the United States, wrote: "The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it." His colleague on the court (1796-1811), Justice Samuel Chase, delivered an opinion (Runkel v. Winemill) in 1799 declaring: "Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion, and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty." These judicial opinions make clear that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment never constrained early judges from classifying the United States as an enthusiastically Christian society. In fact, the same Congress that approved the First Amendment gave a clear indication of the way they understood its language when, less than 24 hours after adopting the fateful wording, they passed the following Resolution: "Resolved, that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceable to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness." It never occurred to this first Congress in 1789 that their call for a government sponsored day of "thanksgiving and prayer" would conflict with the prohibition they had just adopted prohibiting "an establishment of religion." Not until the infamous Everson decision of 1947 did the Supreme Court create the doctrine of a "wall of separation between church and state," quoting (out of context) from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. President Jefferson created the image of the wall in order to reassure the Baptists that government would never interfere with their religious life, but he never suggested that religion would have no role in government. In 1803, in fact, Jefferson recommended to Congress the approval of a treaty that provided government funds to support a Catholic priest in ministering to the Kaskaskia Indians. Three times he signed extensions of another measure described as "An Act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military services and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." Jefferson also participated every week in Christian church services in the Capitol Building in Washington DC; until 1866, in fact, the Capitol hosted worship every Sunday and, intermittently, conducted a Sunday school. No one challenged these 71 years of Christian prayer at the very seat of federal power: given the founders' endorsement of the positive role of organized faith, it hardly inspired controversy to convene worship at the Capitol. In fact, at the time of the first Continental Congress, nine of the thirteen original colonies had "established churches" - meaning that they each supported an official denomination, even to the point of using public money for church construction and maintenance. These religious establishments - clearly in contradiction to the idea of a "secular government" - continued in three states long after the adoption of the First Amendment. Connecticut disestablished its favored Congregational Church only in 1818, New Hampshire in 1819, and Massachusetts in 1833. Amazingly enough, these established churches flourished for nearly fifty years under the constitution despite the First Amendment's famous insistence that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Their existence reflected the fact that the founders never wanted to secularize all of government, but intended rather to allow the states to handle religious issues in their own way while avoiding the imposition of any single federal denomination on the diverse, often quarreling regions of the young nation. Joseph Story, a Supreme Court Justice from 1811 to 1845 (appointed by President Madison) and, as a long-time Harvard professor the leading early commentator on the Constitution, explained the First Amendment with the observation that "the general if not universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. The real object of the First Amendment....was to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government." As Stephen Mansfield comments in his invaluable book on the Establishment Clause, "Ten Tortured Words," Justice Story's "understanding of the meaning of the First Amendment should be taken as definitive." 3. EARLY SETTLERS DID NOT FLEE ENGLAND AND BUILD NEW WORLD COLONIES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH "FREEDOM OF RELIGION." For the most part, those Colonists motivated by religious conviction more than a desire for financial gain wanted to establish faith-based utopias that would be more rigorous and restrictive, not less zealous, than the Mother Country. The Puritans behind the original New England colonies (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire) and two later states (Vermont and Maine) wanted strict enforcement of Sabbath rules, mandatory attendance at worship services, tax money to support religious seminaries (prominently including Harvard and Yale), and other rules befitting a "Christian Commonwealth." If anything, they distrusted the Church of England for its backsliding, corruption and compromises rather than its vigorous imposition of religious standards. Other denominations (Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland) founded their colonies not to create secular or diverse religious environments, but to provide their own versions of model communities and denominational havens. Among the original colonies, only Roger Williams' Rhode Island made a consistent priority of religious tolerance and pluralism. 4. THE REVOLUTIONARY GENERATION DID NOT FIGHT TO ESTABLISH "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" OR A SECULAR SOCIETY. The favored marching tune of the Continental Army wasn't "Yankee Doodle" (which achieved its wider popularity only after the Revolution) but "Chester," adapted from a beloved church hymn by Boston composer William Billings. Its words proclaimed: "Let tyrants shake their iron rods/And slaver clank her galling chains/We fear them not, we trust in God/New England's God forever reigns." The army's Commander in Chief felt no discomfort at all with this explicitly religious rhetoric. In 1776, for instance, General George Washington issued the following message to his troops: "The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary, but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The general hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country." Two years later, Washington proclaimed: "The commander in chief directs that Divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o'clock, in each brigade which has a Chaplain....While we are duly performing the duty of good soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of a patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian." The war emphasized a long standing difference between America and Europe noted by the leaders of the Patriot faction, future visitors like Alexis de Tocqueville, and even contemporary pollsters and demographers; the United States has always displayed greater religious intensity and fervor than Great Britain or the other nations of Western Europe. 5. THE FOUNDERS WEREN'T ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS OR SECULARISTS; THEY WERE, ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION, DEEPLY SERIOUS CHRISTIANS. The comments of John Adams might count as typical of the Revolutionary generation. In a July, 1796 diary entry, the then-Vice President of the United States declared: "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity...." He strongly supported the use of tax money in Massachusetts to support church construction and religious instruction. Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence and leading Colonial physician, in 1800 wrote sketches of his colleagues in the Continental Congress in which he evaluated them based on their personal religiosity. About Sam Adams of Massachusetts he wrote: "He considered national happiness and the public patronage of religion as inseparably connected; and so great was his regard for public worship, and the means of promoting religion, that he constantly attended divine service in the German church in York town while Congress sat there, when there was no service in their chapel, although he was ignorant of the German language." About Sam's cousin John Adams, Rush wrote: "He was strictly moral, and at all times respectful to Religion." Of Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Rush observed: He was not less distinguished for his piety than his patriotism. He once objected to a motion for Congress sitting on a Sunday upon an occasion which he thought did not require it, and gave as a reason for his objection a regard of the commands of his Maker." Rush praised his Pennsylvania colleague James Wilson who "had been educated for a clergyman in Scotland and was a profound and accurate scholar," and Charles Thompson as "a man of great learning and general knowledge, at all times a genuine Republican, and in the evening of his life a sincere Christian." Of course, many of the Founding Fathers held religious beliefs that challenged the Orthodoxy of their day, but they continued the assiduous study of the Bible (as a lifelong passion in the case of Jefferson and Franklin) and showed little sympathy for the excesses of the French Revolution with its denunciation of Christianity of proclamation of a new "Age of Reason." Even the most radical of the Founders, pamphleteer Thomas Paine, would fit more comfortably with today's religious conservatives than with the secular militants who seek to claim his as one of their own. This restless Revolutionary traveled to France to take part in their Revolution and wrote a scandalous book "The Age of Reason," which proclaimed his "Deism" while attacking traditional Christian doctrine-a position that alienated and offended virtually all of his former American comrades (including many who have been mistakenly identified as "Deists" themselves). Nevertheless, in 1797 he delivered a speech to a learned French society insisting that schools must concentrate on the study of God, presenting his arguments with an eloquent insistence on recognizing the Almighty that would delight James Dobson of Focus on the Family, but mortally offend the secular militants of the ACLU. "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin," Thomas Paine declaimed. "Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author. When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them from the Being who is the author of them." In short, even the least religiously committed of the founders wanted to approach public education in a manner that would deeply offend today's uncompromising separationists, and those who ludicrously claim that the designers of our Constitution intended a "secular nation." The ludicrous indignation about Senator McCain's recent remarks remains an expression of both ignorance and intolerance, and a mean-spirited refusal to recognize the simple truth in his statements. The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution, but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America's unequivocal identity as a Christian nation.
https://www.michaelmedved.com/agnosticchart?charttype=minichart&chartID=21&size=300&formatID=1&useMiniChartID=true&position=1&destinationpage=/pg/jsp/newscommentary/beyondthenewsarticle.jsp

Desacrando Nuestras Imagenes/Sadomasochistic Last Supper

Una vez mas, homosexuales a la carga humillando nuestras imagenes religiosas pero la Porta Voz del nuevo Congreso Demacrata dice que esto no daña la Cristianidad. Estas son las personas que se ofenden cuando Rush Limbaugh defiende nuestras tropas y los valores morales de este pais. Esa actitud en torno a asuntos sagradas cristianos se permea en todo el congreso democrata. Se acuerdan de la calumnia que le levantaron a nuestras tropas de que habian tomado el Koran y lo desecharon en el toilet. Eso parecia un circo Romano. Comenzaron ha investigar y la prensa se revolvio con fureza para defender el Islam. Pero a nosotros los Cristianos nos pasan por la piedra a tal grado que han desacrado la sagrada communion. A donde estan los defensores de nuestra fe? Enterese de resto.

By Nathan BurchfielCNSNews.com Staff WriterSeptember 28, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - A controversial advertisement for a San Francisco festival that depicts the Last Supper as a sadomasochism party falls within the First Amendment and is not harmful to Christianity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday.The ad for the Folsom Street Fair - to be held in Pelosi's district on Sunday and which is partly funded by San Francisco's Grants for the Arts program, which is funded by the city's hotel tax - sparked outrage from Christian groups because it mirrors Leonardo Da Vinci's famous painting of "The Last Supper" but replaces Jesus and his apostles with scantily leather-clad men and women sitting at a table adorned with sex toys. A spokesman for Pelosi told a San Francisco publication yesterday that the ad would not harm Christianity. Cybercast News Service put Pelosi herself on the spot at a news conference in the U.S. Capitol Friday. Here's the exchange between the reporter and Pelosi.CNSNews.com:"I'd like to get local for a second and talk about what's going on in San Francisco. Your spokesman told the Bay Area Reporter that the Folsom Street Fair advertisement mocking the last supper would not harm Christianity. I'm wondering if you find the advertisement personally offensive.""And as a follow up, the city's Grants for the Arts program, funded by the city's hotel tax, subsidizes the fair. Do you think that it's fair to tax everyone who visits San Francisco and stays in a hotel to support the fair?"Pelosi: "Well that's not really a local question. That's a constitutional question. That's a religious question. That's as big a global question as you can ask. I'm a big believer in First Amendment and therefore, as I said in my statement, I do not believe that Christianity has been harmed by the Folsom Street Fair advertising."

Homosexuales Mofandose de la Sagrada Communion

"No los habia notado"

El moderador Bill O Reilly televiso unas escenas que provocan coraje y total repulsion. Lo triste de este caso es que la prensa no le hizo caso. Pero comenta Bill que si algo similar le hubiese pasado a una madrasa Musulmana la cubierta seria algo de pelicula. El otro asunto es que tenemos lideres religiosos que no tiene el celo de defender nuestra Iglesia y han caido bajo las garras del Liberalismo. Lo que ha pasado en San Francisco Capital Homoxual de America es un ejemplo clasico de sacerdotes que seden y comprometen la santidad y seriedad de los sacramentos.

El reportero John Henry dice que le tomo casi una semana para escuchar una excusa del Arzobispo George H. Niederauer. El dice que no se dio cuenta pero yo te digo que eso es pura mierda y es un mentiroso. Como es posible que no se diera cuenta de dos individuos vestidos con tanta extravaganza. En el resume del Arsobispo esta lo siguiente:

En el 2004 se opuso publicamente a una iniciativa constitucional que protegeria la definicion de matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer. En 1996 cuando era Obispo ayudo a formar una coalicion de lideres religiosos que se opusieron a la eliminacion de un grupo llamado gay straigth alliance en las escuelas superiores de Salt Lake City. Por todo esto y mucho mas digo que miente. Que te parece! Quieres saber mas? Siga lejendo.

SAN FRANCISCO, October 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Nearly a week after being filmed giving communion to two gay activists dressed as 'nuns' Archbishop George H. Niederauer has apologized in a column for the diocesan Catholic San Francisco newspaper. In his column, the San Francisco Archbishop repeats statements previously given to LifeSiteNews.com about not being aware of any disruption, nor recognizing any "mock religious garb." (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/oct/07101004.html )However, the column adds that he was not aware during the Mass that those "strangely dressed persons" were members of the 'Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence' a group which the Archbishop says was denounced by his predecessor. "Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did not recognize who these people were when they approached me," he writes.Coverage of the video spectacle of the Archbishop handing the two communion and reaction by Catholic and pro-family organizations was intense, with many communicating their concerns to both the Archbishop and Vatican authorities.Apologizing, the Archbishop says, "After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake. I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so.""Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make a point. If people dress in a manner clearly intended to mock what we hold sacred, they place themselves in an objective situation in which it is not appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion, much less for a minister of the Church to give the Sacrament to them," says the Archbishop."Therefore I conclude that the presence of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at the Mass on October 7th was intended as a provocative gesture. In that moment I failed to recognize it as such, and for that, as I have said, I must apologize."Catholic World News editor, Phil Lawler, in a column today, writes that Archbishop Niederauer's apology is one "that no discerning Catholic could accept" given the bishops knowledge of what has been going on at the homosexual activist parish prior to his visit. Lawler states, "When he visited the parish...the archbishop must have been keenly aware of the likelihood that he would encounter homosexual activists in general, and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in particular. When these two demonstrators approached him in their bizarre attire, he should have known-- must have known-- what he was facing".Anthony Gonzales of St. Joseph's Men Society, one of the groups which filmed the Archbishop giving the 'sisters' Communion, told LifeSiteNews.com that he was pleased with the apology. Gonzales, who will be discussing the matter on Fox's O'Reilly Factor tonight, added, however, that "The Archbishop has a history of "mistakes" especially where homosexuality is concerned." In 1986, Niederauer wrote a letter to an Orange County judge asking that a priest convicted of 26 counts of felony child sexual abuse be spared prison time - the priest received no jail time for the offences. Niederauer wrote that the boys involved might have mistaken "horsing around" for molestation. Niederauer later admitted that the letter had been a "mistake." (a copy of the letter is available here: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/orange/andersen/or... )In 2004, Archbishop Niederauer publicly opposed a Utah ballot initiative that constitutionally banned same-sex marriage because it included a ban on civil unions.In 1996, as bishop of Salt Lake City, he helped form a coalition of religious leaders opposing the ban on high-school "gay-straight alliances" proposed by the Utah legislature. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle last year the then-incoming Archbishop praised the film Brokeback Mountain which had been condemned by pro-family groups as a dangerous homosexual propaganda film. Niederauer admitted to seeing the film and called it "very powerful". He added that "one of the lessons (of the film) is the destructiveness of not being honest with yourself and not honest with other people and not being faithful, trying to live a double life." (see coverage http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021306.html )When the Vatican proposed that homosexual men, practicing or not, should not be ordained to the priesthood, Archbishop Niederauer's spin on the document incorrectly took it only to mean that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, must be able to "be able and willing to subordinate all relationships and conduct all relationships with others in a way that's compatible with a celibate lifestyle.""I hope he apologizes for some of his other lapses from authentic Catholic teaching," concluded Gonzales.Brian Burch, President of Fidelis, a national Catholic-based advocacy group, reacted to the Archbishop's apology saying, "This is a welcome decision on the part of the San Fransico Archibhop to stand up for the consistent and authentic teaching of the Church and to publicly resist those who make a mockery of the Church."Burch told LifeSiteNews.com, "The city of San Francisco continues to be a source of growing hostility and public scandal when it comes to marriage and the Catholic Church. Catholic leaders like Archbishop Niederauer deserve our prayerful support especially knowing that this incident likely will not be the last time he will be required to act publicly in defense of the Church.See the Archbishop's full column here:http://www.catholic-sf.org/FPArticle08.htm

Senador Democrata Demanda a Dios/Democratic Senator Sues God

Este Senador demando formalmente a Dios en la corte del Condado Douglas en Nebraska. Este letrado culpa a Dios de los males tales como el terrorismo, terremotos, disturbios atmosfericos y pestilencias. Obviamente el reconoce a Dios como ser supreme y que su poder puede intervenir en estas calamidades.

Lo que Mr. Chambers ha ignorado es que nosotros no estamos en el paraiso y que la tierra sufrira dolores de parto. Nuestra estadia aqui es temporera y que Dios nuestro Padre Supremo tiene algo mejor “cielo y tierra nueva” una ‘gloria eterna que no se compara con la estadia terrenal. Claro esta que nos afligimos por estas catastrofes pero tenemos que alegrarnos de que nosotros los creyentes compartiremos una alegria eterna en la presencia del Dios amoroso e omnipotente. Pienso que su accion esta contamida de egoismo, ignorancia con mucha soberbia, quienes somos nosotros para reclamarl o reprochar a Dios? Y usted que piensa?

Historia Original

Nebraska Democratic State Senator Ernie Chambers has decided to go straight to the top in an effort to stop natural disasters from befalling the world.
Chambers filed a lawsuit against God in Douglas County Court Friday afternoon, KPTM Fox 42 reported. Click here for more from KPTM Fox 42 in Omaha.
The suit asks for a "permanent injunction ordering Defendant to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats."
The lawsuit identifies the plaintiff as, "the duly elected and serving State Senator from the 11th Legislative District in Omaha, Nebraska." Chambers also cites that the, "defendant directly and proximately has caused, inter alia, fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornados, pestilential plagues..."
Chambers says he isn't suing God because he has any kind of beef with the deity. He says the suit is to fight possible laws restricting the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Chambers tells KPTM FOX 42 News that his lawsuit is in response to bills brought forth by other state senators to try and stop lawsuits from being filed.

"The Constitution requires that the courthouse doors be open, so you cannot prohibit the filing of suits," Chambers says. "Anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God."
Chambers bases his ability to sue God, as, "that defendant, being omnipresent, is personally present in Douglas County." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297121,00.html

Another Corrupted Democrat: Allan B. Mollohan/Corrupcion Democrata

Y Nancy Pelosi que esta haciendo? A donde esta la prensa reportando la corrupcion dentro del Partido Democrata. Señoras y señores ABC, CNN, CBS y NBC no le daran seguimiento a nada de esto. Este escandalo comenzo el 1990. La investigacion señalo que entre el año 2000-04 sus ingresos aumentaron de $565,000 a $6.3 millones. Quieres saber mas siga leyendo?

West Virginia Democrat is Scrutinized
Mollohan Has Close Ties to Groups Handling His District's Appropriations
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, May 15, 2006; Page A01
Starting in the 1990s, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) chose an unusual way to funnel federal funds into his poverty-ridden district. He set up a network of nonprofit organizations to administer the millions of dollars he directed to such public endeavors as high-tech research and historic preservation.
Over the same period, Mollohan's personal fortunes soared. From 2000 to 2004, his assets grew from no more than $565,000 to at least $6.3 million. The partners in his rapidly expanding real estate empire included the head of one of these nonprofit groups and the owner of a local company for which he arranged substantial federal aid.

Mollohan used his seat on the House Appropriations Committee to secure more than $150 million for five nonprofit groups. One of the groups is headed by a former aide with whom Mollohan bought $2 million worth of property on Bald Head Island, N.C.
Controversy over this blending of commerce and legislation has triggered a federal probe, cost Mollohan his position on the House ethics committee and undermined the Democrats' effort to portray the GOP as the party of corruption because of the Jack Abramoff scandal. As early as today, the 12-term congressman will admit that he misstated some transactions in his congressional filings, according to Mollohan staffers."Mollohan has earmarked tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners. That immediately raises the question whether these funds were allocated to promote the public good or to promote his interests and the interests of his partners," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group. "He also got very rich very quick, and that suggests a relationship that is suspect if not corrupt."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051401032.html

Democrats Investigate Corruption in Iraq/Investigando Corrupcion en Iraq

Este hombre y nuestro nuevo congreso con la nueva y baja aprobacion de acuerdo con la encuesta AP de 22% investiga corruption en Iraq. Me rasco la cabeza por que con que fuerza moral se lanzan a gastar nuestro dinero en investigaciones estupidas cuando ellos sepultaron la promesa que nos hiso Nancy Pelosi. La promesa de acabar con la corrupcion. Que nos digan que han hecho con el acto criminal de Sandy Burger el cual destruyo secretos nacionales para proteger a Clinton y William Jefferson (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/06/04/congressman-headed-for-the-cooler/) que escondio miles de dolares en su refrigerador? Nancy Pelosi y Harry Reed tienen la cara de acero y es evidente que la corrupcion democratica nunca sera investigada.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat-La., was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.
The indictment handed up in federal court in Alexandria., Va., Monday is 94 pages long and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 235 years.

Communists, Liberals, Socialist or Progressives

A transcript from the Rush Limbaugh Show

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: James in Manhattan, glad you waited. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello.CALLER: Hello. Why don't we call a spade a spade and say that the Democrats are trying to re-create the Soviet Union? You know, you mentioned Waxman, socialized medicine, polluting young minds -- à la, you know, George Orwell -- and I think it was on Friday you were talking about how pediatricians in Massachusetts were interviewing children about the social habits of their parents.RUSH: Yeah.CALLER: Income redistribution, creating mediocrity and then total dependence.RUSH: Well, the answer to the question -- Why don't we just say that they're trying to re-create the old Soviet Union? -- I don't know that it would sell. You know, you want to persuade people.CALLER: Okay.RUSH: You have to understand that my perception is that a vast majority of the people of the United States of America will just never believe that there's a political party that wants to establish a set of circumstances like Khrushchev and Brezhnev and the boys had in the Soviet Union, or that Erich Honecker had in East Germany. They just won't want to believe it. That's why all during the eighties and sixties and seventies, it was really not productive to call communists "communists," because people didn't believe it was possible for communists to exist in this country. People don't believe it's possible. They don't want to believe it, so they'll tune it out. But I gotta tell you, there's a bunch of communist parties in this country. They're relatively small, but they're all endorsing the Democrats.CALLER: Right.RUSH: That's one way of doing it, is to point out the communist parties in this country -- the Communist Workers Party, the Socialist Workers Party, all these communist parties -- guess who they're endorsing? Hillary Clinton, or, in some cases, John Edwards. It doesn't matter. But it's always Democrats that they endorse.CALLER: Well, that's my point.RUSH: Take a look at our enemies. Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad endorse Democrats. They use their talking points. Mind-boggling, is it not? Are the Democrats embarrassed by any of it? Hell no! They think half the country or more wants this kind of socialism. CALLER: Well...RUSH: You know, I got some Democrats upset. I put a picture of Josef Stalin up on my website on Friday, because I've been calling these people neo-Stalinists in the way that they want to control everybody's lives. "How dare you? How dare you!" Somebody ought to say it. Somebody has to say it! Bob Beckel went nuts on television. "You gotta be careful about saying Stalinists out there. They killed 20 million people." No, the Stalinists didn't kill anybody! Walter Duranty of the New York Times said they didn't, and he got a Pulitzer Prize for it, which still stands. So according to some people, it never happened anyway. There are ways of accomplishing this without using a single word or two words like the "Soviet Union" which would just repel people. It's all about convincing and persuading, and let me tell you... How should I say this? Let me call 'em "acquaintances" so you people don't beat me up. I have several liberal acquaintances who over the past week witnessed this. They know me personally, and they've known me for a long, long time and they've known full well who I am. They saw this smear campaign. They saw the media surrounding it. They also saw the mainstream media.
You know, this is a key element here. People said, "How come the mainstream media didn't pile on to this, Rush?" You didn't get NBC or ABC or CBS on it. You didn't get the New York Times 'til the week after. You didn't get the Washington Post on it. Why?" Because they know it was BS. That's why they didn't jump. But that's not the question. The question is, "Knowing that it was BS, why didn't they write that?" Where was the story, "Senate majority leader falsely accuses radio talk show host from floor of Senate"? Where was that story? It's not there because the mainstream press is just waiting for the next little kerfuffle to come up here that they can jump on and get away with being credible on. Anyway, the story I was going to tell you is, a number of these liberals have seen what has happened in the past week, and it's shaking their foundations. They didn't think their people were capable of this kind of lying and character assassination. They thought that's what we did, and they have told me they are questioning everything they have believed. It's only three or four people, but they are questioning it. They started out, like liberals do, trying to equivocate it. "Well, you know, you have said some un..." Wait a minute! Forget that. This is a lie. Forget this equivocation, will you? It's the one thing about you libs that drives me nuts. We properly identify something you do, and you have to say, "Well, you did this and that." It's not the point. This was an abject smear. Anyway, by the end of the week, these people all said, "You are making me question this. Knowing you is making me question everything I've believed," and the only reason they knew about it was because they know me. If they didn't know me, they would have bought -- hook, line, and sinker -- everything that the left put out yesterday. Now, this, folks, is why, in an additional way, I am such a target, because now there are liberals who are seeing what their side does and how they do it. You gotta understand: Proud liberals really do buy all of the PR. They think they are better, they're smarter, they're nicer, they're more compassionate, that they're not bigoted, that they're not racist. They're none of those things. Now they see the people on their side of the aisle and the way they're misreporting, misrepresenting, lying, even after getting the facts. I don't know that they're going to stop being liberals, but it has caused them to see something that they've never seen before, that they just accepted, which I was talking about at the beginning of the program. They just accept this stuff. They're the mind-numbed robots. They don't think about it. They're so caught up in hating us and thinking we're rotten to the core, while they are God's gift to Creation, that none of this stuff permeates -- 'til these people saw it firsthand. One of them even said, "I'm beginning to wonder about all this stuff they've told me about Bush." These are just anecdotal little stories. But don't think that that's not happening across a wider spectrum than just the people who know me personally.

Hitchens's Distortion of Christian History

Christopher Hitchens's new book, God Is Not Great, is subtitled How Religion Poisons Everything. Everything is a big word, but I guess Hitchens means it. According to him, "religion makes people do wicked things they wouldn't ordinarily do . . . the licenses for genocide, slavery, racism, are all right there in the holy text."
By "holy text" he means the Bible, which raises a difficult question for people like Hitchens: If Christianity "licenses" slavery, then why was the abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in modern times, driven by Christians?
As I write in my new book, The Faith, about to be published early next year, in the first-century Roman Empire, slavery was a fact of life—one which the writings of the New Testament reflect. But acknowledging social reality is not the same thing as "licensing" it.
When the Apostle Paul declared that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," he planted the seeds that would, one day, lead to the demise of the institution of slavery. Likewise, Paul's inclusion of "slave traders" among those he identified as "lawbreakers" made it clear what he thought about slavery.
Historian Rodney Stark writes about the Church's embrace around about the third century of what he calls "a universalistic conception of humanity." This conception "[liberated] social relations between the sexes and within the family" and "greatly modulated class differences . . . " As Stark puts it, "more than rhetoric was involved when slave and noble greeted one another as brothers in Christ."
Given this liberating ideal, it was only a matter of time before Christians sought to remove slavery from the Christian culture entirely. By the Middle Ages, it was agreed that "no man, no real Christian at any rate . . . could thereafter legitimately be held as the property of another."
It is true that Christians have not always lived up to these teachings: The record of the Church is not without blemish. But it is also true that when Christians kept and traded slaves, they were going against the teachings of their own religion. The theological question had long been settled.
Thus, when Spanish and Portuguese traders brought slavery to the New World, successive popes condemned the practice and even threatened to excommunicate slave traders and slave holders. The fact that they could not force European monarchs to obey them should not be held against Christianity—especially not by those who complain about Christians trying to impose their religion on others.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the fight against slavery and the slave trade was led by Christians like William Wilberforce in Britain and William Garrison in America. Like their early Church counterparts, they were motivated by Christian teaching on human dignity and equality.
Hitchens's assertion that economic factors and not Christian abolitionists did away with slavery is, to put it mildly, absurd. Wilberforce and company succeeded despite the economic interests, not because of them.
True, there are shameful episodes in Christian history. But what makes them shameful is the failure of Christians to live up to what Christianity requires—not what Hitchens imagines as its "licenses."
How odd, then, that Hitchens and other militant atheists feel they have license to distort the facts when arguing against religion.

Author: Charles Colson October 7/07