TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

We Should Be Embarrassed !

While most companies have started to feel the squeeze of our sagging economy, business has never been better for Planned Parenthood. Although the organization couldn’t be more controversial, its profits have never been higher, according to the group’s just-released 2006-07 annual report.

For the first time in history, Planned Parenthood has surpassed the $1 billion mark, a milestone made possible by the government’s hefty $336 million investment.

Despite the rash of bad publicity, Planned Parenthood was entrusted with a $31.4 million raise in taxpayer funds – a 10.8 percent increase in the ”nonprofit’s ?” government revenue.

Adding to the financial windfall, Planned Parenthood’s clinics performed an extra 24,707 abortions in 2006, six times the number of casualties from the entire Iraq war. All together, its abortion mills put 289,650 unborn babies to death in the year 2006 alone. And let’s not forget that Planned Parenthood also makes a tidy sum sowing its wild oats in the next generation of abortion customers. The group sold more than 1,400,000 emergency contraception kits, in many instances making transactions without as much as a medical exam. While the public is increasingly skeptical of Planned Parenthood’s operation, it has yet to put a dent in the organization’s bottom line. For that to happen, you have to get involved. The majority of Americans wouldn’t invest in a company that conspires in sexual crimes against children, accepts racially-motivated donations, promotes pornography to kids, devotes millions to the election of pro-abortion leaders, and uses unsanitary equipment to treat patients. Unfortunately, through Title X and Medicaid, the federal government is forcing taxpayers to do just that.

America is heading into this same nightmare with its out-of-control and excess levels of immigration!

Where there are large concentrations of Muslims in England, “no-go” zones are being established and, according to the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Church of England’s Bishop of Rochester, non-Muslims who “trespass” in such neighborhoods risk attack.

Nazir-Ali, a native of Pakistan and convert to Christianity, writes in The Sunday Telegraph that a spiritual vacuum in Britain, along with its indifference to the rise of Islamic extremism and a growing “multi-faith” society, is robbing the nation of its Christian identity and putting its future in jeopardy. He is not alone. A poll of the General Synod – the Church’s parliament – shows that its senior leaders also believe that Britain is being damaged by uncontrolled immigration.

Bishop Nazir-Ali warns of attempts to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character by introducing the call to prayer and wider use of Sharia law, a legal system based on the Koran. He is critical of the government’s response to immigration and the influx of “people of other faiths to these shores,” blaming the government’s “novel philosophy of multiculturalism” for allowing society to become deeply divided and accusing ministers of lacking a “moral and spiritual vision.” He says that multiculturalism has led to deep divisions in British society.

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, believes the country is “sleepwalking into segregation.” David Davis, the shadow home secretary, goes further, accusing Muslims of promoting “voluntary apartheid” by shutting themselves off from surrounding culture and demanding immunity from criticism.

Anyone who has studied Islamic societies (as Bishop Nazir-Ali has, having been part of one) knows segregation and subjugation of non-Muslims is the norm, not the behavior of an “extremist fringe.” Former Muslims and others have issued dire warnings about the intentions of these immigrant invaders and their objectives to subordinate Western countries to their view of God’s will. Segregation and intolerance are the first fruits of what they intend to impose on everyone. Political leadership in Britain and increasingly in the United States turns a blind eye to such things because they are prospecting for votes, including from those who would end democracy.

No wonder Britons are growing increasingly uneasy, even despondent, about life in their country. A poll conducted by the respected YouGov organization and published in the Dec. 30 London Times found that more than half of all men and four in 10 women said they would rather live abroad if given the choice. The main reasons are antisocial behavior among a growing underclass and immigration. The “state of the nation” poll of more than 1,500 people found that concerns about immigration topped the list of issues of six out of 10 of those questioned. Among self-identified Conservative voters, three-quarters consider immigration among their top concerns.

Three British cities already have high Muslim populations, thanks to immigration, high birth rates and conversions (but don’t try converting any of them to another faith, which is one reason they are creating “no-go” zones). Seventeen percent of London’s population is Muslim (1.3 million out of 7.5 million). In Luton, it’s 14.6 percent. Birmingham has 14.3 percent. Other European cities have a higher percentage of Muslims.

Multiculturalism, globalism, and an emphasis on “inter-faith” (which is really inter-faithless because in this view Truth does not exist) are contributing to the decline of the West just as paganism, hedonism and greed undermined past empires. Rather than learn from their mistakes, the West thinks it can engage in such practices without consequence.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has expressed concern about the loss of “Britishness” and the failure to learn English and embrace the national heritage. But unless he does something to slow, even reverse Muslim immigration, Britain, as we’ve known it, will be lost and radical Islam will remake Britain in its own image.

As Bishop Nazir-Ali writes, “But none of this will be of any avail if Britain does not recover that vision of its destiny which made it great. That has to do with the Bible’s teaching that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God’s image.”

Beware America …

We have the propensity as humans take what is good and turn it into a day of sin and self-indulgence!

Here we are again on March 17, a day set apart as Saint Patrick’s Day. What is it really? You hear, “It’s Saint Patrick’s Day, you need to wear green!” This is the common phrase of people getting ready in the morning all throughout America. Why?

Sadly, Saint Patrick’s Day has been turned into a ‘Helliday’, like some other holidays. In this case an occasion for people to gorge themselves in alcoholism … sin. Saint Patrick’s Day has definitely been railroaded beyond it’s original intent. As for Christians, we should be standing for the truth, not participating in sin.

So, what is the truth? Do you know? I wanted to find out, so let’s look at the life of Saint Patrick. Information about him is found in many different books and also in his own writings, Confessio and Epistola. Other resources are from the well-credited turn of the century church historian Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church, Volume 4: Mediaeval Christianity 590-1073 AD), and the modern scholar on Saint Patrick, Thomas O’Loughlin (Saint Patrick: The Man and His Works).

If you bump into me on this particular day I will not be wearing green simply so that I can get as many people as possible to ask me why I am not wearing that color. Then, I will be able to share with them about Saint Patrick and how God used him.

Patrick was the son of a deacon in the church and the grandson of a priest in a small village presumably in the country region of present day England. Although being raised in the church, he was a very disobedient young man and was not a professing believer. He was captured during a raid in his youth that carried him away into Ireland as a slave. During his hard years of lonely slavery as a shepherd, the teachings of his childhood came to his mind and he converted to Christianity. He recalls in his confessions that he prayed over a hundred times in one day and often as much at night. He then received a heavenly vision of a ship and set out from his master’s house, walked several hundred miles, and boarded the ship that led him to his village.

After returning home, Patrick, received three more visions: one of a messenger carrying many letters with the same inscription “O holy boy, we beg you to come again and walk among us.” He then received another call, “He who gave His life for you, He who it is that speaks to you.” He then received another internal call including a vision of God the Spirit praying for him, which finally compelled him to return to Ireland.

Patrick returned to Ireland, presumably after receiving some kind of education, though it is uncertain if or where he was educated. However, Patrick was a knowledgeable and persuasive Christian. He returned to Ireland around 432-435 and finally passed away at either 465 or 493 (Both dates occur in Irish History), but the date of his death is agreed on as March 17th and he died in Ireland at the place his ministry began.

During the short period of time that Patrick ministered the Gospel in Ireland, the religious shift in the island was dramatic. He is known as “The Apostle to Ireland” for a very good reason. Patrick baptized thousands of people, was described as the most zealous and efficient evangelist, and performed many miracles across the countryside. He conquered the Druids of the island, and even battled the slave trade in one of his two surviving documents. He is the human instrument by which God converted the entire island of Ireland from Celtic druidism, barbarism, and idol worship to Christianity. For those of you that like numbers, in his short lifetime, he founded between 365-700 churches and consecrated 3000 priests. He changed the laws of the kingdom, healed the blind, and raised nine people from the dead. He was also “rumored” to expel all the snakes and frogs from the Island. That is what I would call an effective Christian.

With these accomplishments in mind, this is the man that is celebrated with public drunkenness, green beer, and commercialism in the form of green leprechaun hats, shamrock necklaces, shakes, clothing, lights, and other paraphernalia.

Here is a portion of a prayer said to be written by Patrick before he confronted the chief ruler of Ireland, which is now known at the Breastplate of Saint Patrick:

I bind myself today,
-To the power of God to guide me,
The might of God to uphold me,
The wisdom of God to teach me,
The eye of God to watch over me,
The ear of God to bear me,
The Word of God to speak for me,
The hand of God to protect me,
The way of God to lie before me,
The shield of God to shelter me,
The host of God to defend me

Christ with me, Christ before me,
Christ behind me, Christ within me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ at my right, Christ at my left,
Christ in breadth, Christ in length, Christ in height

Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks to me,
Christ in the eye of every man that sees me
Christ in the ear of every man who hears me –

Salvation is the Lord’s,
Salvation is the Lord’s,
Salvation is Christ’s,
Let thy salvation, O Lord, be ever with us.

What a miraculous life he lived, and the best people can do is put on something green and get drunk. Maybe in lieu of this a quiet reflection on why Saint Patrick’s Day is celebrated is in order … by instead lifting up a prayer of thanks to God for such a man.

Muhammad and Islam

Nearly everyone can remember what they were doing on September 11, 2001. That fateful day affected all of us and certainly increased our desire to know more about Islam. In the years following, we have all learned more about the world’s second largest religion. But many times, political correctness has clouded clear thinking about Islam.

We hear that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Some even say, “The God of Islam is the same God as the God of the Jews and the Christians.” So what is the truth about these statements about Islam?

Let’s look at some of these statements and provide a biblically-based response. We need to know the facts about Islam and this current war on terror.

The first statement we will address is often heard in religion classes on college campuses. That is that “Muhammad is like every other religious founder.” This simply is not the case. For example, nearly every major religion in the world teaches a variation of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Islam does not have a Golden Rule. Instead, it makes very definite distinctions in the way Muslims are to treat believers and unbelievers. The latter are called infidels and are often treated harshly or killed. This religious perspective is very different from other religions.

For a moment, let’s compare Jesus and Muhammad. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the final prophet from Allah. He is referred to as the “seal of the prophets” (Sura 33:40). But while he is revered as the greatest of the prophets, most do not teach that he was sinless. The Qur’an does not make the claim that he was sinless, and there are passages that teach that Muhammad was a man like us (Sura 18:110) and that Allah told Muhammad that he must repent of his sins (Sura 40:55).

By contrast, Jesus claimed to be God and claimed to have the powers and authority that only God could possess. The New Testament provides eyewitness accounts or records of eyewitness accounts of the claims that Jesus made and the miracles he performed. Moreover, the New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ lived a perfect and sinless life (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Muhammad’s every action is to be imitated by Muslims. His life is a model for these believers. Some Muslims even avoid eating food that Muhammad avoided or never was able to eat. In fact, Muhammad is so revered by Muslims that no perceived criticism upon him or even his likeness (e.g., through a cartoon) may be allowed.

Muhammad also taught that Muslims are to fight in the cause of Allah (Sura 4:76) and fight against the unbelievers (Sura 9:123). By contrast, Jesus taught that Christians are to love their enemies (Matthew 5:44) and turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39).

In conclusion, we can see that the life of Muhammad is different from many of the other founders of religion. Moreover, the life of Muhammad and the life of Jesus Christ are very different.

Islam: A Religion of Peace?

One politically correct phrase that is often repeated is that “Islam is a religion of peace.” While it is true that some Muslims are peace-loving, is it also true that Islam is a religion of peace? To answer that question, it is important to understand the meaning of jihad.

The word jihad is actually the noun of the Arabic verb jahidi, which means to “strive hard.” This verse is an example: “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, and evil refuge indeed” (Sura 9:73).

Although some Muslims understand this striving to be merely intellectual and philosophical, the usual translation of jihad involves a holy war. That has been the traditional interpretation since the time of Muhammad.

Jihad was to be waged on the battlefield. Sura 47:4 says, “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.” Sura 9:5 says, “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleager them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.”

Consider some of these other passages concerning jihad. Faithful Muslims wage jihad against unbelievers: “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you; and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Sura 9:123).

Muslims are also to wage jihad not only against unbelievers but against those who have strayed from the faith: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: and evil fate” (Sura 9:73).

Another way to understand the term “jihad” is to look at the historical context. After Muhammad’s success in the Battle of Badr, he set forth various principles of warfare. For example, according to Sura 9:29, jihad is a religious duty. He taught in Sura 9:111 that martyrdom in jihad is the highest good and guarantees salvation. Sura 9:5 says that Muslims engaged in jihad should not show tolerance toward unbelievers. And acts of terrorism are justified in Sura 8:2.

While it may be true that there are peaceful Muslims, it is not true that Islam is a peaceful religion. The teaching of jihad and the current interpretation by radical Muslims of this concept can easily be seen in the acts of terrorism around the world.

The Qur’an and the Bible are Both Violent Books

Whenever verses of the sword from the Qur’an are quoted, you can be sure that someone will quickly point out that the Old Testament calls for violence. But are these two books morally equivalent? Let’s look at some of these passages and see.

The Qur’an calls for jihad against the unbelievers (or infidels). Sura 9:5 says, “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleager them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.”

Sura 9:29 says, “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Prophet, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, [Christians] until they pay the jizyah [per capita tax imposed on non-Muslim adult males] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Sura 47:4-7 says, “When you meet unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads…And those who are slain in the way of God, He will not send their works astray. He will guide them, and dispose their minds aright, and He will admit them to Paradise, that He has made known to them.”

In the Old Testament, you have a call for military action against specific groups. Deuteronomy 7:1-2 says, “When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.”

1 Samuel 15:2-3 says, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

While there are some similarities, notice the difference. In the Old Testament, there was a direct and specific command to fight against a particular group of people. These passages do not apply to you unless you are a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, Jebusite, or Amalekite. These commands given during the Old Testament theocracy apply only to those people at that time.

However, the passages in the Qur’an apply to all unbelievers at all times. Notice that there is no time limit on these universally binding commands to all Muslims at all times.

No Christian leader is calling for a Holy War against infidels. But many Muslim leaders cite the Qur’an for that very action. Osama bin Laden, for example, quotes many of these verses of the sword just cited within his various fatwas [legal pronouncement].

And contrast this with the New Testament which calls for believers to love their enemies (Matthew 5:44) and turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). In conclusion, the Bible and the Qur’an are very different in regard in calling to an act of violence.

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

One politically correct phrase that is often repeated is that “Christians and Muslims worship the same God.” It is understandable that people might say that. Both Islam and Christianity are monotheistic, even though a foundational difference is the Christian belief in the trinity.

Certainly the most foundational doctrine in Islam is monotheism. This doctrine is encapsulated in the creed: “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.” And not only is it a creed, it is a statement of faith that routinely heard from the lips of every faithful Muslim. It the creed by which every Muslim is called to prayer five times a day.

Because of this strong emphasis on monotheism, Muslims reject the idea that God could be more than one person or that God could have a partner. The Qur’an teaches that Allah is one god and the same god for all people. Anyone who does not believe this is guilty of the sin of shirk. This is the quintessential sin in Islam. According to Islam, God cannot have a partner and cannot be joined together in the Godhead with other persons. Muslims therefore reject the Christian idea of the Trinity.

Muslims and Christians also differ in their understanding of the nature and character of God. The God of the Bible is knowable. Jesus came into the world that we might know God (John 17:3).

Islam teaches a very different view of God. Allah is transcendent and distant. He is separate from his creation. He is exalted and far removed from mankind. While we may know his will, we cannot know him personally. Allah is called the creator and sustainer of the creation, but he is also unknowable. No person can ever personally know and have a relationship with Allah. Instead, humans are to be in total submission to the will of Allah.

Moreover, Allah does not personally enter into human history. Instead, he deals with the world through his word (the Qur’an), through his prophets (such as Muhammad), and through angels (such as Gabriel).

If you ask a Muslim to describe Allah, most likely they will recite to you a key passage that lists some of the names of God (Sura 59). The Qur’an requires that God be called by these “beautiful names.” This passage describes him as Most Gracious, Most Merciful, The Sovereign, The Holy One, The Guardian of Faith, The Preserver of Safety, The Exalted in Might, etc.

Finally, a Christian and Muslim perspective on God’s love is also very different. Christians begin with the belief that “God so loved the world” (John 3:16). By contrast, Muslims grow up hearing about all the people Allah does not love. Sura 2:190 says, “For Allah loves not transgressors.” Sura 3:32 says, “Allah loves not the unbelievers.” And Sura 3:57 says, “For Allah loves not the evildoers.”

In conclusion, we can see that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god.

Are the Bible and Qur’an the same?

A student in a university religion class may hear that all religions are basically the same. They only differ on minor details. This leads some to argue that the Bible and the Qur’an are compatible teachings. This is not true.

We should acknowledge the few similarities. Both the Bible and the Qur’an claim to be divine revelation. And both books claim to have been accurately preserved through the centuries.

But it is also true that the Bible and the Qur’an disagree with one another on major issues. The two books make contradictory claims about God, Jesus, salvation, and biblical history. Both claims cannot be true because the accounts contradict each other. Here are just a few examples of these contradictions:

• The Qur’an teaches (Sura 5:116) that Christians worship three gods: the Father, the Mother (Mary) and the Son (Jesus). But the Bible actually teaches that there is one God in three persons (the Trinity).
• The Qur’an says (Sura 37:100-111) that Abraham was going to sacrifice Ishmael, while the Bible teaches that Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac.
• The Qur’an teaches (Sura 4:157) that Jesus was not crucified. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ was crucified on a cross.

Before we conclude, we should also mention that many of the statements in the Qur’an are also at odds with historical facts that can be verified through historical accounts.

• The Qur’an says (Sura 20:85-97) that the Samaritans tricked the Israelites at the Exodus and were the ones who built the golden calf. For the record, the word Samaritan wasn’t even used until 722 B.C. which is several hundred years after the Exodus.
• The Qur’an also states (Sura 18:89-98) that Alexander the Great was a Muslim who worshiped Allah. Alexander lived from 356 B.C. to 323 B.C. which was hundreds of years before Muhammad proclaimed his revelation which became the religion of Islam.

In conclusion, we can see that the Bible and the Qur’an are not the same and do not have compatible teachings.

In this day of multiculturalism and political correctness, Christians should have been prepared to learn that a New Jersey school district recently chose “Christian Crusaders” as an imaginary terrorist group for its first live action hostage response drill. To portray the terrorists, the school district organizers made-up a right-wing fundamentalist group that denies the separation of church and state. Then, they created a fake hostage situation instigated by the supposedly angry parent of a student expelled for praying.

The stated goal of the event was summarized nicely by the district superintendent. He claimed that, “You perform as you practice. We need to practice under conditions as real as possible in order to evaluate our procedures and plans so that they’re as effective as possible.” While many comments could be made about the phrase “as real as possible,” the most critical aspect of this issue is a deeper consideration.

Sadly, this is not the first time a school district had deliberately steered clear of the obvious terrorist groups, deciding instead to pick on Christians. For example, three years ago a Michigan school district substituted a group of crazed Christian homeschoolers called “Wackos Against Schools and Education” for their mock terrorism drill to avoid offending any Muslims.

Chalk it up once again for the politically correct anti-Christian crowd … trying to call the sheep wolves and the wolves sheep. I would be careful of those wolves they are giving sheep makeovers to.

While we find ourselves in the midst of the election season, there is an issue that needs to be implemented that will have a profound impact on this and future elections. It is simply to produce a photo ID to the election officials before you can vote.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case out of Indiana that required potential voters to present a photo ID in order to prove their identity before they can vote. One would think this would hardly be a contentious issue. You need to provide an ID to cash a check. You need an ID to board an airplane or rent a car. In fact, often you need to provide an ID with your credit card. So you would think that requiring an ID before you vote in an election would not be contentious.

If you thought that, you would be wrong. Columnist Cal Thomas quotes from a recent Washington Post article in which an election-law expert at Loyola Law School said that the court’s decision will decide “whether protecting the integrity of the voting process from fraud is of equal or greater value than making sure as many eligible voters as possible take part in the process.” What?

In other words we may have to allow voter fraud in order to assure that as many people as possible can vote … whether they are eligible or not!. (Did anyone forget that there are up to 20 million, or more, illegal aliens in America?)

While that sounds noble, you have to remember that we are already facing major problems with voter fraud. Four years ago, John Fund with the Wall Street Journal wrote the important book, Stealing Elections. Just in the last four years, we have had enough new examples that he could publish a second volume to that book.

Try getting on an airplane without a photo ID. Try checking a check without a photo ID. In fact, call your credit card company and then refuse to answer the questions they ask to confirm your identity. I would like to see how far you get. But go into a polling place and you can probably pick up a ballot with very few questions asked.

We will see how the Supreme Court rules in this case. (Another good reason for conservative judges … but that’s for another time.) It would be nice of them to decide to protect the integrity of the voting process – not just let anyone who has two legs and a heartbeat to vote … and then even some to vote multiple times.

Has that happened before? Naw, couldn’t have!

Why would the media be asking the question: “Will Client 9 Resign?”

The inappropriately named “Mr. Clean,” New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, has earned himself a new nickname … “Client 9.” The governor received his new monogram after it was discovered that he had paid thousands of dollars to transport a prostitute across state lines for an illicit rendezvous. Of course his thoughts were totally on himself … beyond the public humiliation that this type of behavior always causes to his innocent wife and three daughters, who need our prayers at this time.

Gov. Spitzer’s alleged actions (right! … you apologize publically for something you didn’t do and assemble a legal team?) are criminal, a felony under the Mann Act, which bans the interstate transport of women for “immoral purposes.” That is what this was a federal crime (maximum 20 years to regular people), since the New York governor arranged for the prostitute’s Amtrak ticket from New York to Washington. The question I ask is, “WHY HAS HE NOT BEEN CHARGED?” … while the four other defendants have already been charged under the act last week in the sting that caught Mr. Spitzer too.

This isn’t new, it is a reoccurring event for Spitzer. There shouldn’t just be calls for Spitzer’s resignation swirling amid threats of impeachment. His position should be forfeited … instead of giving him time to make a deal after breaking a federal law. If he would have uncovered a crime like this he would have thrown the book at the “criminal.” If Mr. Spitzer has the strong ethics that he taunts he will resign … well if he had strong ethics he wouldn’t have been unfaithful to his wife and family. So much for his ethics.

Eliot Spitzer has disqualified himself to stay in office. Actually much of his political reputation of being tough was built on being a bully towards pregnancy care centers and pro-life organizations and as a champion of abortion-on-demand and NARAL.

As New York’s attorney general, prior to his election as Governor, Eliot Spitzer spent taxpayer time and treasure attacking those who aid pregnant women. Shortly after winning the governorship, he pushed for legislation that would have made abortion in New York even more pandemic while stomping on the rights of religious providers like Catholic hospitals. Much of his career has rested on vicious attacks on family values.

Additional thought … Since a key lobby group of Spitzer’s, that helped pay for his election, was the Empire State PRIDE. Since homosexuals want in on everything, maybe the Mann Act should be amended to include banning the interstate transport of men, transvestites, cross dressers, etc. for “immoral purposes?”

Bottom line … Spitzer’s so called public dedication to strong ethics was hypocritical as he had one standard for the public but something much different behind closed doors. High accountability should be demanded from all those in political office … and quick justice for criminal conduct.

Further information: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/spitzer/index.html

Catholic League: Hagee’s endorsement worse than Farrakhan’s

The Catholic League is demanding Republican presidential frontrunner John McCain retract his decision to accept the endorsement of pro-Israel evangelical pastor John Hagee.

Saying he was “honored” by Hagee’s endorsement, Senator McCain (R-Arizona) last week called the San Antonio pastor “the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement in many areas,” and praised his “close ties and advocacy for the freedom and independence of Israel.” But the Catholic League says Hagee’s endorsement of McCain is more troubling than Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois).

Catholic League spokeswoman Kiera McCaffrey says Hagee is a “larger problem” than Farrakhan because Farrakhan is “small potatoes and old news” compared to Hagee and his huge following. McCaffrey says her group is calling on McCain to repudiate Hagee, a Christian leader spokeswoman McCaffrey claims has a long history of “anti-Catholic bigotry.”

“It goes far beyond the old ‘the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon’ nonsense and into lies particularly pitting Jews against Catholics – that’s what he’s doing,” claims McCaffrey. “Hagee has received the support of Jews, [and] rightfully so because of his support for Israel. So they look [upon] him as a friend.

“But the problem is what he’s saying to the Jews,” she continues, who paraphrases Hagee as saying Catholics has persecuted Jews for years and “the evil Catholic Church” is behind this or that. “This nonsense is trying to make enemies between Catholics and Jews,” she argues.

McCaffrey says McCain should denounce Hagee just as Barack Obama denounced the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan.

The Catholic League needs to get a life past their liberal agendas and wake up and smell the coffee … comparing Rev. Hagee to Louis Farrakhan? Maybe they best go back and rethink … research … and while they are at it maybe read a little history (start with Foxes Book of Martyrs) and throw in some Bible for good measure … if they really want to be accurate before they spout off.

Obama: Sermon on Mount OKs Same-Sex Unions

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him “less Christian.”

“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” Obviously Obama believes his opinion is more important than the Apostle Paul’s verses to the Romans that condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Obama’s mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” If it was then his opinion would cause the Bible to contradict itself in this matter because the Bible condemns the sin of homosexuality – and the Bible does not contradict itself.

The Sermon, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments (“anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”), and condemnations of murder, divorce and adultery. It also includes a warning: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

False prophet … wolf in sheep’s clothing? Yes, that would fit Obama!

The passage from Romans 1:24-32, which Obama dismissed as “obscure,” discusses people who knew God but turned against him. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised,” wrote the Apostle Paul. “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith. “I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That’s my view,” Obama said about abortion. “Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.”

When did women, pastors, doctors, or anyone else override Scripture?

Last Thursday, as reported by Cybercast News Service, Obama published on his Web site an “open letter concerning LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) equality in America.” In that letter, Obama said he favored same-sex unions that were equal to marriage – including adoption rights – and that he was open to states codifying same-sex marriages.

“As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws,” Obama said in the letter. “I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples – whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”

In Ohio on Sunday, before mentioning the Sermon on the Mount, Obama insisted he was against “gay marriage” and did not mention his support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and have the same “family” status as heterosexual couples. Way to talk out of both sides of your mouth Obama!

Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a “person” a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.

In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a “person” would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother’s womb was also a “person” and thus could not be aborted.

When the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade – and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass – Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.

Yet, in Ohio on Sunday, Obama depicted abortion as a tragedy to be avoided, while being kept legal. “On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue,” he said. “I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible …

Who is he trying to fool? … oh yes, everyone!

Before discussing his views on same-sex unions and abortion, Obama told the crowd he was a “devout Christian.” “In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts,” he said. “I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me.”

Used to go quite often. “These days, we haven’t been at the home church – I haven’t been home on Sunday – for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values.”

Let me give you the facts. If a person is a devout Christian by biblical standards they do not promote abortion, homosexual domestic partnerships, civil unions, or civil marriage, and kind of, homosexual relationships. Instead they value life of all ages, including the preborn, and recognize all homosexual activity and associations as sin.

It really is that plain and simple … if you are a real Christian ! A real Christian would not vote for Obama.