Tag Archives: Osama bin Laden

Waterboarding = really, really bad. Shooting unarmed man in the face = really, really good.

At least that’s what Liberal-speak would have you believe.

To make matters worse, the only reason they were able to find the unarmed man to shoot him in the face was because of waterboarding.  They don’t seem bothered by that ethical dilemma, nor do they seem inclined to give credit to President Bush, whose policies were what led to this.

If you Ever Wondered How The Taking Out Of Osama Would Have Been Viewed By The Self Appointed American “Conscious” If Bush Were In Office?, then click the link and wonder no more. 

P.S. I don’t object to the shooting, given the circumstances.  I just don’t see why President Obama is running around like he was the SEAL who did the hard work.  And I really don’t understand the hypocrisy of his fans.

P.S.S. Aside from his “gutsy call,” why on earth did the administration divulge that they had found information on Bin Laden’s computers?  That disclosure had to be one of the most childish, bone-headed moves ever.  It may have made them look good for a day, but the information would have been much more valuable if we had kept it a secret.

Good news: 65% of Americans haven’t lost their minds. Yet.

See 65% of Americans reject gay-affirmative lessons in elementary school: poll | LifeSiteNews.com.  Emphasis added:

A recent poll released by Wenzel Strategies and World Net Daily indicates that a large majority of Americans – 65 percent – do not approve of gay-affirmative lessons in grade schools.

The poll was conducted for World Net Daily by the public-opinion and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.  The telephone survey conducted April 19-21 asked the question: “Do you believe elementary school children should be taught that homosexuality is a normal alternative lifestyle?”

Only 22 percent of respondents said they believe such teaching would be right, while another 13 percent said they were unsure.  The vast majority – 65 percent – said they do not approve of such teaching.

“Whether they object on moral grounds or simply out of concern that many U.S. schools are failing in their core missions of teaching basics doesn’t really matter – the vast majority of American adults want this type of curriculum kept out of the classroom,” Wenzel chief Fritz Wenzel said.

“Americans are particularly averse to the introduction of gay issues into the curriculum of the nation’s elementary schools,” Wenzel said. “Even among Democrats, who have been much more sympathetic to the promotion of gay issues, just 32 percent said they believe this should be taught to elementary school students. Just 11 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of political independents said the same thing.”

. . .

To the question, “Should students be taught how to perform gay sex acts as part of ‘safe sex’ lessons in school?” more than 73 percent of respondents said no.

This isn’t some made-up issue, by the way.  It is the logical consequence of making civil rights out of sexual preferences.

The issue of pro-homosexual teaching in schools has had renewed debate recently in California with a bill that would mandate such teaching in the curriculum.

Many have also noted the renewed vigor with which gay issues are being promoted in schools following the appointment by President Barack Obama of well-known gay rights activist and founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Kevin Jennings, as assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

. . .

“Teaching children sexual techniques is simply not appropriate. Unfortunately, it is part of a consistent pattern by some homosexual activists to promote underage homosexuality while pretending that their mission is simply to promote tolerance for so-called alternative lifestyles,” the newspaper said.

“It is outrageous that someone involved in this scandal is being paid by the taxpayers to serve in a high-powered position at the Education Department, of all places. At some point, [Education Secretary Arne] Duncan, Mr. Jennings, Obama administration spokesmen and the president himself are going to have to start answering questions about all this. Refusing to do so won’t make the issue go away.”

One simple way for skeptics of Osama Bin Laden’s death to prove their point

As noted in Off Topic: Why We Can Be Confident Bin Laden is Dead, all the skeptics of his death need to do is show us his live body.  How about a video of him holding this week’s Time magazine?

The same thing could have been done by the early enemies of Christianity, only they would have been able to produce a corpse if they were right.

Despite what some skeptics claim, the message of Christianity spread very rapidly.  In only 30 years it had spread to Rome, and in large enough numbers for Nero to make scapegoats of Christians for the fires there.  So this movement obviously had a lot of visibility in Jerusalem and surrounding areas.  All the enemies had to do was produce a body.  But they didn’t.

Now consider the case for Christ. In the months and years following the crucifixion Jesus’ disciples proclaimed that he was alive. I believe them, because, again, no one in their right mind would declare to be true that which can easily be proven false. The religious leaders of the time had a keen interest in stamping out the Christ cult. They hated Christ and his followers with a burning passion. All they had to do to bring Christianity to a screeching halt was to produce Jesus’ body. Having every interest and motivation to produce the body, they did not, which leads inexorably to the conclusion that they could not.

Now there appears to be two possible explanations for their failure to produce Jesus’ body: (1) A group of discouraged and frightened fishermen untrained in war overpowered a well armed Roman guard, rolled away the stone, took the body, and hid it. And to top off their feat every one of them (save one) died a martyr’s death for refusing to renounce a known lie. Or (2) there was no body to produce. Can anyone doubt that (2) is more plausible than (1) by several orders of magnitude?

I am unable to deny the resurrection. To do so requires a leap of blind credulous faith that I simply cannot manage.

I love Acts 4:

 1 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, 2 greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

5 On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, 6 with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. 14 But seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition. 15 But when they had commanded them to leave the council, they conferred with one another, 16 saying, “What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” 18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” 21 And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man on whom this sign of healing was performed was more than forty years old.

Political correctness is deadly once again

As I noted here, political correctness is the adult version of Jr. High peer pressure: People say things they know are false because they are afraid of being unpopular.  That would be irritating enough if the consequences weren’t so severe and often deadly.

See Report: Political Correctness Prevented FBI, DoD from Stopping Maj. Hasan | Verum Serum.

Today the Senate Homeland Security Committee released an independent report on the Ft. Hood shootings. The 91 page report is titled A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the US Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack. The gist of it is that the FBI and Hasan’s superiors had more than enough information to prevent the shootings and likely would have done so if not for political correctness.

. . .

But the most stunning portion of the report is the section that offers details about the nature of Hasan’s radicalization as witnessed by his fellow officers:

Hasan advanced to a two-year fellowship at USUHS…Less than a month into the fellowship, in August 2007, Hasan gave another off-topic presentation on a violent Islamist extremist subject instead of on a health care subject. This time, Hasan’s presentation was so controversial that the instructor had to stop it after just two minutes when the class erupted in protest to Hasan’s views. The presentation was entitled, Is the War on Terror a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective?Hasan’s proposal for this presentation promoted this troubling thesis: that U.S. military operations are a war against lslam rather than based on non-religious security considerations. Hasan’s presentation accorded with the narrative of violent Islamist extremism that the West is at war with Islam. Hasan’s paper was full of empathetic and supportive recitation of other violent Islamist extremist views, including defense of Osama bin Laden, slanted historical accounts blaming the United States for problems in the Middle East, and arguments that anger at the United States is justifiable…The instructor who stopped the presentation said that Hasan was sweating, quite nervous, and agitated after being confronted by the class.

Hasan’s promotion of violent Islamist extremist beliefs continued after the presentation. One classmate said that Hasan supported suicide bombings in another class. He told several classmates that his religion took precedence over the U.S. Constitution he swore to support and defend as a U.S. military officer.

Read the whole thing.  This is what happens when people are too afraid to criticize Islam (or the gay lobby, or whatever the PC-police say is off limits).