Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks about immigration
to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana
on Thursday. (Mike Moore/Journal-Gazette/AP)
Nancy Pelosi hates it when people quote the Bible. Many Democrats do.
They tend to treat religion as they treat the Constitution: They hate it unless they can selectively pluck part of it to suit their momentary requirements.
When they find a suitable bit, they twist its meaning to progress their agenda.
BizPac Review reports that "Pelosi lambasted [US Attorney General] Sessions for quoting the Bible and chastised people of faith for not calling for a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. She also criticized him for not demanding an end to the separation of children from families of illegal immigrants during the prosecution of adults. Pelosi’s comments came in light of President Donald Trump’s stated refusal on Friday to sign an immigration bill that House Republicans were finalizing."
Taliban fighter clings to his guns and religion.
Original photo: Reuters Wording: Unknown
Jan. 1, 2013 - Had to share this graphic with you. It's a Reuters photo of a Taliban soldier. It says, "I wonder when Obama is going to tell the Muslims to stop clinging to their guns and religion."
That's a darkly funny reference to Obama's insult to Americans who believe in God and/or own firearms as the Constitution says they can. (I don't know who added the words.) The irony in all of this, of course, is Obama's firm support for the Islamo-fascist Muslim Brotherhood, which recently came to power in Egypt with help from the Obama Administration.
Obama made his insulting comment while running for the presidency in April, 2008. He was referring mainly to unemployed blue collar voters when he said, "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." If that describes any group, it best describes militant Muslims. You know, such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and so many other groups.
Image by T. Mannis,
Chicago News Bench
Hillary Clinton, running against Obama at the time, said, "His remarks are elitist and out of touch."Watch a video of Hillary criticizing Obama for his "elitist" remark. A few years later, Hillary Clinton would be Obama's Secretary of State, and would help make possible the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood. Did Clinton ever consider how "out of touch" it was to give so much assistance and political legitimacy to the terrorists of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Neither Clinton or Obama considered the opinion of the Egyptians who would fall under the oppressive rule of President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood. They should have consulted with Egyptian democracy activist Michael Meunier, who says Obama "needs to stop supporting the Muslim Brotherhood flat out."
Oct. 2, 2012 - What do Russia's government and Barack Obama have in common? For one thing, they have very little tolerance for freedom of speech. Let's look at a few recent ones: Russian punk band Pussy Riot and critics of the prophet Mohammed.
"The Duma, Russia's parliament has proposed a new law that would punish anyone who insults the feelings of religious believers," reports Worldcrunch.com, "with up to three years in jail. Insulting a holy site would carry a penalty of up to five years."
Granted, Obama's statement was not a direct call for banning such speech. It can reasonably be taken as a tacit all for it, however. Let's be clear: Those who "slander the prophet is Islam," or any other religious figure for that matter, are exercising their internationally recognized right to free expression of speech, thought and opinion. "Slander" can be interpreted so broadly by ordinary people and opportunistic politicians that its legal meaning - which varies from nation to nation - becomes secondary to its emotional importance.
Later in the same speech, notes Elisha Maldonado ("Publius") at IBTimes, "Obama offered an example of those whose opinions should be marginalized: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated..."
Sept. 9, 2012 - When Barack Obama lavished praise on Egypt's Al-Azhar University back in a speech there in 2009, did he know that it was staffed by rabid Jew haters? Was so ignorant that he did not know, or did he know but just didn't care?
In that speech Obama said, “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.”Al-Azhar is Egypt's highest Islamic authority.
"In 2012, Dr. Abdul Hamid al-Atrash, the head of the Fatwa Committee of Al Azhar in Egypt, which issues rulings of Islamic law, declared that Jews could be banned from going to pray in a synagogue." More at FrontPageMag.com.
Hamid al-Atrash: Keyword is 'trash'
Hamid al-Atrash is the head of the Fatwa Committee of Al Azhar in Egypt. He issued a ruling that allows Arabs to prohibit Jews from visiting their Jewish sites in Arab lands, according to a post at the Elder of Ziyon blog,
In his 2009 speech at Al-Azhar, Obama said, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." That tradition is pretty spotty, however, varying greatly from place to place, and from time to time.
As FrontPageMag points out, Obama "boasted of standing up for the right of Muslim women to wear the Hijab." They end with a pointed question: "Will be similarly stand up for the right of Jews to pray in a synagogue in Egypt?"
Don't count on it. In fact, all non-Muslims are in peril in the new Egypt that Barack Obama holds up as a shining example of his own foreign policy so-called successes. "Of course, the persecution of Christians is nothing new in the Middle East," notes The National Interest. "But times are tougher now with the rise of governments motivated by Islamism, which in some interpretations does not give equal billings to other faiths. And amidst the ongoing unrest, some of these regional states have imposed crackdowns on non-Islamic religious communities when their stability is threatened."
The persecution of Christian Copts in Egypt is not a new problem, but it has gotten progressively worse since the fall of Mubarak last year. Last month, a publication called El Fegr posted a copy of a letter titled "An Urgent and Important Notice." It incited violence against Christians. "The letter refers to Christians as enemies of Allah's religion and slaves of the cross," reports Catholic Online, and it "calls for Allah to curse them and for all Muslims to physically attack or kill Christians throughout Egypt..."
"Fears for the future of religious minorities in Egypt were accentuated last week," reported Gatestone Institute, "when it was announced that the last synagogue in the country would be closed down. The Eliyahu Hanavi Synagogue, which had operated in Alexandria, was the last functioning center of Jewish life in the country. It is now clear that its cavernous halls, built in the nineteenth century, will not be open to worshippers hoping to mark Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur services this year."
Gatestone also notes that sectarian tensions across Egypt "have been heightened ever since last year's revolution, with Christian minorities bearing the brunt of the violence. One of the unintended consequences of the Arab Spring is the guarantee of security – long assured by the region's old dictators; it has been cast away by the tide of popular unrest sweeping the region."
Sept. 4, 2012 - Former Congressman Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat of Michigan was a key swing vote for Obamacare in 2010, is saying that Obama's HHS mandate violates not only the Executive Order, but statutory law as well.
The HHS mandate went into effect on August 1st. Many religious institutions now have about a year "to figure out how they’re going to violate their consciences," as NY Cardinal Timothy Dolan put it. The video was made during a Democrats For Life panel discussion at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina and posted to YouTube by RedState today. But Stupak's words are not really news: He came out months ago to express his disappointment in Obama's HHS mandate and the way it approaches contraception. On February 8, 2012, for example, he said the mandate was illegal when he was interviewed by Fox's Greta Van Susteren (see below).
On March 21, 2010, TheHill.com reported that Democrats
"reached a deal on an executive order on abortion that could hand them a victory on healthcare," and that "Rep.
Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) announced a deal at a press conference. He said
the deal means Democrats will have the 216 votes they need to win a
healthcare reform vote on the floor."
"Bart Stupak was a vital swing vote in the Obamacare debate 2 years ago," says RedState.com
today. In March of 2010, Stupak said he could not support Obamacare
unless he could be assured that abortion would not be covered by the
mandate. As RedState notes, "Following an Executive Order signed by
President Obama that supposedly ensured that abortion would not be
covered, Stupak declared victory for the pro-life movement. This in
spite of the fact that many had said the Executive Order was toothless
and would not prevent anything."
Jill Stanek wrote an excellent critique of the Order. In essence, she called it meaningless. She wrote, in part, that "there is no operative language in the executive order.
It merely observes there are two conscience laws, like observing there
are two clouds floating by. Meanwhile, Obamacare states the HHS Secretary can mandate coverage of
anything s/he decides is a 'preventative service' which Kathleen
Sebelius has indeed deemed contraception, the morning after pill, the
IUD, and sterilization."
".... it dealt with not only abortion, but also
with the conscience clause. In fact, if you look in section one of the
executive order, it's – very clearly it says – it cites the Church
amendment way back in 1973, all the way to the Weldon amendment, which
was in legislation that President Obama signed in 2009, in which they
talked about the conscience clause and the right of individuals and
institutions such as the church to not provide these services if it
violates their tenets of their faith and their principles and their
conscience."
The mystery in all of this is why it took so long for Stupak
and others to realize that they were fooled. The Executive Order was,
after all, posted to the White House website on March 21, 2010 – the
same day that Stupak had his victorious press conference. Stupak was suckered, lied to by Obama and his
White House operatives.
Or - maybe not. Many accuse Stupak of selling his vote to support Obama's mandate in exchange for a lot of pork to his district in Michigan.
Happy Easter to you! Do you know what that really means?
Dr. Samuel Blumenthal explains it for us:
The American holiday calendar commemorates religious, patriotic and secular events. The year starts with New Year's Day and ends in a blaze of light and music with Christmas, celebrating the birth of the most important person in history, Jesus Christ.
Indeed, the religious holidays memorialize the life of Jesus, which is honored differently by Protestants and Catholics. Actually, there are three calendars intertwined in the American calendar: the Protestant, Catholic and Jewish.
But there is one holiday in which the three calendars converge: Easter. The Jewish holiday of Passover is an important part of the life of Jesus Christ, whose momentous Last Supper was a celebration of Passover. From there the Son of God went to His crucifixion, and from there He was laid in a tomb where he was resurrected. At Easter, we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and His Ascension to heaven. Full Article at WorldNetDaily.com...
Yes, Marx was anti-religion. He wanted it destroyed absolutely. Marx is remembered by many for saying, “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” but actually said something a bit different. What he meant was that religion kept people happy. Too happy, really, for only unhappy people can be moved to revolt.
Karl Marx "never used that exact phrase," says a post at UFO Shock. He said something close, it turns out. As he referred to religion, he wrote "It is the opium of the people."
Why did he say that? Marx was trying to say that religion stands in the way of socialism and communism. I'm paraphrasing, but UFO Shock has some supporting links and quotes to support this.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions."
"Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."
Karl Marx made it abundantly clear that he felt religion needed to be stomped out. It stood in the way, he said, of what he considered to be true social progress. Atheism, then, was a necessary component of Marx's vision of a new social order. He called religion it a "chain" on people, and advocated replacing the worship of God with the worship of mankind ("man is the highest essence for man"). Read the full post about Karl Marx and his hatred of religion at UFO Shock.
December 12, 2010 - Haiti was rocked by violent protests last Wednesday as frustration with last month's election results came to a head. The election results are still being contested, but Haiti has been calm this weekend. Meanwhile, however, a cholera outbreak has been raging since mid-October. More than 2,200 people have died of cholera, and
"Haiti is still recovering from the Jan. 12 quake," reports Reuters today,"that killed nearly a quarter of a million Haitians a year ago, and the 1.3 million people made homeless by the disaster are still living in makeshift camps and under tents and tarps in the sprawling capital Port-au-Prince."Despite the horrible conditions and multiple dangers in Haiti, groups from all over the world are hanging tough in their efforts to help the Haitians. One of those groups is Haiti Partners(HP), which is dedicated to providing education to Haitian children. HP provides "10,000 people each year in churches and literacy centers with Bibles and training, in partnership with the Canadian Bible Society."
Haiti Partners follows a "sustainable model for education developed by a grassroots organization in a remote area of Haiti. This model has shaped our Partner School strategy. We select schools with strong leadership but lacking in resources. With them, we develop an accord and work plan for supporting them over the course of three years by providing seed capital to create a social enterprise, teacher training, and funds to improve their building."RELATED:Donate to Haiti Partners haitipartners.org
Haiti Partners on Facebook
By Michael CoyneThis past Sunday, January 31, the two Democratic primary candidates for Illinois Governor—Pat Quinn and Dan Hynes—spent the day courting a crucial part of any Democrat’s electoral strategy: the Black Vote.
African-Americans break heavily for Democrats according to all polling data available in recent history. Therefore, it is no surprise that both Quinn and Hynes were relying on this critical group to break for them. What is amusing is the fact that they both spent their Sundays in prominent black churches on Chicago’s South Side.
Trying to be ‘relatable’Taking this move at face value and ignoring the religious aspect for a moment, it makes sense, in an ironic humor sort of way. Politicians have to go where the voters are, and, in this case, they were at church. The message of both campaigners was simply, “see, I’m just like you.” This, in itself, is riotous.
Two men, who would be remarkably white even if they stood next to the population of Sweden, were jockeying for the black vote by going to a massive black church. No, they did not stand out at all.
Dopey PC StigmaWhen did it become such a crime to be white? Yes, the president is black. I honestly could not care less what color a politician’s skin is, so much as proving that we believe in the same political ideals. It sometimes seems like conservatives are the only ones who actually want to stop using race as a yardstick for successes and failures. Truthfully, I would think substantially less of a politician who came to my church to grasp at votes, regardless of what color he or she was.
HWJV? – How Would Jesus Vote?Yes, it is common for Democratic candidates to attend churches to stump for votes. Nevertheless, it is absurd. It is incomprehensible to me that the same party that detests any sort of religious expression in public is completely fine with desecrating a house of God by using it to shill for votes.
I could even justify standing outside a church, temple, or mosque to pass out literature as people left. However, attending a service merely to be seen is unsettling.
This is little more than a parable of how far today’s political situation has gone.
For more conservative commentary, visit Michael Coyne’s RepublicanBlue.
Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed
Televangelist Pat Robertson recently said that Haiti's disastrous earthquake was supernatural punishment. "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil,"he told viewers of his 700 Club television show on Wednesday, Jan. 13. We'll assume that by "the devil" he meant Satan.
Robertson's statement was nutty and I don't share his opinion that the poor Haitian people are being punished because their ancestors might have made "a pact" with Satan - or anybody else. What the Haitian people are paying for, and dearly, is a multi-generational endurance of bad government policies. The eastern two-thirds of Hispaniola, the island that Haiti sits on, is home to the Dominican Republic, a nation full of resorts and lush greenery, decent infrastructure and democratic institutions. Satan had nothing to do with their current situation, either.
As crazy as it sounds, however, Robertson's statement is not as crazy as what Danny Glover said when he spoke on Grit.tv recently. The two statements, however, have remarkable similarities.
Danny Glover, a mentally deranged Liberal, actor and lover of socialist dictators, spoke by phone and gave his theory as to why Haiti was hit by a horrible earthquake. Glover blamed the earthquake on global warming, climate change and the failed Copenhagen conference (COP15).
"When we did what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen," he said, "this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm sayin'?" (Hear it in the video.) Glover's theory about the cause of the Haitian earthquake is more bizarre than Robertson's for a few reasons.
Glover is crazy to begin with, but he's also so damned ignorant that he does not understand that a degree or two of climate change does not affect tectonics (earthquakes). Earthquakes are geological. Weather and climate are metorological. There is no such thing as "earthquake weather." The popular theory that the alignment of the moon and the sun can cause earthquakes has no established scientific basis. But there's Glover, who doesn't understand these simple facts, trying to sound all uptown by giving us his idiotic, superstition-based based that the failure of COP15 caused the recent quake in Haiti. Ye Gods!
Whereas Robertson's theory of a pact with Satan ("the devil") is based religious theory, said theory is many millennia old. Glover's theory boils down to this: The planet Earth, "Gaia," if you will, is pissed off because a conference held a few months ago in Denmark did not turn out the way some humans had hoped it would. Both Robertson's theory and Glover's theory require faith to be believed. But ask yourself which is easier to have faith in: Robertson's supernatural being (Satan/the devil), who wants to enslave Mankind? Or Glover's planet, an inanimate ball of rocks and minerals with a molten center that is mostly covered by a thin coating of water?
Robertson is correct in saying that the French once held tyrannical rule over Haiti. The Haitians revolted and threw the French out. As for the alleged pact with Satan, well, there are plenty of people who have literally sworn allegiance to Satan and have not suffered as Haiti has. Also, Robertson doesn't explain why the descendents of those he says dealt with Satan are paying for any alleged contract that their ancestors signed with Satan. By rights, I suppose, it's the original signers of the mythical contract that should have suffered the recent 7.0 earthquake.
If Glover's theory of a planet angered by a failed conference is to be believed, one must ask why Gaia has not yet destroyed California with a 10.0 earthquake, or why Gaia never lifted a finger to defeat Hitler's Germany or Tojo's Japan. Perhaps Glover thinks Gaia is ticked off because Humankind has failed to stop any slight warming that might be occurring, even though thousands of periods of severe warming and cooling predate the Industrial Revolution by thousands, millions and billions of years. The Satan theory put forward by Robertson is, frankly, more logical.
Glover, as mentioned, loves socialist dictators. In the photo here, he embraces Venezuelan crazyman Hugo Chavez. Now, Chavez believes firmly in Satan. You may recall that Chavez has, on at least two occasions, said he could smell the sulphur in the room because Satan had just been present. Perhaps Chavez, too, believes in Robertson's theory about Haiti's current state of affairs being tied to a pact with the devil. I would love to see Glover and Chavez in a debate over these dueling theories.
As I said, both theories require faith, with requires leaps of logic. But let's look at the Robertson and Glover theories as screenplays, just for the sake of discussion. Which character would make "more sense?" Satan, a fallen angel bent on revenge and enslavement, who becomes angry with a group of people because of a broken contract? Or Gaia, a spherical chunk of real estate floating through space that becomes homicidally annoyed by a failed conference?
I gotta go with the Satan character. Alec Baldwin would be a great casting choice, you know what I'm sayin'?.
ALSO SEE:Pact With Gaia - Daily Telegraph (Australia)
Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed
Atheists love to "challenge" Christians or other peoples of faith to "name one genocide in the name of Atheism."Leave it to idiots to make such a simple challenge:The mass murder of Ukranians under the officially Godless government of the USSR. ("Great Famine of the Ukraine (1932-33" or "Black Famine.") There ya go. Badda bing. As for the atheist claim that there is "no evidence" that God exists, well, see that planet underneath your feet? There ya go. Badda big bang. Here's more about Atheists and their contributions to civilization:
The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity? ~ by Gregory Koukl
Is it legitimate to condemn religion for historical atrocities? First we had better examine the facts.... The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.FULL ARTICLE...
Atheism=Genocide ~ by Fr Longenecker
Here's why benevolent secular humanism (aka atheism) leads to genocide: If you don't believe in anything other than this physical realm, then the only thing worth doing is trying to improve the one world you've got: this one.... Therefore, if you have to round a few stubborn people up, lock them up and eliminate them you'll never have to answer for it.FULL POST...
Video: Speaker Dinesh D'Souza shows how atheists dodge the reality and fact that atheism has caused murder and genocide throughout the world.Video:The "Trouble with Atheism" is an hour-long documentary on atheism, presented by Rod Liddle. It aired on Channel 4 in December 2006. The documentary focuses on showing the problems of atheism.Socialist Appeal - Religion in the Soviet UnionReligion in the USSR - Militant Atheism Becomes a Mass Movement - 1934The Artificial Famine/Genocide (Holodomor) in Ukraine, 1932-33Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed
This may come as a surprise to those of you who still have your heads in the sand when it comes to acknowledging the international war on terror. The fact of the matter is that there are many people within our own borders, some of whom are U.S. citizens, who would love to see the destruction democracy and the Constitution, and the implementation of Islamic law ("shariah"). There is strong evidence that the group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, is willing to use terror and has strong ties to terrorists. It is a worldwide movement (see here and here).
Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamic Supremacist organization, met two days ago right here in the Chicago area. On July 19, Hizb ut-Tahrir met with US protests as about 800 of radical Islamists convened at the Hilton of Oak Lawn in south suburban Chicago. (Post continues after video promotion of the event)...
Note: It is somewhat ironic that the music in this video is of the classical European style, and sounds very Wagnerian. (Or is the Wagneresque quality intentional?)
Hizb ut-Tahrir emerged in 1952 as a political movement bent on establishing an Islamic caliphate in Central Asia. It is one of the few Islamic political movements that expressed open opposition to attacks on the Taliban in Pakistan. (Source) (Also see this video, "Abolition of Khilafah and its return: 85 years on. Taji Mustapha Interview")
Fewer than 100 protesters milled around outside the Hilton. This fact is nearly as amazing as the fact that a group such as Hizb ut-Tahrir is allowed to openly call for the destruction of the United States while on U.S. soil. One of the protesters held a sign that read "Islamic Supremacism Is No Different Than Racial Supremacism" (see protest photo and a video at Backyard Conservative).
Another amazing fact about this is that there were no feminist groups visible among the pro-freedom protesters. No gay rights groups were represented, either. This is amazing because the brand of sharia law that Hizb ut-Tahrir would like to see as the law of the land calls for the death of homosexuals and the sub-human treatment of women. Indeed, since the outset of "Bush's war" on terrorism, Leftist groups have been disturbingly reluctant to speak out against the grotesque human rights abuses that occur wherever sharia law is the rule. The only reason that one can think of for their silence is this: They hate America more than they hate the abuses under sharia law. It's as though the Left is happy to cut of it's collective head to spite its nose. Will Barack Obama - or any liberal member of the U.S. Congress - have the courage to speak out against Hizb ut-Tahrir and other groups that call for the abuse of women, the death of homosexuals, the cutting of of hands for simple theft, and so on?
Answer: Nope.
RELATED:Reactionary Muslims Declare Jihad in Chicago - EuropeNews
Hate crimes bill nears passage - Politico
One-Way Free Speech - American Thinker
Fury after calls for Muslim debate ban - Hounslow Guardian
Support for Hizb ut-Tahrir America May Be Surprising - Counterterrorism Blog
Hizb ut-Tahrir: Islamic terror conferences in Britain - EuropeNews
Bill Warner Private Investigator Exposes Hizb ut-Tahrir America (HTA)Slavery in Islam – 14 centuries old – and still ongoingUzbekistan Government's Analysis of Terrorist Group Hizb ut-Tahrir - Jawa Report
Video: Islamification of Britain
Video: Geert Wilders Islamification Speech in LA - April 2009"He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), that He may make it (Islam) superior over all religions. And All-Sufficient is Allah as a Witness." (TMQ 48:28)
Leave a Comment...See Our Online StoreChicago News Bench RSS FeedWe're on Twitter...
The San Diego official asked the couple: “Do you have a regular meeting in your home?”; “Do you say amen?”; “Do you pray?”; “Do you say praise the Lord?” When Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary replied “yes” to these questions, the official told them their meeting was violating county regulations.That meeting was the Jones home. Once a week they have about 15 people over for dinner, prayer and religious discussion. The only apparent reason for this incredible violation of constitutionally protected activity is religious persecution. According to christian.org.uk, Pastor Jones says his neighbors are supportive, and that the authorities’ letters consistently cited “religious assembly” rather than parking or traffic issues.David Broyles is the attorney representing Pastor and Mrs. Jones in all of this. He wondered, “Is [San Diego] county really going to treat a religious gathering any differently than a boyscout troupe or a tupperware party?” (More from christian.org.uk....)
Apparently so. Discrimination law expert Neil Addison points out that “It is no coincidence that the first thing any totalitarian state does is to regulate and control association, organisations and churches." This is not an isolated case. Indeed, Christian persecution is on the rise all over the world. While it's far worse in other countries, intolerance of relgious people is increasing in the U.S., whether Muslim, Jewish, Christian or any other that believes in God.
I wonder if San Diego officials would treat a weekly swingers' orgy of a dozen people in somebody's home this way? Probably not, even if the phrase "Oh God, oh God, oh God!" is repeated during the sessions.
Leave a Comment Here... Oh boy! Cool merchandise!Chicago News Bench RSS Feed, and we're also on Twitter
Hypocritical liar and lapsed Catholic Nancy Pelosi met today with Pope Benedict XVI, her moral opposite, in Vatican City. Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives in Congress, is a good candidate for excommunication from the Church for her anti-life views on abortion. She was not excommunicated, but the Pope did give her a diplomatic dissing over the issue of embryocide.
The Catholic News Service published this statement from the Vatican (emphasis added):
"Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage. His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."Pelosi calls herself a Catholic, but champions abortion "rights." That's a bit like a soccer player who keeps using his hands to handle the ball. It may be against the rules, and by using his hands he is actually not playing soccer, yet he insists that his is the true version of the game.
The Pope was clearly not happy to receive Pelosi and her posse. It is unusual for the Pope to not issue photo sessions with visiting dignitaries, but that's how he's treatign the Pelosi encounter.
Pelosi gushed (my word) over her visit with Pope Benedict, which should prove annoying to the millions of Democrat sympathizers who viciously mock the Pope and claim to believe that public officials should have no religion in their public lives. The Pelosi statement is astounding:
In a statement issued by her office, Pelosi said it was with "great joy" that she and her husband Paul met with Benedict.
"In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel," Pelosi said. (Source: AP)
This from Pelosi, who champions causes that fight freedom of religion in public squares and the right of a student to bow her head and silently pray before a test in a public school. The statement continues:
"I was proud to show His Holiness a photograph of my family's papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren," said the California congresswoman, who has often expressed pride in her religious heritage."Pride in her religious heritage?" Really? Remember our hypthetical soccer player, the guy who uses his hands in a clear violation of the rules? He's not really a soccer player, but insists on running around the field, hands on the ball, flags down and whistles blowing. After the game and a good scolding from officials, the player issues a statement telling us how proud he is of his ability to play soccer - with his hands. That's Nancy Pelosi.
CNB RSS Feed
First, a quick review. Barack Obama, a black man, was a U.S. Senator from Illinois. Then, Obama was elected to the presidency, leaving his senate seat vacant. Then, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich becomes embroiled in allegations of corruption, disgracing him. Blago, as governor, still has the legal right to name a successor to Obama's senate seat, and he chose (ordained) that Roland Burris would be that successor.
At a big church sendoff on Sunday, Burris got up on stage and said this:
"We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained," Burris said. "I am not hesitating. I am now the junior Senator from the state of Illinois. Some people may want to question that and that is their prerogative."
WHO appointed Burris to fill the senate seat? Why, it was Rod Blagojevich. In other words, Blago ordained it. It was his choice. Who did Burris say picked him? "The Lord," he said. Either Burris was referring to Blago as "the Lord" or Burris feels that Blago is doing God's work. Either way, how will that sit with opponents of Blago? Or, for that matter, the hundreds of thousands of Democrat Party members who are opponents of God?
The Canadians do not have the same free speech rights as we do south of their border. But don't worry - the Democrats in the U.S. will fix that soon enough.
A priest is being investigated as a potential criminal under a federal "hate crimes" law for quoting from the Bible, and he's being targeted using a Canadian provision under which no defendant ever has been acquitted, according to a new report."We know under the Supreme Court of Canada [and] under tribunals of this country that there are reasonable limits [to freedom of expression,]" Faisal Joseph, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Steyn dispute, said in a LifeSiteNew.com report. FULL STORY....RELATED:Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?Why are Canadians Forbidden to Express Their Church's Teaching?Blogs For Victory » Liberal Fascism
