Rise up, stop talking and start doing!
Thursday, December 05, 2013
AS I SEE IT - South Lake Tahoe, a community of anti freedom and hate for Christians
Rise up, stop talking and start doing!
Monday, July 28, 2008
Obamas: Confusing Christmas with a "Seasonal" Event
H/T to The Obama Nation
The Obamas, in an unnamed magazine interview, agree that Santa Claus and "seasonal gifts," are appropriate, BUT Christmas gifts are not.
The Telegraph UK
In a magazine interview Obama and his wife Michelle revealed that one of their steadfast house rules is not giving Christmas or birthday presents to Malia, 10, and Sasha, seven.I was impressed until I got to that last sentence. I concede that Christmas gifts get out-of-hand, and the meaning of Christmas can be lost in the material wealth on December 25th.
The couple explained that they spend "hundreds" on birthday slumber parties and want to "teach some limits". Santa Claus is still permitted to deliver seasonal gifts however.
But if Santa is allowed to come and leave "seasonal gifts" on the traditional day of Christ's birth, in a Christian home - them I confused.
Other cultures and religions have celebratory events at about the same time as our Christmas. Some celebrate with traditional Christmas icons such as Christmas trees, Christmas stockings, gifts, - even though they are not Christian. But the Obamas do not adhere to other cultures or other religions, do they?
This glimpse into the Obama's home life, on the most sacred day of the year, other than Resurrection Day, for a Christian, is one more reason to doubt his commitment to Judeo-Christian values. And yes, I know that I do not know what is in a person's heart. Nevertheless...
Christmas is not a "seasonal" event.
Technorati Tags: Senator Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Christianity, Christmas, How the Obamas Celebrate Christmas
Friday, March 16, 2007
School says: "Don't Tell Your Parents"
This important article by Bob Unruh and WorldNetDaily.com and brought to our attention by loboinok and StoptheAclu.com, must stay on the front burner.
My commentary:
Three parents took this case to court and lost. Their request to remove their child from this specific class was also denied.
While there are numerous issues involved here, two stand out as particularly egregious:
1) The effort to separate a child from their parents by pledging confidentiality. This is basically a pact with the school against the parents. There is no "issue" - religious, political, gay, straight - suitable to require students, verbally or written, to "secret" information from parents. To assume that school officials "know best" in every arena doesn't just diminish parental rights, it simply abolishes them. There is no apology from school officials that should stand. Appropriate action is due against all who sanctioned this secret promise. In my view, "appropriate" means dismissal. The very fact that a school official will consider a "secret promise" is clear evidence of no respect for parental authority. Such people should not be working with children.
2) A parent must always have the opportunity to "opt out" of a specific class that is not needed for graduation credits. The history of controversial teaching is "remove your child from the class if you do not like it." This view is no longer considered "reasonable." The judge declared that opting-out is "not a reasonable expectation." Will the next move be to make these classes essential to graduation?
What we see here is the judge forcing his own expectations (his agenda), based on what he says is historical discrimination. The issue is not discrimination against the issue, it is discrimination against parental rights - all "minor child" issues should begin with the parents.
I have spent some time thinking about why only two sets of parents were involved in the law suit: Did all the other parents agree with the school? Could other parents not afford to pay for a lawsuit? Were other parents not aware of this "indoctrination" class? Probably, it was a matter of money and a lack of information.
We need good and responsible attorneys, throughout the U.S., to fight these battles for the parents and the children, pro bono. This is a battle for all children, gay or straight, and including those children who haven't given their sexuality a second thought. We do not endorse classes telling gay children, or children of gays, that their lifestyle is wrong. We should also not be telling them it is right. The parents should do the talking, not the teacheers. Teachers should accept each child without judgement of their sexual orientation or the child's opinion of sexual orientation. Save the judgement for core-class performance.
Here we go...it won't stop unless and until we make it stop.
(Disclaimer: all comments above are solely mine. I am not speaking for Mr. Unruh, WorldNetDaily, Loboinok or stoptheaclu.)
Posted: March 13, 2007
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
'Confidentiality' promise requires students 'not to tell their parents'
Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.
"This is unbelievable," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. "It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it."
It should be pointed out that minors can't enter into a binding contract. Therefore, "confidentiality agreements" are illegal, worthless and total BS.
It also shows that the school knew what it was doing was wrong, just by the fact that they wanted to keep it from the parents.
In what CWA called a "shocking and brazen act of government abuse of parental rights," the school's officials required the 14-year-olds to attend a "Gay Straight Alliance Network" panel discussion led by "gay" and "lesbian" upperclassmen during a "freshman advisory" class which "secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors."
"This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda," Barber said. "The professional propagandists in the 'gay-rights' lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated."
He said not only is forcing students to be exposed to the pro-homosexual propaganda bad enough, but then school officials further required that students sign the "confidentiality agreement" through which they promised not to tell anyone – including their own parents – about the seminar.
Barber said that also aligns with the goals of the disinformation campaign being run by those in the pro-homosexual camp. "That's what homosexual activists from GSA are attempting to do, and that's what DHS is clearly up to as well."
The situation, according to district Supt. George Fornero, was partly "a mistake."
He told CWA, the nation's largest public policy women's organization, that requiring children to sign the confidentiality agreement wasn't right and the district would be honest with parents in the future about such seminars. But CWA noted that even after the district was caught, parents still were being told they were not welcome to be at the "freshman advisory" and they were not allowed to have access to materials used in compiling the activist curriculum.
Barber noted the damage being done is significant.
"Until DHS and other government schools across the country are made to stop promoting the homosexual agenda, kids will continue to be exposed to – and encouraged to participate in – a lifestyle that places them at high risk for life-threatening disease, depression and spiritual despair," he said.
It's not the first situation where WND has reported on schools teaching homosexuality to children.
In Massachusetts after a school repeatedly advocated for the homosexual lifestyle to students in elementary grades, several parents sued, only to have the federal judge order the "gay" agenda taught to the Christians.
The conclusion from U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf found that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children would undermine teaching and learning"
David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.
"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.
An appeal of that decision is pending.
The judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where their religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation.
"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.
"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."
And, he said, since history "includes instances of official discrimination against gays and lesbians it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students different sexual orientations."
If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school [or] may also educate their children at home," the judge said.
Parents fume over salacious sex lesson
'State interest' argued in teaching homosexuality
To the above, I can only add; Impeachment of Federal Judges
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/7015239303796014520
Technorati Tags: ACLU Children Christianity Parental Rights
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Islamification, Christianity and WWIII: Islam’s Subtle Political Maneuvers
NEW YORK (BP)--Much of the church is asleep or in “deep, dark denial” about Islam, Anglican Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi of Uganda said in New York City at the Kairos Journal Award dinner Jan. 26. . . . The inner attack on the church is the shifting of authority away from the Bible toward a “false gospel,” Orombi said. But from without, he said, the church’s most significant threat is Islam. . . . the church is generally ignorant about Islam, its doctrine, its ideology and its expansionist strategy, the Anglican leader said. Most churches have no plan or vision about reaching Muslims and even shy away from evangelism out of fear and the prospect of retaliatory violence. . . . Mark Durie, vicar of St. Mary’s Anglican Church, Caulfield, in Melbourne, Australia, echoed that sentiment. Failure to address Islam with the Gospel will result in falling prey to it. At present, he said, the future of the world is less than certain.
What exactly is Islamification?
The simplest definition is can be found at WorldViews in a 2004 review “The Islamification of Europe.” This was a review of a WSJ article by Johns Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami.
Here’s an excerpt: (Bold highlights added by me)
On the op-ed page of the "Wall Street Journal" (subscription required) is a remarkable article by Johns Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami on how radical Islam has been nurtured specifically in Europe, and why the Europeans feel they must be on the Arabs' side, even as they are threatened by an unassimilated and growing population that owes them no loyalty.
Europeans imported huge numbers of Muslim laborers in the 1960's. Their numbers swelled as refugees fled the wars and tyrannies of their own countries. The mideast regimes were so oppressive that the dissidents fled to Europe, where they took advantage of the freedom they could never have at home to develop their radical Islamic ideologies. And, according to Ajami, as the immigrant population booms and the native Europeans have fewer and fewer children, the radicalized Muslims are gaining more and more power in the European democracies. But while they are willing to take advantage of the opportunities afforded in their new homelands, the Muslims are insisting that they owe allegiance to no nationality; only to Islam.
For a good view of Islamification see the video Islamification of Britain.
January 27, 2007: “We are in the midst of a third World War,’ former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told weekly newspaper Expresso.”
See “World War III has already begun, says Israeli spy chief”
Former head of Israel's intelligence service tells Portuguese newspaper it would take at least 25 years before battle against fundamentalist terrorism is won; says nuclear strike by Muslim terrorists 'very likely'.
Hat Tip to Mr. Minority
A third World War is already underway between Islamic militancy and the West but most people do not realize it, the former head of Israel’s intelligence service Mossad said in an interview published Saturday in Portugal.
‘We are in the midst of a third World War,’ former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told weekly newspaper Expresso. . .
Halevy, who was raised in war-time London, predicted it would take at least 25 years before the battle against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is won and during this time a nuclear strike by Islamic militants was likely.
Hat Tip to Dhimmi Watch
“How the Pope sees Islam” (2/6/07) Here’s an excerpt. (Bold highlights added by me.)
The Egyptian Jesuit priest Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, S.J. here explains the thoughtful, careful, and realistic approach that Pope Benedict XVI has adopted toward the Islamic world. "When Civilizations Meet: How Joseph Ratzinger Sees Islam," from Asia News via Chiesa, with thanks to D.:
Benedict XVI is probably one of the few figures to have profoundly understood the ambiguity in which contemporary Islam is being debated and its struggle to find a place in modern society. At the same time, he is proposing a way for Islam to work toward coexistence globally and with religions, based not on religious dialogue, but on dialogue between cultures and civilizations based on rationality and on a vision of man and human nature which comes before any ideology or religion. This choice to wager on cultural dialogue explains his decision to absorb the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue into the larger Pontifical Council for Culture.
While the pope is asking Islam for dialogue based on culture, human rights, the refusal of violence, he is asking the West, at the same time, to go back to a vision of human nature and rationality in which the religious dimension is not excluded. In this way – and perhaps only in this way – a clash of civilizations can be avoided, transforming it instead into a dialogue between civilizations. . . .
. . .But the key point that he tackles is that of shari’a. He points out that:
“the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Shari’a shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself”.
This alienation could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society. When for example an Islamic finds himself in a Western society, he can benefit from or exploit certain elements, but he can never identify himself with the non-Muslim citizen, because he does not find himself in a Muslim society. . . .
With regard to the Jesuit’s statement above concernining Sharia: “it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give” please take a look at “Our Vulnerable Religious Freedoms”
Our greatest National strengths can also be our biggest points of vulnerability. I have written earlier that our freedom of expression, freedom of equal protection as citizens, and the “wall of separation” between church and state in the United States, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments, is vulnerable to being undermined for one specific reason. Our nation has never attempted to define what constitutes a religion. . .
Hat Tip to BookWorm Room
At FrontPage Magazine, you can read an interview with Bill Warner, the the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Warner discusses Islam’s dualistic nature, which can hold simultaneously two opposite thoughts (such as the instruction to treat nonbelievers decently and the instruction that they must be destroyed as infidels). Thus, Warner contrasts Islamic beliefs with the Golden Rule, a principle that appears in all of the world’s other than Islam . . .
Here’s a typical response from a moderate Muslim to all this so-called “Islamophobia”. Although I am very glad to hear a “moderate” Muslim’s response against Islamic terrorism, note the dualistic denial. (BOLD highlights added by me).
Britácora Almendrón
Una mirada al mundo artistico, cultural y political
By Zeeshan Hashmion, who served in the British Army between 2000 and 2005. He is now a student at Cambridge (THE TIMES, 06/02/07):
. . .I do feel increasingly impatient when engaged in debates about my faith, its so-called link with extremism and its so-called rejection of democracy. I wish I could shout out loud and say that a majority of Muslims believe in the core message of Islam, which is peace. We are tolerant of others and comfortable coexisting in a multicultural, multi-ethnic environment. Islam does not dictate that one can only be Muslim and not British or Chinese at the same time.
Unfortunately, there are those among us who are ill-educated, misled and are indeed extremists. My message to those who preach extremism and a false concept of jihad is that our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) not only stood up but asked his companions to do the same when the funeral of a Jew was passing near by. One’s responsibility to the Muslim ummah demands logic and reasoning in achieving long-term, peaceful solutions based upon coexistence. Isolation and extremism is not the answer; initiating a dialogue is.
Those in power should be more responsible and sincere when discussing conflict resolution. Stop using the notion of democracy to justify loss of human life; we need to ensure that we create a more stable and less bloody future for coming generations. This is the least we owe to those who have made sacrifices. Political systems and doctrine can not effectively be imported from one region to another facing a different range of problems.
As individuals, we ought to be more open and receptive in our approach towards fellow humans, in peace time or in conflict. “For those who have had to fight for it, Life has truly a flavour the protected shall never know.”
Trackposted to Right Celebrity, third world county, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, and Conservative Thoughts, Outside the Beltway, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Christian Chaplain vs Muslim Chaplain
You are probably aware of Navy Chaplain James Klingenschmitt who was fired for praying 'in Jesus name". He lost his job, pension, home, was publicly ridiculed and court-martialed.
There is a real double standard when you compare Klingenschmitt to a Wahhabi-trained Muslim chaplain who catered to al-Qaida detainees at Guantanamo and fought to establish the first Mosque in Marine Corps history. via Random and Political, entire article here:
According to WND, "Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England personally promoted Navy chaplain Abuhena Mohammed Saifulislam from lieutenant to lieutenant commander.Saifulislam also received a Joint Service Commendation Medal at the Pentagon ceremony held on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Pentagon officials say the ceremony was unprecedented. 'It's
unusual for a deputy secretary to personally promote an officer of that rank,' said one official who wished to go unnamed. 'No one has known of such a high-level dignitary doing that.'"Furthermore, the WND report stated, "England also earlier this year personally dedicated a new Islamic center at Marine headquarters in Quantico, Va., on the advice of Saifulislam . . ."
Now get this: "The Muslim chaplain, who is stationed at Quantico, recited verses from the Quran in Arabic and English at the summer dedication ceremony, which included representatives from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, several leaders of which have been convicted on terrorism-related charges."
Go read the Rest of this At Chuck Baldwins Site!
Pathetic!