Page 3

Being " Politically Correct " is not being correct at all

Military Won't Take Graham at Faith Value

Almost nine years after 9-11, the Pentagon is the site of a new attack--this time on religious freedom. After a few days of speculation, the military advanced its policy of political correctness to bar Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, from speaking at the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer event. Apparently an outside group had complained about Graham's statements about Islam and the evil perpetrated under its banner. Their concerns were fueled by his unapologetic view that only Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

As political correctness envelops the nation under this administration's watchful eye, Christianity is being tossed from the public square. Military spokesman Col. Tom Collins tried to defend the decision by saying, "We're an all-inclusive military." But to be "inclusive," as the Pentagon defines it, is to exclude Christianity. Contrary to what Col. Collins says, this has nothing to do with tolerance and everything to do with the military's new hostility toward the Gospel. Franklin Graham is a man of courage and integrity whose biblical beliefs should not preclude him from sharing the message of Jesus Christ.

Under President Obama, we're witnessing the First Amendment, designed to protect the religious exercise of Americans, retooled into a sword designed to sever America's ties with orthodox Christianity. As believers, we cannot sit idly by and watch our freedoms be swept away. When I was disinvited from a prayer luncheon at Andrews Air Force base, it was because I made comments supporting the law banning gays from the military. Some dismissed that as a result of my involvement in public policy. Rev. Graham, whose ministry has served to the physical and spiritual needs of millions of people (including Muslims!) around the globe, was making some key distinctions between Christianity and the religion that flew radicals into the Pentagon.

So to those Christian leaders who say they want to avoid the controversy of political issues and "just preach the Gospel," wake up! It's the Gospel that's at the heart of the controversy--and the freedom to preach it that's at stake!

The Crucifixion of Brit Hume

By J. Matt Barber

January 11, 2010

During the Roman Empire's secularist era those who acknowledged the deity of Christ were frequently fed to the lions to entertain -- for lack of a better word -- the "progressive" elites of the day. There's little doubt that if many of today's secular-"progressives" (more accurately: "moonbat liberals") had their way, Caesar Obama would call out the lions once again.

Nothing makes the left lose its collective noodle like an open proclamation of Christian faith. You don't see it when Muslims proselytize in government schools; the ACLU doesn't sue when Wiccans share their witchy ways; militant "gay" activists don't picket Buddhist temples with bullhorns while inhabitants grasp at Zen. No, there's something about Christianity that just drives 'em nuts. Always has. Always will.

Case in point: Recently, on two separate occasions, Fox News veteran Brit Hume both publicly pronounced his own faith in Jesus Christ and boldly suggested that Tiger Woods might find "forgiveness and redemption" for his serial philandering should he "turn to the Christian faith."

Hume first offered Tiger the advice on "Fox News Sunday" and then reiterated his sage, though decidedly non-PC council on "The O'Reilly Factor" the following night. When asked by host Bill O'Reilly what kind of response he'd received for his comments, Hume replied, in part: "It's always been a puzzling thing to me. The Bible even speaks of it. You speak the name Jesus Christ... and all hell breaks loose."

Yes indeed.

After Hume made his comments, and as if on cue (Lord forgive them for not knowing what they do or why they do it) liberals went apoplectic. Here's a small sampling:

As reported by CNSNews.com: "Tom Shales, media critic for the Washington Post , in a Tuesday column, demanded that Hume apologize and called his Christian remarks 'even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year.'"

MSNBC's reliably raspy Keith Olbermann accused Hume of attempting "to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity" and demanded that his Fox News ratings superior "keep religious advocacy out of public life" (back in the closet, Brit old boy).

Olblubberman then compared Hume to a terrorist, suggesting that "the worst example" of this kind of "proselytizing" are "jihadists." Finally, he betrayed the left's typical anti-Christian bigotry, suggesting that Jesus may have been a homosexual and wondering aloud: "WWJDIHS: What would Jesus do if he's straight?"

While the mainstream media's rage was clumsily managed (or masked), unbridled hate boiled over in the left-wing blogosphere.

On the sexual anarchist site, "JoeMyGod," poster "QScribe" suggested that Brit Hume's deceased son had been "gay" and viciously accused Hume of being responsible for the young man's suicide: "Brit Hume still hasn't 'repented' for trashing his gay son and driving him to suicide. When I want moral guidance from a pig like that, I'll be sure to ask. Until then, he really ought to STFU." (Hume has publicly shared that his son's heartbreaking suicide played a large role in his acceptance of Christ.)

The next commenter went so far as to cruelly imply that Hume had sexually molested his own child and further mocked the tragic suicide, writing: "Dead victims don't tell on their molesters."

Commenting on the Huffington Post, "Kandaher" bypassed Hume altogether and aimed his vitriol directly at his Creator: "anyone (sic) watched 'The passion of Christ'? I thoruhgly (sic) enjoyed it. Nothing like watching this bloke getting beaten up! He deserved what he got and more!"

You get the idea.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I very much enjoy watching liberals go goofy when the light of truth pierces that shadowy void called moral relativism. When the left's religion of choice -- secular-humanism -- is challenged through exposure to the gospel message, they almost universally and instinctively react with such visceral, knee-jerk spasms. You can set your clock to it.

But believe it or not, there's actually something rather delightful about such hateful lashing about. These poor souls -- to be pitied and prayed for -- fail to realize that, manifest within their own unwittingly bizarre behavior, is certain affirmation of the very words of Christ on the subject.

Jesus addressed this peculiar and deeply spiritual phenomenon on more than one occasion over two thousand years ago. In John 15:18-20 (NIV), for instance, He reminds His followers: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."

Now, I'm real sorry that most "progressives" and other non-believers feel that Christianity is deficiently "tolerant" or "inclusive" of various man-made religions and lifestyle choices. But it's just not our call. Christ Himself reveals over and again that the pathway to heaven is a very narrow one, requiring membership in a rather "exclusive" club -- a club wherein belief in Him and repentance from sin are the only membership requirements.

Christ said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6). Note that, rather conspicuously, He did not say: "...No one comes to the Father except through me, the Buddha, Muhammad, Ganesh, and -- on Tuesdays -- L. Ron Hubbard."

But lest you have any doubt, consider John 3:36, which warns every man, woman and child on earth -- past, present and future: "Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

So, Brit Hume had it right, didn't he? I mean, it is kind of an all or nothing proposition, isn't it?

As my favorite author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis famously pointed out in his blockbuster book "Mere Christianity," Christ could only have been one of three things: A lunatic, a liar, or -- as Jesus oft claimed and as billions have believed -- the sovereign Lord and Creator of the universe.

Noted Lewis:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. -- C.S. Lewis

So, what does this all mean? Well, and please take this in the spirit (little 's') intended: Brit Hume's woolly, wily, wandering critics really ought to just un-knot their knickers; mudra, mantra or something; and seriously reflect upon the man's words and heart.

Perhaps they should -- being all "tolerant," "diverse" and whatnot -- consider, if only for a moment, the very Spirit (big 'S') from which came those words and was formed that heart.

In the meantime, to Mr. Hume: "Well done good and faithful servant."

Allen West on Fort Hood Massacre

November 7, 2009

This past Thursday 13 American Soldiers were killed and another 30 wounded at a horrific mass shooting at US Army installation, Ft Hood Texas. As I watched in horror and then anger I recalled my two years of final service in the Army as a Battalion Commander at Ft Hood, 2002-2004.

My wife and two daughters were stunned at the incident having lived on the post in family housing.

A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our “Band of Brothers and Sisters” can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole but as family units.

A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation.

On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.

There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.

We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned about the stress of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The misplaced benevolence intending to portray him as a victim is despicable. The fact that there are some who have now created an entire new classification called; “pre-virtual vicarious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)” is unconscionable.

This is not a “man caused disaster”. It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack.

We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his Commanding Officer’s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a target.

What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing..

What we see are recalcitrant leaders who are refusing to confront the issue, Islamic terrorist infiltration into America, and possibly further into our Armed Services. Instead we have a multiculturalism and diversity syndrome on steroids.

Major Hasan should have never been transferred to Ft Hood, matter of fact he should have been Chaptered from the Army. His previous statements, poor evaluation reports, and the fact that the FBI had him under investigation for jihadist website posting should have been proof positive.

However, what we have is a typical liberal approach to find a victim, not the 13 and 30 Soldiers and Civilian, but rather the poor shooter. A shooter who we are told was a great American, who loved the Army and serving his Nation and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stating that his actions had nothing to do with religious belief.

We know that Major Hasan deliberately planned this episode; he did give away his possessions. He stood atop a table in the confined space of the Soldier Readiness Center shouting “Allahu Akhbar”, same chant as the 9-11 terrorists and those we fight against overseas in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation.

No one in leadership seems willing to sound the alarm for the American people; they are therefore complicit in any future attacks. Our Congress should suspend the insidious action to vote on a preposterous and unconstitutional healthcare bill and resolve the issue of “protecting the American people”.

The recent incidents in Dearborn Michigan, Boston Massachusetts, Dallas Texas, and Chicago Illinois should bear witness to the fact that we have an Islamic terrorism issue in America. And don’t have CAIR call me and try to issue a vanilla press statement; they are an illegitimate terrorist associated organization which should be disbanded.

We have Saudi Arabia funding close to 80% of the mosques in the United States , one right here in South Florida, Pompano Beach . Are we building churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia ? Are “Kaffirs” and “Infidels” allowed travel to Mecca ?

So much for peaceful coexistence.

Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and convert young men into a virulent Wahabbist ideology….one resulting in four individuals wanting to destroy synagogues in New York with plastic explosives. Thank God the explosives were dummy. They are sponsoring textbooks which present Islamic centric revisionist history in our schools.

We must recognize that there is an urgent need to separate the theo-political radical Islamic ideology out of our American society. We must begin to demand surveillance of suspected Imams and mosques that are spreading hate and preaching the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic……that speech is not protected under First Amendment, it is sedition and if done by an American treason.
There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America that has nothing to do with First Amendment, Freedom of Religion. The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional.

When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please, go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone.

Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack, stop the denial, and realize a simple point.

The reality of your enemy must become your own.

Steadfast and Loyal,
Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)

Are These The Actions Of A President Who Loves His Country?

By Doug Patton

November 30, 2009

I have grown weary of pretending that Barack Obama has anything but disdain for the United States of America. So let us ask the question on all of our minds: Are the actions of this president those of a man committed to what is best for his country?

With small business, the engine of our economy, on the ropes, Obama and his myrmidons in Congress are trying to ram through a health care reform bill that will, in the words of Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, bring about our "fiscal ruin." Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?

Obama continues to push his "Cap and Trade" legislation, with all the taxes, fees, energy price increases and restrictions on freedom that inevitably accompany it, on the strength of junk science that is being discredited every day. A growing number of reputable scientists are expressing doubt that global warming even exists, and recently a hacker or a whistleblower made public thousands of insider e-mails showing that climate change advocates know the whole thing is a scam. Yet the president intends to go to the Copenhagen climate conference and pretend that none of this ever happened. Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?

So preoccupied with his domestic agenda is this president, that an urgent request for more troops from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, has been collecting dust on his desk in the Oval Office since August. It is now almost December. Gen. McChrystal has said that anything less than 40,000 troops will guarantee failure, so naturally Obama will send fewer than that. Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?

Obama was quick to jump to conclusions when Harvard Professor Henry Gates was arrested breaking into his own house. Although he admitted that he didn't have all the facts, the president nonetheless proclaimed that the police "acted stupidly." Yet when an Islamist fanatic in our own armed forces murdered 13 innocent people at Fort Hood, Texas, in an obvious act of terror, we were told by our president not to jump to conclusions. Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?

The president and his attorney general, Eric Holder, have decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, along with his fellow terrorists, will get a trial in civilian court in New York City, with all the rights afforded American citizens under the U.S. Constitution. This outrageous decision even caused some in the generally uncritical media to question its wisdom, whereupon both Obama and Holder immediately poisoned the jury pool by pronouncing the defendants "guilty" and promising that they will be executed. Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?

And finally, there is the tale of Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe and Julio Hertas, three Navy SEALs who should be receiving commendations from their commander in chief, but who, sadly, will instead receive court-martials. The charge? They gave the most wanted terrorist in all of Iraq a boo-boo on his lip! That's right. The man responsible for murdering four American contractors in March of 2004, mutilating and burning their bodies, dragging them through the streets of Fallujah and hanging what was left of them from a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to dutifully photograph, was finally captured by these three brave Navy SEALs. But in the course of subduing him, apparently he got slugged in the mouth. Do you care? I know I don't. But apparently our politically correct military does, from the commander in chief on down. Obama pardoned a turkey last week, but heroes he court-martials.

For the last time, I ask you, is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?

Will it take something worse than 9/11 for our liberal politicians and the American public to wake up?

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.