Powered By Christian Gifts

Monday, June 30, 2008

Something You Should Know

Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville , OK .

Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company.

So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with.

As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.

Big Oil

By Bill Philips, May 28, 2008

Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies?

It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies--all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies--that dominate the world's oil supply.

This graph below tells the story; you can barely see the American oil companies as minor players on the right side of the chart in gray.

For more detail go here.

The chart was presented to the House committee last week by Chevron. (unfortunately not included in my email)With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States , the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a 'small' oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e, mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign.

This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States --unlike, say, France --actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia , Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies.

So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party--aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans--deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them.

In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains, that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing.

So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America ) and the runaway printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America ) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil.

What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for 'Record' profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon.

To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton, just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over.

Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name.

William 'Bill' Phillips

Let's Really Look at 'Unused Oil Leases'

This was sent to me by e-mail and is an interesting read.

From American Anachronism, by Mark Ward

In response to public and, mainly Conservative, political leaders clamor literally beseeching Pharoah to "Let the people (or at least the oil companies) go" when it comes to expanding our own oil resources, the past week or so Democrats have been railing against 'Big Oil' for not exploiting the vast majority of already granted oil drilling leases. The Democrat's justification for raising the unused lease issue was thus: "Why should we open more areas (see "The No Zone" Map here) for drilling when you ('Big Oil') are not using the ones you already secured?" Now that, at first, sounded like a compelling argument; but as I began to think just a little something just didn't fit.

So as a contributing member of The Heritage Foundation and as a retired military resident of Oklahoma (one of our largest oil producing states) and Tulsa (which used to be called "The Oil Capitol"), I decided to write a former Oklahoma Congressman who either rotely knew or could quickly research and address my misgivings concerning the new Democrat mantra against 'Big Oil'. So below is my request for help to former Oklahoma Congressman Ernest Ishtook, Heritage fellow, and his reply.

Continue reading here.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Latest Poem From Forrest Langley: "Baby Killers"

Rachel’s voice in America I can hear, lamentation and weeping
In 1973 God hears Rachel cry, she’s not comforted or sleeping
What’s wrong Oh Rachel, such tears, grief, and no comfort sought
The shrieking cries the piercing screams for her children are not

The babies innocent blood screams into the Lord Gods Holy ears
Their blood has been crying from the ground now thirty-five years
And the Lord said the cry of Sodom is great I will go down to see
And God said I will go down according unto the cry come unto me

The Lord enquires, America where art the Babies that I gave unto thee
America answers “I know not” its not a life but its just a fetus! Foolishly
America “What hast thou done?’ I can hear such an awful awful sound
The voices of fifty million babies blood cry’s unto me from the ground

America slaughters her innocent babies then says O God bless me
And then has the gall to call herself a Christian nation so innocently
Fifty million babies slaughtered. America shed a river O innocent blood
Does this not make you tremble and fear? You’ve misunderstood God

How is it possible for a righteous God to send his blessings upon thee
If you believe God is going to bless America then you believe foolishly
America you shalt be enslaved, You murdered the children God gave
O America home of the free BABY KILLER be written over your grave

What’s wrong Oh Rachel, such tears, grief, and no comfort sought
Oh America hear the mournful voice of Rachel the children are not
Sobs and screams, her distorted face as she wails in such misery
Fifty million butchered babies O America these screams haunt me

Rachel’s voice in America I can hear, lamentation and weeping
In 1973 God hears Rachel cry, she’s not comforted or sleeping
The shrieking cries the piercing screams for her children are not
Innocent blood screams? Avenge our blood! Judgment your lot

America hear a modern day Rachel wailing unto you
Screaming from her broken heart with Courage true.
Startle, Shake, Shock and Awake a murderous Nation.
Lift up your voice with Screams of Horrors devastation.

Cry Rachel Cry cause death is on your trail.
And yet behind Rachel is destruction and hell.
When Americas streets are soaked blood red.
You’ll wish you had listened to what Rachel said.

Copyright © 2008 by Forrest Langley. All rights reserved.
Used with permission.

Sounds Good


I was in a chat room recently where a Christian was making comments that I found a bit disturbing...I told myself not to overreact since oftentimes real meaning is lost in the speed and abreviations of internet chat. Yet the more this person "said", the more uneasy I became. It's not that the words were particularly alarming, but the message was incorrect.

For example, one of the statements paraphrased a verse in the Bible to make a point, but it was taken out of context to "fit" the person's point of view. I see this over and over. As Christians we need to handle God's Word accurately.

2 Tim 2:13 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. the NIV says: "...who correctly handles the word of truth."

Often we hear statements that "sound good". We need to be very careful to ensure they actually "are good". Millions are erroneously following after the new-age Oprah type religion because it "sounds good". By the same token we must not, as Christians, fall into the temptation of slanting God's Word to fit our politics.

Mrs. CP and I were in a chat room recently where I commented to her that I had mixed feelings about the Supreme Court ruling regarding the death penalty for child rapists. My instinct is that death is too merciful for these guys...but is that what the Bible says? Thanks to Mrs. CP who pointed me to the book of Leviticus; I have not yet completed my study on the topic, but when I finish I will have an opinion that is grounded in God's Word.

We should apply this attitude to the way we react to the daily headlines as well. How many times have you heard religious leaders interpret natural disasters as either God's wrath, or as a sign of the end times? I read an article a while back that quoted a prominent religious leader who stated that earthquakes are on the increase as was predicted in the Bible. Well when the facts were researched, it turns out that earthquakes are actually decreasing in frequency and intensity. When I point this out to Christians they often are shocked and offended. My point here is not to dispute that we may be in the end times...my point is that we need to be sure our words are accurate.

This is why I rarely (if ever) forward those cute little Christian stories we have all received via email. You know, the ones where the woman wasn't attacked because the attacker saw 2 angels walking with her, or where the atheist college professor dares God to stop the dropped piece of chaulk from hitting the floor. While these stories may be true to the letter, I do not forward them unless I can know for sure they are authentic. I want my testimony to be true.

Remember a couple of years ago how excited everyone got when the ancient bone box of James the brother of Jesus was "found" in Israel? I too got excited and forwarded that article to a lot of people. But when the truth was told months later that the box was a fake, I made sure to inform all the people I had emailed of the truth.

You might say, well, so what if the college professor story isn't true, maybe someone gained faith from it. Think about that logic for a minute. Would you honestly want to use "legend" to bring someone to faith in God? The Bible tells us to let OUR light shine before men. I can testify to my own story about the miracles God has done for me, since I am an eye witness to them. Please do not misunderstand, I love hearing about miracles, I really do; but we must be sure to be beyond reproach in what we communicate.

I was reading an old article about televangelist Benny Hinn who made a statement that he had gone to a hospital and healed large numbers of people in one day. When researchers tried to confirm the story it appears to have been a complete lie.


So while the story of Hinn healing all those people "sounds good" -- and who knows? Maybe it is the way Benny Hinn remembers it happening. But in the light of the truth the story dishonors Hinn's testimony and does not bring honor to Jesus Christ.

So my encouragement to the readers and to myself is to:

1. Speak the truth.

2. Pray that God shows what His Word really means and don't super impose your politics on scriptures taken out of context.

3. Avoid judging others (i.e. "Obama is going to hell." He may very well be going to hell but that is not for us to judge.)

4. Think about your own testimony. You are an eye witness to wonderful things God has done for you. No one has your experiences but YOU. I'll bet you they are more miraculous than the emails you recieve!

Saturday, June 28, 2008

The Impact of Illegals From Mexico on Our Health Care System

HT to ANewtOne.

This is absolutely unacceptable. I have no problem with legal immigration but this is completely uncalled for.

A couple of questions for you pencil-necked no-load dip-dunks in CONgress...WHERE'S THE FENCE?????????
When are YOU going to start doing what WE elected YOU to do???

YOU work for us and don't YOU dare forget that.

Is Nobama "Buying" Votes???

OK, you got me - the headline is sensationalized a little bit, or is it really? Nobama and his "recently" proud to be an American wife each donated the maximum $2300 to hilary clinton's campaign.

For what reason would a husband and wife "donate" $4,600 to their competition AFTER that person has already suspended their campaign if not trying to BUY to the votes of their competitors followers?

Now I'm not accusing that anything illegal has gone on, as what they are doing is well within the law, but I'm not talking legalities here, I'm talking reality.

Without helping bail out the clinton financial disaster to gain votes, and what we are really talking about here is the Nobama's are helping fund clinton's massive attack against them in the weeks leading up to her campaign suspension, what sense does it make to use money as a means to unify the party?

Let me give you my thoughts, 1) they believe that the American public is stupid and don't see them for what they are, and 2) they are showing that when things get tough (and getting hilary's supports to vote for Nobama is a tough thing), then just "buy" what/who you need.

Come to think of it, doesn't sound like much of a change for DC, does it?


And for those who wonder why I use the picture of Nobama and Rev. Wrong for every post on Nobama - well they may think that issue has blown over, but I vowed not to some weeks ago and that is one of my ways of keeping that issue in your thoughts.

Faking a Killing

Some of you will remember the controversy involved in the alleged killing of a young "Palestinian" boy by the Israeli's. I stated then that the incident was highly questionable after reviewing the position of the Israeli's and the location of Muhammad al-Dura and his father.
Strange things do happen in fire fights and this no doubt was a strange event to casual viewers.
I am no firearms forensic expert, however, based upon the position of the IDF and the young boy the rounds that allegedly killed him, if fired by Israeli soldiers, would have had to make a sharp 90 degree right hand turn in mid flight to strike him in the abdomen. Both he and his father were behind cover protecting them from Israeli bullets.
The original video footage was also highly suspect and appeared a staged incident to me as were many other alleged incidents involving the "Palestinians" and Israel.

Oh but not to the "Jew haters". To them this was just one more incident in the long list of alleged atrocities committed by Israel and a reason for more violence.

Read for yourself....

An updated timeline for review can be found here.

Mohammed al-Dura was not killed

Melanie Phillips explores a modern-day blood libel that has caused innumerable actual deaths. “Faking a Killing,” in Standpoint, July 2008

On September 30 2000, two days after Ariel Sharon, then the leader of Israel’s opposition Likud Party, went for a walk on Temple Mount, Palestinians mounted a demonstration at Gaza’s Netzarim Junction. A 55-second piece of video footage of that demonstration, transmitted that day by the French TV station France 2, was to cause unprecedented violence in the Middle East and throughout the world.

The footage, with a voice-over by France 2’s Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin, showed what was said to be the killing of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura by Israeli marksmen. Viewers saw the child crouching in terror behind his father, Jamal, as they sheltered next to a barrel under what Enderlin said was Israeli gunfire, and then slumping to the ground as Enderlin pronounced that he was dead.

That image of the boy screaming in terror before being killed was uniquely incendiary. It portrayed the Israelis as diabolically gunning down a child in cold blood, even as he cowered for his life. It ignited the Arab and Muslim world with apparent proof that the Israelis were deliberately killing their children, inciting a murderous frenzy.

Al-Dura became a poster boy for the Palestinian and Islamist war against Israel and the West. The day after the France 2 broadcast, the second intifada erupted in its full fury; according to the 2001 Mitchell report, the two events were directly connected. Twelve days later, a mob of Palestinians shouting, “Revenge for the blood of Mohammed al-Dura” lynched two Israeli army reservists and dragged their mutilated bodies through the streets of Ramallah.

When al-Qaeda decapitated the journalist Daniel Pearl, the video of this atrocity was punctuated with references to al-Dura. After -September 11 2001, Osama bin Laden said: “Bush must not forget the -image of Mohammed al-Dura.” Several Arab countries issued postage stamps with his picture. On Palestinian Authority TV and in its school books, al-Dura’s example is used to encourage other children to emulate his spirit of “sacrifice”.

But we now know that this whole fiesta of violence and incitement was based on a lie. For whatever people think they saw in those 55 -seconds, it was not the death of that boy. He was not killed by Israeli bullets; he was not killed at all. At the end of France 2’s famous footage, he was still alive and unharmed. The whole thing was staged, a fantastic piece of play-acting, an elaborate fabrication designed to blacken Israel’s name, and incite the Arab and Muslim mobs to mass murder.

It was, in short, a modern-day blood libel, an updated version of the medieval calumny that the Jews target gentile children for murder — which itself caused the murder of thousands of Jews over the centuries.

How do we know the footage was a lie? Because many of us have seen the evidence for ourselves in a French courtroom. Ironically, this blood libel was only exposed to public view because France 2 and its correspondent Enderlin brought a libel suit against a French media watchdog, Philippe Karsenty, for saying that the “killing” was “pure fiction” and that al-Dura wasn’t dead at all.

To begin with, a Paris court ruled in favour of the TV station. But in May this year, the appeal court ruled that Karsenty had every right to say what he said in the light of the evidence. This included the “inexplicable incoherence” of footage, whose images did not correspond to Enderlin’s commentary; the “inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions” in Enderlin’s explanation; and the lack of credibility of France 2’s Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, upon whose -account of the events at Netzarim Enderlin — who was in Jerusalem at the time — had depended.

Read the entire story here.
More perspective on this issue here and here.

Supporting links:

Myth, Fact, and the al-Dura Affair

Pajama's Media

Mohammad Al-Dura "murder" a HOAX! Karsenty wins case!

News Busters

Friday, June 27, 2008

Measuring Mohammed And Dhimmitude

Dhimmi Watch

By Bill Warner
June 24, 2008

The superb analyst Bill Warner measures our dhimmitude:

If you are willing to do some math that is no harder than counting how many apples you have in your shopping cart, you can measure the core of Islamic political doctrine found in Mohammed’s biography, the Sira, a sacred text. What is surprising is that once you have a measure (metric) for Mohammed, you also have a measurement of our dhimmitude. It is an ugly and disgusting result.

THE SIRA: The totality of Islam is belief in the perfect truth of the Koran and following the Sunna of Mohammed. The Sunna is the actions and words of the perfect pattern of life, Mohammed. The Sunna is contained in the Sira and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). The Sira is half of the defining, foundational texts that determine the Sunna. The other half of the Sunna is the Hadith. The Islamic “Bible” is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith.

The Sira is the life of Mohammed. There are three versions of the Sira given by three authors--Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, and Ibn Sa’d. They tell the same story, except for small details. Ishaq’s Sira is the oldest and the most authoritative.

Ishaq’s Sira is a large book that starts with a history of Arabia before Mohammed. The overwhelmingly important part of the book is the story of Mohammed as the prophet of Allah. He becomes a prophet on page 106, so that is where the story really begins. There are a 110 pages of notes at the end. The remaining 621 pages of text are about Mohammed as a prophet.
When you read the Sira, you find that violence fills its pages. The first form of violence is verbal.

After Mohammed’s first revelation, it only takes 12 pages until there is a fight and a Muslim bloodies a kafir. From that point on, Mohammed argues, threatens, curses, preaches, and condemns. So 98% of the text of Mohammed’s prophecy contains verbal violence against the kafirs (unbelievers).

Jihad starts 281 pages into his prophet-hood and it never stops for the next 409 pages. So 72% of the Sira’s report of his prophecy involves some form of jihad. Of course, the verbal abuse runs right along with the killing, torture, rape, theft, deceit and assassinations.

The Sira is not only a biography, but also a sacred text that contains the model for the perfect Islamic life. Again and again the Koran directs every Muslim to imitate Mohammed’s every word and deed. The Sira contains Islam’s grand political strategy.

There was peace for 2% of the Sira. That means that 98% of the Sira is devoted to ill will or with some form of argument, insults and curses against the kafirs. Put another way, 98% of the Sira is devoted to the suffering of the kafirs.

MOHAMMED, THE FILM: If the Sira were a 2-hour movie of Mohammed as a prophet, it would go like this:

Mohammed has his first revelation in the first scene. The first fight starts 2 minutes into the movie. After that it is plotting, shouting, arguing, threatening and preaching. Even when the scene is in Mohammed’s camp, the backdrop is always the struggle with the kafirs. Then 34 minutes into the film, the first killing happens and killing continues for the next 1 ½ hours. Armed raids, assassinations, plots, spies, executions, torture, rape, battles, and on and on. Kafirs die and lose. Mohammed dies. Islam triumphs. End of film.

DO THE MATH: The Sira defines Mohammed. The Sira IS Mohammed. Mohammed is Islam. Sira = kafir hatred = Mohammed = Islam. Therefore, Islam = kafir hatred.

DHIMMITUDE AND JEW HATRED: Let’s analyze a best-selling biography of Mohammed by Karen Armstrong. The Sira is the gold standard for Mohammed’s life and we have measured what its focus is. Let’s use the Sira to measure Armstrong’s biography. Whereas, the Sira devotes 72% of its length to the jihad phase of Mohammed, Armstrong only allots 27% of her text to Mohammed’s jihad. Her total material devoted to Mohammed as a prophet is 183 pages, out of which 49 are jihad. There should be 132 pages of jihad to match the Sira. She eliminated 83 pages of jihad in order to make Mohammed look less violent.

She does the same thing with the Jew hatred/jihad. In the Sira, 5.3% of the text relates to the destruction of the Jews—assassinations, executions, rapes, torture and exile. This 5.3% only includes the physical harm, there are many other pages of Jew hatred that do not involve violence. In Armstrong’s biography, the destruction of the Jews is 2.7% of the text. She omits half of the Jew hatred material.

Basically, Armstrong censors half of the Jewish destruction and two-thirds of the jihad in her biography of Mohammed.

The Sira contains two kinds of negative material about the Jews. I have mentioned the 5.3% devoted to physical violence, but there is much material that is a verbal violence against the Jews. If you add the verbal violence to the physical violence, the Sira is 8.6% Jew hatred.

Hitler’s Mein Kamph devotes 6.8% of its material to Jew hatred, but no actual violence. If you remove that 6.8% of Jewish rants you are left with a political treatise that is no worse than any of the current political propaganda. With the right editing, Hitler was no more than a German politician. If you published a Mein Kamph without the 6.8%, you would be criticized. But Armstrong’s book was critically acclaimed. Why is censoring the kafir/Jew hatred from Mohammed cheered, whereas the removal of the Jew hatred from Hitler would be condemned? It is simple, we think that European Jew hatred is evil, but that Islamic Jew hatred needs to be understood and ignored. What is astounding is that this argument is put forward by most Jews.

Of course, her bias does not stop with just censoring the material. Oh no, Armstrong cheers when the Meccan kafirs die. Every death of a kafir is wonderful, since it advances the glory of Mohammed. She justifies the destruction of the Jews and says that Christians have done worse.

Ms. Armstrong is a dhimmi. She is a loud and sympathetic cheerleader for Mohammed and insults the kafir Arabs. She represents the perfect dhimmi-centric writer.

TOTAL DHIMMITUDE: Now let’s measure the dhimmitude of the Republicans, Democrats, professors and the rest. Armstrong deletes most of Mohammed’s cruelty, but at least she is willing to show Mohammed to be a little evil. That is more than Department of Homeland Security, FBI, public education, Pentagon, ACLU or the local police do. You will search a long time to find a rabbi or pastor who knows nearly as much as Ms. Armstrong will admit. Almost all of our leaders are 100% dhimmi, since they deny all evil found in the doctrine of Islam.

Everyone hates Mein Kamph, without having actually read it, and will condemn Hitler and the Nazis, but try finding a kafir who hates the Sira and who will condemn Mohammed. Yet, the Sira contains 8.6% Jew hatred, Mein Kamph is 6.8% Jew hatred.

Do the math of dhimmitude. If those percentages were mortgage rates, everyone would understand the math because it involves money. But when it involves the survival of our civilization, we read the statement as--no problem with the Sira or Islam, but we need to talk about those Nazis.

As bad as Armstrong is—and she is dreadful—she is not as bad as the dhimmis in Washington, DC, the churches, synagogues, universities and the media. And the dhimmitude is the same in Europe, India, Canada and the rest of the world.

NOTE--POINT-OF-VIEW: There are always three points-of-view about Islam. The first is the believer-centric, Muslim, view. The second view is kafir-centric. A kafir has only one qualification—a kafir is anyone who does not believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. There is a third view, the dhimmi-centric view. It is the believer-centric view except it is written by an apologist kafir.

This analysis is kafir-centric. Kafir-centric sees Islam from the standpoint of what happened to the kafir, how the kafir is treated. Today the history of the victim is popular fare for the colleges—African slave and native American history, for example. Kafir history is the history of the victim of Islam. When will this history be taught in our schools?

Note: Occasionally there are comments by readers that are well worth repeating. This is one such comment from a person by the name of Mackie:

The question that always surfaces; why are so many of our politicians and leaders refusing or simply failing to recognize what is written in the Sira, the hadiths, and the suras' in the Quran?

No one's asking them to go after a PHD in the subject, but simply to recognize the obvious applications of what is written in the Quran that is effecting Western life everywhere and has been for centuries.

Are they not willing to study Major Coughlin's Thesis on Islam, or Ibn Warraq's, Why I Am Not A Muslim; Serge Trifkovic's, The Sword of the Prophet; Bat Yeor's, Eurabia, and a host of informative books from Robert Spencer.

Understanding the fundamental Islamic mindset is critical to the survival of Western cultures, it is something that must be understood more than anything by our political leaders.

The true gauge of ignorance shows clearly as so many of them practice an over zealousness that favors the " not in my back yard mentality" of refusing to allow America to be securely energy independent and instead relying on giving billions of dollars to people who hate us. We are being lead by people who seemingly don't have a clue that they are exposing our achilles tendon by giving enemy combatants the same rights as American citizens, by tying our hands when trying to electronically monitor the enemy, even with permission from the FISA Courts.

Yes Major Coughlin's Thesis was right on target " To our great detriment" Ignoring what extremists say about jihad"

"You cannot defeat your enemy if you cannot define him".
General Douglas MacArthur

All emphasis mine.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

From the Front Lines - Update

First hour total from the "From the Front Lines" telethon was over $297,000. I will continue with updates as the show goes forward. Go to the story below for all the information and links.


Update for total after hour two: $331,449.

I was just listening to a guest named John Ondrasik from the group Five for Fighting, and they asked him why he showed so much patriotism - was it because of family in the military, was he in the military, etc - he gave the best response I can imagine, he said, "It's just common sense" (to support the troops and be patriotic).

Update for total after hour three: $448,553 - the goal WAS $500,00 and they just changed it to $1,000,000. Woo Hoo!

Update for total after hour four: $592,916 - original goal surpassed!!!

Hour five: over $698,000 - this is amazing and I love all the positives - refreshing not to here negative talk.

Total at 9:54 pm: $714,299 - plus I just received the following email from Move America Forward.

Fellow Americans - we've been blown away by your generosity for our troops. We thought we had a good shot of reaching our goal of $500,000 in care packages for our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan. But we have already surpassed that goal and are now poised to potentially reach $1,000,000 tonight during our telethon.You can help us reach this incredible goal.

Here's the link to sponsor care packages:


With 1 1/2 hours to go, the total sits at $837,997!

Last hour starting: total is $910,006 - the million dollar mark is getting close.

30 minutes to go: $980,423 - and they just read a message from the Commander-in-Chief.

This has been a totally awesome 8 hours. I have totally enjoyed the great hosts (and yes Melanie and Michelle are babes), the guest have been awesome and the list is too long to list, but from Rush in hour 1 to David Bellavia from Vets for Freedom and running for Congress in NY in the last 30 minutes it's been a who's who of pro-troop supporters and mainly conservatives.

Drum roll please: total at the end of 8 hours is: $1,055,719 and counting!

God Bless America

From The Front Lines!!


Direct link to UStream.tv.
Join us!

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Garry Hammers Saudi Official's Decision on Marriage

by Garry

The Prophet Muhammad (Moe) married Aisha when she was six and consumated the marriage by having sex with her when she was nine.It is the Prophet Moe whose model we follow.Saudi Marriage Officiant Dr Ahmad Al-Mub'i declares in a video clip the tenets of Islamic Law (sharia law) concerning marriage. Dr Al states that for a girl to be wed at the age of one year is perfectly acceptable.

The clip is

This rag head camel jockey is completely serious about this. For those who are from the Left side of the aisle, pay attention, this is what yielding to the enemy will bring to your doorstep.
Sharia law is being implemented by de facto in the U.K., there are sections of english cities which the Bobby's (British Police )will not enter, they have been warned not to enter by the reigning Imams, who suggest the Bobby's are not safe in those areas.

Why is the ignorance of a 7th Century child molestor (Moe) so difficult for those on the Left to understand?


This Global War on Jihad (GWOJ) is coming to a theatre near you! War Theatre that is.
Keith Ellison is the first member of the Federal House of Representatives from the State of Minnesota.

Acceptance of Islam is the denial of personal rights.
Acceptance of Islam is the denial of our Courts of Law.
Acceptance of Islam is the denial of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all.
Acceptance of Islam is the denial of the sacrifice by so many who have died to keep this country free for all.
Acceptance of Islam is National Suicide

Defeat of Islam requires harsh measures by harsh men and women.
Defeat of Islam is not optional, it is mandatory if the American Nation is to survive

Get on board or get out of the way, but do not be an impediment to the process.
Solution, or problem, choose a side and live with the consequence.


Our good friend xdhimmi Deb produced this for A Newt One shortly after the decision to give enemy combatants rights that should be reserved for American citizens. And whether you agree with everything in the video or not - there is no doubt that the Supreme Court got this one wrong, and Do The Right Thing agrees that there should be an investigation of the justices that did not follow our Constitution.

OP:ED - Dobson vs. Obama; It's About Time

When it comes to Conservative Christians, it's about time that someone on a national level speaks up with our views. He new media has been pounding this issue, but it seems that McCain would just as soon the Christian voters would go away - like we are a risk factor for him.

That said, whether you like or want our vote, and even more important for our side even if we have to hold our nose, ignore the "none of the above" option, and bite on a lemon while pulling the McCain lever, then this Conservative Christian is going to do all of the above (well, maybe I won't bring the lemon with me).

The reason for this you may ask. Why would you vote for someone you don't like or someone who doesn't seem to want your vote? It's the only choice we have, and because McCain has it right on the GWOT.

Not a very flattering endorsement there CP. Well, if I'm nothing else, I am honest. I said long ago that I would back McCain and I would cease on harping on his negatives. I believe I am holding true to that promise. Here, I'm just mentioning what I see as recent developments and the facts as I see them.

Now on to the article below. Obama is "USING" Christians! From Jeremiah Wright to his support of partial-birth abortion and his ties to the Muslim religion, I can't find much that suggests that Obama is promoting much of anything we Christians hold dear.

Thank you Dr. Dobson for standing up for what many of us have been saying for months!

This article has been cross-posted at Digital Journal. Click here to vote for it.

Dobson and Obama

Dr. James Dobson has taken Senator Barack Obama to task, accusing the presidential candidate of abusing the Word of God -- and the senator has responded, accusing the evangelical leader of "making stuff up."

Dobson broadcast:
Obama 'dragging biblical understanding through gutter' ... On Tuesday morning, James Dobson of Focus on the Family went on the attack against Barack Obama, accusing him of abusing the Word of God ...

Obama, supporters attack Dobson ... Barack Obama said later on Tuesday that evangelical leader James Dobson was "making stuff up" when he accused the presumed Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible ...

Related: Obama's petition to Catholics, Evangelicals ... Political scientist and presidential historian Paul Kengor says Barack Obama's aggressive effort to reach out to centrist Evangelicals and Catholics is an appeal to social justice activists like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo ...

The above links provided by OneNewsNow.com take a good look at the issue, the rebuttal and a related story.

Like us or hate us, Christian Conservatives make up a huge voter block, and I think Dobson has done more to help McCain against Obama with Conservative Christians than anything that McCain has done to this point.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Iraq Fairy Tales

Front Page Magazine

By Ralph Peters
New York Post Tuesday, June 24, 2008

WORKING out last Monday, I heard a campaign flunky on TV insist that progress in Iraq is an illusion. "The war isn't over until all of the troops come home!" she grumped.

Guess we're still at war with Germany. And Japan. Even Italy. Oh, and let's not forget all of our military bases occupying the Confederacy.

The poor woman knew nothing about warfare, history - or Iraq. She just wanted to see her candidate win in November and wasn't going to let reality get in the way.

And one look told you she didn't even know any "troops."

But after my initial shrug (back to the bench for more crunches), it struck me how wrong I'd been on a point I'd argued for two decades: I claimed that Western societies have an advantage because of their insistence on factual data.

Yet, since 9/11, I've seen and heard no end of my fellow citizens' arguing from blind passion and utterly refusing to ingest facts that didn't match their prejudices (left or right). Since the turnabout in Iraq began a year and a half ago, the rejection of reality has become an outright pathology for the quit-Iraq-and-free-the-terrorists set.

I've watched millions of my countrymen and countrywomen insist that fantasies are real. In a classic through-the-looking-glass reversal last year, Sen. Hillary Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus, the man who turned Iraq around, that his reports of progress were fairy tales. It was the world turned upside down.

Since that woman on TV "explained" victory last Monday, I've thought about the different kinds of people who refuse either to accept that the situation in Iraq has improved remarkably or that quitting now would have serious consequences.

When I break down the "fairy tales can come true" crowd, the first division is into vendors and consumers. Determined to elect the president of its choice, the "mainstream" media has collapsed into outright lies and whopping distortions. And, of course, political hacks will do anything to get their candidate elected.

It's the consumers of fairy tales - those desperate to believe - who are more interesting. They come in several basic flavors, two of which we can quickly set aside:

Protesting university students. Don't worry about them. Once they graduate and get a dose of reality, most of the kids will do fine. The need for liberal-arts undergrads to prance to the left is virtually hormonal.

Hollywood stars and other celebrities. No worries there, either. Just check out the box-office receipts for the dozen or so self-righteous anti-war (anti-military) films. These folks are so far removed from reality that they believe the roles they play give them genuine expertise. Don't get irate - just laugh. (Coming soon: Susan Sarandon on quantum physics!)

But there's another sad bunch:

My generation. Those of us from our mid-50s into early 60s. The florid youth of yesteryear who declared they were going to change the world, made a mess others had to clean up - and the high point of whose lives came in a protest march down University Boulevard, chanting, "Ho-ho-ho Chi Minh! NLF is gonna win!"

The key to understanding the aging activists' bitterness toward the military (disguised as concern for the common soldier) and their obsession with the rights of terrorists is that this cobbled-together cause gives them one last chance to rise above their disappointing lives and to recapture, for one Viagra-assisted moment, their glory days of raised little fists and bell-bottoms.
Reality proved bitter for this bunch. In an infuriating turnabout, it was the nerds in the comp-science classes, the geeks with punch cards in their shirt pockets, who changed the world (and became billionaires). It just doesn't seem fair that the folks with multiple degrees in Comparative Literature ended up, at best, with tenure at an obscure college, serial divorces and a failed book or two.

My generation's sense of entitlement is, of course, legendary. But most of us got jobs and got on with our lives. Only a soured minority never got over that brief moment in the sun before the communes fell apart because someone had to do the dishes (and pay for the penicillin).

Just as no evidence was ever going to convince them that Communists might not all be virtuous, nothing is going to convince them that Iraq is emerging as a better place, for its own people and for us, than it was under Saddam Hussein. They need to believe that our country, having failed to recognize their innate greatness, is wrong.

I'd pity them, if the stakes weren't so high.

If aging activists really want to change the world for the better, facing reality would be a great first step. Magic beanstalks don't really grow into the clouds. That's still a minivan, pal, before and after midnight. Little Red Riding Hood doesn't always make it safely home to the Upper West Side.

And the United States isn't always evil.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Addition to Mrs. CP's Post on Doug Gibbs

Here is some additional information on the post Mrs. CP made earlier this afternoon about Doug Gibbs. Let me start by giving you some links. Here is the link to the post on his blog: Probably My Last Post;

On BTR: Off The Air

And below is article that Mrs. CP posted, only the author has "cleaned" it up a little if you compare the two. Following the article are the comments up to the time that I made this post.

Finally here is the link to the Andrea Shea-King show to listen to Doug tell the story: www.blogtalkradio.com/ASKShow .

BTR Host Signs Off After Receiving Legal Action Threats

Political Pistachio

A BlogTalkRadio show host could be facing a legal crisis. While we’re all about free speech, and BTR hosts can pretty much talk about everything, sometimes a host goes a little too far in the eyes of listeners, readers or activist groups.

You see, Doug Gibbs, host ofPolitical Pistachio, didn’t pull any punches on his blog and radio showwhen offering his views regarding gay marriage. Some felt the language was harsh and people took offense. As a result Doug pulled his show from the air and ceased blogging because he’s afraid of legal action.

Doug now admits to a knee jerk reaction by pulling his show, and despite threats of legal action, is ready to talk about what is happening. Tonight he will be a guest on the Andrea Shea King show at 9:00 p.m. EST to discuss why he went dark, why he is receiving legal threats and whether or not he will return to the airwaves.

Whether you agree with Doug’s views or not, there’s a lot more to this than a right wing point of view. What can we say on the air on our own radio shows and on our blogs without being threatened with legal action? Will this lead to another Code of Conduct debate?

It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

24 Responses to “BTR Host Signs Off After Receiving Legal Action Threats”


    Wow…I’m definitely going to be there so I can be a part of history.


  2. riskybusiness04 Says:

    While I don’t agree with some of his views, (I tend to be more moderate myself) I do think that we are entitled to our opinion no matter what it is. What is free speech if we don’t actually exercise that right?

    I think it is going to be an interesting debate, for bloggers, and people who comment on blogs. I think that while comments debating the issues of the day are good, but threats and overall “being a troll” is crossing the line.

    When outspoken people run, trolls and haters win. I think everyone should have their say no matter what your views are.

    Just my .02

    Welcome back Doug.

  3. x_dhimmi Says:

    Why isn’t there an author’s name attached to this post?

  4. theflyingmonkeys Says:

    Who wrote this?
    Did you think to talk to Doug to maybe get the facts straight?
    Shame on you BTR Blogger.

  5. Wild Phil Says:

    While I do agree with most of what Doug says ie 99.9%.

    I’m tired of censorship garbage, people getting in a huff over some ones views and decides to complain, want to complain about what I said, come to me and complain to me, other wise STFU.

    Welcome back Doug

  6. KarenO Says:

    The original poster doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Doug is never harsh and was not afraid of any legal action. The poster used this opportuity to voice his own political opinions– and nothing constuctive other than the threat to free speech.

  7. Deborah Ng Says:

    My byline is attached to the bottom of the post. Please be advised that I presented the facts as they were presented to me.

  8. x_dhimmi Says:

    Deborah, The facts as presented to me and scores of others are different. I assume it is safe to say your source is not Doug. I’ll not say more till after hearing the full story this evening from the one person who is in a position to know the facts. But the language you use in this post is heavily biased against Doug. I’ve been a listener to Doug’s shows for seven months, and your characterization is too harsh in my opinion.

  9. Humbled Infidel Says:

    Deborah, this is an unfair hit piece. Who presented these wrong facts to you?

    You should have talked with Doug before writing about him or rather berating him.

    Now people see you as someone who post without facts.

  10. Melissa Says:

    I’m not sure I understand? Deborah said the Doug is being threatened with legal action and links to the blog post where Doug himself admits to the same. Deborah said his views aren’t popular, even Doug admits his opinions aren’t always popular. So were is she berating him or posting without facts?

  11. x_dhimmi Says:

    Melissa, Please re-read Doug’s blog post. Doug “admits” (that word is negatively connotated) nothing of the sort. Whose views are popular with everyone? Why “admit” one’s views are unpopular with some? The statement is true for all, even you. The person (Deborah) who wrote this promo piece for BTR used inflammatory language to characterize Doug as intolerant, as bigoted — SHESH! I JUST SCROLLED UP TO CHECK EXACTLY WHAT DEBORAH HAD WRITTEN AND SHE HAS CHANGED HER WORDS — SHE HAS DISAPPEARED THE EVIDENCE OF HER OWN INTOLERANCE. Well, there ‘ya go, Melissa. Think.

  12. x_dhimmi Says:

    And, yes, the original post with all its loaded language is posted elsewhere. Will Deborah please tell us why she changed wording with no explanation?

  13. Shane Says:

    Any debate on same-sex marriage is going to be offensive to somebody. Gays see it as an issue of equality and affirmation, traditional Americans see it as an attack on an institution that needs to be taken more seriously, not less. Doug spends his whole week here on BTR discussing issues like this - the problem is not Doug, it’s the immature person who threatened him for speaking his mind. This medium, BTR, will die if we don’t all have respect for free expression. Our energy should be spent protecting that freedom, not reconfiguring the code of conduct so that no one will be offended.

    Let’s get our priorities straight - freedom first. Beyond that we should concentrate on how to preserve it!

  14. Wild Phil Says:

    I agree with x_dhimmi, What ya going to do Deborah when your own gratuitous unfounded loaded language that was full of bull, is saved else where and you can’t back out of your own blubbering commentary. If you can’t get the facts from the source then don’t make up garbage and post it as if it did come from the source. Your whole article is nothing more than a glorified hit piece, I hope that you fare as well when someone decides to do the same to you someday. Don’t come whining to me about something that some one else wrote about you then because maybe/hopefully that you will have learned your lesson.

  15. Humbled Infidel Says:

    @ Melissa

    [quote]You see, Doug Gibbs, host of Political Pistachio, didn’t pull any punches on his blog and radio show when offering his views regarding gay marriage. Some felt the language was harsh and people took offense. As a result Doug pulled his show from the air and ceased blogging because he’s afraid of legal action.[/quote]

    (Some felt) you mean the ones who came there just seeking the words they could be offended at.

    (as a result Doug pulled his show from the air and ceased blogging because he’s afraid of legal action.) This is a huge assumption. And I’ll even go farther and say THOSE WORDS OF DEBORAHS ARE NOT EVEN TRUE. He has written me and told me WHY he considered stopping the show and not blogging and it had nothing to do with LEGAL ACTION.

    So see Melissa that is a false assumption. Not a fact.

    And why would someone be afraid of legal actions in this country.

    Aren’t we all about free speech?

    Aren’t we allowed our own opinions?

    Aren’t people free to choose what radio show they actually have to put out effort to get to, to listen to?

    Did he libel anyone? NO!

    Also, I’ve gotta say, the wording in the article is a bit different than when I posted my previous comment. That should definitely be mentioned in the posted article above. Wouldn’t that be considered an ethical action?

    Changing words in an article and not mentioning that fact also gives a false impression to any who read it now and then the comments left. What would you call that?

  16. Joshua P. Allem Says:

    To the author of this blog post: Please read the fine print in Doug’s original posts. He never said he received threats of legal action. He only said that he couldn’t discuss what happened for legal reasons.

  17. Woof!! Says:

    must be nice to excercise free speech on here : (

  18. melampus Says:

    I have known Douglas V. Gibbs for about three months. I have never heard him use harsh language against anyone. The only reason he left was because he was afraid for the safety of his family. Douglas is more than fair with anyone who calls into his show. I will be there at Andrea’s show tonight to welcome him back to the air waves.

  19. Jenn Says:

    Same shizznet different day.

  20. One Black Man Says:

    People should be held accountable for their speech. I am a strong free speech advocate and you the First Amendment does not protect threats of bodily injury, solicitation of a crime (calling for someone to be shot), as well as other speech which can be and should be prosecuted as a crime.

    I am not a professional journalist nor do I pretend to be but I have common sense to get my facts straight and the decency to issue a retraction if I am wrong. Bloggers should be held to the same standards when “reporting” on someone. For six months I was accused of saying I wanted to nuke America or wanted America to be nuked. I was attacked in chats rooms for this by people I do not even know.

    Just because you are on the Internet does not mean you get say what you want without legal repercussions. I am not commenting on Doug because I do not have the facts but I hope this situation puts some people on notice. Thank you Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Micheal Savage and the like, you really have lower the standards of American political discourse.

  21. Gawfer Says:

    Interestingly, The topic of free speech has been in debate recently in the blogosphere as well. One person’s very racist comments that were used to discuss illegal immigration were latched onto by another blogger who called for the cancellation of his website.

    Though I completely disagree with the method and language used to discuss Illegal immigration, I defended the free speech of the offending blogger for the simple reason that the First Amendment does not protect me or anyone else from being offended.

    As bloggers like Doug, (who are amateur hosts), attempt to present their views on BTR, as long as they do not violate any laws, they should be under the protection of BTR. If the rules established by BTR exceed the law, then the BTR forum becomes restrictive and does not represent free speech. Further, If BTR sides with the few who may be offended, then BTR becomes part of the problem created by political correctness that is so pervasive in our society today and helps destroy another little piece of free speech.

  22. Mayr Fortuna Says:

    Hi there you people?

    I have been reading you comments…

    You see people, I am a Brazilian, writing to you from Brazil.

    It is of lerge importance, how large I can´t say, that you people stand for FREEDOM OF SPEACH!

    You valuate too much, the so called Minority Rigts!

    And about the Majority Rights?

    After the communists have taken of more than 75% of the Occidental World, and reenforced the “Politically Correct” actitudes, you Americans are every day fighting over minorities issues this, minorities issues that and else.

    A question, how many Gays are there in US?

    Certainlly no more than in Brazil, say 12% of the whole population?

    Are this people entytled to sue anyone that dislikes them? And if so, why? If the Majoryty mostly let them leave in peace?

    Stand for Freedom of Speach. The BASIC RIGHT! If you loose it Americans, it´s over, beleave-me!

  23. theflyingmonkeys Says:

    Deborah -
    FYI - when using the direct link from the news feed, your name does NOT show up at the bottom of the post - odd, but true.

    FYI - when you change a post drastically as you did this one, you should at least mention it is revised, rewritten, and the hatefulness removed. It is only ethical to do so.

  24. Deborah Ng Says:

    I do apologize to anyone who was offended by my post as that wasn’t my intention.

    Regardless of how you feel about me however,, you must know that BlogTalkRadio is always on the side of free speech