Friday, March 31, 2006

Wait Condi....mistakes ???? ...slow on the uptake aren't ya

Updated: 02:07 PM EST
Rice Admits 'Thousands' of Errors in Iraq

By Gideon Long and Sue Pleming, REUTERS

BLACKBURN, England (March 31) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accepted on Friday the United States had probably made thousands of errors in Iraq but defended the overall strategy of removing Saddam Hussein.

Local Muslims and anti-war activists told Rice to "Go Home" when British counterpart Jack Straw earlier led her on a tour of his home town of Blackburn in the industrial northwest, an area which rarely plays host to overseas politicians.

"Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them," she said in answer to a question over whether lessons had been learned since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"I believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision, that Saddam had been a threat to the international community long enough," she added.

Earlier, about 250 protesters gathered outside a school which Rice visited, waving placards urging her to go home and shouting as her motorcade arrived.

Many of them were locals from Straw's constituency of Blackburn, a former cotton town with a 20 percent Muslim population. Straw invited Rice to the area after he toured her home state of Alabama last year.

Protesters had already persuaded a mosque in the town to withdraw its invitation to her.

"The Muslim population is very angry. She's not welcome in Blackburn," said Suliman, one of the demonstrators outside Pleckgate school, where Rice met young pupils.

"How many lives per gallon?" asked one of the placards held aloft, in reference to the U.S. invasion of oil-rich Iraq which many Britons opposed.

During a visit to a Student Council meeting at the school, Rice was asked whether she was upset by the demonstrators.

"Oh, it's OK, people have a right to protest and a right to make their views known," Rice told the teenage student.

"Each individual all over the world has the God-given right to express themselves. I'm not just going to visit places where people agree with me. That would be really unfortunate."

Rice delivered her speech alongside Straw in the somewhat incongruous setting of Blackburn Rovers' soccer stadium, where she was given a Number 10 jersey from one of England's teams.

She arrived in Britain late on Thursday from Paris and, before that, Berlin, where she discussed the next steps in dealing with Iran's nuclear program with officials from Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China.

Rice said she supported Straw's view that sanctions should be considered against Iran if it does not comply with calls to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

"Iran is going to have to make a choice... accept a way to the development of civil nuclear power... or face deeper isolation," said Rice.

While Rice and Straw both had tough words to say about Iran, they expressed sympathy for the victims of an earthquake which killed at least 66 people in the west of the country.

"(It's) very shocking, with what seems to be a large loss of life," Straw said during a visit to a Britain Aerospace factory where the United States and Britain are involved in a joint project for fighter aircraft.

Rice's trip is expected to be heavy on photo opportunities and light on discussion, as was Straw's trip to the American south in October.

It will give Rice a chance to indulge her passion for The Beatles. She was due later to travel to Liverpool where she will attend a concert and visit a performing arts center founded by former Beatle Paul McCartney.


2006-03-31 10:04:51

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Ah.....Levity....

Making People Happy

President Bush, First Lady Laura and Dick Cheney were flying on Air
Force
One. George looked at Laura, chuckled and said, "You know, I could throw
a
$1,000 bill out of the window right now and make somebody very happy."

Laura shrugged her shoulders and replied, "I could throw ten $100 bills
out
of the window and make ten people very happy
."

Cheney added, "That being the case, I could throw one hundred $10 bills
out
of the window and make a hundred people very happy."


Hearing their exchange, the pilot rolled his eyes and said to his
co-pilot,
"Such big-shots back there. Hell, I could throw all of them out of the
window and make 56 million people very happy."

FISA and the Warrantless Surveillance News

Must the President of the United States obey the law? Ordinarily, the
answer of course is yes, unless the law itself is unconstitutional.


It is "uncontroversial," wrote then-Assistant Attorney General Walter
Dellinger in a 1994 memorandum for the Clinton White House, that
"there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately
decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional
."

See "Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional
Statutes,
" Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, November
2, 1994:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc110294.html

However, the President does not have the last word on what is or is
not constitutional. That decision belongs to the Supreme Court.

A new bill introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) yesterday would
set the stage for the Supreme Court to consider the legality of the
Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance program by granting
legal standing to litigants seeking to challenge the program.

"Did the President go outside the ambit of the law about asking for a
warrant?"
asked Sen. Schumer. "Some think yes, and they are pretty
sure of that. Some think no, and they are pretty sure of it. They are
pretty sure that he couldn't. Many are not sure at all.
"

"The most logical place for this to be settled is in the U.S. Supreme
Court
," he said in his March 29 introductory statement on the new
bill (S. 2468). See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s2468.html

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on March 28 featuring
four former judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and
other expert witnesses who testified on issues surrounding the
warrantless surveillance program and Senator Specter's legislative
proposal on the subject.

Prepared statements from Sen. Leahy, FISA expert Morton Halperin of
the Center for American Progress, and former Justice official David
Kris (but not yet the statements of the judges) can be found here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/index.html#nsa3

A rare interview with FISA Court Judge George Kazen of Laredo, Texas
appeared in the Dallas Morning News earlier this week.

See "Judge juggles busy docket, secret duty" by Todd J. Gilman, Dallas
Morning News, March 28 (free but intrusive registration required):

http://tinyurl.com/f4vek

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

When will I be 'Confident' that Bush will stand trial for war crimes ????

Bush 'Confident' Taylor Will Stand Trial for War Crimes
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
March 29, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush Wednesday praised Nigeria for its work in apprehending warlord and rebel leader, Charles Taylor, who has been charged with crimes related to Sierra Leone's 14-year civil war.

After his ouster as leader of Liberia, Taylor lived in exile in Nigeria - the result of a deal with Nigerian President Olesegun Obasanjo in 2003. Taylor "disappeared" this week after Washington upped the pressure on Nigeria to surrender him to a war crimes tribunal.

Bush was urged by Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), vice-chairman of the Africa subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who serves on the Africa subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to cancel his meeting with Obasanjo until Taylor is found.

"The fact that Charles Taylor will be brought to justice in a court of law will help Liberia and is a signal, Mr. President, of your deep desire for there to be peace in your neighborhood," Bush told Obasanjo in an Oval Office meeting.

Obasanjo denied that his country was responsible for Taylor's disappearance.

"I do not agree, must disagree that we have been negligent in the way we handled the Charles Taylor issue," Obasanjo said.

"If we had been negligent, then Charles Taylor would have got away," Obasanjo said. "He would not have been arrested if there was negligence."

Ina press conference later in Washington, Bush was asked by a reporter whether Bush is confident that Taylor will stand trial now that he has been recaptured. "I'm much more confident today than I was yesterday," Bush said, jokingly.

"Such a process will require a United Nations Security Council resolution. Secretary Rice who was in a meeting told me that she thought that ... might happen relatively quickly. So therefore, I think he is headed for where he belongs, which is trial," said Bush.

The president said he spoke to the new leader of Liberia, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf about Taylor's initial disappearance.

"She was deeply concerned that Charles Taylor could be in a position to disturb this young democracy. I must tell you that I was most impressed by the leader from Liberia," said Bush, who added that America should be anxious to work with Sirleaf to help Liberia overcome years of violence.

"We certainly will do our efforts in the diplomatic channels to see to it that that's the case," he said.

Bush said he talked to Obasanjo about genocide in Sudan. "I'm deeply worried about the human conditions in Darfur. Ours is a government that spoke out about genocide, and we meant it," he said.

Bush said he thanked Obasanjo for the AU presence in Sudan but he told Obasanjo the presence is not "robust enough."

"I do believe there needs to be a blue helmeting of, not only the AU forces, but additional forces with a NATO overlay. And the reason I believe NATO ought to be a part of operation is two-fold," said Bush.

First, NATO will provide logistical and command-and-control and airlift capability as well as to send a clear signal to all parties that the West is determined to help reach a settlement in the matter, the president said.

"We're just not playing ... a diplomatic holding game," said Bush, "but that when we say genocide, we mean that the genocide has to be stopped." He also discussed with Obasanjo the need to establish a peace process going forward and to see unity amongst the rebel groups.

"The president told me he has met with the rebel groups trying to come up with a focused message that can then be used to negotiate with the government of Sudan,"
said Bush.

As a result of that meeting, Obasanjo came up with a template, resource-sharing agreement that, if implemented for the north-south region can be developed and used for the Darfur region,"
Bush added.

Recruiters Desperate ???? 78 year old woman tapped

Marines Try to Recruit 78-Year-Old Woman

SAUGUS, Calif. (March 25) - Sonia Goldstein was flattered by the nice recruiting letter asking her to consider becoming one of "the few, the proud."


But at age 78, she believes she's just a little old to enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps.


"I couldn't believe it," Goldstein told KCAL-TV on Friday. "My girls were sitting here ... we were in hysterics, we laughed so hard."


The letter told her the corps could use her unique language skills, but also warned that life as a Marine would test her physical and mental abilities "beyond anything you've ever known."


"There I am with my walker. I can't maneuver from here to there without it," said Goldstein, who added that her only language is English.


"I'll do whatever I could for this wonderful country we live in," she said. "But you know, this is kind of stretching it a bit."


The Marines ordinarily recruit people 18 to 27, said Maj. Joseph Kloppel, a corps spokesman. He said the letter must have been sent by mistake.


"Seventy-eight is obviously too old
," Kloppel added.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Sign up to this site....daily updates of what the gov't is up to ....

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 40
March 28, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

Support Secrecy News:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp


** THE AIPAC CASE: "UNCHARTED WATERS"
** SELECTED CRS REPORTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST


THE AIPAC CASE: "UNCHARTED WATERS"

The prosecution of two former officials of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for allegedly receiving and communicating
classified information without authorization poses novel legal
issues, the presiding judge in the case said last week.

"We are a bit in new, uncharted waters, and that's why I'm going to
consider this matter extremely carefully,
" said Judge T.S. Ellis III
at a March 24 hearing on defense motions to dismiss the case.

This is the first case in which the government has sought to
criminalize the unauthorized receipt of classified information by
non-governmental persons who do not hold security clearances.

Anything other than a dismissal of the charges would mark a dramatic
shift in national security law and a significant reduction in First
Amendment protections.

At the hearing last week, defense attorneys reiterated their arguments
that the underlying statutes are overbroad, unconstitutionally vague,
and do not apply to speech but only to the unauthorized transfer of
tangible materials such as classified documents.

Unlike documents that bear classification markings, the defense
pointed out, oral communications do not provide the recipient with
notice that their contents are restricted.

"It's not a coincidence that the words of the statute speak in [terms
of] tangible items, and the conduct here is oral
," said defense
attorney Abbe Lowell.

Under such circumstances, "How can a defendant, a potential defendant,
trying to decide whether or not he's stepping across the line,
determine when -- what information is national defense information,
and when it isn't?
" Judge Ellis asked the prosecution.

"It all depends upon the facts, your Honor," replied Assistant U.S.
Attorney Kevin DiGregory vaguely.

Furthermore, documents can be returned to their rightful owners. But
oral information once received into conscious awareness is difficult
not to retain. Yet according to the government, retention of such
information by unauthorized recipients is illegal too.

"Well, what are they supposed to do," asked Judge Ellis, "have a
lobotomy?"


Prosecutors argued that this is not a First Amendment case involving
protected speech.

"What we have alleged in our indictment, your Honor, is not First
Amendment protected activity,"
said Mr. DiGregory.

"What we have alleged is that these two men conspired with persons,
known and unknown, they conspired to gather and disseminate national
defense information. And we have alleged that they have done so, and
communicated that information to persons not entitled to receive it
."

"What we're talking about here, your Honor, in the first instance, is
conduct. We're not talking about speech,
" he said.

"Do you think that you can transform speech into conduct?" Judge Ellis
replied. "You can't do it just by labeling it conduct."

"All speech is a type of conduct," the Judge continued, "but it's a
type of conduct which [defense attorney] Lowell would quickly say
falls within the First Amendment. But he would have to be quick to
concede that conduct in terms of giving someone a document is not
speech, under the First Amendment.
"

None of these disputed issues were resolved, and the Court's
aggressive questioning does not reliably indicate the Judge's own
predilections. The parties were ordered to further brief the First
Amendment issues by Friday, March 31.

A copy of the transcript of the March 24 hearing in U.S.A. v. Rosen
and Weissman was obtained by Secrecy News and may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/rosen032406.html

"I am not sure why FAS and other outlets are trying make AIPAC into
some kind of martyr of freedom,
" wrote one commenter on the Secrecy
News blog last week. "Its activities were clearly illegal and in
violation of US law. Let's be careful not to confound the defense of
freedom with a defense of illicit activity.
"

AIPAC, however, is not on trial and is not accused of wrongdoing.
Whether or not the defendants' activities were illegal is the
question that is now before the Court.

As for Secrecy News' interest in the case, it stems from the fact that
we also gather and disseminate "national defense information," a term
that encompasses both classified and unclassified defense
information.

We have "unauthorized" conversations with government officials.
Sometimes we deliberately pose questions about matters that we know
to be classified ("Psst...How big was the total intelligence budget
50 years ago?").


If the government's unbounded new interpretation of the espionage
statutes were to prevail, much of our research and publication
activity could arguably be considered illegal.

"Under the government's theory, in fact, countless conversations and
publications that take place every day are criminal acts
," the
Washington Post editorialized last week.

See "Dangerous Prosecution," Washington Post, March 23:

http://tinyurl.com/ggvvm


SELECTED CRS REPORTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST

Some recent reports of the Congressional Research Service on Middle
East-related topics include the following.

"Israel: Background and Relations with the United States," updated
March 16, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB82008.pdf

"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas: Overview of Internal and
External Challenges,
" updated March 9, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22047.pdf

"Iraq: Elections, Government, and Constitution," updated March 13,
2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21968.pdf

"Iraq: U.S. Regime Change Efforts and Post-Saddam Governance," updated
March 7, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL31339.pdf

"Women in Iraq: Background and Issues for U.S. Policy," updated March
13, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32376.pdf

"Lebanon," updated March 16, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB89118.pdf

"Saudi Arabia: Current Issues and U.S. Relations," updated February
24, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB93113.pdf

"Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy," updated
March 17, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30588.pdf



_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request@lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to
secrecy_news-remove@lists.fas.org

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

Secrecy News is archived at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

Secrecy News is available in blog format at:
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

SUPPORT Secrecy News with a donation here:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

Andy Card Resigns....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-28-card_x.htm

The question really is: Is he jumping ship while the getting is good or do they really think this will turn Bush's numbers around?

I'll take "jumping ship" for 500 Alex.

There is nothing that will turn BushCo's numbers around. The big clue happened yesterday when it was announced that two dirty bombs had slipped through border patrols 4 1/2 years after 9/11. What the hell?

How can you now say you are the party for security Republithugs? Every attempt to stop this flow of illegals has failed, now they're being offered amnesty under the guise of a Guest Worker program. You can't fix immigration policy until you fix the borders. Ass backwards is how this administration has been run from the git go.

Nothing surprises me anymore and if his numbers don't seriously tank after the press has a heyday on this issue - I'll be found projectile vomiting on my lawn.

Don't just censure this bunch, impeach them and then frogmarch them ALL to The Hague. Anything less is just not enough.

Whew I sort of feel better now. LOL

The party who comes out with a Flat Tax or Fair Tax is the party who'll get the votes. Enough of the corporate welfare. Pay your way or get the hell out. It would solve so many problems if we had Fair Taxation. Call your congresspeople and senators and push the issue. Perhaps they'll get a clue they WORK FOR YOU. Then again I might be having an optimistic moment.

Faith and Family Values...Republicans downfall....extremists always go to EXTREME....lol

Republicans Split Over Religion's Growing Role in Their Party

By Heidi Przybyla
March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Republicans, who have profited politically from emphasizing faith and family values, are now finding those same issues dividing the party.

Economic conservatives and secular Republicans complain their message is being drowned out by Christian conservatives preoccupied with banning abortion and gay marriage and limiting stem-cell research.

On the other side, ``values'' advocates say they have provided the party with crucial support, particularly in 2004, when they mobilized religious conservatives to go to the polls to help re-elect President George W. Bush.

Such concerns are turning long-simmering Republican tensions over the role of religious conservatives into an election-year split in a party already strained by differences on the Iraq war, immigration and government spending.

``There is a great deal of concern about this seeming attempt to couch everything in religious terms,'' said Christine Todd Whitman, the former governor of New Jersey. ``We're not a narrow-minded nation, and at least some of the people trying to define the Republican Party are coming off that way.''

If anything, religious conservatives deserve a greater Republican commitment to their agenda, said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council.

``We had reason for people all across the country to be engaged at unprecedented levels,'' said Perkins, whose group is organizing a ``values voter'' summit in September. ``It made a difference in states that were very closely divided.''

Book Tour

Whitman, who was Bush's Environmental Protection Agency administrator from 2001 to 2003, has been traveling the country promoting her book, ``It's My Party Too,'' and has started a political action committee to give Republicans like herself a greater voice and elevate issues such as government spending and health care.

Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said too much focus on abortion and gay marriage may weaken Republican support in the Northeast and other regions where economic matters and other issues count more.

``When you rely on those kind of social issues it helps you some places, but there's a cost to that,'' Davis said.

Some of this year's most hotly contested congressional races will be held in states such as Pennsylvania and Connecticut, where some Republicans say a conservative religious agenda may not play well with voters.

Losing Ground

``If you take a look at where the president's numbers are weakest and where the party has lost the most ground, it's in some of those areas where these issues have been played up,'' Davis said. Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress in 1994 because the party united behind the economic ideas in its ``Contract With America,'' he said.

Davis's concerns echo those of former Missouri Senator John Danforth, an Episcopal priest who wrote in the New York Times last March that his party had allowed a ``shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives.''

Those frustrations may reflect a shift in the party's balance of power away from economic conservatives and advocates of limited government, said John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio who studies the impact of religion on politics.

Shifting Numbers

``It may be that the Jack Danforths were more tolerant of the religious point of view when the libertarian view was dominant,'' Green said.

Ten years ago, small-government Republicans outnumbered religious-values voters by as much as 20 to 25 percentage points, said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster. Now their numbers are almost equal, he said.

``The real schism of the party is not abortion or gay rights,'' Fabrizio said. ``It's religiosity. It's whether or not you believe God's Law should be used to set public policy.'' Conflict between religious and self-described moderate Republicans will intensify ahead of the 2008 presidential election, Fabrizio said.

The debate is already playing out in Ohio, where an amendment banning gay marriage united religious conservatives behind Bush in the 2004 presidential race.

Two Ohio pastors who campaigned for the amendment have been accused by a group of clergy of violating tax laws by promoting Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, one of two Republican gubernatorial candidates in the May primary election.

Political Advocacy


In a complaint filed with the Internal Revenue Service in January, the accusers said Russell Johnson of the Fairfield Christian Church in Lancaster and Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church in Columbus violated a provision of the tax code barring political advocacy by churches and other nonprofits. The complaint cited several alleged instances in which the churches promoted Blackwell at religious events, in voter-registration drives and in educational materials.

Johnson called the complaint ``a form of harassment, and frivolous'' in an interview. ``Christians do not have to give up their citizenship just because they go to church,'' he said. Parsley, who declined to be interviewed, called the charges ``baseless and without merit'' in a statement issued in January, and said his church had always complied with federal tax laws.

The IRS, in a report issued last month, said it was stepping up enforcement of the ban on political advocacy by tax-exempt groups amid what it called a ``dramatic' increase in the amount of money such organizations are spending on political campaigns. For 2003-2004 it was more than $10 billion, more than double the $4 billion spent in the previous presidential election cycle, according to the IRS. Of the more than 100 groups being investigated, 47 percent are churches, the IRS said.

`Ground Zero'

Ohio is ``ground zero'' in a battle that will help determine how successful religious conservatives will be in organizing political campaigns through churches, said Barry Lynn, executive director of the Washington-based advocacy group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

If the Ohio attempt succeeds, ``there are going to be efforts to clone it in other states,'' he said. Similar networks are already being assembled in Texas and Pennsylvania, he said.

Amo Houghton, a former New York Republican congressman, says Republicans concerned about the influence of evangelicals should be more aggressive about speaking out, particularly with Bush's approval ratings at record lows. Houghton, who retired last year, opposed legislation in Congress that would have helped legalize partisan activity by churches.

``Political campaigns are trying to identify and enlist friendly congregations to reach out to others and establish beachheads in the religious community,'' Houghton said. ``I don't think that's right.''


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a4l9Gd5tOPY8

Monday, March 27, 2006

British Memo finally getting press....Bush was set on path to war.....

Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says

By DON VAN NATTA Jr., The New York Times

LONDON (March 27) - In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.


Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

The January 2003 memo
is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

Article continued at: http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060327072809990001&_ccc=2&cid=842

Friday, March 24, 2006

Ben has resigned......sorry I can't help but giggle...ALOT

Ben has resigned
WWW.CROOKSANDLIARS.COM for active links.

I think the plagarism done him in.

"In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday. An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately."

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.
"

I'd really like to hear Howard Kurtz's response to this news since he just penned a piece on the outage Ben's hire has caused. Howard was also a big defender of Ben in an earlier piece.


**** There was some really great responses on the WaPo blog comment page about his idealogical rhetoric etc...well worth the read. www.washingtonpost.com

WaPo has really lowered the bar !!!

See original article and links at : http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/03/24/domenech_blog/index.html

A portrait of the blogger as a young plagiarist
As a college student Ben Domenech lifted arts criticism; as a GOP henchman, he was accused of fabricating a Tim Russert quote. What was the Washington Post thinking?

By Joe Conason

March 24, 2006 |

Does the Washington Post intend to maintain journalistic standards in the brave new blogosphere? Or are those standards incompatible with the Post company's ambitions for WashingtonPost.com?

Those questions arise from the Post's hiring of Ben Domenech -- best known as a founder of RedState.com, but also known as a Bush appointee, and the son of a Bush appointee, and as a contributor to National Review Online -- to write a daily blog on the newspaper's Web site. That decision by Post management has provoked much speculation about its motive for employing Domenech. Many observers surmise that Domenech was brought on to "balance" Dan Froomkin, the popular White House Briefing blogger on WashingtonPost.com whose skepticism and wit have provoked whining from the right -- and defensive reactions from certain Post reporters worried by accusations of "liberal bias" at the paper.

Media watchers will remember that the Post's internal thrashing over Froomkin's column led to the Web site's last major public stumble, when it removed blog comments from a post by the paper's ombudswoman, Deborah Howell (after an imbroglio that began over Froomkin's column and continued over Howell's imprecise post about allegedly bipartisan political contributions by GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.) In their eagerness to appease critics on the right, the Post editors have blundered again. Whatever Froomkin's political views may be, he is a veteran reporter with a long résumé of newspaper jobs, including a decade at the Post. Domenech is a partisan operative with no newsroom experience of any kind, no training in journalistic standards and ethics, and nothing to guide him except home schooling and Republican reflexes.

Almost immediately the liberal blogosphere exploded with outrage over Domenech's hiring by the Post. But by Thursday bloggers had more than ideological reasons to oppose the Post's move, as he plagiarized film critic Stephanie Zacharek, and Mary Elizabeth Williams as well.

Domenech failed to reply to an email for comment, and as of this writing, it's not clear whether those plagiarism revelations will be enough to end the right-wing blogger's MSM career. His defenders may say Domenech was only a college student when he made those mistakes. But there's at least one instance in his post-college career when the blogger was accused of another major ethical breach -- a charge that he fabricated a quote by "Meet The Press" host Tim Russert back in June 2002, in an attempt to get his hero, President Bush, out of a political jam.

Back then, the world of Washington journalism was roiled by a debate over whether President Bush had said during the 2000 campaign that despite his commitment to a balanced budget, he might permit federal deficits in time of "war, recession, or national emergency." The president and his spokesmen insisted that he had referred to such a "trifecta" of disaster during a campaign stop in Chicago, but no text or recording existed to prove their point. (That was before the Iraq invasion, when Bush could still hope to maintain his reputation as a "straight shooter.")

As the "trifecta" dispute boiled up on the Sunday-morning talk shows and on blogs, Domenech leapt to Bush's defense on his own blog, the Ben File. In a post dated June 16, 2002, he brashly upbraided two of the president's critics on the deficit issue, Jonathan Chait of the New Republic and Tim Russert, NBC bureau chief and the host of "Meet the Press":

"The bigger issue," wrote Domenech, "is that Russert and Chait both claim the President never made caveats about deficits during times of crisis, that he's creating political cover out of thin air. They're wrong. Indeed, President Bush expressed his deficit views very [word missing] during the first New Hampshire debate on January 7, 2000 -- moderated by none other than Tim Russert: 'This is not only no new taxes, this is tax cuts, so help me God' -- Bush said, brushing away the prospect that national emergencies, such as war, might get in the way. Such developments would be 'extreme hypotheticals,' he said. 'If I ever commit troops, I'm going to do so with one thing in mind, and that's to win,' Bush said. 'And spend what it takes? Even if it means deficits?' asked the moderator, NBC's Tim Russert. 'Absolutely,' Bush replied, 'if we go to war.'" (AP, from Boston Globe)

"Does that refresh your memory, Tim?" he concluded mockingly.


Unfortunately for Domenech, his June 16 post drew the attention of Brendan Nyhan, one of the trio who then ran Spinsanity.org, the (now lamentably defunct) political fact-checking Web site. With a series of simple searches on Nexis and Westlaw, Nyhan learned that the electronic archives contained no such article. There were versions of an AP story that resembled the article cited by Domenech -- but none of them included that crucial question attributed to Russert: "Even if it means deficits?"

Challenged by Nyhan to produce proof that this story had ever been published, Domenech responded with a series of feeble non-answers.

"For anyone who doubts the veracity of the original quotes I posted from the AP article, I'm not currently at a computer that has WestLaw access, so I can't post the thing in its entirety at the moment (I've only got a printed copy)," he wrote. "And while it's not like I have a taped copy of the debate to check the article against, I tend to trust the AP, especially when there's no official MSNBC transcript." Then came an update acknowledging that he may have misquoted Russert, blaming the AP: "I've listened to the online version of the [New Hampshire] debate now, and I don't hear the second part of Russert's question as printed in the AP article. Considering that most accounts of the debate don't include this part of the question either, I'm close to believing that the AP article I have is inaccurate. I've been taken in by faulty reporting before, but never by the AP. Either way, I'll post the article tonight." Domenech then posted a second update that he claimed was a link to "the [Globe] article." He added, "Still, I think that it's an unreliable source." He linked to another page on his site that showed a very peculiar version of what was supposed to be an AP article in the Boston Globe on the New Hampshire debate, dated Jan. 7, 2000.

Among the various problems in this strange saga is that the Globe sent its own reporters, Jill Zuckman and Michael Kranish, to cover that New Hampshire debate. They filed a Jan. 7 story that accurately reflected what Russert had asked. Nexis shows no AP story in the Globe or anywhere else that includes the quote used by Domenech.

Was this an honest mistake? Or did Domenech fabricate a quote in order to attack Russert and other Bush critics? As Nyhan noted the other day, readers can draw their own conclusions.

But the examples of plagiarism that surfaced Thursday certainly add to the reasons to believe the earlier allegation. Even before the plagiarism story emerged, Media Matters was calling on the Post to terminate Domenech, because of the Russert quote-fabrication charge as well as an ugly post on Redstate.com referring to Coretta Scott King as a "communist" and other obnoxious commentary.

The Post may be deaf to complaints about overheated rhetoric and insults to a civil rights hero, but the plagiarism and quote-fabrication charges can't be ignored. It's hard to imagine Domenech will survive this, but whatever happens next, the Post's failure to adequately vet its new hire in its fretful search for "balance" could damage its credibility substantially. For now it looks like the paper hired the love child of Janet Cooke and Donald Segretti.

PrintEmail

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Christians sound off about Homosexuality

Note some of these comments are rational...but the bulk, judge for yourself.
This courtesy of: http://www.alainsnewsletter.com

Discussing: UNDERSTANDING HOMOSEXUALITY

Posted by: Sam Robison
2006-03-13 01:31:23

Good article and one worth reading again!! Very informative and to the point without inciting hate towards anyone. Simply the truth and very well written. Thanks!!
Posted by: Charles Sproull
2006-03-13 01:45:17

Under our United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, homosexuals have the same right to be protected from hatred, persecution and physical harm as all other American citizens. But, they are going way beyond their God-given rights when they selfishly demand protection (1) from good influences that can help them overcome their perverted lifestyle (homos at Corinth were saved by hearing and believing the good news of the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1-3) and by trusting the new birth procedure (follow the Bible thread >1 Cor 6:9-11 > Acts 18:8 > Acts 2:28 > John 3:18 > John 3:5), and (2) from the laws that were originally established in America to protect our children from abuse.
Posted by: Diane Booth
2006-03-13 02:49:04

Exactly! Informing the public about knowledge and facts is not "hatred" or "intolerance". Gays already have the same protections under the laws as every other citizen. Behavior is not a "right" when it affects the rights of other citizens. Smokers have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to smoke in certain places. Smokers don't cry "Smoke-aphobia" or demand laws protecting their behavior. It is astounding that children are the only ones don't have any rights in America, but no one seems to care about that. I guess that is because they can't vote or pay taxes.
Posted by: Rick Matheis
2006-03-13 05:37:34

There are many people, includingthe author of this article that lack a grasp on the nature of homosexuality and same sex attractions.

I have a son who is affected by homosexuality. He did not choose the feelings that he has, in fact he prayed for years that God would take those same sex attractions from him. He also contemplated suicide because of the feelings he had. Regretably he is now involved in the homosexual lifestyle, which has devastated both myself and my wife. We pray constantly for our son and have given him over to the Lord's keeping. Our son was never abused sexually, or otherwise and I have always had an open and loving relationship with him. So tell me all you geiniuses out there on homosexulality, how did my son become the way he is? There is more to it than most of us want to admit, but we need to find the root of this condition and help as many young men and women as possible by going to them in Junior High and Elementary School when these feeling first emerge and helping them deal with them. Let's get real!! As Christians we need to get pro-active and help young people deal with their feelings.

Posted by: Truth
2006-03-13 06:20:27

homosexuality is a treatable disorder. many have been healed. your son can be healed. step one, admit that it is a problem. go on from there. if you do not accept this fact, then you will never recover. your life statistically will be 3 decades shorter than every one else, and after you pass on you will not have a pleasant eternity to look forward to. do not "ACCEPT" homosexuality. Admit the problem, and go on from there.
Posted by: John in Pasadena
2006-03-13 06:25:13

as christians we need to speak the plain and simple truth. if your son continues with this lifestyle of sin, he will be seperated from God. it is that simple. trying to understanding his "feelings" is one of the formost reasons for the continued spreading of this diesese in our society.

Some things ARE BLACK and WHITE. No shades of grey. This is one of those things. Rick, your son either stands up to truth, or listens to the touchy feely teachers who tell him that he should do what ever feels good. Our children are ALL at risk of being taught that this is ok, do what ever you feel is good, there is no right or wrong crap being forced on our kids in schools today.

this is what they are taught, this is what they now believe is true. this is what they think is important. this is their downfall.

Fellow citizens, we are allowing this by not holding the politicians who cause this to task.

Posted by: Saba
2006-03-13 08:47:57

Homosexuality, like other negative activity including criminal acts, are caused by the person allowing their intellect soul to reach down and relinguish its authority to the basic animal soul to rule them, subsequently leading them into the far left sphere of evil.
Posted by: H.T.M.
2006-03-13 07:39:24

Rick.. we are not to run our lives or make decisions by feelings because satan can use that to make us believe what we are feeling is right, more times than naught feelings lie to you! They lead you down a wrong road. Most of our sins are committed because of the flesh. If we learn to walk in the spirit, then our flesh (feelings the five senses) can't dominate our lives. Love is not a feeling it is a choice..like is a feeling.I was set free one day when I was hurt by someone I loved and trusted and I looked at that person and said..."I don't love you for what you do,,I love you inspite of what you do. (I made the decision right then and there to love that person in spite of the hurt..(feelings) The problem we humans have is we want it easy..if it takes a little sacrifice then we don't want to do it....we have no discipline in our bodies...that is where the saying comes from...if it feels good do it...wow...what a mess of this world and individual's lives that saying has made. It takes good strong character to make the right choices and stick to it "REGARDLESS" of how you feel , We still have to make decisions that don't feel good BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! if we have never thought of others first, made ourselves a little uncomfortable, and denied our bodies what it wants, then you will have a hard time denying your body what it wants in anything,especially sexual. walking in the flesh does not please God! when one of your senses (eyes) sees someone and makes your body go..va-va-va-voom...that is where we need to be strong and say..no no no no!! but some of us have never refused our body's anything, so that is foreign to them. We become selfish....I want.....I want.....I want, we have become an operatic generation...you know ...me...me...me...me meeee! robots..what about me...what about me...what about mee...and "THAT" is how satan gains access into our lives! We need to get more educated on the wiles of the devil, and where his territory is....OUR MINDS AND FIVE SENSES! (the body)Oh the joy when I conquere my flesh and get it under subjection....the strength that comes from that each and every time I CONQUER IT....PRAISE THE LORD!
Posted by: H.T.M.
2006-03-13 09:41:34

I would also like to say ..I thought of it but didn't write it so here it is..... EVERYTHING CAN BE CONQUERED THROUGH JESUS,IF YOU TRULY GIVE HIM YOUR LIFE..and Rick read Isaiah 49:25 and Acts 16:31 it will encourage you..it did me! Stand in faith and believe, no matter what it looks like speak your son's salvation DON'T SPEAK NEGATIVELY...and claim your son for God's Kingdom..don't give up keep praying and thanking God and thank him that he is walking in the kingdom NO MATTER HOW IT LOOKS! BELIEVE; BELIEVE; BELIEVE! GOD PROMISES US OUR CHILDREN IF WE SERVE HIM,AND NOT ONLY OUR CHILDREN. BUT OUR WHOLE FAMILY!! I AM PRAYING FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! GOD BLESS YOU!
Posted by: SDG
2006-03-14 05:40:17

My heart goes out to Rick and his family. It is commendable that your son prayed for so long for deliverance. His journey sounds so similar to testimonies from ex-gays online. There is one exception, those who left the lifestyle were only helped after they entered treatment. Often prayer and trying harder in our own strength will lead us to defeat. I disagree with anyone who says "try harder, just will-to-do what is right, etc..." The scripture says our faith is a gift of God, it is God who wills and works in us...it is by grace that we are saved." There is no will power in the world that can save a homosexual from his sin or a gossip from speaking evil words, or an angry Christian from murdering his neighbor in his heart. If we are honest, all of us struggle with various sins of the heart. Have we been cured yet? No, it is ongoing and requires God's grace to cover us each and every day. I agree wholeheartedly with Rick, that we must reach out to kids early on who struggle with same sex attraction. We have abstinence programs for schools, so what have we done in this area? Many young people who have these feelings are afraid to let anyone know because all they hear are words like "faggot," etc...I read an article written by a struggling gay who wanted to tell his youth leader about his problem, but when he went to see the man, he found him laughing with the other kids about "faggots." He vowed then and there never to tell anyone. How can we be more helpful? How can we be like Christ to His people? How can we shepherd a child's heart? If your child has expressed this in some way to you, please contact counselors at Exodus or any other group listed in the above article and get real help. I would not settle for just any "counselor" that you find in the phone book (or sadly even in your church). Yes, pray and walk with God but use the means He has provided here on earth. We are accountable for our brothers and sisters. "We are His hands, we are His feet" (as the song goes). Scripture says we will be held accountable for every idle word we have spoken, including words like, "faggot."
Posted by: H.T.M.
2006-03-14 06:34:35

Dear SGD Sad to say we are not all brothers and sisters...to be brothers and sisters we have to have the same FATHER!.. we don't! SO UNTIL WE ACCEPT JESUS INTO OUR HEARTS AND ARE "ADOPTED" INTO THE FAMILY of God we are not all brothers and sisters..BUT" we are "ALL HIS CREATION" remember the "Jews" are His chosen people we are "adopted" in through our acceptance of Jesus into our hearts...AND THEN WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO LEAD the lost TO HIM! ......That is a mistake that a lot of us make. God Bless you SDG
Posted by: Joanna
2006-03-14 10:05:10

Good article! However, the article fails to look to the deep hurt of the homosexual and how most, if not all, of gay men were drawn into the lifestyle. For example, counselors and psychologists have found that in every case, these men (gay) lacked a LOVING and accepting relationship with their fathers. And, the mothers were too involved (smothering, dependent) with the boys, thus the feminine attributes. These men are usually artistic, have a sensitive temperament, and aren't usually good in sports-thus ridiculed. Combine ALL of these and there you have a child very inclined to turn to the lifestyle. When was the last time you reached out to build a bridge to share the love of Christ and HIS saving grace instead of focusing on the acts they engage in? God hates sin, but loves the sinner. Our sins are no different and we are no better.
Posted by: Joanna
2006-03-14 10:21:27

A father may have thought he was "loving", but it is what the CHILD sees through his eyes and feels, not what the father thinks of himself. Fathers can be domineering or strict and not realize it. What would the boy/man say about his father and their relationship?

Same sex attraction occurs when a boy hasn't embraced and identified himself with his own masculinity. He sees other men as masculine and not himself. He feels inadequate. Therefore he is drawn toward that which is different. Also, he looks for the acceptance that he never felt he got from his father, so he tries to find it in another man.

A wonderful and extremely good author regarding all aspects of this is Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D, & Linda Ames Nicoloski They wrote A Parent's Guide To Preventing Homosexuality



Posted by: Diane Booth
2006-03-14 10:47:26

To Rick Matheis: I am not a genius, but I do know a fair deal about and have known and befriended many homosexuals. One of them died of AIDS. Every single one confessed to me that they were molested as a child by an adult of the same sex. As for name-calling, women have been called names since forever: slut, whore, bitch....sorry folks, just trying to get my point across......Has anyone in the history of man ever been arrested for a hate crime for using those words? No. In fact, they are regularly used in Rap songs on prime time. How about 'dumb pollack'? Anyone ever charged with a hate crime for saying that? Or the "dumb" blonde jokes? Don't you think those words are hateful? I am sorry about your son being gay, but I am more sorry about children and parents who are forced to accept that this behavior is normal and healthy. What is the old saying, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me"? There are already laws to protect assault and battery. Unfortunately, those laws are not enforced when it comes to children in foster care. Let's worry more about those children. Where are THEIR rights?
Posted by: Mitch
2006-03-14 12:08:42

I appreciate Rick's sharing about his son. I can only sympathize and speaking for all, I wish I had the answer.

What I can share is that we do choose our life. Even things we don't think we choose. I choose to be married, be a father and have children. Thus, eventhing to me is secondary to whatever I think is fixed. Fortunately, being attracted to women was a non-issue for me. But my attractions alone meant I was nothing more than a rudderless boat, going whichever direction the current took me.

Now, I have a commitment in life. A place to stand to counter my emotions.

Something I found interesting in talking to homosexuals about gay marriage is how frequently, and to my surprise, did so many say that a mother can be replaced by another man; that there is no such thing as motherhood or maternal instincts. This woke me up to say maybe there is something mental here and not fixed as gays like to say. There is a lot of indoctrination from gay organizations.

Posted by: Dan
2006-03-14 11:34:50

Just a comment on the recurring theme that suggests that boys who choose homosexuality do so because of the lack of a loving relationship with their fathers.

It seems to me that the problem with those who advance this view is that they, in many cases, do not understand the definition of LOVE. Love is not warm fuzzy emotional feelings. Real love is a determined commitment to do whatever is best for the loved one. Love for my child does not, contrary to politically correct definition, mean letting him or her do whatever they want. If I see my child playing with matches, I take them away and let the child know in no uncertain terms that they are not toys. Likewise my child is not allowed to do other things which would endanger their wellbeing, such as play in the street, get in cars with strangers, play with guns, drive the car, experiment with drugs, hang out on the street with the neighborhood gang, etc. Real love draws boundaries to protect the child from potential harm that is recognized by the parent but not by the child. Yet some children would see the restrictions placed upon them for their own protection as "unloving" simply because they are not sufficiently mature to understand what real love is, and consequently conclude that the father who placed the restrictions on their behavior is an unloving father. They look at their friends whose permissive parents' philosophy is "do whatever you want, as long as you don't get me in trouble" and in their immature thinking decide "my dad doesn't love me".


Too many parents today are trying to be the wrong thing to their children. I don't remember where I heard this statement, but it bears repeating, "Your child needs a parent, not an old buddy". Parents lose their children's respect when they try to play the role of a friend rather than a parent. The idea that "my child won't love me if I discipline him" led to a whole generation of kids out of control; another generation who reject parental guidance as "unloving" is the last thiing America needs.

The root of this problem began when the Bible was banned from public schools. Until that dark day dawned, children who had no respect for or realization of accountability to God taught to them at home at least had some small exposure to those concepts at school. After all, it is the Bible that commands "Children, OBEY your parents, because this is RIGHT". It also commands obedience to those in positions of authority over us. When the schools tossed the Bible out the door, with it went respect for authority of any sort, whether the authority figure is a parent, teacher, police officer, etc. And we wonder why kids have no respect for authority??? The same God who commanded them to obey their parents (which command they now feel free to disregard) also commanded boundaries for sexual relationships, namely that sexuality expressed in marriage between one man and one woman is honorable, but all other forms of sexual expression are forbidden by God and will bring about His judgment. Having started down the slippery slope of rebellion and disobedience, it is easier to keep on going downhill than to fight one's sinful desires. Enter the homosexual "recruiter" and it is likely that the "recruit" will fall for the temptation. We must remember that homosexuals cannot increase their numbers by reproduction; their only tool is recruitment, and they are attempting to recruit your children and grandchildren and mine as young as kindergarten by teaching them that homosexuality is normal and right at an age when they have no concept of what homosexuality is. The average parent doesn't think they need to be warning their Kindergartner to avoid this insidious indoctrination and brainwashing (it is even more important than "don't play in the street, don't talk to strangers, etc.) because most of them have no idea what children this young are being exposed to on a daily basis in school.

God help our nation before it is too late! We need parents who will rise to their God-given responsibilities and teach their children that each of them is ultimately accountable to God and that the wise and prudent thing to do is to obey Him. With obedience to Him comes His blessing; with rebellion and disobedience comes His curse. Some choices must be made by parents for children who are too immature to make right choices for themselves. We do not wait for our children to grow up before deciding that when little Johnny is dirty, he WILL take a bath, however much he may protest. God give us parents who will have, first the knowledge of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord in their own lives, then the spiritual backbone to decide that inasmuch as it depends on them, in the words of the Bible, "As for me and my house(hold), we will serve the Lord"!




Posted by: light4u
2006-03-14 01:17:19

There ia a man that I know who's father beat, him and his mother and brother constantly while he was alive. His father beat his mother till she didn't have a tooth in her head, he never heard the words..Ilove you son......a fist to the head is what he and his brothers got...His father and mother died left him an orphan,he was pushed from pillar to post,treated unfairly by every foster home he went into,in the last home he went to from age 14 to 18 he was chased by the bi-sexual man of the house until at the age of 18 (never gave in to it)..(and they say they don't want to push that lifestyle on anyone..riiight) he didn't go looking for it he chased him....a kid!!......he joined the army to get away from him...he was never shown mercy or love when he messed up. He could have given in to that situation but instead he chose a path of love and forgiveness. He married a loving woman had 4 children, he never said to his sons I love you, he was hard on them.. but he showed them everyday by the things he did for them that he loved them...... he made a promise to himself and his wife....he said ..I will "NEVER" LAY A HAND ON YOU OR HIT YOU EVER...the day I do I will leave you.... he has been true to his word but it was hard for him to show mercy to his kids.......but after he gave his heart to Jesus and has been serving him for years now today he can't say it enough..I LOVE YOU sons ..and they love him and say so. The point I am trying to say is this...He CHOSE not to give in to that pain and lifestyle and chose the path of forgiveness...He could easily have said poor poor pitiful me.....but instead he turned a bad situation around by choosing to forgive everyone who hurt him. He stood strong and the Lord pulled him through! it didn't happen over night, and it was a lot of work but by giving his life and turning it all over to JESUS and his wife's loving kindness and understanding .. they worked on it. So you'll have to forgive me if I hear..... my father this, and my father that,or my mother this,or my mother that.. you have not been home since you were kid..you have not been around your father for many many years....so it is time for those who had a bad childhood to get over it and start taking charge of their own life and stop blaming everyone else for their bad decisions. Having a bad father is hard and hurtful but it is time to stop making excuses,when it was your choice to give in to the flesh, and wallow in self pity! I feel bad for the child in the homosexual or anyone who has been abused, I lived with an alcoholic father...who chased me and my mother from the house when he was drunk..sooo what? I got over it and chose to love and forgive him. ..but it is time to grow up and get over it! Today is the first day of the rest of your life...make it a great future and start by giving it all to Jesus!! What God brings you too, he'll bring you through..if you lean on Him!
Posted by: Doris
2006-03-14 09:05:43

I agree with yu that it is a CHOICE one makes. God does not MAKE them that way - they CHOOSE at one time in their life. They may have effeminate ways when a child but I believe they can choose which way they want to live. That is a very good article you wrote.
Posted by: Donald Van Hoozier
2006-03-15 02:42:53

Professional writer or not, you have insight and write clearly and to the point. Thank you. It was worth the time to read and I'll pass the information on. Be blessed.
Posted by: light4u
2006-03-15 10:48:51

THANK YOU!
Posted by: mabris
2006-03-15 01:51:46

As with many articles on this site, teh logical inconsistencies and blatant lies are too many to mention, so I will just point out one shing spot of pure stupidity. You state that because homosexuals do not reproduce, that it cannot be genetic. 1. Many genetic diseases, such as progeria, kill people well before the victims can ever reproduce. It's called a recessive trait, and it's one of the very first things you would learn about were you to actually pick up a basic biology textbook. 2. Many homosexuals reproduce. The population that is "out of the closet" does not represent the entire gay population. There are many that lead heterosexual lives before coming out later as homosexual, if they ever do at all. I'm not necessarily saying that homosexuality IS genetic, just that it's hard to take anything you say seriously when you come across as such a flaming idiot.
Posted by: light4u
2006-03-15 03:06:03

YES Homosexuals can reproduce..one homosexual man and one lesbian... woman but not two homosexual men or two lesbian women!!

no matter how you cut it homosexuals....two of the same sex CAN'T REPRODUCE!!!to put it plainer two copulating men with each other can't have a baby..two women copulating with each other can't can't can't have a baby!

nice try!

Posted by: V. Hugo
2006-03-16 07:38:33

Mabris, if you endorse or support the depraved, filthy behavior of homosexuality, you are the flaming idiot. Homosexuality does NOT produce children, as each homosexual is the end of the line; therefore homosexuality cannot be inherited. Like rape, whoring, child molest, and bestiality, it is chosen behavior. You people constantly amaze me with the way you can twist the facts and produce false evidences to try to justify this foul wickedness. Even talking about it, and visualizing it, is sickening.
Posted by: JJ
2006-03-17 10:55:54

It is not ONE thing that causes a boy to turn to the gay lifestyle; it is an aggregate....always! After working with thousands of gay men, psychologists all say that THE most common thing was that not one of these men have a loving, close relationship with their fathers. FACT!!! Loving means feeling accepted unconditionally, loving-affectionate, etc. There is a way to "love" and do what is best for a child in a way that the child always feels still accepted. These men never did! READ SOME EDUCATIONAL BOOKS on this instead of going off your own feelings. Read what many psychologists who have insight in this say, not what your limited knowledge is about it.
Posted by: Debeau from TO
2006-03-17 11:10:14

What a collosal pile of drivel! Especially the last two posts, by light4u and V. Hugo. Did you even read what mabris wrote? IF (and I write 'if' in capital letters because I don't believe it), IF homosexuality were an autosomal recessive condition, then two heterosexual parents could both carry the recessive gene for homosexuality, and have a homosexual child as a result. In this case, if there were a (recessive) gene for homosexuality, it could be genetic. This is how conditions like Sickle Cell, Tay Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis and Thalassemia spread; the parents don't have it, but the children can. The current understanding of sexuality and the development of sexual preferences shows that it works in a simlar fashion as the development of handedness (i.e. whether a person is left or right handed). It appears that the wiring of the brain for sexual preference happens during fetal development, at the same time and in the same way that handedness is wired into the brain. As with handedness, sexual preference is not binary; it is a spectrum. Most are strongly heterosexual, a few are strongly homosexual, and the remainder are scattered in between. For those in between, there is a choice; just as the ambidextrous can learn to write with either hand, the "ambisexual" (or bisexual) can develop satisfactory relationships with either their own or the opposite sex. But for those who are strongly homosexual, just as for those who are strongly heterosexual, switching is simply not possible. For these people, there is no 'choice'. Up until around 100 years ago, there was significant discrimination against those those who were left-handed. Part of this came from the church, since it is stated in Leviticus that those who are left-handed are not fit to be priests. Part of it came from the education system, that punished those who tried to write with their left hands. The very vocabulary of many languages exhibited discrimination against the left-handed (the Latin 'sinister' and French 'gauche'). With a greater understanding of the origins of left-handedness, this discrimination has substantially diminished. Although it is true that left-handedness is "unnatural" - in the sense that it is exhibited only by a minority of the population - most people do not discriminate against the left-handed, and I'm not aware (although I could be surprised) of any religious denomination that still forbids the left-handed from serving as priests or ministers, although a literal interpretation of the Bible - if they are literalists - should compel them to do so. Just to be clear, I am an older, straight male - happily married for over 25 years, and with grown children. I was born straight (and right-handed), and nothing could ever change me. I am also a Christian, and I have been very active in the life of my church for over 20 years. My church is an affirming congregation, welcoming all into the love of Jesus. What's astounding to me is that so many Christians can't hear Jesus' message of abundant love. There is no radical "gay agenda"; gays simply want the same love, acceptance and rights as those given to straight persons. To me, and I hope to an increasing number of others, it is not reasonable, fair, or just to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation any more than it was fair in the 19th century to discriminate against those who were left handed.
Posted by: Sam Robison
2006-03-17 11:30:08

What a collosal pile of drivel! Especially the last two posts, by light4u and V. Hugo. Did you even read what mabris wrote? IF (and I write 'if' in capital letters because I don't believe it), IF homosexuality were an autosomal recessive condition, then two heterosexual parents could both carry the recessive gene for homosexuality, and have a homosexual child as a result. In this case, if there were a (recessive) gene for homosexuality, it could be genetic. This is how conditions like Sickle Cell, Tay Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis and Thalassemia spread; the parents don't have it, but the children can. The current understanding of sexuality and the development of sexual preferences shows that it works in a simlar fashion as the development of handedness (i.e. whether a person is left or right handed). It appears that the wiring of the brain for sexual preference happens during fetal development, at the same time and in the same way that handedness is wired into the brain. As with handedness, sexual preference is not binary; it is a spectrum. Most are strongly heterosexual, a few are strongly homosexual, and the remainder are scattered in between. For those in between, there is a choice; just as the ambidextrous can learn to write with either hand, the "ambisexual" (or bisexual) can develop satisfactory relationships with either their own or the opposite sex. But for those who are strongly homosexual, just as for those who are strongly heterosexual, switching is simply not possible. For these people, there is no 'choice'. Up until around 100 years ago, there was significant discrimination against those those who were left-handed. Part of this came from the church, since it is stated in Leviticus that those who are left-handed are not fit to be priests. Part of it came from the education system, that punished those who tried to write with their left hands. The very vocabulary of many languages exhibited discrimination against the left-handed (the Latin 'sinister' and French 'gauche'). With a greater understanding of the origins of left-handedness, this discrimination has substantially diminished. Although it is true that left-handedness is "unnatural" - in the sense that it is exhibited only by a minority of the population - most people do not discriminate against the left-handed, and I'm not aware (although I could be surprised) of any religious denomination that still forbids the left-handed from serving as priests or ministers, although a literal interpretation of the Bible - if they are literalists - should compel them to do so. Just to be clear, I am an older, straight male - happily married for over 25 years, and with grown children. I was born straight (and right-handed), and nothing could ever change me. I am also a Christian, and I have been very active in the life of my church for over 20 years. My church is an affirming congregation, welcoming all into the love of Jesus. What's astounding to me is that so many Christians can't hear Jesus' message of abundant love. There is no radical "gay agenda"; gays simply want the same love, acceptance and rights as those given to straight persons. To me, and I hope to an increasing number of others, it is not reasonable, fair, or just to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation any more than it was fair in the 19th century to discriminate against those who were left handed. Wow DeBeau, You seem to know more than most doctors and scientists I have read. Where did you get your information? And where have you been hiding? there IS a gay/lesbian agenda and I am really sorry you seem to have bought into that agenda. I'm not against the homosexual, I am against the immorality they are trying to shove down my throat and myself, including a host of others are tired of it. What you are saying here is that God doesn't know what He is doing and that He created man to love another man which is exactly contradictory to His Word, the Bible. He created within man the drive to love woman, a member of the opposite sex, not the same sex. I strongly disagree with you that there is no choice. I don't buy it!! I don't feel that left handed versus right handed has anything to do with homosexuality. You are right in that we don't most generally have a choice when it comes to which hand we use, but to stretch it to the gay/lesbian gene is a far bit too much for me to swallow. What is so astounding to you? Maybe the fact that many of us Christians are calling homosexuality for what it is - a sin and an abomination to God? Sure, Jesus loves everyone including the gays/lesbians. But don't tell me that if we REPENT, which literally means "to turn away from", that we are to continue in our sins as if nothing happened OR that because we have accepted Christ as our Savior that He will turn His head on our sins. No way. My Bible does not tell me that, as you are implying here. Most gays/lesbians have the same love, acceptance, etc from the Church. But when the Church starts preaching the truth, something that may be absent in your case, then the gays/lesbians start shouting because they do not want to hear the truth. The truth is the truth, like it or not. If we are to claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, then we are obligated, not talked into, telling the truth to all. The gays have every single "right" as I do, so I don't buy into that garbage. I don't approve of their shoving what they want down my throat. What they do is a choice. It is immoral and it is not Biblical by any stretch of the imagination. I do not buy into their agenda as you have. It sounds to me like you better start reading your Bible and researching what your Pastor has been preaching from the pulpit. If he is preaching anything other than Jesus Christ and from any other source than the Bible, it's time to start looking. I have been a Christian for a long time as well and am an ordained elder in my congregation, went to Bible College and the like. I also consider myself a student of the Bible, not a student of my Pastor. I test what he says according to what the Bible says and if it would be different, I would question him on it. My church is open to anyone as well and there are a few gays/lesbians that attend. They also hear the truth and they keep coming back. There's hope for them as well as anyone else. Sorry if you take this the wrong way but I can't see standing by and not saying anything to your post. I would hope you take what I say as a challenge and not as a putdown.
Posted by: Sam Robison
2006-03-17 11:54:13

Sorry, did it again!! Having a problem with the cut and paste on this computer. Didn't mean to leave all of DeBeau's reply in my post. Sorry!! Sam
Posted by: Sam Robison
2006-03-17 11:54:13

Wow DeBeau, You seem to know more than most doctors and scientists I have read. Where did you get your information? And where have you been hiding? there IS a gay/lesbian agenda and I am really sorry you seem to have bought into that agenda. I'm not against the homosexual, I am against the immorality they are trying to shove down my throat and myself, including a host of others are tired of it. What you are saying here is that God doesn't know what He is doing and that He created man to love another man which is exactly contradictory to His Word, the Bible. He created within man the drive to love woman, a member of the opposite sex, not the same sex. I strongly disagree with you that there is no choice. I don't buy it!! I don't feel that left handed versus right handed has anything to do with homosexuality. You are right in that we don't most generally have a choice when it comes to which hand we use, but to stretch it to the gay/lesbian gene is a far bit too much for me to swallow. What is so astounding to you? Maybe the fact that many of us Christians are calling homosexuality for what it is - a sin and an abomination to God? Sure, Jesus loves everyone including the gays/lesbians. But don't tell me that if we REPENT, which literally means "to turn away from", that we are to continue in our sins as if nothing happened OR that because we have accepted Christ as our Savior that He will turn His head on our sins. No way. My Bible does not tell me that, as you are implying here. Most gays/lesbians have the same love, acceptance, etc from the Church. But when the Church starts preaching the truth, something that may be absent in your case, then the gays/lesbians start shouting because they do not want to hear the truth. The truth is the truth, like it or not. If we are to claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, then we are obligated, not talked into, telling the truth to all. The gays have every single "right" as I do, so I don't buy into that garbage. I don't approve of their shoving what they want down my throat. What they do is a choice. It is immoral and it is not Biblical by any stretch of the imagination. I do not buy into their agenda as you have. It sounds to me like you better start reading your Bible and researching what your Pastor has been preaching from the pulpit. If he is preaching anything other than Jesus Christ and from any other source than the Bible, it's time to start looking. I have been a Christian for a long time as well and am an ordained elder in my congregation, went to Bible College and the like. I also consider myself a student of the Bible, not a student of my Pastor. I test what he says according to what the Bible says and if it would be different, I would question him on it. My church is open to anyone as well and there are a few gays/lesbians that attend. They also hear the truth and they keep coming back. There's hope for them as well as anyone else. Sorry if you take this the wrong way but I can't see standing by and not saying anything to your post. I would hope you take what I say as a challenge and not as a putdown.
Posted by: Sam Robison
2006-03-17 11:58:14

There! This time I got it right. Sorry about posting twice. Won't happen again!!
Posted by: Denbeau from TO
2006-03-17 12:10:12

Sam, I respect your opinion, but I disagree, and I realize that you disagree with me. I am a Christian, and a Trinitarian, but I am not a literalist. Even though you disagree with me, I hope that you can respect my beliefs as I respect yours. And as to where I got my information, I have been working in the medical/genetics field most of my life.
Posted by: Sam Robison
2006-03-17 12:42:02

DenBeau, We can agree to disagree and that's fine with me. I do respect your beliefs and didn't mean to berate you or anything. I hope you didn't see that and if you did, then I apologize. I still do not believe that homosexuals are born that way. Until there is more proof, I will continue to believe what many of the scientists are saying. God bless!! Sam
Posted by: Thrasher
2006-03-17 02:37:40

Debeau wrote: There is no radical "gay agenda"; gays simply want the same love, acceptance and rights as those given to straight persons. To me, and I hope to an increasing number of others, it is not reasonable, fair, or just to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation any more than it was fair in the 19th century to discriminate against those who were left handed. This is dribble. Explain NAMBLA to me then - you know, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. You know, the child-rape people. They're just looking for their rights too. If there were a North American Man-Prepubescent Girl Lover Association would you also support it? I doubt it. As far as comparing discrimination against gays to those who were left-handed, well, there is no "gay gene" so get over it. We can find genes for rare genetic disorders yet can't find one for a reasonably large population of gays? Nonsense. I had a friend in college who was gay. He told me how he became gay. He liked girls and got along well with them as friends but couldn't get anywhere romantically with them. He started to frequent adult bookstores and one night some big, burly guy raped him over a bookshelf. He decided that it was better than no sexual attention at all. He had low self-esteem and the gays gave him what he craved - attention. That's my theory (and the theory of many others I know). I would never condone physical violence against gays however I am bound to tell them their behavior is detrimental to them. They can recommend to me not to eat too many doughnuts because they are bad for me and I can recommend to them not to take or give it up the butt. That sounds pretty fair to me.
Posted by: Pastor Martin
2006-03-17 03:40:12

THE CHAINS OF SIN -- www.babylonforsaken.com

Romans 5:12

Because of the Fall all of mankind is born with a sin nature. They are born with a disposition to serve sin. Kind David said the following:

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." –Psalms 51:5

So you are born with a sin problem, and as you go through life that problem is going to mature and perfect its self by practice and use. For instance a child tells a lie and the lie keeps it from getting into trouble. The sin brought a reward; thus the next time the opportunity arises to gain something from a lie, or to escape punishment with a lie, it will do it. And with every lie it tells Satan hooks his chains ever deeper into the child’s soul, and soon it cannot stop lying.

Lying is just one example of sin, but any sin works the same way. But let me assure you friends, once Satan gets his hooks in you, you cease to control the Sin, and the Sin begins to control you.

SIN CONTROLS THE SINNER

Romans 7:14-17

Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Here is the life of the one who is under bondage to sin, in their hearts they want to do "good", they hate their "sin", yet what they hate they do; and what they think is "good", they do not.

Now if your doing something that you don’t REALLY want to do, then that means you are not controlling your own life; it means that you have a Master over you causing you to do wrong. Who is this Master? It can be no other than "Sin" or "Satan".

Do you know what it means to be addicted? To be addicted is to be a slave to something or someone. A person that is "Addicted" may want to "Stop", but they can’t stop. They are not controlling the habit, but the habit has control of them.

AS LONG AS HIS CHAIN IS ATTACHED TO YOU, YOU ARE HIS SERVANT.

John 8:31-34

Here Jesus makes the "Slavery" of sin very plain. The one who commits sin is a slave to that sin. And it doesn’t matter what that sin is!

We often think about ‘drugs’, alcohol, and cigarettes; but how about lust, how about covetousness, how about the love of money, how about in-contentment? Whatever the sin is, it is a chain by which Satan rules over you.

THE ONLY WAY TO BREAK THE CHAINS

John 8:35-36

Jesus Christ is the only remedy to free you from the slavery of sin; there is no other remedy in the world today. The Bible says: "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission".

Some people THINK they have gotten victory over ‘sin’ without Christ, but they truly haven’t; Satan will let them trade one chain for another sometimes. For example: Some men will stop drinking, and then pick up the habit of smoking dope.

Jesus Christ is the only one who can TRULY make a man free from the slavery of sin.

THAT IS WHY JESUS CAME AND DIED

Matthew 1:21

Jesus came into the world to "Save his people from their sins". If there was some other way to be saved from the slavery of sin then believe me God wouldn’t have gave his only begotten Son. Jesus wouldn’t have come and suffered and died.

If there was a way to be freed from sin God could have just shown people the formula and not let his Son hang on a cross.

We have already seen that "WILL POWER" cannot overcome sin. Because the Sin will MAKE YOU do what you don’t want to do. Will power cannot free you from sin.

"TRYING HARDER" will not free you from that sin. "STARTING NEW HABITS" will not free you from that sin. Being "RELIGIOUS" won’t do it!

Jesus is the only way to be saved from the power of sin. He came into the world to save Sinners; Save sinners from what? "Their sins"!

SALVATION IS NOT ONLY FORGIVENESS

1st John 3:8

Who is the master of those who practice sin? The Devil. Why was Jesus manifested? To destroy the works of the devil. Jesus Christ destroys the work of the devil in the lives of those who put their trust in him.

Yes by his blood you are forgiven of your past sins, but that is not all! That is just part of the gospel. Jesus Christ not only forgives you, but he comes to live inside of your heart, and he has ALL POWER, and with that power he breaks the chains of the devil in your life.

SIN WILL NO LONGER HAVE DOMINION

Romans 6:14

Does sin have any dominion over those who are under the grace of GOD? Absolutely not. If you are under the grace of GOD, then that means you have accepted the free gift of salvation, and Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. You are under Christ’s dominion and not Satan’s.

And that is the blessing of the Christian life. The man that is under the grace of GOD is not under the dominion of sin and Satan any longer. He is free; and he can live an abundant life [John 10:10].

QUESTION:

Of course not! And they surely need to repent and walk with the Lord [Galatains 5:18-21]

FREEDOM FROM SIN

1st Corinthians 6:9-11

I want to focus on verse eleven, where he says: "And such were some of you". Whom is he talking to? He is talking to the Christian people of Corinth right? What kind of people did these Christians use to be? The bad of the bad, right? And then what happened? They believed upon Jesus Christ and he washed them, sanctified them, and justified them! He freed them and changed them by His wonderful Spirit.

NO ONE IS BORN A CHRISTIAN

You see friends, no one is ‘born a Christian’. We are all born into sin; some people’s sins are more evident than others, but we ALL are born into this world with our backs to GOD. We all go through life at least for a time, under the bondage of sin and the devil.

Jesus didn’t look down here and say: "These people over here aren’t that bad, I want to save them". No, he looked down and knew that we ALL were bad, and yet he loved us enough that he came and died for our sins so that we could be saved.

If you will believe upon the Lord. That is believe he is the Son of GOD and believe his gospel, which simply is: Jesus died for our sins, was buried and God raised him up the third day [1st Corinthians 15:1-4], and then simply place your trust in him; he will save you. The only thing he wants to take from your life is your sin. In fact that is the only thing that Jesus comes to destroy!

The Bible says: Romans 10:13

Will you not call upon him today and be saved?

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.The Bible teaches that sin no longer has dominion over those who are under the grace of GOD. Can the ‘professed christian’ who is addicted to sin be under the grace of GOD? For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: If you do well, will you not have honour? and if you do wrong, sin is waiting at the door, desiring to have you, but do not let it be your master. BBE

Did you know that sin desires to have you? Sin desires to have you, it desires to have me, it desires to have all men.

It desired to have Cain, it desired to have Abel, it desired to have Abraham and Moses, and it desired to have Jesus, it desired to have Peter, James, and Paul, and every other person born on this earth.

Jesus even told Peter one time: "Satan has desired to have you" [Luke 22:31].

When the Bible here speaks of sin "desiring" something, it is speaking about the Devil, who is the root of all sin, the one who has sinned from the beginning.

What does the devil desire of us? He wants us to be his servants, he wants us to be his slaves. He wants to be the Master. He wants to control us and to use us. He wants to take everything good from us, and then kill us, and then watch us burn in a lake of fire. And that is why God tells us not to let sin be our Master.

HOW DOES THE DEVIL GAIN CONTROL OVER US?

Proverbs 5:22

I have often used the illustration that Satan has chains wrapped around the sinners neck and he is pulling him down to hell; and this is the illustration given in this verse. Sin is the cord by which Satan controls people.

When we let sin conceive in our heart Satan finds a place to hook his chain. And he begins to pull you and to control you. In the Book of Acts sin is called a bond or chain [Acts 8:23].

His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins.
Genesis 4:7

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE OR HAS BEEN THE SERVANTS OF THE DEVIL?

Posted by: John
2006-03-20 01:58:24

Oh wow. Discredited science really goes a long way when one has an ideological agenda to pursue. This, though, is just really ugly and poorly written. Good luck stopping the normalization of homosexuality. You've had sooooo much luck thus far. :)
Posted by: Ed Brayton
2006-03-20 03:57:16

The "quote" from Simon LeVay is invented out of whole cloth. He not only didn't say it, he said something strikingly different in the study cited. Why must you invent lies to make your case? More at http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/03/antigay_lies.php.
Posted by: Jeff from Seattle
2006-03-20 05:02:19

You folks display what can only be described as monumental ignorance and stupidity - not to mention unbelievable bigotry. It is inexcusable that actual, real live humans can display such utter arrogance in their ignorance and stupidity. People like you make me ashamed to be part of the same species. Shame on you all.
Posted by: S.C.H,
2006-03-20 04:50:39

The comments repeated above that "every" psychologist knows that homosexuality is caused by unloving fathers, and that homosexuality can be "cured" are in total disagreement with the opinions of the vast majority of professional therapists in this country, and are contrary to the positions of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association of Clinical Sociologists. In particular, the American Psychological Association states that "reparative therapy" is ineffective and potentially harmful. All the wacky statements in this thread that rely on old wives' tales and cherry-picked passages from the Bible show nothing more than ignorance and prejudice, The best scientific evidence on the "causation" of homosexuality is that it is not simply genetic, but more likely has an epigenetic explanation--that is, abnormal development in utero, for example through hormonal imbalances at certain critical stages. Similar related phenomena are well-known in animals, such as freemartins in cattle. True homosexuality is almost certainly determined before birth, and is NOT a choice. As father of four grown children, I've known many homosexuals in my life. I am impressed by them as a group as being intelligent, sensitive, tolerant, and humane contributors to society. The characterization that they are as a group evil, predatory, corrupting influences on others is blatantly and disgustingly false. I would urge those of you who are consumed by such deep hatred of homosexuals to practice a little of the Christian charity and tolerance that you wear on your sleeves. I use "Christian" here as it pertains to the teachings and philosophy of Jesus Christ, as opposed to a screen behind which prejudice and hatred can be hidden.
Posted by: Karl
2006-03-20 06:22:52

You should read

http://warefarms.blogspot.com/2005/05/genetic-basis-for-sexual-orientation.html

Posted by: John a Former homosexual
2006-03-20 06:49:05

Karl, I read it. Lots of IT SHOULD and supposition, with absolutly no study, or scientific evidence presented to back up the genetic claims.

Want to read about how mixing chimpanzees dna with human dna will get you a room full of monkeys working on shakespere? Could write one up in the exact same format this one presented and be equally as valid.

Posted by: Irrational Entity
2006-03-20 07:32:40

I think sexuality in general results from a complex mixture of genetic and environmental factors that differ between individuals. People fall along several shades of orientation and degrees of mutability, so the search for a simple, universal answer seems unlikely to succeed.
Posted by: Gaye
2006-03-20 10:43:07

Rick Matheis, It would be interesting to know if your son was given Soya milk or Soya products. Women are told to use Soya products because of the amount of estrogens in it to help with their menopause, so imagine the effect this sort of thing would have on a baby foetus or a baby if fed with Soya milk or products. It appears that many products that we eat today have Soya hidden in it... there is also estrogens in much of our live stock to make them grow big. It is illegal in many places but a week before the animal or bird is tested they stop using it, so that when it is tested it is not in the blood, but unfortunately it is still in the flesh that we eat...I do believe that homosexuality is against what God wants, and there is always a reason for everything that God said for us to do or not do.. Disease in homosexuals is rife, simply because the smell, faeces, viruses, bacteria, stay in the pores and folds of the penis for hrs after the act, gathering and giving as they go. I feel very sorry for anyone who has a son who is inclined this way, it would kill me... I have read that women who have stressful top jobs, often find that their testosterone levels increase to be able to cope with it, and some men in women types of jobs find that their estrogens levels also become a problem, so perhaps it is our unnatural society which has cause it... Many factors in our unnatural food chain like chemicals also can cause more estrogens boys in men and women alike, giving us all an imbalance in our hormone levels, they call it estrogens dominant... with our hormone levels being normal when born, what are they putting into our food chain which is causing these problems, people are even sicker now than ever before ...


Posted by: Gaye
2006-03-21 04:48:46

someone on this site said that it is genetic.. I would just like to say that two scientist friends of mine said that the two men who did that study, were homosexuals, there was no referees, and there has been no study since... I do not believe that a loving God would make someone like this and then say that it is an abomination to him...

I know many men who are just not sports men, they are more intellectuals rather than sports minded. Many intelligent people are also very sensitive, making them more different than the he man image again, and some of these are also artistic, musical and like the finer things of life, but because they don't fit into the 'he man' image they are often picked on bullied and told that they are like this because they are homosexuals... it makes me sick the way homosexuals push their image. even though there is only about 2% of people who are homosexual, (they try to tell us that it is higher) they are pushing to have most TV stories and programs with homosexuals in them...I am afraid that instead of acceptance, it is turning many people of homosexuals,,

In one of their conventions about 10 years ago, they said that they were going to get at our children in every way that they could, through clubs, schools, churches, boy scouts etc, and that they were going to make the heterosexuals the odd ones out... just look up disease in homosexuals and see why God doesn't agree with homosexuality,, he loves them but not what they do...

Posted by: Bill Ware
2006-03-21 03:07:20

Karl, Thanks for mentioning my blog, http://www.warefarms.blogspot.com There was a spike in pageviews, so people must be looking around when they get there. My latest post is a review of a NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/health/14preg.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all written by science writer Carl Zimmer p://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/03/13/mothers_children_and_genes_in_conflict.php about Dr David Haig's studies of the gene imprinting or "silencing" that occurs in male and female gamates before fertilization and how errors in the imprinting can lead to problem during fetal development and later in life. Thanks again.
Posted by: Bill Ware
2006-03-21 03:28:58

Gaye, Simon Levay is indeed gay. However, there have been studies done since. I wrote about this particularly fascinating one from Sweden (no the researchers aren't gay) which used PET scans to measure the limbic system responses to male and female pheromones: http://warefarms.blogspot.com/2005/05/gay-limbic-reaction-to-pheromones.html The limbic system is part of the autonomic nervous system which generates emotions and is not under conscious control. So being attracted to someone of the same or opposite sex is built into the limbic system by genetic and hormonal factors during fetal development.
Posted by: S.C.H,
2006-03-21 05:59:11

John said "Karl, I read it. Lots of IT SHOULD and supposition, with absolutly no study, or scientific evidence presented to back up the genetic claims." Are you concerned at all that none of the other fantastic assertions comprising this thread are made without any scientific evidence presented to back them up? Or do you accept the Biblical references noted as scientific evidence? Bill Ware gives a couple of references from a large body of scientific evidence that events during gestational development are the cause of homosexual preferences. One important distinction: sexual orientation is not the same thing as sexual behavior. The ancient Greeks are well known to have practiced homosexual behavior as a culturally accepted norm. That was a choice; these were heterosexual men who indulged in what most societies now consider as aberrant behavior. No doubt quite a few people nowadays experiment with homosexual behavior when young but who are really heterosexual insofar as eventually getting married, having children, and living "normal" lives. Homosexual orientation, on the other hand, is a "built in" quality of the kind I and Bill Ware are referring to. Such people are born with it, have no attraction for the opposite sex, and will fail if they pretend otherwise and try to enter a heterosexual relationship. It is conceivable that such "true" homosexuals may never in their lives exhibit homosexual behavior. The two are really different, decoupled phenomena. Much of the intolerance and misunderstanding shown to those born with a homosexual orientation would disappear if people could just recognize the distinction. And live their lives in the Christian acceptance and tolerance that Jesus Christ taught.
Posted by: S.C.H,
2006-03-22 10:01:11

Now, here's how you deal with the gay problem. The final solution: "Religious death squads are killing gays in Iraq, Doug Ireland will report in tomorrow's weekly edition of New York's Gay City News, PageOneQ has learned "The Badr Corps is committed to the 'sexual cleansing' of Iraq," a 33 year old gay Iraqi exile in London told Ireland. Since the SCIRI's spiritual leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistni -- the highest Shia religious authority -- issued a fatwa ordering gays assassinated in "the worst, most severe way of killing," the Badr Corps in Iraq has begun to use the Internet to hunt down and kill Iraqi gays. The murdered Iraqi gays "are usually discovered with their hands bound behind their back, blindfolds over their eyes, and bullet wounds to the back of the head," Iraqi exile Ali Hili, coordinator for the London-based Abu Nawas Group, an organization of gay Iraqis in exile -- tells Ireland. In one case, the article explains, a transsexual was beaten and burned to death in an area of Baghdad."
Posted by: Fitz
2006-03-22 03:10:06

Since you guys know your Bible so well, I thought I would ask.

With all the propaganda from homosexuals, they always say that “Jesus never mentioned homosexuality specifically.”

Well, (obviously) that’s no standard.

But I was reading an article (bulletin) That quoted one of the Gospels were Jesus refers specifically to the Old Testament story of Sodom & Gohmora.

Does anyone know this?

Or this article?

Or can clue me in on excellent refutations? (of gay propaganda)

Posted by: Jesus Christ
2006-03-22 04:36:23

You really shouldn't post such INANE and UNPROVEN rhetoric, it is dangerous.
Posted by: Carolyn Groff
2006-03-23 02:17:51

Thank you for writting this is a wonderful article. Our son was brainwashed into homosexuality, and at 26 he is dead from AIDS. Horror story before and after his death. I would pray that this article will help.
Click here to post a comment