About Me

Name: Rubberduck Crusader
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Boycott Starbucks!

Ok, folks!  I said that I was going to retire fom this blog, but I find I just can't.  What's really got me burned is the policy and attitude of the Starbucks corporation.  I would first like to say that I don't really like boycotts, and have some doubts as to their effectiveness, but I can think of no other weapon at this point to use against this despicible and cowardly company.

A little background:  The other day I was reading a story in World Net Daily (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55564), and I became so incensed that I fired off an email to Starbucks.  The reply was as amazing as it was pitiful.  Basically, Starbucks has a program called "as I see it" where quotations are printed on their paper coffee cups.  The WND story is about a woman who was truly offended by a particular cup that denigrated God, and people who believe in God.

First, my email to Starbucks:

Sent: May 6 2007 7:16PM
To: info@starbucks.com
Subject:

Message: I don't really care how anyone else "sees it"...I just want coffee, and don't want to be subjected to anybody else's opinion to get it. So let's knock it off, ok? You've already offended a number of your customers; I don't plan on returning as long as this drivel is on the cup.

Now, get a load of this response:

Thanks for taking the time to write and express your concerns about the recent "Way I See It" quote from Bill Scheel.  Our goal with "The Way I See It" is to promote a free and open exchange of ideas and thoughts on a wide variety of topics. We think this tradition of dialogue and discussion is an important facet of the coffeehouse experience. In fact, the conversation around Quote #247 is sparking dialogue, which is the original intent of the program.  

Here are some of those cups that have appeared in the past that take a different point of view from Mr. Scheel: 

The Way I See It #92

You are not an accident. Your parents may not have planned you, but God did. He wanted you alive and created you for a purpose. Focusing on yourself will never reveal your purpose. You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense. Only in God do we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance, and our destiny.

-- Dr. Rick WarrenAuthor of The Purpose-Driven Life. 

The Way I See It #158

It's tragic that extremists co-opt the notion of God, and that hipsters and artists reject spirituality out of hand. I don't have a fixed idea of God. But I feel that it's us - the messed-up, the half-crazy, the burning, the questing - that need God, a lot more than the goody-two-shoes do.

-- Mike Doughty,Musician. 

After reading these quotes, I hope you'll feel that the quotes for the program reflect a broad array of thoughts and opinions. 

Thanks again for writing. 

Sincerely, 

Shawn H.

Customer Relations, Starbucks Coffee Company


Now, I don't know about you, but I got the distinct impression of, "Let's just placate this Jesus-freak" from that response.  And I do not react kindly to discrimination against those who believe in God (I still haven't been in Target since they banned the Salvation Army at Christmas).  Needless to say, not contented with that answer, I responded with:

You're in business;  why would you want to take a chance on offending your paying customers?  If I want "dialogue", I'll strike up a conversation with someone.  Starbuck's is not the only place that sells coffee, you know.  You are not only offending individual customers, but you are getting very bad press; and many people, like myself, that love God do not take kindly to having our beliefs (or our God) ridiculed, and will not do business with people who do, or with those who facilitate those who do.  So, dig in your heels if you wish, but be prepared to accept the consequences toward your "bottom line".

And, having thought further, I added this post-script:

P.S.  Let me just ask you this;  if a particular quote was determined by some to be offensive to Jews, or Muslims, or Afro-Americans, or Hispanics or anyone else, would you have the courage to print that on your cups?  Of course not!  Why then is it acceptable to print something that you know is going to offend Christians?  Because you know we'll "turn the other cheek"?  What cowardice!

My dear Brothers and Sisters in the Lord, as believers, we are being persecuted as never before in this country, and unless and until we rise up, and fight for ourselves, we continue to send the message that we're fair game; that it's ok to ridicule believers, that it's ok to discriminate against us, take away our religious freedoms, and we'll do nothing to defend ourselves.  And it's not just Christians; there is a definite groundswell of militant atheism that seeks to do away with all belief in God.  I, for one, am having none of it!

Will you please join me in sending a message to Starbucks?  Please email them, and let them know exactly why you won't be buying your coffee from them anymore!  And then, pass the word along to all your friends and families to have them get on board.  It's a small start, but at least it's a start, and we need to start somewhere!

Pax,
RC
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stop This Pentagon Policy


 I am temporarily suspending my self-imposed exile in order to help the Pentagon reverse their stupid new policy that effectively bans all milblogs and e-communication with our troops on the front lines.  If you haven't heard about this and want more info, please go to hughhewitt.com.  And then, please take the time to register your concern with the Pentagon directly by following this link:

http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.aspx

Please help get this short-sighted policy reversed!

Pax,
RC
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Final Post: Good Bye and God Bless!

 

After much prayerful consideration, I have decided to close up shop on the Rubberduck Crusader blog.  I want to thank all of you who have taken the time to visit (both of you), and for the many kind comments I have received.

May God richly bless each and every one of you, and thanks again!

Pax et Bonum,
RC
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Medical Account Of Christ's Last Days and The Cross

 

by Dr. C. Truman Davis

Dr. C. Truman Davis, an ophthalmologist in Mesa, Arizona, has researched the medical sufferings of Jesus on the cross. He has published them in medical journals in Arizona, Florida and Alabama and has traveled extensively across the nation giving lectures on the subject. His findings are printed here:

The physical aspects of the passion, or suffering, of Jesus Christ will be discussed in this series. We shall follow Him from
Gethsemane
, through His trial, His scourging; His path along the Via Dolorosa and to His last dying hours on the cross.

About a decade ago, reading Jim Bishop's "The Day Christ Died", I realized that I had for years taken the Crucifixion more or less for granted -- that I had grown callous to its horror by a too easy familiarity with the grim details and a too distant friendship with our Lord. It finally occurred to me that, though a physician, I didn't even know the actual immediate cause of death. The Gospel writers don't help us much on this point, because crucifixion and scourging were so common during their lifetime that they apparently considered a detailed description unnecessary. So we have only the concise words of the Evangelists: "Pilate, having scourged Jesus, delivered Him to them to be crucified -- and they crucified Him."

I have no competence to discuss the infinite psychic and spiritual suffering of the Incarnate God atoning for the sins of fallen man. But it seemed to me that as a physician I might pursue the physiological and anatomical aspects of our Lord's passion at some detail. What did the body of Jesus of Nazareth actually endure during those hours of torture?

This led me first to a study of the practice of crucifixion itself; that is, torture and execution by fixation to a cross. I am indebted to many who have studied this subject in the past, and especially to a contemporary colleague, Dr. Pierre Barbet, a French surgeon who has done exhaustive historical and experimental research and has written extensively on the subject.

The physical passion of the Christ began in
Gethsemane
.

Of the many aspects of this initial suffering, the one of greatest physiological interest is the bloody sweat. It is interesting that St. Luke, the physician, is the only one to mention this. He says, "And being in Agony, He prayed the longer. And His sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground."

Every ruse (trick) imaginable has been used by modern scholars to explain away this description, apparently under the mistaken impression that this just doesn't happen. A great deal of effort could have been saved had the doubters consulted the medical literature. Though very rare, the phenomenon of Hematidrosis, or bloody sweat, is well documented. Under great emotional stress of the kind our Lord suffered, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can break, thus mixing blood with sweat. This process might well have produced marked weakness and possible shock.

We shall move rapidly through the betrayal and arrest; I must stress again that important portions of the Passion story are missing from this account. This is done to adhere to our purpose of discussing only the purely physical aspects of the Passion.

After the arrest in the middle of the night, Jesus was next brought before the Sanhedrin and Caiphus, the High Priest; it is here that the first physical trauma was inflicted. A soldier struck Jesus across the face for remaining silent when questioned by Caiphus. The palace guards then blind-folded Him and mockingly taunted Him to identify them as they each passed by, spat upon Him, and struck Him in the face.

In the early morning, battered and bruised, dehydrated, and exhausted from a sleepless night, Jesus is taken across the Praetorium of the Fortress Antonia, the seat of government of the Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate. You are, of course, familiar with Pilate's action in attempting to pass responsibility to Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Judea. Jesus apparently suffered no physical mistreatment at the hands of Herod and was returned to Pilate. It was then, in response to the cries of the mob, that Pilate ordered Bar-Abbas released and condemned Jesus to scourging and crucifixion.

There is much disagreement among authorities about the unusual scourging as a prelude to crucifixion. Most Roman writers from this period do not associate the two. Many scholars believe that Pilate originally ordered Jesus scourged as his full punishment and that the death sentence by crucifixion came only in response to the taunt by the mob that the Procurator was not properly defending Caesar against this pretender who allegedly claimed to be the King of the Jews.

Preparations for the scourging were carried out when the Prisoner was stripped of His clothing and His hands tied to a post above His head. It is doubtful the Romans would have made any attempt to follow the Jewish law in this matter, but the Jews had an ancient law prohibiting more than 40 lashes. The pharisees, always making sure that the law was strictly kept, insisted that only 39 lashes be given. (In case of miscount, they were sure of remaining within the law.)

The Roman legionnaire steps forward with the flagrum (or flagellum) in his hand. This is a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather thongs with two small balls of lead attached near the ends of each. The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again across Jesus' shoulders, back, and legs. At first the thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles.

The small balls of lead first produce large, deep bruises which are broken open by subsequent blows. Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue. When it is determined by the centurion in charge that the prisoner is near death, the beating is finally stopped.

The half-fainting Jesus is then untied and allowed to slump to the stone pavement, wet with His own blood. The Roman soldiers see a great joke in this provincial Jew claiming to be king. They throw a robe across His shoulders and place a stick in His hand for a scepter. They still need a crown to make their travesty complete. Flexible branches covered with long thorns (commonly used in bundles for firewood) are plaited into the shape of a crown and this is pressed into His scalp. Again there is copious bleeding, the scalp being one of the most vascular areas of the body.

After mocking Him and striking Him across the face, the soldiers take the stick from His hand and strike Him across the head, driving the thorns deeper into His scalp. Finally, they tire of their sadistic sport and the robe is torn from His back. Already having adhered to the clots of blood and serum in the wounds, its removal causes excruciating pain just as in the careless removal of a surgical bandage, and almost as though He were again being whipped the wounds once more begin to bleed.

In deference to Jewish custom, the Romans return His garments. The heavy patibulum (wooden beam) of the cross is tied across His shoulders, and the procession of the condemned Christ, two thieves, and the execution detail of Roman soldiers headed by a centurion begins its slow journey along the Via Dolorosa.

As we study the passion of Christ, let's first look at the practice of the crucifixion, the torture and execution of a person by fixation to a cross.

Apparently, the first known practice of crucifixion was by the Persians. Alexander and his generals brought it back to the Mediterranean world -- to
Egypt and to Carthage
. The Romans apparently learned the practice from the Carthaginians and (as with almost everything the Romans did) rapidly developed a very high degree of efficiency and skill at it. A number of Roman authors (Livy, Cicer, Tacitus) comment on crucifixion, and several innovations, modifications, and variations are described in the ancient literature.

For instance, the upright portion of the cross (or stipes) could have the cross-arm (or patibulum) attached 2 or 3 feet below its top in what we commonly think of as the Latin cross. The most common form used in our Lord's day, however, was the Tau cross, shaped like our T. In this cross the patibulum was placed in a notch at the top of the stipes. There is archeological evidence that it was on this type of cross that Jesus was crucified.

Without any historical or biblical proof, Medieval and Renaissance painters have given us our picture of Christ carrying the entire cross. But the upright post, or stipes, was generally fixed permanently in the ground at the site of execution and the condemned man was forced to carry the patibulum, weighing about 110 pounds, from the prison to the place of execution.

Many of the painters and most of the sculptors of crucifixion, also show the nails through the palms. Historical Roman accounts and experimental work have established that the nails were driven between the small bones of the wrists (radial and ulna) and not through the palms. Nails driven through the palms will strip out between the fingers when made to support the weight of the human body.

The misconception may have come about through a misunderstanding of Jesus' words to Thomas, "Observe my hands." Anatomists, both modern and ancient, have always considered the wrist as part of the hand.

A titulus, or small sign, stating the victim's crime was usually placed on a staff, carried at the front of the procession from the prison, and later nailed to the cross so that it extended above the head. This sign with its staff nailed to the top of the cross would have given it somewhat the characteristic form of the Latin cross.

The procession along the Via Dolorosa moves slowly, as Jesus stumbles and falls frequently. In spite of his efforts to walk erect, the weight of the heavy wooden beam, together with the shock produced by copious blood loss, is too much. He stumbles and falls. The rough wood of the beam gouges into the lacerated skin and muscles of the shoulders. He tries to rise, but human muscles have been pushed beyond their endurance.

The centurion, anxious to get on with the crucifixion, selects a stalwart North African onlooker, Simon of Cyrene, to carry the cross. Jesus follows, still bleeding and sweating the cold, clammy sweat of shock, until the 650 yard journey from the fortress Antonia to
Golgotha
is finally completed.

The prisoner is again stripped of his clothes - except for a loincloth which is allowed the Jews.

The crucifixion begins. Jesus is offered wine mixed with myrrh, a mild analgesic mixture. He refuses to drink. Simon is ordered to place the patibulum on the ground and Jesus quickly thrown backward with His shoulders against the wood. The legionnaire feels for the depression at the front of the wrist. He drives a heavy, square, wrought-iron nail through the wrist and deep into the wood. Quickly, he moves to the other side and repeats the action being careful not to pull the arms to tightly, but to allow some flexion and movement. The patibulum is then lifted in place at the top of the stipes and the titulus reading "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" is nailed in place.

The left foot is now pressed backward against the right foot, and with both feet extended, toes down, a nail is driven through the arch of each, leaving the knees moderately flexed. The Victim is now crucified. As He slowly sags down with more weight on the nails in the wrists excruciating pain shoots along the fingers and up the arms to explode in the brain -- the nails in the writs are putting pressure on the median nerves. As He pushes Himself upward to avoid this stretching torment, He places His full weight on the nail through His feet. Again there is the searing agony of the nail tearing through the nerves between the metatarsal bones of the feet.

At this point, another phenomenon occurs. As the arms fatigue, great waves of cramps sweep over the muscles, knotting them in deep, relentless, throbbing pain. With these cramps comes the inability to push Himself upward. Hanging by his arms, the pectoral muscles (large chest muscles) are paralyzed and the intercostal muscles (small muscles between the ribs) are unable to act. Air can be drawn into the lungs, but cannot be exhaled. Jesus fights to raise Himself in order to get even one short breath. Finally, carbon dioxide builds up in the lungs and in the blood stream and the cramps partially subside. Spasmodically, he is able to push Himself upward to exhale and bring in the life-giving oxygen. It was undoubtedly during these periods that He uttered the seven short sentences recorded:

The first, looking down at the Roman soldiers throwing dice for His seamless garment, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

The second, to the penitent thief, "Today thou shalt be with me in
Paradise
."

The third, looking down at the terrified, grief-stricken adolescent John -- the beloved Apostle - he said, "Behold thy mother." Then, looking to His mother Mary, "Woman behold thy son."

The fourth cry is from the beginning of the 22nd Psalm, "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?"

Hours of limitless pain, cycles of twisting, joint-rending cramps, intermittent partial asphyxiation, searing pain where tissue is torn from His lacerated back as He moves up and down against the rough timber. Then another agony begins...A terrible crushing pain deep in the chest as the pericardium (sac surrounding the heart) slowly fills with serum and begins to compress the heart.

One remembers again the 22nd Psalm, the 14th verse: "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels."

It is now almost over. The loss of tissue fluids has reached a critical level; the compressed heart is struggling to pump heavy, thick, sluggish blood into the tissue; the tortured lungs are making a frantic effort to gasp in small gulps of air. The markedly dehydrated tissues send their flood of stimuli to the brain.

Jesus gasps His fifth cry, "I thirst."

One remembers another verse from the prophetic 22nd Psalm: "My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou has brought me into the dust of death."

A sponge soaked in posca, the cheap, sour wine which is the staple drink of the Roman legionaries, is lifted to His lips. He apparently doesn't take any of the liquid. The body of Jesus is now in extremes, and He can feel the chill of death creeping through His tissues. This realization brings out His sixth words, possibly little more than a tortured whisper, "It is finished."

His mission of atonement has completed. Finally He can allow his body to die.

With one last surge of strength, he once again presses His torn feet against the nail, straightens His legs, takes a deeper breath, and utters His seventh and last cry, "Father! Into thy hands I commit my spirit."

The rest you know. In order that the Sabbath not be profaned, the Jews asked that the condemned men be dispatched and removed from the crosses. The common method of ending a crucifixion was by crurifracture, the breaking of the bones of the legs. This prevented the victim from pushing himself upward; thus the tension could not be relieved from the muscles of the chest and rapid suffocation occurred. The legs of the two thieves were broken, but when the soldiers came to Jesus they saw that this was unnecessary.

Apparently to make doubly sure of death, the legionnaire drove his lance through the fifth interspace between the ribs, upward through the pericardium and into the heart. The 34th verse of the 19th chapter of the Gospel according to
St. John
reports: "And immediately there came out blood and water." That is, there was an escape of watery fluid from the sac surrounding the heart and the blood from the interior of the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.

Thus we have had our glimpse -- including the medical evidence -- of that epitome of evil which man has exhibited toward Man and toward God. It has been a terrible sight, and more than enough to leave us despondent and depressed. How grateful we can be that we have the great sequel in the infinite mercy of God toward man -- at once the miracle of the atonement and the expectation of the triumphant Easter morning.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Dr. C. Truman Davis is a nationally respected Ophthalmologist, vice president of the American Association of Ophthalmology, and an active figure in the Christian schools movement. He is founder and president of the excellent
Trinity Christian School in Mesa Arizona, and a trustee of Grove City College
.

This work is (c)copyrighted by The Review of the NEWS,
April 14, 1976


Thank you, Dr. Davis, for this truly fascinating, and inspiring report!
"and by His stripes, we are healed"!

Pax et Bonum,
RC
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I Am Supporting Duncan Hunter for President

by Duncan D. Hunter 

Perspective is everything. What colors the glasses through which you view the world? Look at my Dad, Duncan Hunter, through my ideological glasses. My perspective is formed as a Marine in a time of war, which stems from growing up in the border town of San Diego--the first stop on the map of a drug smuggler or terrorist heading north into the United States.

Congressman Duncan Hunter is the right man for America at the right time. Duncan Hunter has not changed with the times, the times have come around to meet him. Congressman Hunter built the San Diego border fence in the 1990s, long before communities displaced from the border began feeling the negative impacts of America’s open border policy. Representative Hunter served in the 173rd Airborne and Army Rangers in Vietnam, served on the House Armed Services Committee for 26 years, was chairman for the last four years and now is ranking member. His experience speaks for itself. After two tours of duty in Iraq, I know first-hand why my father is known as the Soldier’s Chairman.

Duncan Hunter is right on the border fence, which has been an undeniable success in San Diego. The fence has cut down on drug and human trafficking by 90% and reduced crime by 50% according to FBI statistics. Hunter built the San Diego fence over a decade ago and this infrastructure has been instrumental in transforming a border “no man’s land” into an orderly environment. Gangs no longer move with impunity between San Diego and Mexico and the fence allows the border enforcement agencies to refocus on other problematic areas.

Most importantly September 11, 2001 turned the border issue into an issue of national security. If drug traffickers are able to cross the border without being apprehended, so can terrorists. It has become clear to all those who seek to do America harm, that entry into our country is not best facilitated through LAX, but through our southern land border. The proven effectiveness of the San Diego border fence has generated support for Congressman Hunter to pass into law the Secure Fence Act, legislation mandating the construction of 854 miles of fence from California to Texas.

Duncan Hunter is right on trade. Congressman Hunter believes it is time to stop pandering to communist China when it comes to trade. While America has the most productive and innovative labor force in the world, it is not possible to compete with a country whose manufacturing sector is illegally subsidized by its government. No other country in the world agrees to a trade disadvantage like America has with China. China is cheating on trade. This disparity, once again, comes down to national security.

China possibly has nine ultramodern submarines under construction, with five more on the way. They have purchased multiple Russian-built destroyers that are designed to take down U.S. aircraft carriers with high-tech missile systems; and they have more than 800 medium-range ballistic missiles deployed. These weapon systems have been purchased, in large part, with money that should be going to the American worker. Congressman Duncan Hunter has the wisdom and vision to realize that there is a void on the world stage created by the fall of the Soviet Union. Ominously that void can be filled much too easily by the communist Chinese military, financed by American trade dollars.

Duncan Hunter is right on national security. The Cold War lasted for over thirty-five years and it was finally won by Ronald Reagan, who adhered to his principles and faced down the Soviet Union. It was called the ‘Cold War’ because it was an unconventional war of nuclear build up, prepared defenses and increased diplomatic activity. Well, we are now six years into a ‘Hot War’, automobiles used as bombs, people who are bent on suicide bombings, and sophisticated roadside explosives.

There is only one man running for the United States Presidency who has the wisdom, strength and courage to lead us through these challenging times. That man is my father, Congressman Duncan Hunter. Since 9/11, a terrorist attack has not reached American shores and I believe the only reason we have not had an attack on American soil is, in large part, due to the bravery and tenacity of the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan, the lethality of American Special Forces, and the steadfastness demonstrated by the American People.

While chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter fought for, equipped, and defended the United States military. As President, he will continue to support those brave men and women who protect our freedoms. He has done what I consider the second most important thing in America’s War against Islamic Fascists (the first being the American Military taking the fight to the enemy): he has enabled our military to win.

Congressman Duncan Hunter may be my father, but when I give him my vote in the California Republican Presidential primary, I will give him the vote of an American worker, someone who believes that the United States’ economic success rests on the backs of good Americans working hard for a decent wage, unimpeded by countries like China cheating on trade. I will give him the vote of a San Diegan who wants people from other countries to come through America’s front door, not the backdoor that is the California or Arizona desert. Most importantly, I will give him the vote of a Marine who trusts him to keep me, my family, and all Americans safe.

And this is exactly why I support Duncan Hunter as well!
RC

HT:  The Conservative Voice
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Great Global Warming Fraud and the Real Agenda

You MUST watch this video from (shock of shocks) the BBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

This is a 75 minute video, shown in its entirety on youtube.  It is clear that the whole global warming debate is a sham and a fraud, designed not only to take away our liberties, but also to keep the third world populations "in their place" by denying them the right to exploit their own resources to better their own lives.  This is a truly despicable position, and if they think, by their own pompous, arrogant pronouncement that "the debate is over", then they've got another think coming.  Watch this and see if you don't agree!

Pax,
RC 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Whatever Happened to the First Amendment in California?

OK, folks!  This is getting rich!  If my last post was "chilling", read that in combination with this one...Keep in mind, that these two actions, both from the left, have come within a week of each other, and within ten miles of each other...

Students facing charges of 'desecration of Allah'
Hamas, Hezbollah flags used in college Republicans protest


Posted: March 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Hezbollah flag

College Republicans at San Francisco State University desecrated the name of Allah by stepping on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags, charged school officials who brought the students before a hearing yesterday.

The trouble began at an Oct. 17 anti-terrorism rally in which the students stepped on butcher paper painted to resemble the flags of the Middle East terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. The College Republicans say they simply copied the script from an image on the Internet and didn't know it bore the name of Allah in Arabic script.

University spokeswoman Ellen Griffin, however, told San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders the university "stands behind this process" of investigating the students for possible punishment.

"I don't believe the complaint is about the desecration of the flag," Griffin said. "I believe that the complaint is the desecration of Allah."

The university has 10 days from the time of the hearing to decide whether to sanction the students.

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, which represents the students, insisted the school has no basis for punishing them.

"The College Republicans engaged in unequivocally protected political expression, and it strains all credibility to think the SFSU administration does not know this," he said. "There is nothing to try or investigate here other than protected expression."

Ten days after the incident, a student filed a formal complaint with the university against the campus group, alleging "attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment" and "actions of incivility."

FIRE argues the university's Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development could have settled the matter informally or dismissed the charges instead of pressing forward today with a hearing.

The legal advocacy group sent a letter to SFSU President Robert A. Corrigan Jan. 23 arguing no American public institution can lawfully prosecute students for engaging in political protest or for desecrating religious symbols.

FIRE asserted "incitement" and creating a "hostile environment" are legal terms not applicable to the College Republicans' actions of stepping on flags.

"SFSU has a duty to uphold the First Amendment rights of all of its students, even if their expressive activity offends the religious sensibilities of some," the letter stated.

University officials wrote back Jan. 29, saying the school would continue to investigate the complaint "to give all parties the confidence that they will be heard and fairly treated by a panel that includes representatives of all the university's key constituencies."

A follow-up letter by FIRE urged Corrigan to call off the hearing, warning "if you continue to ignore your constitutional obligations, you risk personal liability for depriving your students of their rights."

"This is not even a close call, legally speaking," FIRE Vice President Robert L. Shibley contended. "The First Amendment protects using or destroying flags in political protest, and even SFSU administrators must realize that they cannot prosecute students for failing to respect a religious symbol."
 

The left in this country, is doing everything it can to destroy Christianity, while bending over backward to protect the "Religion of Peace"...It's well past time to root out the Left from our Judiciary, Academia and the Media, and to once and for all (and forever) destroy the abomination known as "Political Correctness"!  It's time to fight back!

RC

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Absolutely Chilling Decision from the 9th Circuit

To those of you who refuse to believe that Christianity and the family is under assault in this country, get a load of this from World Net Daily:

9th Circuit endorses censoring Christians
Ruling says 'family values' is hate speech that scares city workers


Posted: March 8, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that municipal employers have the right to censor the words "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" because that is hate speech and could scare workers.

The ruling came in a case being handled by the Pro-Family Law Center, which promised an appeal of the drastic result.

"We are going to take this case right up the steps of the United States Supreme Court," said Richard D. Ackerman, who along with Scott Lively argued the case for the Pro-Family Law Center.

"We are simply unwilling to accept that Christians can be completely silenced on the issues of the day – especially on issues such as same-sex marriage, parental rights, and free speech rights," he said.

"If we fail to get U.S. Supreme Court review, however, it will be up to each individual Christian in the United States to stand up for their rights to be heard on the issues of the day. If we choose to be silent, silenced we shall be," he said.

The decision came in an unpublished "memorandum" from the court, and was in a dispute over the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle within the city offices of Oakland, Calif.

It found that municipalities have a right to dictate what form an employee's speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues.

"Public employees are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their 'legitimate administrative interests' outweigh the employee's interest in freedom of speech," said the court's opinion by judges B. Fletcher, Clifton and Ikuta, who noted that their writings are "not appropriate for publication."

"The district court appropriately described [the Christians' speech rights] as 'vanishingly small,'" the opinion continued.

However, as the Pro-Family Law Center noted, the court "completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland's Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech."

The case had developed when two city employees who wanted to launch a group of people who shared their interests posted a notice on a city bulletin board – after a series of notices from homosexual activists were delivered to them via the city's e-mail system, bulletin boards and memo distribution system.

The notice said:

Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values.

If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford @xxx- xxxx or Robin Christy @xxx-xxxx

But Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered their notice removed, because it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment."

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled in 2005 that Oakland had a right to prevent the employees from posting that Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on the office bulletin board.

That decision was made even though homosexuals already had been using the city's e-mail, bulletin board, and written communications systems for promoting their views. In fact, one city official even used the e-mail system to declare the Bible "needs updating," but no actions were taken against those individuals.

The case was argued recently at a special session of the 9th Circuit at the Stanford University Law School.

"The city of Oakland has interpreted this district court's ruling to mean that Christianity has no place in our society and should be subject to punishment. I want to believe that our Supreme Court will ultimately decide this case on the values and instructions set forth in motion by the nations Founders," said Ackerman.

Ackerman's' firm represents the women and said the Pro-Family Law Center and Abiding Truth Ministries have helped underwrite the thousands of dollars it has cost to fight the city's aggressive promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.
 

Any questions?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blog Recommendation: Breath of the Beast

To both my readers out there, I wish to recommend an outstanding blog for you to visit, called "Breath of the Beast".  Yakov is a truly talented blogger, who just came on line in December.  He has a lot to say, and what he says is very important to each and every one of us.  Read his magnificent posts, and I'm sure you'll wish to go back again and again, and to include "Breath of the Beast" on your blogrolls.

Pax et Bonum,
RC

http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Beware of False Rubberducks!

It has come to my attention, much to my consternation, that there is a false rubberduck on the loose. This purported "rubberduck" posts on something called "mailfriends.com", and is of the mindless twaddle that composes the wrong wing in American thought. This cretin libels our President, and probably has stinky feet as well. Do not be taken in by false rubberducks! There is only one.

Don't forget; if it doesn't say Rubberduck Crusader on the label, it's not a real, genuine rubberduck!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Rejects CPAC Invite

 By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 1, 2007

Sen. John McCain is the only major Republican presidential candidate who will not address the nation's premier gathering of conservatives this year.
    Sponsors of the Conservative Political Action Conference, which begins today in Washington and brings together thousands of conservative leaders and grass-roots activists, say the Arizona Republican has "dissed" organizers by attempting to schedule a private reception for attendees after rejecting invitations to speak at the event.
    "It was a classical McCain move, dissing us by going behind our backs," said William J. Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union.
    Convening through Saturday at a sold-out Omni Shoreham Hotel, the 34th annual CPAC will feature personal appearances and nationally televised speeches by every Republican presidential hopeful except Mr. McCain, said David A. Keene, chairman of the ACU, which, along with Young America's Foundation and Human Events, is a principal sponsor of CPAC.
    Conservative activists have speculated that Mr. McCain did not want to be seen on television "pandering" to Republican "right-wingers" but wanted to court those same activists at a reception in the same hotel.
    "He turned down repeated CPAC offers to speak but then tried to get around us by having his office call the hotel to rent a room for a reception for CPAC attendees -- without first seeking approval of CPAC organizers," said Mr. Lauderback.
    By contrast, he said, other Republican presidential aspirants have called ACU to seek permission to hold receptions at the hotel during CPAC. Each of those candidates -- including Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- "called us a long time ago to arrange for a hospitality reception he will give for CPAC attendees," Mr. Lauderback said.
    "We would have still allowed McCain to do something at CPAC, but by the time his folks approached the hotel, everything was in concrete and there was no facility available for what he wanted," Mr. Keene said.
    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a possible contender who is considered his party's one-man think tank, and Vice President Dick Cheney, still a crowd favorite for the conservative faithful, will also address the conference.
    When an attempt was made to ask why Mr. McCain declined to address CPAC, top campaign advisers John Weaver and Terry Nelson were said to be "unreachable."
    But a spokesman for Mr. McCain -- who is running an average of 13 percentage points behind former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in the latest national polls -- said the candidate's conservative credentials are well-known.
    "The senator has run, been elected and served as a conservative and looks forward to talking about his conservative record throughout the course of this campaign," said Brian Jones, communications director for the McCain campaign.
    CPAC has been considered a key event for conservative candidates since the Reagan era.
    "Reagan attended every CPAC from the first one in 1974 -- when he gave his famous 'City Upon a Hill' speech -- until his last year in office in 1988," said Craig Shirley, a longtime Republican activist and Reagan historian. "The exceptions were 1976 and 1980, when he was campaigning in New Hampshire for the GOP nomination."
    Mr. Shirley recalled that at "the very first CPAC, Reagan brought as his guest a young, severely wounded Navy pilot who had been a POW in Hanoi: John McCain III."
    Organizers say they expect more than 5,000 people -- including busloads of college students from across the country -- at what is being billed as the largest CPAC ever. This year's conference features 36 panel discussions (twice the number as last year) in two ballrooms over three days, and more than 40 private receptions held by candidates and advocacy groups.
    CPAC attendees "are the people who knock on doors for candidates they support and make up the core of the ground troops on whom any candidate has to rely," Mr. Keene said. "By simply dismissing them, as Senator McCain has done, he is telling them more about himself than perhaps he wants them to know."
    Mr. McCain's conservative supporters, from Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty to veteran conservative consultants such as Becky Donatelli, have told friends that they tried hard to get the senator to accept the invitation to speak at CPAC.
    "It makes no sense," Mr. Lauderback said. "McCain alienates the left by calling for the repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision ... but he then alienates the right by dissing their organizations -- refusing to speak at the recent National Review conference, the House Republican Study Committee retreat and now CPAC."
    Mr. Shirley said skipping CPAC is a mistake for any Republican candidate.
    "Any GOP politician who doesn't understand this and the importance of this conference doesn't understand conservatism," he said.
    Some candidates who originally hesitated about attending CPAC, including Mr. Giuliani, changed their minds. He is scheduled to be introduced by commentator George F. Will for a noon speech on Friday.
    Nevertheless, Mr. Keene said he thought Mr. McCain would have been warmly welcomed at CPAC.
    "Most conservatives disagree with his positions on a number of issues like campaign-finance reform, gun-show loopholes, taxes and global warming," said Mr. Keene. "But many like his stand on earmarks and his support of President Bush on Iraq and almost all respect the sacrifices he made for his country during the Vietnam era."
    



Copyright © 2007 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

And THIS guy expects the nomination?  How arrogant can one get?  RC
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SC Straw Poll Makes it Clear:Duncan Hunter Has Emerged as Conservative Answer

Spartanburg, SC – With John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter all finishing in a statistical tie for first place at 24% each in the Spartanburg County, South Carolina straw poll, the big story is that of the surprise top finish by Duncan Hunter.

Mike Dixon, longtime GOP activist and former South Carolina 4th District Party Chairman, said “However you stack and restack the top three, the results are clear, Duncan Hunter has emerged as the conservative alternative South Carolina Republicans have been looking for.”

Commenting on Hunter’s strong showing, Spartanburg Republican Gerald Emory said, “Now we have a true Ronald Reagan conservative that we can support. This is a proud night for the Grand Ole Party.”

Duncan Hunter when speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., about his finish in the South Carolina poll said, “You know, I woke up to … one of the commentators saying that the only reason that Hunter beat all those guys in South Carolina is because his Marine son has been there for a week. Well, I looked down at that army of consultants, everybody who was vertical in South Carolina was hired by the other guys, and I said, ‘You know, that is a good match-up: One Marine versus 550 consultants.’ We did have the advantage!”

Dead-heat for: McCain: 24 % Giuliani: 24% Hunter: 24%

Followed by Brownback: 13% Romney: 12% Huckabee: 3%

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hunter's Address to CPAC

Coverage of Duncan Hunter's address of March 2, by CPAC Liveblog:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=23212    

It looks like Re. Hunter's making friends everywhere.  I don't think he'll easily be dismissed (ask Doc Steech!).

RC
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Only Conservative Choice: Hunter for President '08

 When Sen. Rick Santorum declared that he would not be a candidate for the Republican nomination for President in 2008, I was, needless to say, very disappointed.  I also realized I had some work to do, studying the records and positions of the announced candidates for this most important of Presidential elections.  After viewing the records, and listening to the various candidates, my conclusion is that only one candidate has the conservative credentials to be the standard bearer for the Republicans in 2008.  That man is Rep. Duncan Hunter of San Diego.

Rep. Hunter is strong on the War for Western Civilization. A Vietnam veteran, Duncan Hunter served in the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers.  His son, Duncan Duane, has served two tours of duty in Iraq as a United States Marine.  Rep. Hunter scores 100% with the Christian Coalition, National Right to Life, the Pro-Life Forum, and has a lifetime score of 92% with the American Conservative Union.  He believes in strict border enforcement, and enforcing the laws of the United States against illegal immigration (no amnesty).  He has faithfully served the people of San Diego in Congress for 25 years.  This is the kind of man we need to lead this country at this most critical point in our nation's history.

While I like and respect the other candidates on the Republican side, NO OTHER CANDIDATE has the Conservative credentials of Rep. Hunter.  Despite the early polls, I believe once the people take a real hard look at the records and positions of all these candidates, they won't be able to avoid coming to the same conclusion I have;  Rep. Duncan Hunter MUST be the Republican nominee for President of the United States in 2008!

For more information:  http://www.gohunter08.com/

RC
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (26) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ken Calvert: A Great Congressman

I am very proud of my Congressman, Ken Calvert, of California's 44th Congressional District.  With all the "White Flag Republicans" coming out of the woodwork, I'm pleased that Mr. Calvert has remained steadfast with the President and our troops.  Here is the speech he made from the floor of the House on the 13th:

IRAQ RESOLUTION SPEECH

Given on House Floor 2/13/2007

Mr. Speaker I rise today in opposition to the resolution offered by the Majority expressing the disapproval of President Bush’s decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

This resolution is nothing but politics – opposition to a plan is NOT a plan. This resolution is using our servicemen and women in a debate that does not address policy. If this was an earnest debate about the Administration’s proposal then the Majority would have offered a bill that answers two pertinent questions - what is success and how do we achieve it?

Instead we stand here debating a bill that opposes sending reinforcements to Iraq – there are no amendments allowed and there is certainly no plan offered in this bill.

In fact this debate is incredibly ironic since many of those on the other side of the aisle were calling for MORE troops not too long ago. Once again, the debate was not about success but about opposition to the Administration’s vision.

So let’s talk about the policy.

First, nostalgic thoughts and longing for the times before the U.S. entered Iraq are not useful nor can they be used as a vision for the future. We are in this war. We must win. Anything less then an honest discussion on how to proceed forward is a disservice to this nation and our military.

Second, if our policy is to support a stable Iraq then we must employ a strategy to achieve that goal. The President and our military commanders have stated that in order to fulfill that policy objective, Baghdad must be secured. In order to secure Baghdad, the Iraqi Security Forces need more American troops to reinforce their operations. President Bush agreed to this on the condition that the Iraqi’s lead the fight and that the Iraq government take more responsibility for securing their country.

If the Majority Party disagrees with this policy objective, and the strategy to achieve it, then I ask them – what is THEIR policy objective? And how do they plan to achieve it? I have yet to hear a consensus from my friends on the other side of the aisle on what they believe our policy should be. They certainly cannot suggest that this resolution even faintly resembles a plan or vision for a successful resolution to the current conflict.

I’ll tell you what this debate is - it’s a sound bite. It’s a quick and easy way to feed the defeatists in this country. More than anything, it’s a disappointment – the Majority would rather score political points than have a real discussion on the most important question of this generation – how to win the war against our enemies and keep our country safe.

We should be asking ourselves what would failure in the Middle East mean?

Our enemies have stated that they believe that Western civilization is rotten to the core and unless we get out of the Middle East entirely and convert to Islam – we will always be their enemy. In chapter 2 of the 9-11 Report, the authors answer what the terrorists want from America:

“To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture” (page 77)

Al Qaeda is closely watching Iraq, sending fighters and weapons, and doing everything in its power to bring about an American retreat. If we leave Iraq before it is secure, what will that do to our enemy? An enemy who has already stated that they seek to destroy us not for being in Iraq but for being in the Middle East and for being non-Muslim.

An American failure would bolster al Qaeda and every other terrorist organization in the world. It would give them a reason to believe they can win and it would give them confidence that would surely breach our shores one day. It would let them believe that their plan – a plan to destroy western culture for its “godlessness” – is right.

As 9-11 taught us, warfare is no longer limited to enemies within a region. Geographic boundaries and long distances do not keep us safe. An enemy, encouraged by a retreat in Iraq, will be close on our heels. That is exactly why must stay and confront our enemies.

So how is this enemy, who is at a military and financial disadvantage, seeking to win? They simply studied a little American history. Both Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi have referenced the Vietnam conflict in forming their strategy to defeat us.

Many in this body often rush to compare this conflict with Vietnam and in one respect it is very similar: both enemies understood the way to victory was through the American politician. If they can weaken the American political will they knew they could achieve victory. The Majority often invokes the number of our war dead as a reason to leave, or the fact that this conflict has gone on longer than our involvement in World War II. These arguments play right into the hands of our enemy and their propaganda machine.

What people don’t seem to understand is that we cannot fall into the trap of comparisons or we risk losing sight of what our men and women in the Armed Forces need from us. They need our support. They need a coherent policy and strategy that does not make politics the long pole in the tent.

Courage to do the right thing is not always easy. I will not abandon those who have fought and given their lives in this conflict. I will not abandon the Iraqis who long for peace. Instead, I support the President’s call for more troops. I believe it is the right thing to do. It is illogical to say you support the troops that are there but not the reinforcements that they need.

In closing I would like to remember those who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism:

Beirut embassy and Marine barracks bombings - 1983.

The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 - 1988;

The first bombing of the World Trade Center - 1993;

The bombing of the AMIA Jewish

Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina -1994.

The bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia - 1996.

The bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania - 1998.

The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen – year 2000.

The attacks on New York City and the Pentagon -September 11, 2001.

The Madrid train bombings - March 11, 2004.

The London bombings - July 7, 2005;

Do not doubt that if they were given the chance, our enemies would come into this chamber and kill us.

This resolution is not a solution - it is nothing but doubt, fear and weakness. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and stand up for victory.



It doesn't get any clearer or stronger than this...Thanks, Congressman Calvert!

RC
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »