Browsed by
Tag: Iran

Fox News Hides Apocalyptic Mirror

Fox News Hides Apocalyptic Mirror

Comments 0 Comment

What’s the appropriate reaction to something like this? Check it out.

On the August 16 edition of Fox News’ Your World, host Neil Cavuto interviewed Christian author Joel C. Rosenberg, whom he identified only as a “Middle East analyst,” regarding a recent Iranian “Holocaust cartoon contest,” and why “many in the Western media aren’t seeing” that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as dangerous as Adolf Hitler. During the interview, Rosenberg warned of Ahmadinejad’s “apocalyptic mind-set,” asserting that he “is saying … that the end of the world is rapidly approaching and that it’s his mission to bring it about by destroying Israel and … the United States.” But neither Cavuto nor Rosenberg disclosed, as Media Matters for America has noted, that Rosenberg is the author of a book laying out his vision of the Apocalypse, or that Rosenberg has claimed that he was invited to the White House, Capitol Hill, and the CIA to discuss the Rapture and the Middle East, with White House aides purportedly marveling over how the apocalyptic events described in his novels keep coming true.

From the interview:

ROSENBERG: He just signed a $1 billion deal with Russia to buy missiles and arms from Moscow. He is sending $100 million a year to Hezbollah. He is building the arsenal and the alliance to destroy Israel and to wipe out the United States, and that’s what’s so dangerous. People don’t appreciate yet, particularly in the media –Mike Wallace for sure — don’t appreciate or understand the evil that is rising in Iran, and that’s what I’m trying to write about in novels. That’s what I’m trying to talk about — is the religious, end-of-the-world, apocalyptic mind-set that Ahmadinejad has (my emphasis). You can’t negotiate with someone, ultimately, who believes it’s his mission to end the world.

So one of the criticisms is the “apocalyptic mind-set”. Who is this speaking again?

According to Media Matters,

On the July 19 edition of the Jay Sekulow Live! radio program, Rosenberg said his book The Ezekiel Option (Tyndale House Publishers, July 2005) is “based on a 2,500-year-old Bible prophecy — Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 — in which Russia teams up with Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and a number of other Muslim countries to destroy Israel in what Ezekiel calls ‘the last days.’ ” Rosenberg added: “It’s too soon to say, honestly, that Ezekiel 38 and 39 are coming true, but I think it’s drawing a lot of interest in what the Bible has to say about future events in that part of the world, given the parallels to those prophecies.” Additionally, in a column posted on July 17 on the leftbehind.com website, Rosenberg purported to break down the prophecy from Ezekiel by listing “what to … watch[] for.” For his final bullet point, he wrote: “Even the G8 issued a statement defending Israel’s right to exist. But the Scriptures are clear, Israel will be totally alone when Russia and Iran attack.”

And during a segment on the July 26 edition of CNN’s Live From … discussing the potential coming of the Apocalypse, as indicated by current conflicts in the Middle East, host Kyra Phillips asked Rosenberg whether she needed “to start taking care of unfinished business and telling people that I love them and I’m sorry for all the evil things I’ve done.” Rosenberg replied, “Well, that would be a good start.”

Still not convinced? Check out his blog entry for today:

ABC PREPARING PRIME TIME SPECIAL, “ARE WE LIVING IN THE LAST DAYS?”: Also, Billy Graham on recent events in the Middle East

My comment:

Didn’t you just depict the “religious, end-of-the-world, apocalyptic mind-set” of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as evil? How is mirroring the same view a good, or even Christian, thing? The role of a Christian is to serve and to love others.


The Ezekiel Option Epicenter: Why current rumblings in the middle east will change your future

Violence in the Middle East

Violence in the Middle East

Comments 2 comments

If you’re wondering why I haven’t blogged on the current violence in the Middle East, it’s because my opinion is not as well-informed as it could be. I don’t feel qualified to stand forth with an analysis.

I don’t trust much of what I’m hearing in the news, especially knowing that there is a lot of history there. What we are getting is a snapshot viewpoint here and there. My overall feeling so far is that there is plenty of blame, and a fair bit of hypocrisy and spin, to go around. I would like to hear viewpoints from countries that are a lot less involved in that part of the world.

As the violence has escalated more and more people are being killed.

I hope there are people already there (and with greater skill than Condi) who can help negotiate an end to this bloodshed.

What greater mockery of the flag?

What greater mockery of the flag?

Comments 1 comment

In the previous post, I made mention of the language of the sacred. If the government decrees that the flag is sacred, does that violate the separation of church and state?

As may be, it’s actually going to come to a vote in the Senate. We may only be able to sit and watch our government amend the First Amendment to restrict political freedom of expression.

So this seems to be the overall plan – get as much power away from the judicial branch as possible by handing it to Congress and the executive branch. Where Congress isn’t pliant enough, then disempower Congress, and focus on executive power.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that the First Amendment to the Constitution protected Americans’ right to desecrate the flag as a means of free expression. Interesting – the majority opinion was joined by Scalia.

Back in 1997, Dr. Roger Pilon, Ph.D., J.D broke with colleagues at the libertarian/conservative think tank Cato Institute in his testimony before the Subcommittee on the Judiciary of the House. It’s worth a read – here’s my favorite part:

Sir Winston Churchill captured well that essential feature of our system when he observed in 1945 that “the United States is a land of free speech. Nowhere is speech freer–not even [in England], where we sedulously cultivate it even in its most repulsive forms.” In so observing, Churchill was merely echoing thoughts attributed to Voltaire, that he may disapprove of what you say but would defend to the death your right to say it, and the ironic question of Benjamin Franklin: “Abuses of the freedom of speech ought to be repressed; but to whom are we to commit the power of doing it?”

When so many for so long have understood the principles at issue today, how can this Congress so lightly abandon those principles? It is said by some that the flag is a special case, a unique symbol. That claim may be true, but it does not go to the principle of the matter: in a free society, individuals have a right to express themselves, even in offensive ways. Once we bar such expression, however, Franklin’s question will immediately be upon us. What is more, we will soon find that the flag is not unique, that the Bible and much else will next be in line for special protection.

It is said also that the flag is special because men have fought and died for it. Let me suggest in response that men have fought and died not for the flag but for the principles it represents. People give their lives for principles, not for symbols. When we dishonor those principles, to protect their symbol, we dishonor the men who died to preserve them. That is not a business this Congress should be about. We owe it to those men, men who have made the ultimate sacrifice, to resist the pressures of the moment so that we may preserve the principles of the ages.

After all, free expression and the right to dissent are among the core principles that the American flag is meant to represent. What greater defacement of the flag can there be than to shift its meaning into something that makes a mockery of American values and rights? Freedom of expression is one of the the truest tests of our dedication to the principles that our flag is supposed to represent.

Flag Issue History – Resources

Three countries ban flag-burning – Quick! Who are they?

Iran | China | Cuba

Rant on the So-called Marriage Amendment

Rant on the So-called Marriage Amendment

Comments 0 Comment

Tell Congress you oppose the “marriage” amendment to our Constitution. I did….

How dare you try to amend our Constitution to discriminate against any American citizen? How dare you appeal to hate? How dare you use God for this!

This is so low, so hypocritical. You won’t dabate Iraq, but you WILL debate this?

Is this what you have left to say about “compassionate conservatism”? You’ve let pseudo-christian dominionists (otherwise known as supremacists) gain too much power in our process because you think hate will motivate enough votes that the rigged elections can be rationalized.

These people want to bring back stoning! In America! They are wayyy too concerned with how to control other people. It won’t stop with this – gays aren’t the only people they hate. They want to put women “back in the box” as well, and they are training the children just like little Hitler youth with their home-schooling programs. Some even speak of a return to slavery.

But that’s not even what it’s about, is it? Because in addition to payback to the terrorist christian right – remember these are the people who incited to murder, bombed clinics, etc – this is really about something else.

It’s about insurance. You want to nip that “alternative family insurance” movement in the bud. You know, at the behest of the people who wrote the laws for the prescription drug “benefit”? It wouldn’t look good to talk about poor grandma raising her grandchildren, or the single moms or dads doing the best the can. Noooooo….you have to find that bigotry that remains, and work it, baby, work it.

Meanwhile, the dollar seems (to me at least) ready to plummet, Iraq is a disaster, Iran is about to become a disaster, Halliburton and ExxonMobil walk off with our money, and you don’t think there are any monuments in New York so you’re cutting homeland security funds. People are dying, people are hurting. There are parts of America that are as poor as any third-world nation, but you’re in bed with crony corporatists (when you don’t have prostitutes or long-term buddies from college to sleep with and promote).

You want to lecture us about morality? You want to use our own constitution for power, for hate? You have profoundly misunderstood the nature of this country. This country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE.

You’ve handed power to the executive branch. You’ve destroyed our country. You’ve taken our future. Keep going, and you’ll be showing up for photo ops in your hoods or uniforms or whatever.

The Nazis had their scapegoats too.
Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

You fundamentalists have lost
the thing most fundamental.
Pharasees again, in code
have lost or burned the message.
You fanatics worship manmade creeds
that will undo us all
And YOU, you terrorists of all religions
your gods will make us fall.

Yes I confess this deep deep flaw,
this remnant of rigidity,
scar-tissue of self-righteousness,
torn open yet again.
Yet one must speak from where one stands
and this is what I know,
I have no room left in my heart
for love toward you to grow.

The evil that your “god” incites
in you and o’er the world,
stains for all time our histories,
we all pay for your sins.
I guard compassion jealously
held selfish in reserve
for the ones you hurt so deeply
and whose stories aren’t heard.

I name you and yours false prophets
because you do define the phrase,
you lead the would-be faithful
always far and further astray.
Placing demon masks
on the faces of our kin,
undoing all the fragile good
that lets us breathe again.

Daily Activism

Daily Activism

Comments 0 Comment

Power Rankings of Members of Congress

Congress.org scored and weighted 289 variables in 15 categories to determine a ranking of the most powerful or effective Members of Congress.

See Power Rankings by State, Chamber, Party, Committee, Class/Tenure, Position, Influence, Legislation.

Don’t write discrimination into the Constitution.
The measure was put forward by Rep. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) only days after a judge in San Francisco declared that barring gay marriage violated the California state constitution. Right-wing leaders’ have used the supposed threat to marriage to energize political involvement by appealing to the worst within their own membership. Trying to use our constitution to demonize fellow Americans is contrary to the spirit of the entire document, and if passed, would mark the first time the Constitution was amended to target a group of Americans for unequal treatment.

Dominionism = Supremacism
We are not Nazis. We are not the Klan.
We cannot allow hate and irrational fears to overtake our country.

E-mail your senators to register your opposition to the discriminatory ‘Marriage Protection Amendment.’
(People for the American Way)

No Nuclear Attack on Iran

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) has circulated a letter in an effort to get the Bush Administration to take the nuclear option off the table. This letter, which he is asking members of Congress to sign, reminds the President of the USA of the US commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that the US, “will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States” or its allies.

Please ask your Representative to sign on to the Markey letter to the Administration.

While we understand the desire to take nothing off of the table during the run-up to what we hope are negotiations, there are some things that must never be put on the table to begin with. Nuclear weapons must not be used in Iran. Their use, or even the threat of use, would undermine America’s non-proliferation leadership, inflame anti-American extremism around the world, and undermine smart, effective problem solving by our elected and appointed leaders. We need a long term solution that lowers the dangers in Iran, rather than an attack that will convince the 182 non-nuclear signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that their continued adherence to the treaty offers them no protection against a nuclear attack by a nuclear nation.

(20/20 Vision

“What Is a Progressive?” – 10 Finalists – Vote Today

If you met someone who didn’t know what a progressive was, which one would help that person best to “get it”? Please vote among the ten finalists at Campaign for America’s Future by Friday, June 2nd at 11:59 EDT. (While you’re there, register for the Take Back America 2006 conference.
(Campaign for America’s Future)

Protect Medical Victims’ Rights – People are First, Profits are Second

For the third time in the last two years President Bush and leaders in the House of Representatives are promoting a bill written by the insurance industry and HMOs (yet again) without regard for the rights of working Americans injured – or even killed – by medical malpractice in hospitals or nursing homes. The bill may even allow drug companies who put dangerous products on the market to avoid accountability. Fight against this legislation, which is overtly designed to tilt the playing field in favor of powerful corporate interests.

Sign a petition urging your Representative to oppose any legislation restricting the rights of those injured by medical malpractice.
(People Over Profits Grassroots Action Center)

The Balancing Act – Paid Leave for New Parents

When you think of “family values” – think of this. The United States is one of only four out of 168 countries studied to not have some form of paid family leave for new moms. We join Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and Lesotho in not having that policy in place. Nearly 75% of moms are in the workforce, and most families need two working parents to stay afloat. It’s time for our policies and programs to catch up with our modern economy. Yes, with Republicans in power, the chances of success are pretty small. Still worth an effort.

Sign a petition to support the The Balancing Act bill, which includes paid leave for all new parents.
(Moms Rising)

We’re not Buyin’ it – Protest ExxonMobil

Today hundreds of activists are in Dallas, TX attending ExxonMobil’s annual meeting to protest the corporation’s use of our money to fund their active opposition to any development of clean energy solutions for America. In solidarity with these activists, I am writing my representatives in Congress (such as they are) to reject any bill that offers even more giveaways to ExxonMobil (either through even more tax breaks or even more invasive drilling). ExxonMobil uses their obscenely excessive profits to fund professional global warming “skeptics” and refuses to invest in renewable energy sources. It’s time for Congress to adopt REAL energy solutions that reduce global warming pollution, enhance our energy security, and save consumers money – you know, while we still have the lights on to plan.

Protest ExxonMobil’s Slash and Burn Planning
(Union of Concerned Scientists and Save Our Environment)

Yes. Thank you Colbert.

Yes. Thank you Colbert.

Comments 1 comment

I’ve been waiting a bit to comment on the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. There are a lot of opinions out there, and I’m happy most of all that people are talking and writing and thinking about issues, humor and satire vs. criticism and insult, comedy as news, the role of a court jester, and so on.

Steve Bridges did a great imitation of Bush, and was obviously Bush’s own choice (for his own roast, he gets to choose?). I’ve heard that Bridges can do Clinton just as well. That was the light side of the dinner, although there were a couple of low-grade zings in that one, too.

But I have to say that I think Colbert’s performance was the more important. I did actually think much of it was funny, in the traditional way of a roast. As it went on, he transitioned through court jester, and went all the way to performative critique. The film clip of Colbert pretending to be the White House Spokesman forced the viewer to dwell in a fairly unpleasant space – it even made me a little anxious because of the genre of suspense, the music, the way it was drawn out. It was meant to make people squirm. It worked for that, but I could almost hear the pulse of a pounding vein in Bush’s own head by the end of it.

The video wasn’t funny – but it was performative, dramatic, and scathing in its depiction, and that was even better. Scott McClellan probably had the most right to feel attacked…. wasn’t that pretty much a depiction of him?

It focused on a single question, finally: Why did we really go to war in Iraq?

Helen Thomas herself – I swear I saw her wipe a tear. I was glad to see someone stand up for her, and for the questions she’s not been allowed to ask anymore despite her long history as the media hardnose to the President. And I was glad to see someone stand up for us, we who are being fed a bunch of hogwash propaganda day and night, straight from the White House to Fox News, etc.

Anyone who has watched the Daily Show or the Colbert Report would know what his humor was like. Remember, he was invited.

I fully expected Colbert to pull a Family von Trapp while the film clip was playing, but to my shock and admiration, he was still standing there at the end.

Thank you Stephen Colbert

The Speech Video

Stephen Colbert Musical Extravaganza

The Colbert Report

Colbert Clips on ifilm

Yes, I approve.

Why? Because I’m angry at his administration – Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. – as well as its bullied, corrupt, or spineless members of Congress, the controlled or cowardly media, and the American people themselves – who have allowed our country to be twisted and trampled into something it should never be. If we continue on this path, our future is dismal.

William Rivers Pitt puts it pithily (when angry, spitting and sputtering are common) – Why the anger?

Because millions of people are staggered by the idea that, yes Virginia, we have to go through this again. We have to watch soldiers slaughter and be slaughtered for reasons that bear no markings of truth. We have to watch the reputation of this great nation be savaged. We have to watch as our leaders lie to us with their bare faces hanging out.

Why the anger? It can be summed up in one run-on sentence: We have lost two towers in New York, a part of the Pentagon, an important American city called New Orleans, our economic solvency, our global reputation, our moral authority, our children’s future, we have lost tens of thousands of American soldiers to death and grievous injury, we must endure the Abramoffs and the Cunninghams and the Libbys and the whores and the bribes and the utter corruption, we must contemplate the staggering depth of the hole we have been hurled down into, and we expect little to no help from the mainstream DC press, whose lazy go-along-to-get-along cocktail-circuit mentality allowed so much of this to happen because they failed comprehensively to do their job.

George W. Bush and his pals used September 11th against the American people, used perhaps the most horrific day in our collective history, deliberately and with intent, to foster a war of choice that has killed untold tens of thousands of human beings and basically bankrupted our country. They lied about the threat posed by Iraq. They destroyed the career of a CIA agent who was tasked to keep an eye on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and did so to exact petty political revenge against a critic. They tortured people, and spied on American civilians.

You cannot fathom anger arising from this?

There is at least a small amount of comfort in knowing that that the President had to hear, at least once, a few of the reasons why those approval figures are so low.