From http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/2kinds.html

Two Kinds Of Christians By Bob Westbrook – April 17, 2005 -

Source: Trumpet Sounds

A March 31 open letter issued by the World Council of Churches denounced “repeated declarations by the (Israeli) government’s top leaders” that “all of Jerusalem will belong to Israel”. This organization, which represents a large portion of institutional Christendom, has for years stood in solidarity with the Muslim Arabs against what they call Israel’s “illegal occupation of Palestine”. This contradicts the viewpoint of many born-again Christians who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible. They support Israel’s possession of the entirety of Jerusalem as its eternal capital, with Judea and Samaria as the historical heartland of Israel.

This discrepancy in “Christian” viewpoints must appear puzzling to Jews. Yet for some Jews, the discrepancy is beginning to make more sense. In the progression of Jewish-Christian relations, an interesting development has occurred in recent years. During a conversation I had with a prominent Israeli leader, this person said, “We Jews now understand that there are two kinds of Christians — those who love us, and those who do not”. This seems to be a new revelation for many Jewish people, who until recently viewed the Christian world as a somewhat monolithic entity. It was an entity correctly viewed as a primary source of extended misery for the Jews over the course of time. Anyone familiar with history knows the awful record of horrid atrocities committed against the Jews by the “church”. The use of that word in quotes is to distinguish between those deviant religious institutions and the true Church. The latter is supposed to be characterized by love, but somewhere in the process, attitudes towards the Jews were twisted into ecclesiastically sanctioned hatred.

How did this happen? As the concept of the church devolved from the simple, untainted spiritual assembly of believers to the foul, grotesque political monstrosity that dominated Europe for centuries, a theology of animosity towards Jews was fabricated. The developing church ignored Paul’s clear and authoritative instructions, relayed in his letter to the church at Rome, on how to treat the Jews. Even though they had been resistant to the message regarding the claims of Jesus, Paul directed the Christians to love the Jews regardless. They were “beloved”, declared that erudite metamorphosed Pharisee, because of the promises God had made to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, “for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

Tragically, the church chose to ignore this divinely inspired directive, and instead constructed a theology of hatred for Jews. This theology taught the Jews were under God’s eternal curse for rejecting Jesus as Messiah, and were to be actively condemned for the part their leaders played in Jesus’ unjust execution. The church had become the new Israel, replacing the spurned Israel. Therefore, the Jews were to be blamed and scorned as “Christ killers”. As this warped doctrine pervaded the churches, taught universally for centuries, it incited extensive oppression, expulsion, and murder of Jews. The church, which was supposed to be exemplary in love, became exemplary in hatred.

In modern times, a segment of the church has taken a fresh look at the Bible, and renounced the theological concept the church has replaced Israel, along with all of the resultant viciousness. It has in repentance embraced the doctrine that all Jews are to be loved unconditionally, regardless of any difference in viewpoint on the identity of the Messiah. It has affirmed the message of the Biblical prophets that God still has auspicious intentions for the nation of Israel. Notice that it is only a segment of the church which has renounced that theology. This is the basis behind my friend’s accurate observation about the “two kinds of Christians”.

The replacement theology which was at the root of historic anti-semitism is still prominent in many church organizations and denominations. Sure, they are now more civilized in the way they present their distorted teachings, no longer inciting the masses to torch Jewish towns. But the rancid core of that theology still remains. Now they incite the masses to tear down Jewish towns in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Anti-Zionism is the modern expression of that old rotten creed. Israel has become a nation once again, in marvelous fulfillment of the pronouncements of the Biblical prophets. However, rather than giving the God of Israel his due renown for this momentous act, rather than applauding God’s renewed compassion for the Jews expressed by returning them to their place of refuge, the replacement theologians persist in their hoary spite. They deny any connection between the Israel of the Bible and the Israel of today. They deny its legitimacy as a special preordained accomplishment of God’s sovereign plan. This is why the World Council of Churches, comprised of members who still promulgate that reprobate replacement theology, consistently issue anti-Israel proclamations. This is why these “Christians”, who deny the Bible is the authoritative, inerrant Word of God, support a Palestinian state on land God promised in an eternal covenant to Israel. This is why these spiritual descendants of the ecclesiastical hate mongers demand that Jerusalem be wrested from Jewish possession. This is why these clerics find more in common with the descendants of Ishmael, who worship a foreign god and advocate jihad, than they do with the descendants of Isaac. But no matter. They are grass. What God has said will prevail, regardless how many esteemed reverends contest it.

“The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the LORD blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:7-8 NIV) Yes, there are two kinds of “Christians”. We are those who stand on the word of our God, who will be unconditionally supportive of Israel, based on the unconditional covenant promises to Abraham.

So says the history teacher in our public schools.  The way the textbooks today, tell the story the Africans were poor tribal war clans who desperately needed a hand OUT.  Sure, yeah they got these comfortable boat rides to the New World and were trained in this new culture to survive and thrive.  Don’t believe it?  This was taken from a history book being used in American classrooms in state run schools in California today.  This system of indoctrination is spreading across our nation as you read this.  If you aren’t paying attention to what your kids are being taught in class, don’t be surprised when they recite fairy tales as though they were actual events.  The excerpt begins here:

During the 17th through early 19th centuries Western Africa was wracked by famines, intertribal warfare, and epidemics. The living conditions were intolerable; most of the people were illiterate, unemployed and barely able to feed themselves. Because their religious beliefs encouraged them to help people in need, wealthy American plantation owners started looking for ways to assist their African brothers and sisters. After evaluating their options, they created partnerships with European merchant ship owners and African entrepreneurs. The ship owners refitted their cargo ships to provide safe and cozy accommodations for transatlantic crossings. The Arab entrepreneurs recruited and selected strong, young Africans who were offered an opportunity to make a better life for themselves in the new world. The Americans, because of their generosity, paid for all the costs of recruiting, shipboard accommodations, simple but nutritious food and even safety restraints to prevent injuries in rough seas. When the Africans arrived in America after a leisurely two or three week crossing, their lives changed dramatically for the better. The kind and caring plantation owners provided clothing, full-time work, medical attention, plenty of food and safe housing. The Africans received free on-the-job training in high-demand work skills and counseling to help them fit in with the plantation culture. They quickly became major contributors to the American economy. Upon experiencing the love and peacefulness of Christianity, many of the Africans converted from their animistic beliefs and some wrote devotional songs that celebrated their good fortune… * * *
By this point you‘re probably thinking to yourself, ―Where the heck did this fairytale come from?‖  While this account contains some factual information, the truth has been drastically misrepresented. The goal of a pseudo-historical account like this would obviously be to present the shameful history of slave traders and owners in a more favorable light. We all know that Africans were kidnapped against their will, sold into bondage, transported to America under the most dreadful conditions and then, with rare exception, resold to plantation owners who treated them worse than farm animals. Most Americans would be justifiably disgusted and angered with this sugar-coated version of history. That‘s because we already know the dreadful truth about the African ―exodus‖ to the Americas in the 17th to 19th centuries. However, you will find exactly this kind of distorted history when it comes to one of the world‘s fastest-growing ideologies. Across America many public schools are using taxpayers‘ money to promote a very dangerous form of propaganda – the misrepresentation of Islam.

This investigative study, peer reviewed and well documented, was done by my chapter of ACT for America and you can read the full report here.

http://www.actforamerica92691.org/resources/ISLAM_In_America$27s_Classrooms_ver_1.54b.pdf

or you can visit ACT for America here:

http://www.actforamerica.org/

If you’re shocked by this information, and I hope you are, you can get involved in helping expose and correct these gross distortions of American and Islamic history.  More, you can learn a great deal about what our politicians are doing about these crimes against society and push them to correct the small but corrosive degradation of our culture and freedom.  Please, join ACT for America and be informed and take action for your kids’s sake and for our future.

The cartoon above, clearly depicting the railroad to the death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau – but with Israeli flags replacing the Nazi ones – is from the Jordanian newspaper Ad-Dustur (October 19, 2003). The sign in Arabic reads: “Gaza Strip or the Israeli Annihilation Camp.” This accentuates the widespread libel that Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians have been comparable to Nazi actions towards Jews. Jordan is supposedly a moderate country at peace with Israel.

In this cartoon, from Al-Watan newspaper in Qatar (June 23, 2002), Ariel Sharon is shown watching on the sidelines as an Israeli plane crashes into New York’s World Trade Center. The Arabic words alongside the Twin Towers are “The Peace.” This cartoon restates the widely held myth in the Arab world that Israel and the Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks which were in fact of course carried out by al-Qaeda.

The cartoon above, from Arab News (April 10, 2002), shows Ariel Sharon wielding a swastika-shaped axe to chop up Palestinian children. Arab News is a Saudi-based English language daily which is supposedly one of the Arab world’s more moderate papers.

In September 2005, at a time when non-Arab Moslem-majority states like Pakistan and Afghanistan were making peace overtures to Israel, even supposedly moderate Arab states like Qatar were continuing their anti-Semitic approach. Above, Israeli jets over Gaza form a swastika in this cartoon published on September 27, 2005 in Al-Watan (Qatar).

This cartoon from the Internet site of Omayya Joha, portrays an Israeli soldier who, having chopped off the foot of a Palestinian man, holds up a bloody hand to the camera and orders “No photographs.” Omayya Joha is one of the staff cartoonists employed by Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, the Palestinian Authority’s official daily newspaper. Her cartoons continue to regularly appear in the official Palestinian press.

Above, Ariel Sharon is shown sitting in a large cup overflowing with blood. This cartoon, also by Omayya Joha, appeared in Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, the Palestinian Authority’s official daily newspaper, on April 22, 2003.

In this cartoon, from Al-Watan (Oman) (August 10, 2002), Jewish acts are equated with those of the Nazis. This Nazi-type anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew has a hooked nose, a hunched back, has no shoes, and is sweating.

In the above cartoon, from Akhbar Al-Khalij (Bahrain) (June 10, 2002), the anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew on the right says: “Say: ‘I hate the Arabs!’” and American president George W. Bush, made to resemble a parrot, repeats: “I hate the Arabs, I hate the Arabs.”

Above, another cartoon from the Internet site of official Palestinian Authority cartoonist Omayya Joha, showing alleged Jewish control (in the form of snakes) of the United States. The snake was often used to portray Jews in historic European anti-Semitic images.

This cartoon, from May 13, 2005 (a month when many western papers were claiming that the Palestinian Authority media had adopted a more moderate tone), shows a Jew impaling the northern region of a map of the Islamic world with the flag of Israel, with blood spurting out. At the lower end is what seems to be an Arab man hanging upside down, holding a white flag of surrender. This cartoon appeared in Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, the official daily newspaper of the Palestinian Authority.

This cartoon, from the Syrian newspaper Al-Ahram (May 29, 2002), shows an anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew with a long beard and hooked nose, fuelling the “World Media” with “Zionist Media” propaganda, while in the background bombs are falling on the Moslem al-Aqsa shrine on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. This cartoon stereotypes Jews, repeats the anti-Semitic myth that the Jews control the world media, and adds the lie that the Israeli government has damaged the al-Aqsa complex on the Temple Mount.

The cartoon above, with text in English designed for a foreign audience, was posted on the official website of the Palestinian Authority State Information Center on April 6, 2003. The Palestinian Authority State Information Center regularly posts ugly anti-Israel and anti-American cartoons, including this reiteration of the anti-Semitic blood libel that Jews kill non-Jewish children.

The cartoon above, from the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram al-Arabi (June 8, 2002), shows not only members of the Likud party murdering Arabs, but long-time Labor Party leader and Israeli “dove” Shimon Peres standing aside and applauding with bloody hands. Egypt is the second highest recipient of U.S. aid in the world. The U.S. senate has approved a $1.84 billion aid package for Egypt for 2006.

This cartoon is from Al-Watan (Qatar), May 13, 2003. The U.S. and Israel are shown eating from two sides of an apple that represents “the Arab states”. This cartoon is also noteworthy since it was published in Qatar, home to the influential Al Jazeera TV network. Qatar is considered by many in the U.S. State Department to be a U.S. ally and a relatively moderate state.

The cartoon above, from Arab News, depicts rats wearing Stars of David and skullcaps. They scurry backwards and forwards through holes in the wall of a building called “Palestine House.” Arab News, an English-language daily widely read by expats in Saudi Arabia, is widely-regarded as a moderate publication. It is published by a state-owned Saudi corporation. The imagery in the cartoon may well be inspired by a well-known scene from the Nazi film “Jew Suess,” to which it bears a close resemblance – a scene in which Jews are depicted as vermin to be eradicated by mass extermination.

____________________________________________________________________________-

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, December 22, 2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Tom Trento, Director of the Florida Security Council, a state-based organization that assists the general public in properly preparing for and responding to the threat of Radical Islam.

FP: Tom Trento, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Trento: Grazie! Good to be here.

FP: You are producing a Sharia Billboard. Tell us about it.

Trento: Jesse Petrilla, founder of United American Committee (UAC) had the very creative idea for a simple, but effective billboard to be strategically placed close to a Muslim population center. He asked me to help with the project and be the spokesperson.

FP: Expand for us a bit on why a billboard is needed and what exactly it is saying.

Trento: Billboards are excellent communication tools to direct controversy in a controlled manner, for educational purposes. The philosophical assumption behind that sign is that most American Muslims absolutely reject efforts to replace the US Constitution with the Qu’ran by Islamist clerics and pseudo- rights organizations like CAIR. We believe these American Muslims are intimidated by the Islamist thugs, who act more like two-bit gangsters then religious men, so our billboard is there to assist the good Muslims to stand against the bad Muslims.

FP: So what exactly is on the billboard? You removed a noose graphic, yes? How come?

Trento: Sharia Law Threatens America. That’s what it says and it says it all.

Each word was carefully selected for maximum emotive power and accurate legal analysis. Once Americans wake up and realize that “Sharia,” effectively means “religious,” that is, the “law of the religion of Islam,” the average joe-on-the-street usually responds by saying: ”Are you %#@&*^ kidding me!?”

No American wants religious Islamic law, or the law of any religion, to replace the US Constitution. On one of our design drafts we had a powerful graphic of a hangman’s noose coming down over the top of the billboard. The idea was to illustrate the deadly threat this jurisprudential system poses to America, but our focus testing indicated that the noose was interpreted in so many different ways that it became a distraction to our basic message. So, we “cut down” the noose.

FP: Where is the billboard located? What reactions have you received?

Trento: The 48 foot anti-Sharia billboard is up and located on Interstate 75 just south of Detroit. Specifically, just south of Luna Pier Rd. on the south bound side of the Detroit-Toledo Expressway.

The response is actually better than we anticipated. The billboard drives traffic to the UAC web site and our educational process begins at that point. We have been doing radio and TV interviews regularly and of course, there has been the occasional “hate-mail” from angry Muslims. The “official” Muslim response has been non-existent, which is very strange for the loud-mouthed “protectors” of Islam.

I don’t think the Islamist organizations (CAIR, MPAC, ICNA, etc) want to touch this because it’s an absolutely toxic public relations issue. From the Islamist perspective, Sharia must be injected into the veins of dumbed-down Americas in a surreptitious, stealthy manner. Once we put a gigantic sign up in the air for the public to see and shine a light on the insidious nature of Sharia…the bad guys go limp. Conversely, the response from middle-America has been extremely supportive and encouraging. Our Sharia project has initiated creative thinking in many organizations to do similar advertising in their areas.

FP: Tell us about Sharia in Europe.

Trento: Sharia in Europe is like cancer in your stomach. As much as those of us on this side of the pond enjoy practicing the high art of ridicule directed at our western brothers and sisters, the global fact remains that Europe is a fundamental and absolutely necessary part of the American “body.” If Islamic law metastasizes in Europe and becomes dominate in any manner, catastrophic consequences will be felt in New York, Los Angeles, Butte, Aspen and every other part of America. If we run a billboard campaign overseas it would be entitled, “Sharia Law is Killing Europe.”

FP: Your thoughts on Sharia and the Muslims of America

Trento: I make a serious distinction between the Muslims of America and American Muslims. The former desire the implementation of political Islam in America through Sharia and jihad (if necessary) whereas the latter simply desire to worship Allah, while pledging allegiance to America and all for which she stands. Herein lays the secret that Muslims do not want revealed. American Muslims are being intimidated by the (phony) Muslims of America through the tightly controlled Islamic communities and Mosques and forced to remain silent about any views that counter or challenge the clerics, imams or anything related to the Muslim Brotherhood.

FP: How about some examples of Sharia in America?

Trento: Organized societies are managed by institutions. Even the Muslim Brotherhood understands that axiom. Therefore keep your eyes on the subtle introduction of innocuous and “helpful” suggestions about a “new and improved” approach to building up particular social institutions.

For instance, on Thursday, November 6, 2008 the US Treasury Department working with Harvard University’s Islamic Finance Project sponsored a training seminar for government employees on managing U.S. financial assets in compliance with Sharia Law.

Ironically, when America faces one of its most serious financial challenges, there seems to be a great deal of money available from the Saudis to help us out. And the well-intended folks at Harvard want to help the US Treasury figure out how to follow some “mere” Islamic religious laws in order to get at that money.

It’s very important to understand that Sharia Compliant Finance is a program that has been described by the Islamist Muslims pushing this scam as “financial jihad” against the United States.

FP: Can you talk a bit about UAC and the Sharia educational campaign?

Trento: Head, Heart and Feet. UAC, working with a coalition of anti-Sharia organizations, is directing its educational campaign at the head, heart and feet of all Americans. For the head, we provide academic and intellectual material for serious study. For the heart, our home page features the personal testimony of Wafa Sultan and her horrendous experiences with Sharia in her home country of Syria. Once an individual studies the insidious nature of this hostile legal system and is exposed to the destructive impact Sharia has on human lives, that person usually wants to “do something and get involved.” At that point, UAC and other coalition members have a variety of opportunities, directed at getting the feet in motion for powerful and effective activism.

FP: Your thoughts on the attitude of Jewish and Christian clergy in dealing with this crisis?

Trento: But for a handful of courageous Jewish and Christian clergy, Jewish and Christian leaders have been silent or worse yet, complicit with Muslim extremists, thus expediting the eventual destruction of America.

FP: Why this fear about Jewish and Christian clergy to take a stand on Islamic jihad?

Trento: No guts. Lack of courage. Weak-minded. Historically, clergy have been on the fore-front of social action and public policy construction. Sadly, as an evangelical Christian (with degrees from a Bible College and Seminary) over the past 25 years I have seen many religious leaders do all they could to avoid any confrontation even on benign social or political issues.

If these men of God can’t find their mouth on cultural issues that pertain primarily to America, does anyone in their right mind think these folks will stand up to Islamist jihadi warriors, who have already reconciled themselves to martyrdom?

To make matters worse, the Islamists (like the spider with little Miss Muffet) are inviting Jewish and Christian clergy to “interfaith” kumbaya dialogues, so that the three Abrahamic faiths can understand, appreciate each other and work together. Though that sounds great on the surface, the fact is that the Islamists are simply constructing their foundation (by disarming Jewish and Christian leaders) to build their system of Sharia law into the American way of life and the Jewish or Christian leader does not have a clue!

FP: What about “moderate” Muslims?

Trento: After many years of racing sports cars, I still enjoy driving Porsches or Ferrari’s at a “moderate” rate of speed when conditions allow. But, when my wife is along for the ride, her definition of “moderate” dramatically conflicts with my definition.

Therein lays the essential problem when answering any question about moderate Muslims. The word “moderate” requires an objective baseline for accurate definition which, when absent, results in tremendous confusion and frustration. I have been in meetings where many sincere analysts conclude that there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim, because these folks are using political Islam, as defined by its leading scholars and clerics as a baseline.

Conversely, I have also been in meetings where sincere analysts conclude that a “moderate” or “American” Islam is possible, only if the political component of Islam is removed. The bottom line of this complicated issue is that there really are good Muslims who love America, reject political Islam and just want the First Amendment right to worship freely, as every other American enjoys. On both Constitutional and moral principle, we cannot abandon these folks at their greatest time of need.

FP: What is the best way we can help moderate Muslims empower themselves against the extremists?

Trento: We need to go on the offensive. We anti-Sharia fighters must intellectually attack the proponents of Sharia and absolutely demolish any hope they have for implementing Islamic law in any form, within our constitutional system.

As we beat down every consideration of Sharia, the moderate Muslims hiding in the fox holes will begin to raise their heads and make the difficult journey out…to freedom. The average moderate is frightened out of his mind by the theocratic thugs that call themselves by the religious title, Imam. These two-bit religious leaders use the exact tactics that were perfected by my gangster ancestors in their little club, La Cosa Nostra. Most Islamist communities are very close-knit and controlled by a limited of number of authoritative middle-eastern men. These bullies have perfected the use of all the tools that bad guys use to control the neighborhood, like intimidation, threats, loss of jobs, thrown out of the family, and even worse.

The moderate Muslim, by definition, does not have what it takes to stand up against the thug Imams. In order for the moderate to become empowered someone must step in and defeat the Imam’s effort at implementing a barbarian political and legal system which suppress not only the freedom of the moderate but will also obliterate the freedom of all Americans. I always wonder: Are there any brave souls out there who will meet this critical challenge?

FP: Tom Trento, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Trento: Glad to help and stay tuned.

When you are planning a date, remember you want to set the stage right from the very beginning.  The purpose of dating is to get to know the person you’re dating, I mean really get to know his or her heart… not their body.  So follow these simple steps.

Date only Christians. Active followers of Christ, pursuing righteousness.

Be Creative. Dinner and a movie is ok but that can get expensive.  Think about different ways you can spend time together that are creative.  Go hiking, picnic, hit the beach, or go to the lake, prepare a meal at home.  If all your dates are costly you set the expectations high.  But if your creative you can afford to date more often and you’ll have more fun too.

Be a courteous, have some class. Gentlemen, open car doors for her, open restaurant doors for her, pull her chair out for her then help her scoot back in to the table.  Don’t speak to her like she’s one of the guys, crude or foul.  Pay her respectful compliments, and pay for the date.  Ladies, dress conservatively, give him every opportunity to be that gentleman, and be gracious when he is.

Stay sexually pure. Remember that God has a perfect mate for you, someone who was actually designed to compliment wwho you are.   Wait for her/him!  It will be worth it.  Stepping outside of God’s plan for you can really distort your entire life.

Pray together. before you leave on your date together, pray.  Sample:  Lord, thank you for bringing this lovely man/woman and I together this evening/afternoon for a date.  help us to remain in your will, avoid temptation and enjoy the time we have together.  Amen.

Do ministry together. You can really get to know a person’s heart through this technique.  Volunteer to help serve dinner at a homeless shelter, make cards and take them to residents at a nursing home.  Get involved with an organization who works with kids.  Visit children at a hospital (cancer ward) take them balloons with encouraging messages on them.

Scripture for dating:

I Cor 7:39, IICor 6:14, I Thes 4:3-8, I Cor 6:12-20

According to the latest census information calculated by Dr. Warren Farrell who authored a new book on gender discrimination, women are 10 times more likely to commit suicide after the death of their spouse.  In fact there are a number of factoids you should commit to memory for future reference when bills come up to be voted on.  Here are a few of them:

Women’s health gets almost no funding while men’s health issues are documented and studies are funded by tax dollars.
Women are blamed for nearly 100% of violence between men and women when the truth is violence is initiated equally by men and women.
Women die on average 10 to 1 earlier than men.
Girls are scoring behind boys in school in every single area of study except science and math.
Girls represent 90% of the dropout rate in high school.
The graduation rates are typically 44% girls and 56% boys.
Girls are 1 1/2 years behind boys in reading skills, verbal skills, writing skills.
Girls are over 90% of the discipline problems.
Girls are more likely to be diagnosed ADD.
For the last forty years there’s been more medical research done on women than on men but that has changed.
There is no women’s health department in any of the 50 states.

Are you outraged yet?  No?  Why, have I got my facts wrong?  What’s wrong with my facts?  Surely you’ve noticed at least one or two are not what you’ve heard.  In truth, I have everyone of these facts exactly, perfectly wrong.  To correct them, all you have to do is swap male for female and vice versa..

Now are you outraged?  I have limited the information thus far so I could have you compare the gender bias against men.  Here are some more factoids:

More than 100 studies, most of them done by feminist organizations have observed that men and women initiate domestic violence equally as often.
Men do not report their injuries or make hospital visits almost to a man if they were obtained through the violence of their spouse.
Men die of 14 of the 15 leading causes of death earlier than women.
The excuse for ignoring this disparity is because they say that men induce their own problems.  (blame the victim)
Men over 85 are 10 times more likely to commit suicide than women over 85 after the death of their spouse.
Men over 85 are 10 times more likely to die than women over 85 if their spouse divorces them or leaves.

We have to understand that every society in history that has survived, have trained their boys to be dispensable.  “Women Can’t Hear What Men Won’t Say”  is one of 6 books Dr. Warren Farrell authored on gender bias.
Marriage Divorce and Child Custody.  During the major successes of the feminist movement, women were saying that men do not have any more right to jobs than do women.  At the same time, when it came to divorce and child custody they were saying that women should have the right to decide who will retain custody of the children.  Okay, so the issue isn’t what’s right for women or men.  The issue is what’s best for the child.  Well, hold on to your hats.  Dr. Farrell did research which led to the book, Father and Child Reunion, and found that what’s best for children is for both parents to be equally involved in the child’s life in a way that doesn’t force the child to leave friends and neighborhood to do time with the other parent and that there is no bad mouthing from mom to dad or dad to mom.  Barring the perfect arrangement, he found that in many national databases recording the conditions of parent/child relationships and the consequential outcomes of their children, the children of single dads do better than children of single moms from about 20 of 26 measures and about equal in another five measures.  It comes down to the boundary enforcement that dads do that really benefit children socially, academically, psychologically, and actually having better physical health as well.

Loving emotion is important, nobody denies that, but the feminization of our culture has resulted in the harm of our culture.  The elimination of boundaries and the softening of rules has done more to sicken our culture than any amount of spinning can cover.  Assuming that women are the ones who know better what is good for the child or that they are even willing or able to make this the sole reason for their consideration in the height of a divorce is profoundly foolish.  Yet this is exactly what the judges, sociologists, and society in general have done.  Suppose for a moment, sociologists, judges and society at large said of the medical profession, “We have to give doctors the option of whether women should be allowed to practice medicine.”  After all, doctors are the ones who would know.  Doesn’t work very well for the ethics of professionalism, why should it work for the ethics of parenting?

I am not a parent, but I watched my brother go through this discrimination and literally lose his child because his mother insisted on moving half way across the country.  Granted, my brother was no joy to have as an ex-husband, but discrimination is discrimination.  And men are suffering far more of it these days than are women.  My nephew is now an adult making his own way through life, but I’ve learned through discussions with my brother that they both regret missing much of their relationship.  (From about 7 years old except summer visits for a few weeks.)  Thank God the boy had a steady man to demonstrate boundaries and discipline so he is a capable, even successful young man entering the police services, but what could have been was entirely taken out of my brother’s hands.

Oh my, the awful truth of hate speech going on over at the United Nations!  No wonder the summit wanted to ban criticism of Islamic er.. religious views.  You see, if you represent Israel and site factual evidence of the council’s own works your speech should be banned.   However, if you make speeches which will encourage and incite actual murder and mayhem citing nothing, you get the posts of power to enact resolutions against the peace loving cultures in the world.    The UN is controlled by the corrupt, the despots, the human rights council is literally populated by the worst violators of human rights in the world.  It is time to withdraw from and defund the UN.  It is way beyond time to rid ourselves of this worse than feckless farce which is doing tremendous damage to the peaceful and righteous states.

  Thomas Sowell demonstrates an important function of critcal thought.  He strains through the BS to get to the root of the information.  The root of the thought processes that brings about misinformation is the first priority to clear and concise analysis.The Mesis Institute is the origin of the Austrian Economics.  Austrian Economics are where the Libertarian party was born and where the free market advocate economist/historians got started.  Ludwig von Mesis immigrated out of Austria when anti-Semitism not only limited his ability to progress in his career, but when it began to threaten his life and the lives of his family.  He had to start from scratch, without a penny, without a reputation for his achievements here in the United States.

I thought I should let you know that this is a new project in the works.  You can see some of my older work at http://judgeright.blogspot.com which has been essentially abandoned and http://judgeright.vox.com is the one I’ve been most active on lately.  If this project works, I hope to have started a small, knowledgeable community of nine justices to discuss current events in the news.  A self appointed think tank to judge ideologies or worldview, if you will, based on morality and historical consequences of policies.

I’ve been featured on VOX’s front page with an article entitled “The World does NOT Hate America” and I’ve had another article reach nearly a thousand hits in a single day called, “Liberals Redefining Hate”  This to say that I am capable of drawing an audience and want to use some of your posts/articles as arguments or briefs.  I do ask that we keep the language clean and respectful to make knowledge acceptable.  Other than that you don’t have to do anything different than what you’re doing now.  If you make the pool, I will simply cross post the relevant articles with links back to the jurors’ sites.  The alternative is to give jurors authority to author directly to the JudgRight blog albeit, limited to the pages section rather than the front page.  As the votes come in, the most effective articles are posted on the front page as majority and dissenting briefs.  Current jurors are samples of how your blogs are to be featured.

Issues are raised in articles written by Dennis Prager, Michelle Malkin and others (conservatives) and Howard Zenn and others (liberals) as though presenting their cases from opposite sides on the same issues.  The jurors then submit their opinions and vote for the best of the pool for majority opinion and dissenting opinion, building an archive of verdicts.  Comments open to anyone with limited moderation to keep them clear of spam and abuse.  The general purpose being, we encourage people to be informed and think through major issues of our times and in order to do that, generate traffic to our varied websites.

I have put the same information on my StumbleUpon page to widen my search for jurors.  Feel free to spread the word.  I am collecting applications for the moment and we’ll see how many want to jump in.  If there are very many, I may set up ‘lower’ courts with 5 and 3 members in keeping with circuits and whatever is beneath the circuit courts.  Everyone is eligible until further notice.

Any bloggers interested in participating should private message me with the following information.

If the private message link doesn’t work, you can post it in the comments here.  (These applications will not be made public)  All comments are being moderated for now.

Your First Name:

(will be used as site ID.  Example: Judge Bob)

Your Site URL:

(will be used to link back to your site)

Estimate of attention/time/wordcount you can dedicate to this project.  (Example:  Minimum 400 words per issue raised, 1 issue per week)

We vote on which issues to take up, so I am looking for a group with like interests (politics, religion, strong opinions, and odd behaviors) and varied backgrounds to provide a wide array of perspectives to draw from.

One of the liberal ideological splinters generating problems is their attempt to judge motives.  For instance, the argument was made by the liberal intelligentsia after the attacks on 9/11/1, “Arabs and Palestinians are angry because they suffer under terrible poverty while the West wallows in its riches.  Therefore they strap improvised bombs to their bodies and walk into crowded markets and blow themselves up.  If only we could address their economic needs, we could solve their violent tendencies”  Folks, this conclusion ignored all the evidence and, in fact, the testimony of the attackers themselves.  This is a fundamental flaw in liberal thinking which lengthens the struggle between good and evil and greatly increases the losses of life and resources.  The same thinking is what allowed Hitler to advance his forces while the members of Parliament in Great Britain wrung their hands over Hitler’s reasons for making such aggressive moves.  The following is a chapter from Dennis Prager’s short book, “Think a Second Time.”

I hereby offer a simple proposal that could profoundly enhance the quality of all our lives:  a one-year moratorium on assessing other peoples’ motives.

Assessing motives is usually pointless, and often destructive.

It is pointless because motives are almost impossible to determine.  We often don’t know our own, let alone others’, and it is destructive because we almost always exaggerate the purity of our own motives and assign nefarious motives to others.

The solution to this problem, in fact the solution to much of humanity’s problems, is this:  We should judge actions–our own and those of others–not motives.

When we discover that we have hurt someone’s feelings, our first reaction usually is “I didn’t mean it.”  And because few of us do consciously set out to hurt another person, we feel that this exonerates us.  By judging our motives rather than our actions, we can assuage guilt over any action or inaction.

What we do, not what we intend, is what counts.

On the global level, assessing motives rather than actions has led to serious moral distortions.  Take, for example, the differing assessments of capitalism and Communism.

Communism resulted in the loss of freedom by more nations, and the deaths of more individuals, than any other doctrine in history.  Yet because it was perceived by many people as emanating from good motives–abolishing poverty, achieving greater equality, etc.–many people refused to accord it the revulsion that its deeds deserved.

On the other hand, capitalism has enabled more people to experience freedom and prosperity than any other economic doctrine.  It should therefore be widely admired.  Yet it is often vilified.  The reason?  It is based on selfish motives–profit.

Defenses of Communism and opposition to capitalism have emanated from the same flawed logic–judging motives, not deeds.

Nearly all of us fall into this trap.  Like most people, I long tended to judge negatively the motives of people with whom I disagreed.  Only after years of hosting a radio talk show in which I speak daily with people whose views oppose mine did I learn the great lesson that people with whom I disagree are just as likely to have teh same good conscious motives that I ascribe to myself.

In addition to enabling me to mature, this attitude had an enormous unforeseeable benefit–people who disagree with me listen to what I have to say.  When you belittle your opponents’ motives, they can only become defensive.   But when you ascribe to them moral conviction, they only have to defend their views, not themselves.

The practice of ascribing bad motives to one’s ideological adversaries can be found throughout the political spectrum.  Many conservatives have ascribed the foulest of motives, even murderous conspiracies, to one of their adversaries, President Bill Clinton.  But I have been particularly saddened by how often liberals ascribe mean or selfish motives to their opponents.  For example, voting Republicans means voting with your pocketbook, whereas voting for a Democrat is voting idealistically.

During the Cold War, those of us who supported a large defense budget and the building of nuclear weapons were accused at various times of loving war, having a psychological need for enemies, hating Russians, supporting the military-industrial complex, having a Rambo mentality, and suffering from missile envy.  The possibility was rarely considered that we were motivated by love of peace and justice.

Yet we who supported a strong defense during the Soviet Union’s heyday believed that our motives–ensuring peace by remaining strong, protecting democracy, opposing Communist tyranny, and helping small nations survive against Soviet imperialism–were quite idealistic.

So, please, no more assessments of motives.  In matters of public policy, let’s debate results, not motives.  And in interpersonal relations, let’s assess ourselves and others by actions, not intention.