Isn’t it time we told Cindy Sheehan to shut up?

Technorati Tags: Michelle Malkin, Gathering Of Eagles, Rolling Thunder, Patriotism, Cindy Sheehan, Moonbats, Code Pink, Anti-war Activists, Iraq War

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

“I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed.” —Adolf Hitler, quoted in Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 155.

On March 4, the Discovery Channel will air a James Cameron/ Simcha Jacobovici documentary called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus“. The special attempts, with these new “findings“, contradict the idea of Christ’s resurrection and takes massive liberties with other areas of Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition and basic Christian belief.

Not wanting to waste a perfectly good opportunity to contradict 2000 years of evidence to the contrary, Cameron and the usual suspects raise questions about Jesus’ marital status and family status; enter Mary Magdalene and their son Jude. Right……..

The Catholic League issued this statement:

February 26, 2007

JESUS’ TOMB DISCOVERY IS TITANIC FRAUD

“Titanic” director James Cameron and TV-director Simcha Jacobovici are claiming they have evidence of a Jerusalem tomb that allegedly houses the remains of Jesus and his family. Commenting on this is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

“Not a Lenten season goes by without some author or TV program seeking to cast doubt on the divinity of Jesus and/or the Resurrection. Last April, NBC’s ‘Dateline’ featured the wholly discredited and downright laughable claims of Michael Baigent, and two years ago ABC treated us to a special that questioned every aspect of the Resurrection. Now we have the Cameron-Jacobovici thesis.

“Israeli archeologist Amos Kloner was in charge of the 1980 investigation of the tomb that Cameron-Jacobovici have seized on 27 years later to make their allegations. ‘The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell,’ Kloner says. He adds, ‘I refute all claims and efforts to waken a renewed interest in the findings. With all due respect, they are not archeologists.’ Indeed, Kloner has branded their claims ‘impossible’ and ‘nonsense.’ Moreover, he says there is ‘no likelihood’ that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. ‘It makes a great story for a TV film,’ he concludes.

“Joe Zias, who spent a quarter-century as an archeologist at the Rockefeller University in Jerusalem, said that ‘Simcha has no credibility whatsoever.’ Zias isn’t shooting from the hip: Jacobovici’s credibility explodes when one considers that he still believes the 2002 tale about an ossuary with the inscription, ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.’ On June 18, 2003, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) condemned this claim as a modern forgery—this was the unanimous decision of a 15-member IAA committee. Agreeing with this decision were Harvard’s Frank Cross and Tel Aviv University professor Edward Greenstein.

“The Discovery Channel aired the 2002 hoax and now it’s back with the Titanic fraud. It’s time the Discovery Channel discovered ethics and stopped with the sensationalism.”

Dr. Ben Witherington, a Protestant Biblical scholar, has excellent and comprehensive commentary on his blog, to include: (continue reading post »)

A mutual friend forward an email from Justin who is a young passionate believer of Al Gore’s global warming. It’s rare when a liberal opens up and speaks in coherent sentences. In many way, Justin reminds me of me when I was in my early twenties. That’s why I wrote back to him.

He expended a lot of effort writing and deserves a careful answer. I hope you also find it helpful. cb

Justin: I’m sure I’m going to regret this because you will feel the need to defend yourself (which you have the right to do), sparking off yet another political-based argument, but I can’t sit back any longer and listen to this slander about the environment any more. This is long, so please give it the respect it deserves.

Justin: Of all the things I care about politically, the environment is without a doubt the one thing I care the most deeply about – not because it will immediately and directly affect you or me, but because of the longstanding and future implications it has on our world. The world is shrinking…

Ex-Liberal: I’m not sure I know what you mean by shrinking… but okay. You sound like a “population bomb” theorist…

Justin: …and the ONE thing that will be there for our children and their children and their children’s children is the planet that we all inhabit.

Ex-Liberal: It is good that you care for our progeny. That is not usually a leftist attribute. I also accept the evidence of global warming. I accept that global warming has warmed the planet for 100,000 years, and will continue to warm our planet for another 100,000 years, with minor 1,500-year heating cycles that may occur.

Justin: To deny that the environment is not important and that “a far off glacier melting” will have no impact is to deny that we don’t need air to breathe. Is terrorism and the threat to our lands a serious issue that must be met? Most certainly. Is terrorism the most important issue we have to worry about right now? Probably – it certainly is the most salient. However, why must we play this game of black and white where one issue must be so important to remain on the agenda that it doesn’t allow room for other important concerns, such as the environment? (continue reading post »)

This Washington Post article provides additional insight into how divided the Democrats are on what their option is toward Iraq. The title of the article is “Iraq Bill Vexes Democrats”. I’d say a better title might be “Democrats Caught Betwixt and Between”. Here’s what I said in this post:

After showing signs of unity of mission during the campaign, Democrats are splitting in all directions on Iraq policy. This was predictable because their Nutroots campaign contributions base is demanding that they end the war, a move that would cost them the 2008 elections. Their desire to please the Nutroots’ demands is countered by the understanding that they’d be swept from office. That self-preservation instinct still runs strong.

Here’s how the Washington Post put it this morning: (continue reading post »)

I’ve been closely tracking how conservatives are reacting to Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign. I can’t say that I’ve been surprised that Hizzoner has won over significant numbers of social conservatives, leading me to ask this question: Are we watching the first steps of the Rudy Revolution? I suspect we might be, especially if this John Podhoretz column is right.

Many on the right profess amazement at the lead he’s opened up among Republican primary voters, considering his pro-choice views and sloppy personal life. Meanwhile, writers on the left express disbelief at the notion that a pro-choice Republican candidate might be able to win the GOP nomination. According to the best Leftist analyst of American politics, Michael Tomasky, abortion is simply “too fundamental an issue for most Republican caucus goers and primary voters (even in California, with its likely Feb. 5 primary) to work around.”

There’s a perfectly simple answer to the Rudy paradox. When Republican voters look at Rudy Giuliani, they know one key fact about him: They know he’s no liberal.

They may not exactly know why yet, but they know it.

And they’re right.

The truth is that Rudy has staked out some pretty conservative stands on issues like judges, tax cuts and defeating the terrorists. Here’s what Rudy said at the Hoover Institute on taxes:

“I don’t think anything separates us more right now between Republicans and Democrats than how we look at taxes,” the former New York mayor said. “What we understand as Republicans is that, sure, the government is an important player in this, but we are essentially a private economy. (continue reading post »)

Rich Lowry posted this email at NRO’s website. It’s worth noting that there’s some positive trends coming from Iraq even if the Agenda Media won’t report them. Here’s the content of Lowry’s post:

My “Pentagon intel guy” writes in an e-mail:

Since my job at the Pentagon is to follow and report these kinds of things- there are several trends we are seeing lately.

1) Definite and measurable decrease in number of sectarian killings within Baghdad: From nearly 1,400 to 680 in the last two months.

2) We are killing and capturing increasing numbers of Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda fighters. And when I say “we”- I mean Multi-National Forces Iraq as well as the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Police Commando, and the newer “National Guard”/Territorial Forces in Anbar. (continue reading post »)

Slow Joe Biden fancies himself as a serious policymaker. After reading this Boston Globe op-ed, it’s difficult to think of him that way. Here’s a section of Biden’s op-ed that shows his disinterest in defeating the terrorists in Iraq:

We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. The weapons of mass destruction were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq. Together with Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will offer legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq.

Good luck garnering the votes, Joe. You couldn’t even get enough votes to stop the filibustering of a meaningless resolution. I suspect that this is just another attempt to pander to the anti-war lefties that Democrats get their campaign contributions from.

Revisiting the 2002 authorization is the right next step but it cannot be the last step. The United States must also answer a two-word test: “What next?”

Joe, Here’s my answer: A) DEFEAT THE TERRORISTS. (B) STABILIZE IRAQ. (C) NEXT TARGET.

The Bush administration has bet everything on a future that will not happen: Iraqis rallying behind a strong central government that protects the rights of all citizens equally.

I hate breaking this news to Joe but the Iraqis just decided to a oil revenue-sharing plan for the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, thereby incentivizing the parties to work together. This gives them reason to implement a government that holds together. I’d also remind Sen. Biden that it isn’t our decision on what type of government they have. Iraq is a sovereign nation, giving us no ‘final authority’ on what they do.

Technorati Tags: Joe Biden, Iraq, Sovereignty, AUMF, Filibuster

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog