What
the Democratic Presidential Candidates Stand For DNC
Candidate Spin-Sites: > Cut through the clutter and find out where they really stand
Not
Convinced About the Al-Queda/Iraq Connection?
A NATION AT WAR: Special Message from Dr. Stanley From the desk of Dr. Charles Stanley: Ecclesiastes 3:8 states that there is a "time for war and a time for peace." In these times of warfare, we often ask, "How should we respond? What should be our attitude?" We will find biblical answers for these questions when we explore the ultimate issue: What does the Word of God say about warfare? When a nation goes to war, God’s people need to fully understand their heavenly Father’s viewpoint about this matter. Naturally, God is not excited about war. He does not enjoy bloodshed and vengeance. However, He is dealing with a world of people who have a fallen nature—sinful, wicked and vile. Romans 3:10-11,15-17 describes mankind without God: "…there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God. . . . Their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths, and the path of peace they have not known."
This
Is Your Last Last Last Last Last Chance
Aren't five years worth of "last chances" enough? It's time to cut the nonsense and rush to war.
Democrats:
CAN NOT Be Trusted With CAUTION: To those Democrats that are concerned with our nation's defense, beware: educating yourself about the leaders of your chosen party and their horrendous records on national defense may result in extreme embarrassment, unbelievable shame, dizziness, anger, and a visit to the GOP's website. We understand. Proceed with caution... Let's suppose that Tom Daschle, as the current Senate Minority (and previous Majority) Leader, represents the average mentality of Democrats regarding most issues- after all, not many Democrats themselves would argue that Daschle is effectively the "leader of the Democratic Party"- and has been for some time. Let's take a look at Tom's record on what most people would consider an extremely important issue: the defense of this nation.
TRUSTING
DEMOCRATS WITH POWER IN A TIME WHEN OUR MERE EXISTENSE IS BEING THREATENED
IS NOT UNLIKE TRUSTING SADDAM HUSSEIN TO KEEP HIS WORD. DEMOCRATS. . . THEY NEVER FAIL TO LEAVE US HANGING.
NOW's Hypocrisy and Strange Silence During the Clinton
Era > Read the Article with Resource Links
NOW has been in the news recently because of admissions by a former National Board member and president of one of their most powerful chapters, the California NOW. I want to explore these confessions, but first let's look at the background of this national organization which claims to be "for women." Supposedly an organization dedicated to women's advocacy, it's leadership was usurped long ago by militant lesbians and pro-death advocates (I refuse to use the politically correct term, "pro-choice," since the individual who is making the sacrifice, the infant, has absolutely no choice in the matter). In fact, if you go to their website (see the Resources section below) and click on "Issues," the two issues topping their lists are Abortion Rights and Lesbian Rights. On these two issues NOW lists dozens of "Actions" in recent years, many of them in the last year. On the issue of "Economic Equity" there are only a handful of "Actions," and none at all in the last year. To get a better idea of the issues NOW considers important, look at the bumper stickers they sell in their online catalog (see the link in the Resources section). They have eighteen bumper stickers on abortion, and nine on lesbianism (including, "Sorry I Missed Church, I've Been Busy Practicing Witchcraft and Becoming a Lesbian"). Their nine stickers on religion include, "Born-Again Pagan" and "In Goddess We Trust." (Does this sound like a group you'd want your daughter to join?) Not one bumper sticker could be found promoting equal pay or job opportunities for women. Beginning in 1966, NOW built their constituency by fighting for the passage of the failed Equal Rights Amendment, and pushing for equal pay for women. Today there is hardly a mention of these issues on their website. Less than one percent of women are lesbians, and the majority of women do not approve of using abortion as a form of birth control. By emphasizing these issues and discarding their original purpose, NOW has alienated the vast majority of American women. In doing so, they lost most of their membership. Currently only about one and a half percent of all females in the U.S. are members of NOW (although they continue to claim that they speak for all American women). This extremely liberal organization has a history of selective outrage over alleged abuse of women. If the accused is a liberal, they fall strangely silent. However, pity the conservative male who incurs the wrath of NOW, regardless of how flimsy the evidence of wrong-doing. A good case in point is the vicious character assassination of Judge Clarence Thomas during his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. (See the National Review article in the Resources section.) I won't go into all the details of the confirmation hearings, but here are a few highlights. Carleton Stewart (see his statement in the Resources section), who had worked with both Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, spoke with Hill at the American Bar Association meeting in August, 1991, in the presence of a witness. He stated under oath that Anita Hill remarked on the appointment of Judge Thomas, saying "...how great Clarence's nomination was and how much he deserved it." He further stated that, "There was no mention of sexual harassment nor anything negative about Judge Thomas." On September 16, 1991, President Bush nominated Judge Thomas. NOW immediately got to Ms. Hill, and being a loyal feminist, she made up a totally incredible story of sexual harassment that supposedly went on for years, but which for unexplained reasons she never reported. Incredible, that is, to any fair-minded person, but very believable to the man-haters at NOW and to liberals and socialists who would believe anything negative about a conservative male. Anita Hill's fairy tales were unsubstantiated, and there was much credible evidence to refute her claims, but NOW spent hundreds of thousands of dollars attempting to bolster Ms. Hill's attacks. Fortunately, the members of the Senate Committee of the Judiciary saw through Hill's lies and withstood NOW's massive campaign to pressure them. They confirmed Clarence Thomas to the Court, but not before he and his family were forced to endure months of the feminists' vicious attacks. With this record of vigorous support of even spurious allegations such as Anita Hill's, many columnists wondered aloud why NOW studiously ignored the many proven instances of sexual harassment by Governor Clinton, Candidate Clinton, and Impeached President Clinton. When Paula Jones and many others went public with their reports of Bill Clinton's unwanted sexual advances, NOW was strangely silent. When he was proven to have seduced a young intern, not a discouraging word was heard from NOW. Most put it down to the fact that Clinton was a fellow liberal, and to the unwritten rule that liberals cover each others' sins. There were a few who knew there was much more to the story, but they kept quiet. Until recently. The president of the California NOW, Megan Seely, stated recently on FOX News that there were payoffs involved in NOW's silence. When Paula Jones' lawsuit became public, NOW suddenly received a federal grant of one-half million dollars, supposedly to fight women's addiction to tobacco. Surely a coincidence. Then, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal hit the papers, NOW received another mysterious grant, this time for a quarter of a million dollars. Another coincidence? No, says Seely, a National Board member at that time. She states that there was a clear understanding at National Board meetings that this was "hush money," because Clinton knew that if a liberal organization like NOW attacked him, he was finished. FOX News, always fair, had Kim Gandy (the current national president of NOW) on the same show. She denied that the grants and the revelations about Clinton's adulterous affairs were connected. However the NOW spokesperson (I'm not allowed to call her a spokeswoman) was unable to give a credible explanation for the curious coincidences of timing. So, what is NOW? Is it just a hypocritical organization that savagely attacks conservatives when they are accused of sexually abusing women, but ignores worse acts by liberals? Or did the organization accept huge sums of our tax dollars to protect Bill Clinton? I'll let you decide. In my opinion, either way I hope that NOW becomes THEN very soon. > Read the Article with Resource Links
The United States is the largest financial supporter of the U.N. You're kidding right? < READ THE ARTICLE HERE- from the U.N.'s Website No Less >
Clinton
Turned Down bin Laden Extradition Offer
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio: I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer Secret audiotape obtained exclusively by NewsMax.com shows former President Clinton admitting for the first time anywhere that he had the chance to take Osama bin Laden into custody, but he nixed the idea because he couldn't come up with a legal justification for the 9-11 mastermind's extradition. The tape, recorded at a February business luncheon on New York's Long Island, proves that the claims of Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz, who says he brokered the deal for bin Laden's extradition, have been accurate all along - even as former Clinton officials trashed him as an exaggerator and even a liar. Clinton's comments to the Long Island Association were so controversial that the group refused to release its own video recording to NBC News, after the network requested a copy on Friday based on NewsMax.com's Wednesday report on the event. But NewsMax was there with our own tape rolling, a portion of which we now make available to our readers. On the tape you'll hear the ex-president himself responding to a question about whether he would have handled bin Laden differently knowing now what he didn't know then. Clinton explains that he was criticized at the time for being "too obsessed" with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, then maintains he just barely missed the terror kingpin when he launched the Aug. 20, 1998, cruise missile attack on his terror training camp in Khost, Afghanistan. The mission failed, said the former commander in chief, because the attack plans were "ratted out." In the next breath the ex-president defends his simultaneous cruise missile attack on a Sudanese medicine factory, claiming subsequent testimony from the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers proves that attack was justified. Then Clinton makes the devastating admission he has never repeated before or since - that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden to the U.S., but he said no, even though "we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." For those who can't access NewsMax.com's MP3 Clinton audio file, we've transcribed the ex-president's bombshell revelation verbatim: You must credit NewsMax if linking or republishing this article or audio. "Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. "And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again - they released him. "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. "So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." (End of excerpt) Since last December, Ijaz has insisted that he negotiated the deal for bin Laden's release from Sudan. But he maintained that the White House declined to take advantage of the offer because of legal technicalities - a detail now confirmed by the ex-president, as NewsMax's tape proves. But shortly after his account first appeared in the Los Angeles Times, former Clinton officials trashed the bin Laden extradition story as an exaggeration at best - a complete fabrication at worst. Asked to respond to Ijaz's account in January, ex-NSC aide Nancy Soderberg told Fox News Channel, "He's living in a fantasy land. There was no such Sudanese offer." "He's lying ... he's a crackpot," said Jennifer Palmieri, a former White House aide who now serves as chief spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, of Ijaz's story in May. "The guy has absolutely no credibility. You'll see that you never see him on television anymore once he was outed as being a fraud." Mainstream reporters, apparently unaware of Clinton's February comments, have also trashed Ijaz's account. In May, both New York Times reporter Judith Miller and NBC newswoman Andrea Mitchell told radioman Don Imus they declined to cover the bin Laden extradition story because they didn't find it credible. To listen to Clinton's devastating admission that he let bin Laden off the hook, or to read the transcript of the conversation, click here.
Jimmy
Carter’s Trail of Disaster
With Carter on the loose, the American public needs to watch out. It seems that almost wherever he goes and whatever positions he pushes, Jimmy Carter leaves a wake of devastation and disaster. Carter, we should note, has been cozying up to North Korea for years. He helped the U.S. and the communist country come to agreement during the Clinton years to defuse a tense situation over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Under the wacko deal Carter arranged, the U.S. would stop complaining about Korea's nuclear weapons program as long as the U.S. gave aid to North Korea and helped the communists build more modern nuclear reactors. The U.S. was well on the path to doing this when the new Bush administration sounded the alarm and immediately stopped the cockamamy plan dead in its tracks. North Korea was not cooperating with the U.S. to stop its weapons program, but we should continue helping them to build nuclear reactors. Make sense? Of course not. But that's Jimmy Carter for you. It's also Jimmy Carter the hypocrite. Carter has always claimed to be the champion of human rights worldwide. Yet North Korea is one of the most, if not the most, repressive regimes on the planet. The Stalinist nation is headed by a young madman named Kim Jong-il. Kim likes to watch American movies like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and then act out his fantasies on his own citizenry. Millions of North Koreans are starving at any given time. Does Carter have much to say about this? Of course not. North Korea is an enemy of the U.S., so Carter goes easy on them. When he met Kim, Carter didn't criticize him – he kissed him! But there is nothing new here. The media would have us forget Jimmy Carter's presidential record. But I won't. Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini? No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him. The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts. By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever. Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. Only President Reagan's election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages. I believe Carter's decision to have the Shah fall is arguably the most egregious U.S. foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years. [Former President Bush's decision to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power is a close second.] With the Shah gone, the whole region was destabilized. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan; no doubt a direct link to the rise of the Taliban can be traced to this invasion. Iraq also took advantage of the Shah's departure to invade Iran. A long war followed that helped make Saddam's Iraq a great Middle Eastern power. And decades after Carter's ignominious act, Iran is still bent on destroying America. President Bush named it one of the three nations in the "axis of evil." Iran is developing both nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver these weapons to its enemies. We can thank Jimmy Carter for all of this. Since Carter left the presidency, he has had little to say about the human rights abuses in Iran. Why should he? Iran opposes the U.S. Instead, he has focused his attention on Israel, America's lone democratic ally in the Mideast. Recently, Carter suggested that the U.S. should cut off aid to Israel, so angry was he after Israel sought to defend itself in the wake of suicide bombings. Fair enough. But what has Carter said about Arab or Muslim countries that have had long records of human rights abuse – Syria or Libya or Iran or Iraq? Not much. One reason may be money. As NewsMax's Dave Eberhart reported recently, Carter and his Carter Center foundation are recipients of millions of dollars of Arab money. (See: Carter's Arab Funding May Color Israel Stance.) So I give Carter his due. At least he is not a hypocrite in one sense. He is good to the dictators and butchers who give him money.
Rush
Limbaugh... Peddler of Half-Truths? It was a great gotcha moment, except that, as usual, once you go to the trouble to look up the facts, it was a lie. Rush was right. There was a cub fund and it had received more money than the orphaned children's fund. Indeed, every detail was exactly as Rush had said. Though Rush was among the first to report on the disparity in the funds for the lions versus the humans, eventually the story became the subject of dozens of news articles. New York Times reporter Michelle Quinn wrote, for example, that "the cub had received $21,000, while the children's trust fund had raised only $9,000" (just as Rush had said). She even quoted an environmentalist wacko defending the wildly disproportionate donations to the lion cub versus the orphaned children, saying "People have support systems and animals don't." The children's fund did eventually gain some ground, but only thanks to Rush. As the Times' Quinn also reported: "Since the disparity between the funds was publicized - Rush Limbaugh devoted part of his radio show on Tuesday to the subject - the children's trust fund has received an additional $3,000 in checks and cash." See Ann Coulter's Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right for comprehensive footnoting on this piece.
Only
the Rich Pay
|
||||||
Who Is the Largest Financial Supporter of the U.N.?