Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 25, 2006
By: Laura Rozen

SLOPPY BROCHURE? It is worth reading this NYT editorial, "Wanted: Scarier Intelligence," on the strangely amateurish, hyped-up House Intelligence committee report (.pdf) on the strategic threat posed by Iran:

[The report] is partly a campaign document, a product of the Republican strategy of scaring Americans into allowing the G.O.P. to retain control of Congress this fall. ....

But even more worrisome, the report seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran. ...

Its obvious that Iran wants nuclear weapons, has lied about its program and views America as an enemy. We enthusiastically agree that the United States needs every scrap of intelligence it can get on Iran. But the reason American intelligence is not certain when Iran might have a nuclear bomb is because the situation is so murky not because the agencies are too wimpy to tell the scary truth.

If the Republicans who control Congress really wanted a full-scale assessment on the state of Irans weapons programs, they would have asked for one, rather than producing this brochure.

It's a sloppy report, as the NYT, Sick, Yglesias and others point out. But its purpose wasn't just to take a quick swipe at marshalling the facts in its favor. It's a campaign document, a "brochure", as the NYT put it. Is anyone in Congress doing any serious work on the Iran issue? Or by the way, on the Iraq issue? As the WP's Thomas Ricks said on a BookTV interview about his new book on the Iraq war, Fiasco, there has never been a war in the past century of American history in which there have been basically no hearings, no important investigations. Instead, we get this?

Laura Rozen 10:12 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (88)

Bookmark and Share

F*%^ing A!

Posted by: Harold on August 25, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

GOP 06: we have nothing to offer but fear itself

Posted by: cleek on August 25, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

What have Americans done to deserve such a joke of a Congress?

Um, they voted for those clowns.

Posted by: scott on August 25, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

I have given up on the Dems doing anything forceful. So maybe we need lots of people to show up in Washington and protest against invading Iran. It is entirely dubious. Forget the morality, just think of the practicality. So who organizes these types of events? I'm a vet and I know other vets who feel the same way. Maybe if 250,000 people showed up the Dems would figure that opposition to invading Iran was a good campaign issue.

Posted by: stonevendor on August 25, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

One thing I can say for sure is that if we do go to war with Iran, I won't be fighting in that one either.

Posted by: Thomas on August 25, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Interesting how Kevin and Al seem to take concurrent vactions. Maybe they're together singing love duets in Vulcan.

Posted by: mark on August 25, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Laura -- you ROCK.

Posted by: a on August 25, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Who are the Democrats on the Committee? Was there a minority report?

Posted by: jimmy on August 25, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Too bad we don't have more people like Valerie Plame investigating those Iranian WMD. Or maybe her outing was done so real intelligence could be replaced by doctored intelligence.

Posted by: Red on August 25, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

The comment thread here is exceptionally puerile, but short. So I'll add my two cents in the hope they get read.

For all of my fellow posters who think this is just election year politicking, remember: Bush said he had a "mandate" in spite of the narrowest winning percentage for a sitting President in this century. It's pretty clear that the influential foreign policy wing in the White House wants a war. Ergo, my fear is that anything less than a Democratic majority will be seen as the green light to start the war in Iran.

Of course, given the cravenness of my own party, a majority may not matter anyway (can anyone say "Hilary!?"). The people in power sure loves them some war.

Posted by: brewmn on August 25, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

All bow to the NYT for their interpretation of the document. After all, the NYT is never wrong.

Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps those of you in the 'reality-based community' [snicker] would acknowledge a couple of basic facts:

a) you never have enough intel on a given situation

b) some of the intel you get is going to be contradictory (that's why you have 'analysts' in the first place)

c) if you wait long enough to have perfect intel on a given situation, you may well have waited too long.

After all, the 'best' intel on whether or not Iran has a nuclear bomb would be a mushroom cloud. Over Tel Aviv. Is that what you want (why yes, because then you'd blame George Bush. Again).

I'm not sure myself what the best solution to the Iran situation is. But I do know what whatever decision we make, it will be made on the basis of imperfect, incomplete and contradictory intel. That's just the way it is.

Posted by: Steve White on August 25, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Steve, you're right about imperfect intelligence, but the Bush admin has dug itself a deep hole on this issue because of the Iraq fiasco. Its credibility is zero, and most Americans no longer trust anything Bush/Cheney/Rummy say. That's pretty bad if you hope to lead a country into (another) war.

Posted by: Red on August 25, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

And in other news: File under 'Whiplash'


The natural reaction of those so affected is to resist change, for example, by seeking the passage of protectionist measures, Bernanke said. The challenge for policymakers is to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared for example, by helping displaced workers get the necessary training to take advantage of new opportunities, he said.

Huh? What 'new opportunities' would that be, Ben? Where? Did you talk to Dubya?

The death of Cuban President Fidel Castro by itself will trigger no change in the United States' 40-year-old trade embargo on the communist island. "The system has to change," he said. "Trade (with Cuba) doesn't directly benefit the people. Trade benefits the elite."
Dubya at Harley-Davidson

On the Harley free-trade brigade
By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY

Posted by: CFShep on August 25, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

The only suprising thing about this is that it was so sloppy. Since when are GOP campaign documents 'strangely amateurish'? Or does that explain the AI's absence recently? Surely Kevin has better things to do on vacation than to spoof/ghost-write 'Republican' intelligence committee reports....

Posted by: kchiker on August 25, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Why golly Steve,
Those are the exact same excuses/talking points presented to try to legitimize what is now our clusterfuck in Iraq - complete with the "mushroom cloud". Nice going.

Posted by: ckelly on August 25, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Harry Truman was unwilling to join with Britain in a plot to overthrow the elected prime minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh and his nationalist movement. The Iranian parliament had voted in 1951 to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. This threatened one of Britain's prime assets: the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Eisenhower, after some resistance, was finally persuaded that the Iranians would move into the Soviet sphere (although the dispute was economic and nationalistic) and backed Project Ajax. This led to the installation of the brutal Anglo-American puppet regime of the Shah. Which, in turn, was overthrown by another nationalist movement under the banner of the Shiite cleric, the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

It is in this light that the Iranians judge the interests and intentions of the Anglo-American alliance for democracy in the Middle East.

Posted by: bellumregio on August 25, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Oh my Lord, did Dubya really say that? Thats the most absurd piece of nonsense yet. "Trade favours the elite". Good grief, if that were true it would be all the rich people crying for protectionism then, wouldnt it?
Its the most obvious (even trite) fact about trade that the imports benefit the consumers: thats everyone, at the expense of the producers, which will be a small segment for any one product. Which is, of course, why protectionism is so hard to fight: the benefits of restrictions on trade are highly concentrated while the benefits are widely spread.
Interesting book out about now, "The J Curve". Worth reading for the proof that the sanctions against Cuba have only propped Castro up.

Posted by: failingeconomist on August 25, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

What kind of joke of a committee is the House Intel committee that it has lent itself to that?

THis wasn't a serious question was it?

Posted by: klyde on August 25, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

The political gallop to the November finish line is heating up and the race is certain to tighten. Get ready folks, weve just rounded the final turn and were now headed into the homestretch and that horse making a big push on the Democrats right flank is none other than the GOPs Secretariat, Karl Rove. With his legal troubles apparently behind him, Rove seems to be focused like a laser on once again wearing the floral blanket. In his most recent public appearance in Ohio, Rove reiterated the talking points of the strategy upon which the GOP intends to run.

Mr. Rove, a White House adviser and the architect of Mr. Bushs winning presidential campaigns, peppered Democrats on taxes and national security, invoked the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and called the Iraq war the heart of the battle in a global war against Islamic fascists.

The 20-minute speech echoed Mr. Bushs 2004 campaign themes. He said Mr. Bush would not abandon the war and said of terrorists to the audience: Who thinks if we come home, that theyre not going to follow us?

The important thing to note in the 2006 strategy is a minor, though significant, shift in the GOP framinga technique that has been the hallmark of their success. This week the President gave a candid answer to an oft asked questionon a topic that has been the source of repeated Democratic criticism. He was asked what Iraq had to do with 9/11 and he quickly replied, Nothingbut then went on to explain that he believes the lesson of 9/11 was that we must take threats seriously before they materialize.

Herein is the shift. Republicans realize that the conflation of Iraq and 9/11 is no longer the viable tool that it was during the 2002 and 2004 elections. In a classic counterintuitive Rovian shift, they have taken the Democratic strategy for 2006 and incorporated it into the GOPs new framing. When Bush uttered Nothing, the revised strategy was revealed. Simply stated, the new GOP strategy is to incorporate the Democratic message into their revised rhetoric. This isnt the first time that the Bush administration has co-opted the message of the opposition when it became apparent that they were perilously close to a position of checkmate.

Not only do they now want Democrats to make voters consider leaving Iraq, they will take it a step further and insist that voters consider the potential consequences and risksonce again invoking the power of terrorism in order to create voter doubtall the while framing the Democrats as the object of that doubt. The goal is to make the doubt about leaving Iraq (the terror threat) greater than the dissatisfaction about the conduct of the war. Forcing voters to move beyond the GOPs past poor performance is essential and can be achieved by refocusing voters on other more ominous potentialities.

Read the full article here:


Posted by: Daniel DiRito on August 25, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

The outing of Valerie Plame,
who was working on...Iran.
Maybe the intelligence
is what's getting in the way
of the plan.

Posted by: sdemetri on August 25, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Why does anyone listen to these 'world shapers'? Haven't they proven that they are utterly incapable of understanding what is going on, managing even the smallest tasks or accepting reality? What does it take for people to realize that the only way to stop these incompetents from doing further harm is to vote against all Republicans, no matter how sensible they are otherwise, just because they have become enablers of foolishness.

Posted by: freelunch on August 25, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, they wanted INTELLIGENCE, so they DESTROYED THE ONE INTEL ASSET they had--Valerie Plame--and now they're giving MONEY to Scooter Libby. Oh, and by the way, the US BUILT AND SUPPLIED the Nuclear Reactor in Tehran.

Orwell couldn't DREAM THIS UP.

Posted by: Tennessean on August 25, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure myself what the best solution to the Iran situation is. But I do know what whatever decision we make, it will be made on the basis of imperfect, incomplete and contradictory intel.

There's a difference between "imperfect, incomplete and contradictory intel" and exagerated and biased intel.

Posted by: Stephen on August 25, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

But its purpose wasn't just to take a quick swipe at marshalling the facts in its favor. It's a campaign document...

You are likely right about this. But how many people comprehend this? The worrisome thing is that this behavior seems to have been paying off, i.e., Republicans have maintained majority control.

Blame the Democrats for being spineless if it makes you feel superior. But we know who is in charge. We know who must be voted out. And ask yourself how effective YOU have been toward that end.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on August 25, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

c) if you wait long enough to have perfect intel on a given situation, you may well have waited too long.

d) If you don't wait long enough to at the very least rationally grok the intel you've got, you may well have waited to short.

Posted by: Boronx on August 25, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK



You think his constituents are in an uproar or something?


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK


Hardly. You might want to examine his comments on the issue.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Actaully, I want TRUMAN Democrats to control Congress.

The past-kissing by Republicans of Truman (and Kennedy) is a sure signs of high bogosity. You liked Truman? Really? Seizing the steel industry? Uh huh. Pull the other one.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on August 25, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey Davis:

Yeah, and if the liked Monica Lewinsky, they'd just *adore* Marilyn Monroe :)


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK


Who's defending Iran *qua* Iran?

Qua -- that's a Latin word. Why don't you amuse yourself and google the shit out of it :)


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

It makes sense that Muslim countries would NEED weapons to thwart Israeli expansionism.

Duh... Why is this so awful?

WE need a better defense against Israel. Especially their infiltration of our government, media and academia.

Someone said we are Sobibor West with a Jew in every watch tower.

what a GREAT description of what has become of America!

Posted by: trevor on August 25, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK


Don't make it any harder for the critics of Israeli policy than it already is, thanks.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK


There's a tradition here that when obvious trolls such as yourself are spoofed in an obvious way -- as opposed to attempts to deceive the community that the spoofer is actually the spoofed poster -- to let it go.

Since that fake Thomas obviously wasn't you but rather a satiric parody, there's really little to do but, you know, snicker :)


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Well seeing as how the NYT knows the intelligence was "cook" for the Iraq war, then isn't that grounds for impeachment of Bush and company?

Bush knows that he can lie to Americans and there is no reason NOT to lie because the country hasn't care that Bush lied to us. Bush got away with lying in the first time - why not then just lie again, and again and again?

There are over 2000 dead military members who have die for Bush's right to lie, to cook the facts.

Why isn't the NYT pushing for impeachment on this knowledge? Bush knowingly cook intelligence, now he is out to cook intelligence again, ho-hum.

Who knew that military members lives where so cheap when it is better to save Bush from embarrassment than to save the lives of US military members. This doesn't sound like any kind of democracy to me. Only countries with dictators behavior this way.

Posted by: Cheryl on August 25, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Bob - How am I making it harder?

Ethnocentric Jewish influence in Middle Eastern poltics is often treasonous, yet NOBODY is 'allowed' to call them traitors.

Sorry. But If that makes me a Jew hater, where do I sign up?

If Muslims changed their names and infiltrated our government, media and academia to advance the cause of Islam - to the same extent Jews have advanced Israeli interests - people would be in the streets demanding they be tried and hung.

Posted by: trevor on August 25, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK


This is pure anti-semitic bilge -- the deliberately obtuse and culturally clueless "analogy" gives your game away.

We already weathered a storm of anti-semitic trolls here about a month ago, so I guess we can withstand your garbage as well.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK


You're making me laugh, bro.

Doubtless hardly what you intended -- but there you go :)


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

The sad truth is that the "real" Thomas1 is really Charlie Lawrence, who is a liar.

Posted by: The Sad Truth on August 25, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK


Google up s'more facts for us, bro. I haven't had a good scroll in like fifteen minutes or so :)


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Wasn't this the same report that had Kevin so exercised two days ago? Laura, you guys need to get your story straight. Is the committee report a blowhard political exercise, or is it a serious examination of the state of intelligence affairs? You don't have to *agree* with what Kevin said (I don't) but shouldn't you at least *engage* it?

CLUELESS....A House committee report says we don't know squat about Iran:

Noting "significant gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the various areas of concern about Iran," the House Intelligence Committee staff report questioned whether the United States could even effectively engage in talks with Tehran on ways to diffuse tensions.

Got that? It's not just that we don't really know anything about their nuclear, biological, etc. programs. We don't even know enough to talk to them intelligently.

This despite the fact that Iran was declared part of the Axis of Evil more than four years ago. In response to the House report, the White House says reassuringly that they are "taking steps" to do better. Hopefully that doesn't include firing any gay Persian speakers.

Posted by: Shelby on August 25, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK


I haven't read the report (I can't read .pdf's on this machine), but it appears to me that there are two aspects of it.

The factual component -- which makes the case that you say Kevin is arguing. It's also why ranking Democrat Rush Holt signed off on the report.

And the *conclusions* -- which are hyped, loaded with gratuitous fright rhetoric and indeed comprise little more than a camapign brochure.

The GOP knows that the latter part is what's going to get all the juicy sound bites on Fox News -- even if they flatly contradict the factual assessments buried in the technical language prior to it.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK


And that's what makes the release of this report so blatantly Orwellian.

The sine qua non of Doublespeak.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK


And afterwards, felt very chagrined by the entire process.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK


Yes I am, Thomas. Holt had no power to control the writing of that report. He felt the substantive case that our intelligence on Iran is woefully inadequate overrode the idiotic campaign rhetoric appended to it at the end.

So he acted responsibly in signing off on the report -- only to see right-wing commentators pay no attention to the actual substance of the document to focus rather on the bullshit extrapolated conclusion.

But as a bogus concern troll you have no interest in anything but attempting to make the Democrats look bad in any way you can -- while pretending to "save us from ourselves."


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Firing Arabic translators for being gay, hurts the war on terror, and also gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

Posted by: AkaDad on August 25, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

I'm just saying after DEFENDING Iran, our party better hope and pray

Uh oh, Charlie/Cheney/Thomas is right off his meds again and trolling out of control.

I think it might be time to reprise some of his greatest hits so everyone can get a peek at the "man" behind the curtain.

Here's a good one:

Not only are the [commenters here], insane, they clearly want the terrorists to win!! At least during WWII, the political opponents of FDR did not want the Nazis to win. I agree that this conspiracy mongering would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. I think it's about time the President starts locking up these FUCKING dissadent traitors, I really do.

Posted by: Cheney on March 9, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, he wanted all of us "traitors" locked up for disagreeing with him.

Good times, good times.

BTW, Rush Holt has really pressed the unconstitutionality of Bush's warrantless spy-on--your-domestic-enemies issue, so I think "we" will keep him, thanks.

Posted by: trex on August 25, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie posting as "Thomas1" wrote: I am not "Charlie".

Yes, you are Charlie. And you are a liar. That's the sad truth.

Posted by: The Sad Truth on August 25, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK


Holt has also sponsored a bill to require an auditable paper trail for e-voting machines which directly challenges Diebold.

Holt's one of the most progressive guys in Congress -- and a scientist, too.

He's a keeper for sure.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Uh-oh ... here come the assinine rhetorical questions :)


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK


No, it's not my opinion at all that Holt sponsored that paper-trail legislation and is rather well-regarded in the progressive community for a host of other issues as well.

That's a statement of objective fact.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK


A scientist? That's very cool, I wasn't aware of that. We certainly need more scientists and fewer criminal former exterminators in Congress, that's for sure.

Holt did sponsor legislation requiring the videotaping of detainee interrogations to provide some accountability for the abuse and torture issue.

Ya gotta respect him for that.

Posted by: trex on August 25, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK


It is a statement of objective fact that Rush Holt is "a keeper, for sure" in the progressive community.

It's also a statement of fact that Rush Holt is pretty highly regarded by all his constituents -- as he represents a pretty well-off, progressive NJ district, and has faced no difficult challenges from Republicans in his re-election bids.

But this is, after all, Blue Jersey we're talking about :)


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK


I owe you a long email, btw. You were entirely correct in your last mail to me that I never got back to you on.

I have no trouble eating crow when I'm wrong, bro :)

Yep, Holt's a science professor of some sort -- though honestly as he's not my Congressman I can't recall the details atm.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

I have no trouble eating crow when I'm wrong, bro :)

Hey, no problem, I wasn't trying to make you eat crow at all, just didn't want your to waste your time with someone who's not serious.

Speaking of which, here's a strange coincidence...

You still around?
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 25, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone else wish to discuss the thread topic? Riccardo, Major Woody, or christine - you still around?

Posted by: Cheney on December 12, 2005 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK


P.S. Freder Frederson - are you still around? Did you see my post to you above? Or, the post to you on another thread (I've lost it now) re: Edwards "lie" about Loving v. Virginia?

Posted by: Charlie on October 6, 2004 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK



Are you still around?

Posted by: Cheney on March 2, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: trex on August 25, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK


He signed off on the entire report -- because the substance was far more important than the appended conclusions.

The right-wing media, however, are attempting to take the conclusions out of context and present them as if the report itself somehow supported them.

It doesn't.

Holt went for substance over politics -- and you're trying to rake him over the coals for it.

Just like the good little Rove-fed concern troll that you are.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK


You raise some good questions. Now, I have some for you.

Is anyone, anyone at all, in the Democratic Party thinking seriously about Iran? Do they think Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons? If so, do they think that poses a threat to the US? If so, what, if anything, do they think we ought to do about it?

Posted by: DBL on August 25, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

I have been trying to keep my usual invective and rhetoric suppressed. As the calls for war become ever louder and the evidence of war crimes committed by the US and its allies increases, I find it more difficult to stifle my urge to insult and accuse. Insulting and accusing makes me feel better by letting off steam.

I am deeply offended and worried by the aggressiion many Americans exhibit. War is a horrible thing and makes us all have terrible thoughts.

Posted by: Hostile on August 25, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Give it up, Charlie.

Posted by: . on August 25, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

James Dobbins yesterday said the only concession Iran is looking for from the US is to abandon its regime change doctrine. That's it. Americans are so adamant on destroying anyone who defies our authortiy we are willing to commit nuclear mass murder. Allah forgive America.

Posted by: Hostile on August 25, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK


We don't honestly know if Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.

What we *do* know, from a technical perspective, is that the conclusion of that report saying that Iran has refined "bomb grade" uranium (70% U235) from its primitive cascade of 600-odd centrifuges is out-and-out bullshit.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus? You still around? I'm lonely. And I'm worried about my eternal soul.

I wish I hadn't told so many falsehoods here. Or made thoughtless, lighthearted fun out of John Edwards dead child.

I wish I hadn't done those things, but I did.

Jesus? Are you there?

Posted by: Charlie's Conscience on August 25, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Here is the link you requested, baby killer.


There is a video of yesterday's conference at this site. I think Mr. Dobbins said it during the q & a.

Posted by: Hostile on August 25, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK


Please go and join Lieberman.

The pretense factor would drop immeasurably.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK


Of course, Lieberman is pro-choice, so you might run into a little trouble there ...

How 'bout just go join the GOP?


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe if 250,000 people showed up the Dems would figure that opposition to invading Iran was a good campaign issue.

That many people showed up for a march in NYC before March 2003, but it did not do a YWHdamned thing to stop the invasion of Iraq. If 25,000,000 people voted for the Socialist Equality Party candidate Van Auken, then the country could move in the right direction. Expect the baby killers and political assassins to win out, they represent a majority in America.

Posted by: Hostile on August 25, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

The congressional committee's activity is consistent with the Republican Party Plan for Endless War.

Posted by: CT on August 25, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK



But just don't try to pretend that your views represent some sort of consensus within the Democratic Party.

Truthfully, they're at least as fringe-oid as you claim that the Kos people's are.

And even though we aren't quite as knee-jerk here as the Kossacks -- your views are *decidedly* fringe on this blogg as well.


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Are you saying no one else here has ever asked if someone was still around?!

Yes, I'm saying that at of dozens of examples it's almost exclusively used by you, you lying idiot. Posting other examples of you trolling under other names - funny how those were troll posts your referenced, by the way - just provides more evidence that it's you being a facetious moron under multiple handles.

The passive-aggressive little smiley's, the asinine rhetorical questions, the use of capitalized first names, the barely-concealed petulance that bleeds through every post -- they give you away every time.

Give it up. You're not a Democrat, you're some sort of Dominionist-type psycho with a stern daddy complex who wants homosexuality and divorce outlawed for religion reasons, the jailing of dissidents, and the death penalty for mothers who even so much as use the morning after pill.

In fact, you're the mirror image of the terrorists you fear and hate. That should tell you something.

Posted by: trex on August 25, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK


> the passive-aggressive little smiley's

Hey! I use passive-aggressive little smileys, too !


Of course, I don't stick a space between the colon/semicolon and the close paren, either -- which make's Thomas' emoticon style so darned ... inimitable :)


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Red: "Too bad we don't have more people like Valerie Plame investigating those Iranian WMD. Or maybe her outing was done so real intelligence could be replaced by doctored intelligence."

I concur. I truly wish that I didn't have to, but I must.

It's really a damn shame that tin-foil hats have come into fashion, Red, but I have to admit that I've been wearing mine on this particular issue for quite a while.

The Bush administration outed Valerie Plame on 14 July 2003, and then one week later further pulled the cover completely off Brewster Jennings, which was the CIA front company through which she and her fellow CIA NOCs had infiltrated Iran's nuclear program and and the funding mechanisms provided by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

And even when confronted with these facts -- yes, Frequency Kenneth, et al., FACTS!! What a novel concept!-- the Bush wackadoodle crowd still has the chutzpah to question other Americans' commitment and patriotism.

We are unwilling extras in a real-time version of Fellini's 1957 film Satyricon.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 25, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1: "Of course, Lieberman is pro-choice ..."

True. Joe Lieberman strongly supported the Republicans when they chose to unilaterally override the right of Michael Schiavo to make the otherwise most personal of family decisions. Good riddance.

Thomas1, if you don't like abortion, that's perfectly fine. You have the absolute personal right not to have one.

But you don't have the right to decide what other persons will or won't do with their own bodies. Whatever they choose to do is between them and whatever Supreme Being they choose (or don't choose) to follow.

Therefore, when it comes to personal matters of faith, etc., please mind your own business. The truth be told, most people neither like nor appreciate the judgments of a moral scold -- at least, not behind his or her back.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 25, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii:

Hey, I never said I supported Lieberman's social views in toto.

I was just trying to make Thomas' head explode is all :)


Posted by: rmck1 on August 25, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: "I've always thought you were like Fellini's 'The Clowns'."

That would probably work, too. So would 8-1/2.

But if I really had to pick the movie that mirrored my life, it would probably be independent filmmaker David O. Russell's 1996 self-deprecating comedy Flirting with Disaster.

Russell is one of my favorite directors, and he has helmed such offbeat films as Spanking the Monkey, which may or may not be to everyone's taste. His most commercially accessible work is probably the underrated 1999 Gulf War drama Three Kings.

In short, he's eclectic and unpredictable, just like me. Check him out.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 25, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

rcmk1: "Hey, I never said I supported Lieberman's social views in toto. I was just trying to make Thomas' head explode is all :)"

I figured as such. I just decided on spur of the moment to join you in the pile-on ...

All fun aside, I think that Thomas1 is probably a good guy at heart. If someone who harbors such anti-choice views still chooses to publicly state that he's a Democrat, then I have to accept that he's sincere -- unlike 90% of so-called pro-life Republican politicians, who cynically use such divisive social issues to pursue a self-aggrandizing political agenda. We can vigorously disagree with Thomas1 about abortion, but let's not forget that we probably still have lots of common ground politically.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 25, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 is an old fart - he said he was born in 1939, which makes him, um, older than dirt...

Posted by: Joe Bob Briggs on August 25, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: "Yipeeee!!! I got my check from the RNC today! More Cheetos and Red Bull for me if mom will let me cash it."

(Sigh!) Can't the Republicans get anything right? With Red Bull, you really need guacamole-flavored Doritos.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 25, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of checks from the RNC, can the next administration invoice this one for all the tax money they've spent on campaigning? I say include the cost of the Iraq war in that and make Halliburton front the money to the Repugs. (They'll always find ways to get more.)

Posted by: Kenji on August 25, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Bob Briggs: "Thomas1 is an old fart - he said he was born in 1939, which makes him, um, older than dirt."

Not to mention of the same generation as Bob Dylan, Robert Redford, Mick Jagger, Tina Turner and Mary Tyler Moore ...

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 25, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

We can vigorously disagree with Thomas1 about abortion, but let's not forget that we probably still have lots of common ground politically. If someone who harbors such anti-choice views still chooses to publicly state that he's a Democrat...

[sigh] He's goofing, Don. Read his statements posting as Cheney. You have virtually nothing in common with him politically. He's a conservative reactionary who I'm sure would happy to see you jailed for your "dissident" opinions just to set an example for the rest of us "traitors" -- who are bound for hell, by the way, those of us who aren't Christians.

BTW, way to go on your work with the Democratic party in Hawai'i and keeping the island safe and sane for kama'aina. Keep it up. If I ever manage to swing the move out there I'll join you in the trenches.

Posted by: trex on August 25, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

"I am a Democrat, I am I am I am
Shut up Mom, I am too a Democrat !!"

Well, okay. If Joe Lieberman can take money from the RNC, then I guess you can, too. Just don't spend it all on that over-priced, hyper-caffienated Robitussi -- I mean, Red Bull.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 25, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK


You still around?

Posted by: Charlie's Conscience on August 25, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

trex: "BTW, way to go on your work with the Democratic party in Hawai'i and keeping the island safe and sane for kama'aina. ..."

I'll be bluntly honest with you in my current assessment of Hawaii Democrats' 2006 prospects.

Unfortunately, the Hawaii Democratic Party establishment has become so politically inbred that they might as well adopt dueling Banjoes as its theme song. It's not unlike what the Republicans have done in Alaska.

The Hawaii Legislature is 80% Democrat, and they fight amongst themselves constantly over leadership issues while accomplishing little of substance.

We have two octogenerian and autocratic Democratic U.S. senators who simply refuse to give up any sort of power, while surrounding themselves with all sorts of self-serving, mediocre individuals. Sen. Dan Akaka has raised over $3 million to fend off a strong primary run from Congressman Ed Case, leaving little funding left over for local Democrats in legislative and council races.

The powers-that-be are intent on stamping down any and all internal challenges to their authority from reform-minded Democrats. As a result, the Hawaii Democrats have fielded terribly weak candidates for governor and lieutenant governor this year. Small surprise, therefore, that 55% of self-identified Hawaii Democratic voters have stated their intention to re-elect the GOP incumbent, Gov. Linda Lingle.

I'll do what I can to help good Democrats on the mainland get elected to Congress, and then help pick up the pieces out here in November after our local self-annointed Democratic movers-and-shakers crash the bus into the end of the political cul-de-sac they're currently driving down.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 25, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Sermon and declaration of Crusade ( holy war) in Britain. Issued by the Lions of Yah'shua in alliance with the brothers in the Army of God and Phinehas Priesthood in the U.K
My christian brothers and sisters;
The execution of the infidel , is a gift to you the world over.
It is a declaration to the heathen , permissive , dissolute and irreverant savages with whom we have been both deceived and mercilessly coerced into accepting as our compatriots,( by the satanic empirialists that govern this once great nation of ours) ; that we will no longer idly accept the degradation of our glorious faith.
What a squalid little husk this nation of great britain as become when compared to the land that was given by God (Yahweh)to our fore-fathers.This is a nation whose soil is pervaded by the blood of martyrs;who died for the principles that once made this country the most advanced , powerful , moralizing and civilized nation on the face of the earth.our martyrs died for the values that the heavenly father has revealed to us through the mouths and written words of his holy prophets, in his glorious gift to man kind ; the holy bible.
The lord taught us that there can be no society without order; and there can be no order without law.I am not talking about the collection of arbitrary, impotent and spurious laws ; that this secular society imposes ( or in the case of the faithful , attempts to impose ) upon us..Secular law is nothing more than a conglomerate of of limp wristed , left-wing propagander excerps. They have been contrived by a coterie of lesbian feminists , freemasons, gay rights activists , the multi-cultural parasites of globalized capitalism and myriad other scandalizers of this nations ( britain) vulnerable and impressionable youth.This afore mentioned coterie of demons have found that the most efficacious tactic in regard to waging their terrorist campaign against the last bastions of traditional values, is by hijacking the modern phenomenon of of a multi-media society.They have proceeded to mutilate what had the partential to be an instrument of the commendable ideals of education, communication and understanding ; into nothing more than a conduit for smut and profanity , alien creeds and concepts, disrespect for authority and others, and the most heinous crime of all ; the crime of blasphemy.
This legion of the condemned as helped swallow up a once decent , cohesive nation and as spat out a malignant rabble in it's stead.This rabble possesses nothing but malice and scorn for anything deemed to be pure and without covert motive.They regard nothing as sacred other than their self-gratifying, consumerist mantra , of ; 'do what thou will ' and their perceived right to so called ; 'freedom of speech'.This so called freedom of speech is ; in reality , nothing more ( and indeed nothing less) than a government sanctioned mandate to act as social iconoclasts; denegrating , scurrilizing and ultimately ( in it's insidious manner), to destroy the values, beliefs and principles which were once held with the deepest regard by this nation .They seek to replace these standards with an anarchistic , darwinistic, dog -eat-dog society.Let he who as eyes see and he who as ears hear ,this is the truth face this satanic mish-mesh of selfisfh and unscrupulous apes , that now occupy this land of ours.
The infidel is a product of this society, which is being held captive to the spells and illusions created ; and cast by secularist so called laws, which are in fact no laws at all.The infidel does the will of this society , which in turn does the will of it's master ; Satan.In the architype of their master (Satan), the infidel is a blasphemer, a liar, a corruptor and a false prophet..
In their insane arrogance and delusions of grandeur , they have fixed their beady ,black eyes upon the kingdom of heaven.They open their mouths ; thoughs cradles of death and deceit , against it's majestic, holy and mighty king, the king that reigns supreme for ever and ever amen.With ravenous hatred they degradate the crowned prince of glory as he patiently awaites his time to make his enermies his foot-stool.
The infidel believes that they ( mere apes) , can show such reprehensible insolence with impunity.But thanks be to God(Yahweh) that he as decreed in his righteousness , that the infidel be recompensed with the just penalty for his crimes. The infidel will now recieve the punishment prescribed by God's law , blasphemers are to be rooted out, quelled and erased with immediate effect.We shall do as we are commanded as written in hebrews 12:15 , we quote hebrews 10:26-30 'if we deliberatley keep on sining after we have received the knowledge of the tuth, no sacrifice for sins is left,but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume the enermies of god.Anyone that rejected the law of moses died without mercy on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses.How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who as trampled the son of God under foot, who as treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covernant that sanctified him and who as insulted the spirit of grace'.
We also remind you of the words of christ in regard to corruptors ' things that cause others to sin are bound to come , but woe to him through whom they come. It would be better for him to have a large mill-stone tied around his neck and to be drown in the sea, than to be allowed to cause one of these little ones who believes in me , to sin' . Christ also likens false prohets to bad trees which are to be 'cut down and thrown into the fire' , in other words ; executed.
To conclude this aspect of the sermon , we now remind you of the words spoken by saint Paul in romans 1:18-32 , when he speaks of godless men and the fate that awaits them ; 'the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God as made it plain to them.For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what as been made, so that men are without any excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither gloryfied him as God nor gave thanks to him,but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.Although they claimed to be wise,they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal men and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts, to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,and worshipped and served created things rather than the creator-who is forever praised , amen.
Because of this,God gave them over to shameful lusts.Even thier women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.Men committed indecent acts with other men,and receive in themselfs the just penalty for thier perversion.
Furthermore,since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.They have become filled with every kind of wickedness,evil, greed and depravity.They are full of envy,murder, strife, deceit and malice.They are gossips, slanderers, god-haters,insolent, arrogant and boastful;they invent ways of doing evil;they disobey thier parents;they are senseless, faithless,heartless, ruthless.Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these every things, but also approve of those that practise them'.
We now proceed to give a synopsis of our paramount aims.
We are sworn to bring this nation back under Gods(Yahweh) law(or to die trying) and to bring the following into practise ;
The complete abolition of abortion and the execution of those that violate that ban .
To bring about capital punishment for the following crimes ; blasphemy, murder, rape, paedophilia,bestiality , the propagation of homosexuality,cross dressing,the practise of the black arts, abduction , and proven accounts of adultary and all sexual immorality.
We believe that the mode of execution to be employed by the state , should be in the form prescribed by the mosaic civil code and by christ ;execution by stoning,drowning , beheading or death by fire,(false prophets being likened to bad fruit trees which are to be cut down and thrown into the fire).
Imprisonment for the distribution and retail of contraception , robbery and the dishonour of elders.
We believe in public flogging for anti-social behaviour and petty crime.We also advocate the reintroduction of the corporal punishment into our nations schools ( it's time to take this nation back from the selfish and disrespectful hoodlums that are atrophying it).
We seek the total abolition of the establised church of england.
Why the abolition of the church of england?
The church of england is the bane of the christian movement in this land.It is a humiliating ,cancerous sore on the backs of all true christians.
It as been hijacked and mutilated into nothing more than a mouth piece for the left-wing, who employ it to propagate there own depraved ,liberal agenders. The arch-bishop of canterbury himself describes himself as a bearded ' welsh-lefty'.
The spurious brand of 'religion' that the C of E racket , in no way represents the true character of the faith or the christ ,nor their tenets .The C of E is the popinjay for the likes of peter tatchel ( activist pursuing the so called 'right' for homosexuals to spread thier corruptive influence unopposed) , germaine greer ( who like all feminists has the primary objective of destroying the traditional and biblically instituted family unite of a father , mother and children), and to propagate subjugation to the armies of the islamic barbarian at the gates of our nation.
They have utterly and mercilessly mutilated the christian faith inorder to make it conform to their debauched left-wing conspiracy.They have ,without mitigation, distorted the nature of christ inorder to dupe christians into beleiving that they are too be pacifist in regards to their faith, satan could wish for no better 'christian' than the depraved hyprocrites of the C of E.
They are ashamed of the more challenging aspects of christs ministry, they would never quote such passages as thoughs in which christ speaks , 'think not that i have come to send peace into the world , i came not to send peace ; but a sword'. The church of England are afraid of the demands of the faith , again at the last supper , christ tells his follows too prepare for armed conflict , with these words ; ' if you don't have a sword , sell your cloak and buy one'.
Now add to this the two separate occasions on which christ physically cleansed the temple of traders , making a scourge to lash them out , over throwing the tables and breaking their goods , plus the proclamation of the death penalty for corruptors ( mentioned earlier) , and it becomes glearingly obvious that the christ the C of E profess to teach , in no way bears any resemblence to the Yah'shua Messiah (Jesus christ) of the bible.
The church of england pedal a caricature of christ , they need a 'wimp in a white nighty' , in order to fulfil their evil machinations. not the saviour in the bible , the one that told us not to fear wars and revolutions , telling us that they are necessary.
They never so much as even speak of the book of Revelation in which christ(Yah'shua Messiah) returns as the warrior king for the battle of armageddon.
Hear our words, oh ye infidels ! , spend your days trembling in shadows , shiver and weep in the small hours of morning and know terror , for you have but a short time . The axe is impending !
we are messengers. we bring you tidings of peace and brotherly love if you approach our table with offerings of the same. However , approach with dishonour and insult , covert motive and insidious tongues ;then ye shall know that our God is a consuming fire , for you shall be the chaff that is incinerated .Heed these words . And to the faithful ; christian , do thy duty !
As you well know dear brothers,the only aspect of the law that passed away with the crucifixion of Christ were aspects of the levitcal priesthood concerning animal sacrifice(due to the fact that Christ performed the role of the ultimate sacrificial lamb).These things were always considered as compromises for truth faith,God stated this on a number of occasions before the redemption through christ.However all the aspects of civil law still remain ,letter for letter and word for word.The civic laws in the bible express directly how God feels about certain issues (whether it be crime,inheritance,war etc) and if anyman does not abide by the law ; may he be numbered with the dogs cast outside the gates of the new Jerusalem ! .
As Yah'shua Messiah( Jesus christ) states with absolute clearity in the book Matthew 5,17-19 ; ''Think not that i have come to destroy the law,or the prophets;i am not come to destroy,but to fulfil !For verily i say unto you ,till heaven and earth pass,one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,till all be fulfilled.Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least commandments,and shall teach men so,he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven ;but whosoever shall do and teach them,the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven !

Besides these facts,we are well aware that Christ had taught the widely misinterpreted 'turn the other cheek' policy only to thoughs disciples which he had chosen to send out on missionary duty.This was a strategic decision taken by Yah'shua for the simple reason that the Jewish authorities were awaiting any opportunity,any excuse;to arrest him and his disciples.Therefore it was only logical not to afford them such an opportunity !
You will notice that later in scripture,Christ goes on to revoke the 'Turn the other cheek' policy by stating the command to his follows, ''If you do not have a sword,sell your cloak and buy one'' ! This is just one of many examples. Also, it is important to point out that the only enemies we were asked to have love for, are thoughs whom are wayward brothers and only for minor issues.This is yet another example of the liberals exploiting (by wilfull misinterpretation)a passage of scripture to suit their own agenders.
This more than adequately hammers the final nail into the coffins of the liberals and their filthy mutilation of scripture,the heresy which they call ''the social Gospel''.
Brethren,follow the God and Christ of scripture,not the inventions and distortions of the left-wing !
May Yahweh bless and keep the faithful and the grace of his only begotten son be with you.

Therefore ye Lions of Yahushua,ye Phinehas priests; you are to conduct holy war ,but with the strictest observance of the law.You are to conform to the law of war has given by God(Yahweh). (read Deuteronomy 20;1-20 , Numbers 25;1-8 , Numbers 25;11-14 ,1 Samuel 15;1-28).
Take your stand therefore brothers and trust in the lord.The strong amongst us must act as shepherds to the sheep.Christ tells us in no uncertain terms that to be a good shepherds you must stand in defence of the sheep,the good shepherd does not flee when he sees the wolf approaching !Those of you who are strong (shepherds)are there-by commanded to defend the weak (sheep). Your are the modern day Phinehas priesthood and you know what God commands of you as such !

Peace be upon the Brothers.Selah, Amen and Amen .

(This was a confederate statement issued on behalf of the Lions of Yah'shua,Phinehas priesthood and Army Of God In The UK)

Websites we endorse; www.armyofgod.com
Google the following;
Richard Kelly Hoskins.
Vigilantes of Christendom.
Dominionist theory.
Phinehas Priesthood.
Christian identity Churches.
Eric Rudolf.
Paul Hill.
The Turner Diaries.

Posted by: Ishmael on August 27, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon of 1867:
On 1867-FEB-08, Young delivered a second important discourse in the Tabernacle at Salt Lake City on the topic of "blood atonement" He confirmed that concept that God cannot forgive serious sins unless the sinner is killed and his blood mixes with the earth. He also expressed confidence that the as he knew it would occur in his immediate future. He was wrong about at least the second belief.
Young said in part:
"....the time will come, and is now nigh at hand, when those who profess our faith, if they are guilty of what some of this people are guilty of, will find the axe laid at the root of the tree, and they will be hewn down. What has been must be again, for the Lord is coming to restore all things....it is one of the laws of that kingdom where our Father dwells, that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life...."
Referring to the possibility of any believer in the congregation committing a serious sin, Young continued:
"...suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, 'shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods' ?"

All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Yah'shua HaMashiach(Jesus Christ) meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing.... Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness...."
"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men, have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up-conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them...."
"This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind." 2
Thus, it would be an act of love to murder anyone who you felt had committed a serious sin which God could not forgive in any other way than to have the person die and his or her blood mixed with the earth.

To learn more about Biblical law go to;www.armyofgod.com
Google the following;
Richard Kelly Hoskins.
Vigilantes of Christendom.
Phinehas Priesthood.
Christian identity Churches.
Dominionist theory.
Eric Rudolf.
Paul Hill.
The Turner Diaries.
Nauvoo militia.

Posted by: Ishmael on August 27, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Brigham Young's blood atonement sermon of 1856:
Joseph Smith, (1805-1844), the founder of the original Mormon church, was assassinated. Two years later Brigham Young (1801-1877 ) became the second prophet of the church and led about 19,000 Mormons to Salt Lake City, UT. A minority of members, totaling about 1,000 stayed behind and eventually formed the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, now called the Community of Christ.
On 1856-MAR-16, Young delivered an instruction to the bishops. Referring to a hypothetical man who violated the solemn covenants he had made in the Temple, young said:
"You say, 'That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God.' Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands...."

"There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants." 1

Young indicates that Yah'shua' (Jesus Christ)death on the cross can never wipe out an individual's serious personal sin. The sinner's own blood must be shed to atone for the sin. The sinner must be murdered and his or her blood spilled on the ground.

To learn more about Biblical law go to ;

Google the following;
Richard Kelly Hoskins.
Vigilantes of Christendom.
Dominionist theory.
Phinehas Priesthood.
Christian identity Churches.
Eric Rudolf.
Paul Hill.
The Turner Diaries.
Nauvoo militia.

Posted by: Ishmael on August 27, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

免费铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 三星手机铃声 三星铃声 诺基亚铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 移动铃声下载 nokia铃声 波导手机铃声 手机游戏免费下载 免费手机游戏 手机小游戏 诺基亚手机游戏 三星手机游戏下载 nokia手机游戏 摩托罗拉手机游戏 手机小电影 mp4手机电影下载 手机看电影 免费手机电影 手机视频下载 nec手机铃声 联想手机铃声 摩托罗拉铃声 amr铃声 手机彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 炫铃 移动炫铃 手机酷铃 手机电影 夏新手机铃声 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 联通彩铃下载 联通炫铃下载 特效铃声 midi铃声 和弦铃声 搞笑铃声 原唱铃声 mid铃声 cect手机铃声 和炫和旋铃声 海尔手机铃声 索爱手机铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 康佳手机铃声 真人真唱铃声 mmf铃声下载 lg手机铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 西门子铃声 小灵通铃声下载 tcl手机铃声 手机图片 手机铃音 手机动画 图铃下载 手机游戏 手机炫铃下载 手机彩信 手机铃声图片 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内裤 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫电影 美女波霸 美女淫水 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片

Posted by: qq on August 28, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK


Iran has every right to an extensive civil nuclear programme, as do all countries. This right includes building uranium enrichment facilities to produce the fuel for nuclear power stations.

At present, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, she has voluntarily foregone the right to build nuclear weapons. Were she to withdraw from this treaty, she could build nuclear weapons without contravening any international law or regulation. And she has every right to do so. Four of her neighbours have armed themselves with nuclear weapons in recent years, Israel, China, Pakistan and India, while the Non Proliferation Treaty has been in effect.

The present Iranian regime is seriously opposed to the American view of how the world should be run.
This does not make her a Terrorist State to be taken out as the next election-winning step in G.W. Bushs War on Terror.

On the contrary, Iran has always opposed Al Qaida. This terrorist organisation, which really does promote international terrorism against the USA and her perceived allies, has its roots in the xenophobic Wahhabite Islam of Saudi Arabia. It was nurtured in the Saudi financed madrasas of Pakistan which were part of the USs proxy war against the Russians in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia and the US spawned Al Qaida together. Iran was not involved and opposes Al Qaida strongly.

Less than two years ago Iran put members of Al Qaida on trial herself. While the US was complaining about Irans failure to hand over her Al Qaida prisoners, Iran was discretely helping in the real war against terror, without making it too obvious that, in this case, she was on the same side as the USA.
(See the Swiss based ISN report 9/12/2004) http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=10337

Iran does support both Hamas and Hezbollah, which she sees as legitimate militias opposing Israeli occupation and aggression. Although this view is not shared by Israel and the US, much of the rest of the world has come round to the Iranian viewpoint, specially in the light of recent events. To many eyes, Israels massive use of state terrorism against her Lebanese and Palestinian neighbours undermines the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

The Iranian president did not say that he wanted to wipe Israel off the mapthis was a case of wilfull mistranslation. However, he does support the return of the Palestinian refugees and one man one vote in Israel. Much of humanity regards this as a legitimate, but impractical desire. With Israel, desires like this earn their proponents top place on the list of countries to be nuked quicklybefore its too late!

If it wasnt so serious it would be funny, but Israels hawks really are pushing for a US attack on Iran and its nuclear facilities. The merits of the coming war are discussed in serious Israeli newspapers, where the advisability or otherwise of the use of nuclear weapons is openly debated.

The Bush administration now backs the idea and is only waiting for the right moment. They promote this attack as the next logical step in their War against Terror failing to mention they now see it as their only remaining hope of winning the coming elections, in spite of the Iraqi quagmire.

Added attractions of this lunatic, unjustifiable and illegal plan are that it pleases the powerful Jewish and Evangelical lobbies and it just might open a possible door to Irans massive oil reserves.

Sadly those who govern the USA and Israel have their own plans for the Middle East and appear unworried by the sanity, justifiability or legality of their actions. The war they are planning endangers us all, not just Iranians, Israelis and Americans. But for Israel it is far worseinstead of saving herself with another pre-emptive strike, she really will be sowing the seeds of her own destruction.

Iran would never forgive, and unlike Israel and the USA she neither loses wars, nor counts her casualties.

Posted by: David Kusel on August 28, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly