About Me

Name: InchDeep
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 
SiteMeter

Brain Break.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Lennon called himself 'one of Christ's biggest fans"

For what it's worth.

By Simon Caldwell
Catholic News Service

LONDON (CNS) -- British radio has broadcast an interview with John Lennon in which the late singer-composer claimed the Beatles were a Christian band that wanted to bring people closer to God.

In the interview, aired for the first time in the U.K., Lennon described himself as "one of Christ's biggest fans."

He claimed he was misunderstood when he said in 1966 that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus," and he expressed disappointment that he could not marry his second wife, Yoko Ono, in a church.

The interview was conducted in Montreal by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in 1969 when Lennon, who was raised an Anglican, was at a peace protest. Three years ago, National Museums Liverpool bought the interview, which was broadcast on British Broadcasting Corp. Radio Four's Sunday program July 13.

The Liverpool-born musician was asked to clarify infamous remarks to the London Evening Standard newspaper in which he said that Christianity will "vanish and shrink" and might not outlast rock and roll.

Lennon said: "It's just an expression meaning the Beatles seem to me to have more influence over youth than Christ.

"Now I wasn't saying that was a good idea because I'm one of Christ's biggest fans," he said. "And if I can turn the focus of the Beatles on to Christ's message, then that's what we're here to do."

He said: "If the Beatles get on the side of Christ, which they always were, and let people know that, then maybe the churches won't be full, but there'll be a lot of Christians dancing in the dance halls."

He said the he thought "community praying was probably very powerful" but that he was against "the hypocrisy and the hat-wearing and the socializing and the tea parties."

He said he did not have a notion of a "physical heaven," adding that "the kingdom of heaven is within you, Christ said, and I believe that."

The interview was given the year Lennon quit the Beatles and embarked on a solo career that ended with his death in 1980 when he was shot by Mark Chapman in New York.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Article That Nails It. "a crisis in Islam"

They just don't care. Why? Because terror is a means to an end, that they agree with. A world run by Sharia Law. Simple. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Article

off with their heads


When the non-Muslim world says with clear conviction that Islam propagates extremism, Muslims all around the world, even the terrorists, cry foul and declare that they are maligning Islam.

But is there a loophole some where in this faith that can make a follower an extremist? How can the so-called religion of peace be twisted in such a way that it becomes a weapon of murder? This everyday carnage in the name of Islam has not been taken seriously by the Muslims, thinking this is a kind of protest against oppression.

I went to many mosques to hear the sermons provided by the clerics but was totally disappointed to note that there is no pragmatic approach to this serious issue. They still spread fear in the name of Islam and criminally keep the worshippers in the dark.

The so-called modern educated Muslims play a more vicious role than these illiterate mullahs, because they never touch the real issue, but bring logic to such dastardly and senseless attacks on innocent human beings.

I am appalled to see that, in my opinion, the majority of Muslims are not concerned about this crisis in their faith which they follow with such strong conviction.

A faith that does not value human lives is a cult. The main problem with Islam is its reluctance to embrace reason and logic.

The entire paraphernalia of Islam is protected by the poisonous tentacles of immovable dogmas and ignorance. This dark side is supported by fear and the followers are innumerable. I don't see any escape route.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Under Attack From Foreign Courts..............Again.

How about a law protecting us from our own activist U.S. court???

Foreign Courts Take Aim at Our Free Speech
By ARLEN SPECTER and JOE LIEBERMAN
July 14, 2008; Page A15

online.wsj.com

Our Constitution is one of our greatest assets in the fight against terrorism. A free-flowing marketplace of ideas, protected by the First Amendment, enables the ideals of democracy to defeat the totalitarian vision of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

That free marketplace faces a threat. Individuals with alleged connections to terrorist activity are filing libel suits and winning judgments in foreign courts against American researchers who publish on these matters. These suits intimidate and even silence writers and publishers.

Under American law, a libel plaintiff must prove that defamatory material is false. In England, the burden is reversed. Disputed statements are presumed to be false unless proven otherwise. And the loser in the case must pay the winner's legal fees.

Consequently, English courts have become a popular destination for libel suits against American authors. In 2003, U.S. scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld asserted in her book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It," that Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz helped fund Osama bin Laden. The book was published in the U.S. by a U.S. company. But 23 copies were bought online by English residents, so English courts permitted the Saudi to file a libel suit there.

Ms. Ehrenfeld did not appear in court, so Mr. Bin Mahfouz won a $250,000 default judgment against her. He has filed or threatened to file at least 30 other suits in England.

Fear of a similar lawsuit forced Random House U.K. in 2004 to cancel publication of "House of Bush, House of Saud," a best seller in the U.S. that was written by an American author. In 2007, the threat of a lawsuit compelled Cambridge University Press to apologize and destroy all available copies of "Alms for Jihad," a book on terrorism funding by American authors. The publisher even sent letters to libraries demanding that they destroy their copies, though some refused to do so.

To counter this lawsuit trend, we have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, a Senate companion to a House bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.). This legislation builds on New York State's "Libel Terrorism Protection Act," signed into law by Gov. David Paterson on May 1.

Our bill bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If a jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award treble damages.

First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams argues that "the values of free speech and individual reputation are both significant, and it is not surprising that different nations would place different emphasis on each." We agree. But it is not in our interest to permit the balance struck in America to be upset or circumvented by foreign courts. Our legislation would not shield those who recklessly or maliciously print false information. It would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards. No more. No less.

We have seen this type of libel suit before. The 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan established that journalists must be free to report on newsworthy events unless they recklessly or maliciously publish falsehoods. At that time, opponents of civil rights were filing libel suits to silence news organizations that exposed state officials' refusal to enforce federal civil rights laws.

Now we are engaged in another great struggle -- this time against Islamist terror -- and again the enemies of freedom seek to silence free speech. Our legislation will help ensure that they do not succeed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rube Goldberg Would Be Proud.

Man cuts off own head with chainsaw after losing eviction fight!

London, July 15 (ANI): A 58-year-old man in Hampshire, UK, severed his own head using a chainsaw, after losing an eviction fight.
 Police sources have revealed that David Phyall switched on the saw, and put a timer on the socket.
 He even had a cocktail of pills to knock himself out, and then rested the saw on his neck.
When the timer went off, the saw sliced through his neck in an instant.

 David committed suicide some 10 days ago, and it was his father John who first discovered his body.
 Policemen and paramedics who reached the site said that they found David's blood-soaked corpse.
 "What greeted them was a horrific sight. The head was severed and there was a considerable amount of blood. He seemed to have gone into a great amount of detail to end it all," British tabloid The Sun quoted a Hampshire police source as saying.
 The newspaper reported that David had fought for several years to prevent developers bulldozing the block of 72 flats he rented in, and replacing them. He was last to leave after all the other flats were boarded up in Bishopstoke, Southampton, added the report.
 The paper even said that an eviction notice from housing association Atlantic Housing Ltd might have been the last straw. "We had given him 11 other offers of accommodation but he rejected them, basically because he did not want a property owned by us," said a spokesman for Atlantic. Ron Turtle, residents' association chairman, said: "They offered him several places that were similar but he just didn't want to move. They had to go to court. It is a very sad situation." An inquest into the death was opened at Winchester Coroner's Court, and adjourned. Tests were being carried out to see whether the tablets killed him first. (ANI)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THe New, New Ten Commandments.

London, July 15 (ANI): British government has urged school kids to try oral sex in a bid to cut teen pregnancies.The advice is a part of Ten Commandments for young people released by chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson. 

No thanks the first set work just fine, every time it's tried.

He has suggested that teens should limit their sexual contact to touching, fondling and pleasuring each other. "Sexual behaviour is often unsafe in adolescence. Teenagers have more sexual partners and may use condoms inconsistently or unsuccessfully," the Sun quoted Donaldson, as saying. He suggests: "Think of all the lovely sexy things you can do without actually 'doing it'. "And if you do 'do it', be safe and use a condom," he added.

Does anyone believe this person did any of these things when He was young. I doubt it. Guilty conscience talking here.

His 'stop-short' guidance comes after an explosion in teen pregnancies.However, Donaldson was branded 'grossly irresponsible' by a parents' pressure group.Norman Wells of Family and Youth Concern said: "He should stress the benefits of saving sex for marriage."Over 3,000 girls under 16 gave birth in England and Wales in 2006 and 4,700 had an abortion. (ANI)

Teenage girls have fallen for the "stop-short" lie since the beginning of time. A long with "if you really love me you will do it", "I promise to pull out", and "all the other kids are doing it." Abstinence, it works ever time it's tried.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What A Little Sharia Law In Briton Would Get You.

The Pull quote is this. "Abu Zahra, the Muslim preacher, belongs to hardline Islamic group Hizb Ut Tahrir which once faced a ban. In his sermon at London's Regent's Park mosque last evening, he slated British democracy as criminal, added the paper."  Yes Democracy is the enemy of Islam as this man sees it. And he is correct. I would mean real freedom for all not the fake kind they have under Islam.

www.newstrackindia.com
Hardline Muslim preacher in the UK calls for 'Islamic-amputation and lashings'

London, July 14 (ANI): An extremist Muslim preacher in the UK has reportedly called for 'Islamic-like' punishments in the country, suggesting amputation of hands of thieves and lashing those who indulged in unmarried sex.
 

His demand for 'Islamic-style' punishments was revealed as the row continues over the Lord Chief Justice's recent support for Sharia law, reported The Sun.

Abu Zahra, the Muslim preacher, belongs to hardline Islamic group Hizb Ut Tahrir which once faced a ban. In his sermon at London's Regent's Park mosque last evening, he slated British democracy as criminal, added the paper.
 

Zagra's remark has evoked a strong reaction from the British leaders, even as Tory MP Philip Davies said: "It's unacceptable."
 

According to the paper, in his speech Zahra declared: "Male and female thief - amputate their hands. Those who kill - their life is not secure."
 

And, he slammed unmarried sex, saying: "Lash them", added the paper.
 

Earlier this month, Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips had declared that Islamic legal principles could be applied by courts to resolve certain family, marital, or contractual cases. In a speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips had said that Sharia law could be applied so long as it did not conflict with English law.
 

But, Philips' assertion has been criticized by many lawyers over concerns with the incorporation of religious values and a concern among women's groups that Sharia law was prejudicial to women and principles of equality. (ANI)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

He Will Probaly Win His Case.

www.adnkronos.com

Netherlands: Radical imam claims damages for anti-Koran film

Amsterdam, 14 July (AKI) The radical Muslim cleric Sheikh Imam Fawaz Jneid is claiming 55,000 euros in damages from far-right Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders for allegedly damaging his reputation in a controversial anti-Koran film.

The cleric was shown in Wilders' film 'Fitna'. The 17-minute film features verses of the Koran against images of terrorist attacks.

Wilders, quoted by Radio Netherlands says Jneid's claim "is the world upside down."

His film sparked protests in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia and has led to calls in some countries for a boycott of Dutch products.

Wilders says the imam "has cursed" Somali feminist and author, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and late Dutch filmmaker,Theo van Gogh.

Hirsi Ali received death threats after writing the script for van Gogh's short film 'Submission' criticising women's treatment in Muslim society.

A Muslim extremist murdered van Gogh in an Amsterdam street soon after the film aired on Dutch TV in 2004.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

For All You Christian Sheeple Who Want To Vote Obama.

You can't in all good conscience be a Christian, and vote for Obama, and here is a few reasons why. From Doug Giles at TownHall.com

Effervescent Evangelicals Ogle Obama

I’m blown away by how bubbly some supposed evangelicals have become over Barack Obama. Several major “evangelical” ministers, Christian entertainers (whatever that means), and lesser pundits have thrown their names and crowds behind BHO for POTUS.

I’d like to name their names, but that would somehow flatter them and then their posse would email/call me and I’d have to talk to them and act nice and stuff, which is about as appealing to me as watching Joan Rivers make out with Cher.

Before I’m labeled a hater by the Ichthus wing of the Obama camp, I’d like to clarify for all the whiners everywhere who are having a hissy over my opposition to Obama that I don’t hate him nor do I want to cut his nuts off like Jesse Jackson would like to. The only people I hate are the crappy drivers down here in Miami, al Qaeda and of course all dry cleaners.

In addition, I’m sure Obama’s a nice guy, for a politician—except, obviously, not to the baby he’s completely cool with aborting. And that’s what our pigmentally-enhanced junior state senator from Chicago is: a politician. Nothing more, nothing less (insert yawn here).

Heck, even his sensei for the last 20 years, the pastor of good tidings of great joy (plus bigotry, anti-American rhetoric and whacked conspiracy theories), the reverend Jeremiah Wright, has said the above about his famous disciple. Yep, Barack’s main holy man stated as he tumbled beneath the bus Obama flung him under a couple of months ago that BHO puts the Mac in Machiavelli.

But what does Reverend Wright know about Obama’s character? And what does BHO’s uber-liberal secular to le core voting record prove?

Apparently nothing to some of God’s easy-to-fleece sheep who have blown off the moral/cultural imperatives inherent within Scripture for their svelte savior’s savoir-faire. (Notice the French? We’d better speak French or BHO will get PO’ed.)

No, to some of the hip and groovy progressive Christians, it doesn’t matter that Obama’s worldview is not a Christian one but rather a secular point of view. (BTW, a worldview, for believers unfamiliar with the term, is not what you get when you have a window seat on Delta.)

You did know, Christian, that Scripture has a worldview inherent within its text that . . . uh . . . didn’t get there by accident, and you don’t get to vote on, and which you do not need an Ovaltine decoder ring or a Windtalker to unscramble. Yep, the Christian worldview ain’t foggy and is definitely not liberal. Matter of fact, on pretty much every issue it rubs up against it comes out conservative—and on some issues hard-edge conservative.

So, my lost liberal brethren, if you’re feeling frisky and you’re open and brave, I’ve got a book you’ve got to read after you finish reading The Audacity of Hype for the fourth time. It’s by David Klinghoffer and is titled How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative. Check it out, but don’t let your friends see you do it. It could cost you some buddies . . .


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gay Life In The Italian Mafia.

www.lifeinitaly.com
(ANSA) - Rome, July 11 - The Italian Mafia's gay bosses
are afraid of coming out because they would get tossed out of
the organisation, Palermo prosecutor Antonio Ingroia said on
Friday.


I thinks that should have been "tossed out a window."

Ingroia told the YouTube show Klauscondicio the Italian
Mafia is an ''archaic organisation'' which still
discriminates against gays.
''Being gay is still a taboo for Italian society in
general, let alone the Mafia which is still an archaic
organisation. These bosses have to cover their homosexuality,
they're afraid because they risk being tossed out''.
Ingroia said the Italo-American Mafia had ''a more
broad-minded attitude towards gays and so gay bosses can come
out''.


So the Italian Mafia needs sensitivity training?

The Palermo prosecutor also told Klauscondicio that the
Catholic Church should be more outspoken in its fight against
the Mafia.
''Only 30 percent of the Sicilian (Catholic) Church
takes an active and leading role in the fight against the
Mafia''.
He urged Pope Benedict XVI to follow his predecessor's
example by taking a strong stance against the Mafia, saying
this would be extremely useful in swaying youths and ''even
mafiosi''.
John Paul II won enduring esteem for his ringing
condemnation of the Mafia, most notably during a trip to
Sicily in 1993 when he warned mafiosi that they, too, would
one day ''face God's judgement''.


Sure be on the Popes side when he condemns the Mafia, but if He condemns Homosexuality they want to throw him out a window.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Who's who in the world of jihad"

They left out the U.S. Democrat lead congress and some members of the Obama campaign.
www.guardian.co.uk

AL-JIHAD was created out of a network of underground cells that sprang up in Egypt in the late Sixties. Its leaders, Dr Fadl and Ayman al-Zawahiri, shared the aim of overthrowing the Egyptian government and replacing it with an Islamic state, but they diff ered in their methods, with Fadl expressing doubts about the eff ectiveness of violent attacks against a far more powerful enemy. In 1981 soldiers linked to the group assassinated the president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat. In 2001, under the leadership of Zawahiri, al-Jihad merged with al-Qaeda

AL-QAEDA was formed in the summer of 1988 by Arab veterans of the war against the Russians in Afghanistan. The organisation aimed to spread jihad to other parts of the world where Muslims were suff ering. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Dr Fadl were all founding members. The presence of US troops on Saudi soil in the fi rst Gulf War sowed he seeds of the virulent anti- Americanism that would explode into the world's consciousness on 11 September 2001

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
is a Sunni political organisation that advocates a return to 'pure' Islamic values based on a literal reading of the Koran. While it claims to be a peaceful organisation, it has taken part in several political assassinations and an arson campaign in Egypt. It created Hamas in Gaza during the Eighties

THE ISLAMIC GROUP
appeared in the Seventies and was dedicated to overthrowing the Egyptian government. Unlike al-Jihad, which organised into sleeper cells designed for covert terrorist attacks, the Islamic Group attempted to start an open social revolution in Egypt. By the end of the Nineties the group had thousands of followers in jail. A peace deal was brokered between the organisation and the Egyptian government, leading to a formal renunciation of violence by the group's leaders

HAMAS emerged in 1987 from the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood and became active during the fi rst intifada. It is dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic state. It claims to be politically rather than religiously motivated, although its rhetoric is often framed in religious terms and 'martyrdom' is central to its operations

THE TALIBAN is primarily made up of members of the Pashtun community from Afghanistan and Pakistan. The infl ux of foreign fi ghters and money during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan meant the Taliban's ideology was infl uenced by their powerful Wahhabi benefactors - men like Osama bin Laden. They governed Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001, implementing a rigorous Islamic code of conduct. The group is currently behind a fi erce insurgency in southern Afghanistan.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Something From The "Muslims In Europe Just Want To Get Along" File.

From gatesofvienna.blogspot.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »