I just finished watching a 12 minute version of the movie Obsession:Radical Islam’s War On The West and you NEED to watch this thing. First it will make you say "Holy Sh##! (these guys are serious!) and then it will really scare you. It is CHILLING to watch small children calling for our deaths and promising to go to their own to accomplish this goal.

After viewing this you will understand why we can’t placate or negotiate with these extremists. You don’t explain to someone that has been trained from childhood that we are THE enemy that – "hey its all a big misunderstanding and that, no really, we’re nice". That doesn’t work. Best case you lock up someone hell bent on your death – at least until you’ve had time to deprogram them. This is something we can’t keep our head in the sand and hope that it goes away.

This film is an actually documentary – not a docu-drama or the like. It uses video footage that has subtext. Some of it is english some of it arabic and some of it is a mix. They are currently looking for a distributor to show their film. Hey maybe the Canadians that released the contraversal film showing the assasination of George Bush could distribute this independant film as well…

This movie used two web sites as a place to get much of the translated footage:? MEMRI TV (Middle East Media Research Institute) and PMW (Palestinian Media Watch).? Both of the sites have even more stuff that will (or at least should) scare you.? The PMW has a clip of a Senate Commitee reaction to some of the footage of children wanting to become suicide bombers.? Even Sen Hillary Clinton goes off on how crazy this training of the palestinian children is…. this is not a Republican vs Democrat thing, this is not a Liberal vs Conservative thing, this is the West vs the Terrorists thing!

So a little know political blog called the Strata Sphere has caused Senator Harry Reid a great deal of trouble. Apparently the Strata posted some info on some shady land deals by the Senator. Then one of the site’s visitors (someone familar with Nevada’s court documentation of land titles) posted pages and pages of Reid’s deals. We’re not talking speculation here – actually court documentation of land transfers. A bit hard to refute.

Well then old Rush Limbaugh caught wind of it and brought it to national attention on his radio show. With that, the cat was officially out of the bag and Reid is now busy ammending his ethics disclosure to Congress regarding the land deal to "ensur[e] all facts come to light."

Reid decides to amend ethics reports

…The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas’ booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn’t disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown’s company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown’s company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator’s investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown’s company without public knowledge, but still collect the payoff three years later.

Hey, isn’t this the guy that’s always complaining about a "culture of corruption"? Seems like he would feel right at home in such a culture…
UPDATE: Now Reid has added to his disclosure update. Apparently he used campaign money for christmas gifts/tips.? The "oversight" is being corrected by paying back the campaign with his personal money.? I wonder what corrects will occur next week?

Read an interesting piece on the decline of "Liberal Christianity". It goes into some specific causes for the failing of the "church of the future" and it doesn’t get preachy – it just points out the actual result of the changes in doctrine.

The results are not surprising. I have been saying for years that those that seek to water down (tone down, whatever) the Christian to make it more "seeker friendly" – and therefore increase attendance/membership – are completely missing the point of "seekers".

Consider this: If you are seeking purpose and meaning in your life and decide to go check out Christianity. You go to church to discover that everything acceptable outside the church is also acceptable inside the church. Why would you stay? What’s the point of joining something that is in no way different from your current life? What could it possibly change in your life?

Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins

"…Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church. Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating…

…You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God’s name to Sophia? Go ahead…

…When a church doesn’t take itself seriously, neither do its members… "

Thanks Jeremy

On the 5 year anniversary of the tragedy of 9/11, the country reflects on both how we got there and where we go from here.  And not just the country – the movie industry does as well and gets vastly different responses.

Part 1 of The Path To 9/11 aired last night – HEAVILY edited due to pressure from President Clinton and his administration.  I can say with confidence that it was heavy editing as it was 20 minutes shorter than it's time slot.  These weren't small changes.

ABC bows to Clinton pressure and edits 9/11 series

The American television network, ABC, aired its controversial mini-series about the build-up to the September 11 attacks last night, but only after issuing three disclaimers that the drama was fictional and editing scenes that had attracted the wrath of Bill Clinton and members of his administration….

The version of the film given to reviewers emphasised that it was based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission report and suggested that the Clinton White House directly interfered with attempts to kill bin Laden, who later went on to direct the attacks.

Last week, the former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, the former National Security Adviser, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, and the head of the Clinton Foundation, Bruce Lindsey, wrote to Robert Iger, the chief of executive of Disney, which owns ABC, asking him to cancel the show. Harvey Keitel, one of the stars of the $40 million production, also said it should be re-edited.

Last night that pressure appeared to have had an effect: several controversial scenes had been edited and some had been removed altogether. A disclaimer reminded viewers three times that they were watching a fictionalised rather than a historical account of the years before the attacks.

Several commentators have already cried foul and hippocrocy, since the Clinton Administration had no problem with Micheal Moore's film Fahrenheit 911.  Which most will agree took -uh- great creative license with the facts surrounding 9/11.

Meanwhile another docu-drama is focusing on the future resulting from the 9/11 attacks.  The quite near future of 2007 in fact.  October 2007, when President Bush is successfully assassinated in Chicago.  Supporters are quick to point out that only recently a fictitious former president was assassinated in the hit show 24.  Not exactly the same as displaying the depicting the assassination of a CURRENT SITTING PRESIDENT.

Film Festival Director Raves About 'Assassinate Bush' Movie

(CNSNews.com) – "Xenophobia, the hidden costs of war and the nature of civil liberties in a hyper-media age all come under the microscope" in a controversial movie depicting the fictional assassination of President Bush. [say what?]

So says Noah Cowan, director of the Toronto Film Festival, where the British-made movie will premier on Sept. 10….

Until now, the movie has been referred to by the Toronto Film Festival as simply "D.O.A.P.," but at a press conference in Britain Thursday, it was announced by the title "Death of a President"….
Continue reading →