Thursday, April 5, 2012

See it here....

Michelle Obama's Princeton University Thesis

See it here and laugh...it is totally incoherent, makes no sense, and rattles on and on and on.  Michelle Obama, a product of Affirmative Action.

http://obamaprincetonthesis.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/1985_michelle_obama_princeton_thesis.pdf

You MUST click the links and watch the videos...amazing!

President Goes ‘Green’ — Recycles Yesterday’s Budget Speech From his 2011 Budget Speech  


Not much description is needed here; the headline pretty much says it all.

“Obama’s budget speech yesterday recycled the exact same scare tactics he used last year,” the RNC’s YouTube page reads:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-goes-green-recycles-yesterdays-budget-speech-from-his-2011-budget-speech/

In fact, this isn’t even the first time the RNC has caught the president doing this. You may recall a similar video from January that showed side-by-side comparisons of the president’s 2011 and 2012 State of the Union addresses:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-goes-green-recycles-yesterdays-budget-speech-from-his-2011-budget-speech/

“If you thought the 2012 State of the Union was very similar to President Obama’s past State of the Union speeches, you were right,” the RNC YouTube page states.

Huh. Maybe that Danish TV host was right: maybe the copy key is stuck on the president‘s speechwriter’s keyboard.
An absolutely beautiful story that honors a fallen warrior.

http://www.9news.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1298199044001&odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|featured

Marine Who Called Obama “The Enemy” Is Fighting For His Right To Free Speech


Gary Stein SC Marine Who Called Obama The Enemy Is Fighting For His Right To Free Speech
How many currently enlisted soldiers do you know who are openly criticizing President Barack Hussein Obama in public?

Marine Sergeant Gary E. Stein is one of them. Sgt. Stein is a recruiter based at Camp Pendleton in California. He has received glowing recommendations from his superiors. He has been a marine since July 15, 2003; five years later, he was promoted to the rank of Sergeant. Stein is hoping to reenlist when his current term of service expires in just under four months from now, and he has asked for his current term to be extended until June 28, 2013 (this request is currently pending.)

He is the founder of the Facebook page called the Armed Forces Tea Party, which he formed in 2010 as an expression of free speech. The page  currently has more than 26,000 followers  and according to its description is ”in no way affiliated with the military, or United States Armed Forces.”

He has spoken at several tea party events in southern California during the last two years outside of uniform.

Unfortunately, Sgt. Stein is facing dismissal from the Marines over some comments he has made about Obama recently, notably that the current occupier of the White House is “the enemy“. He also has said that he will not follow what he considers to be any “unlawful order” given by Obama. Stein believes that attempts to throw him out of the military are really about silencing his right to speak out against the president.

Subsequently, Stein has, with the help of the United States Justice Foundation, decided to sue Colonel C.S. Dowling, his commanding officer; Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the US Navy (and Dowling’s superior); The US Department of Defense; the United States Government; and Bridagier General Daniel Yoo, who has threatened Stein with dismissal.  He feels that his First and Fifth amendment rights under our Constitution have been violated in the process of attempted separation from service with the Marines. Sgt. Stein insists that he did not agree to give up his right to free speech when he enlisted almost nine years ago.

According to the complaint filed on April 3rd in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Stein and his lawyers believe that “though the First Amendment may operate differently in the military and civilian contexts, the military must still respect a service member’s freedom of speech.”

They also believe that the “Defendants are attempting to railroad (Stein) out of the Marine Corps, with an Other Than Honorable discharge, on extremely short notice…without due process of law” in contradiction to DOD Directive 1344.10 (which protects the US citizenship rights of all members of the armed forces.)

Over the past two years, Stein, along with three friends, used their Facebook page to voice their concerns about the direction America was going. They did not just criticize Obama; they also went after John McCain, the four remaining GOP presidential candidates, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. The four were insistent that they were not commenting on issues of public policy as representatives of the US Military but instead as concerned civilians.

In April 2010, Sgt. Stein was asked to appear on Chris Matthews’ MSNBC program “Hardball.” Although he received permission from his immediate superior, he was asked en route to the set of the show to return to base immediately. Soon afterwards, Sgt. Stein  was told that he was suspected of using government resources in updating his private Facebook page; he had no problem temporarily taking the page down while they reviewed the matter. Subsequently, Stein was encouraged to include the disclaimer about expressing strictly personal views. He was never actually asked to take down the page.

From November 2010 through March 12 of this year, none of Stein’s superiors tried to restrict or censor his views in any way, shape, or form. He also never encouraged any of his fellow soldiers to disobey any particular orders issued by any superior officer or to carry out any unlawful acts themselves. Sgt. Stein was never told that he was “walking on thin ice” or doing anything wrong by expressing his views as a civilian.

Suddenly, on March 21, Stein was told by his commanding officer (Dowling) that he was recommending that the Sergeant be discharged from the Marines because of “alleged misconduct” that was “prejudicial to good order and discipline.” The notification itself was brief and rather vague. Essentially, it was an ambush.

As mentioned earlier, Stein is fighting an “OTH” discharge. This characterization is “the worst possible mark on a service member’s record that can be imposed” short of being court-martialed. It would strip him of most if not all of his military benefits and would be a black spot on his record, following him for the rest of his life and impacting his ability to make a living in the future.

To make matters worse, the notification required Stein to respond within two days; it was served to him during a period when the defense military lawyers (Judge Advocates) on his base were at training and therefore would leave him without anyone to consult before he had to file his response. He responded promptly, and the defendants in this case scheduled a hearing to take place only nine days after the notification was first served. Although he and his civilian  lawyers were able to postpone this hearing until April 5, subsequently they were denied more time to prepare for the hearing every time they made such a request.

According to the complaint, Stein and his lawyers have claimed that they  ”have had insufficient time to prepare for the hearing on the Notification, the results of which may severely prejudice Stein with respect to his continues military career, future employment, and other important aspects of his life.”

Sgt. Gary Stein and his lawyers want the Court to declare that his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the defendants. They argue that the defendants’ interpretation of certain DOD rules led to the violation of his rights. Stein would also like all dismissal proceedings against him to cease; alternatively, should this request not be granted by the court, then he at least would like to be given more time (at least a month) to prepare for his hearing. Finally, Stein wants the defendants to pay his attorneys’ fees and for the expenses he has and will have to endure to settle this legal matter.

Photo Courtesy of Gary Stein via AP.

To watch the original CNN video about this story, click here: http://www.westernjournalism.com/marine-calls-president-obama-the-enemy/

The True Reason For Obamacare


Obamacare SC The True Reason For Obamacare
A week ago, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy observed that implementation of the Affordable Care Act stood to “…change the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

Although Kennedy was probably unaware of it at the time, that “change” is precisely what the authors of ObamaCare have hoped to impose on the American public for decades. For healthcare itself was never the real purpose of the massive, complex, and overreaching law as the following information should make clear.

Charged with defending the constitutionality of the Act before the Court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the Justices that some 40 million Americans were either permanently or occasionally without health insurance.
But were that number 50 million, as has been claimed by some ObamaCare advocates during the past year, these facts must be considered:

  • 8 million of that number are Medicaid recipients and therefore NOT uninsured
  • 10 million are illegal aliens
  • 11 million earn in excess of $75,000/yr and pay a substantial portion of any healthcare costs out of pocket
  • 9 million earn over $50,000/yr and also pay for much of their own healthcare

Of the 20 million higher income individuals above, many are young and CHOOSE to not have health insurance. And interestingly, in a Gallup poll, 60% of those who are uninsured and making between $30,000-$75,000 per year rate their healthcare as “good” or “excellent” in spite of having no insurance!

So rather than 50 million, it is only some 20 million American citizens who might actually be uninsured for extended periods of time. And even they can obtain healthcare at no charge from hospitals and clinics, which are compensated in part each year by federal or state government grants and must by law provide care, regardless of ability to pay.

In 2010, the “…Medicare chief actuary, [said] that Obamacare would raise nationwide health costs by over $300 billion through 2019 in relation to what those costs would be without Obamacare.”

And the Senate Budget Committee had reported the addition of another $17 trillion in unfunded mandates over the next three quarters of a century, thanks to spending obligations added by Obamacare.

Do the American people NEED a 3,000 page law and dizzying expense factors in order to provide healthcare for 20 million people? Doesn’t this extraordinary departure from common sense and fiscal responsibility make it obvious that the LAST thing the congressional Democrat supermajority of 2008 really had in mind was the effective implementation and administration of healthcare?

When Barack Hussein Obama vowed to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” black voters believed it would translate into more free goods and services; organized labor dreamed of increasing dues, membership, and power; and gullible, guilt-ridden whites envisioned the post-racial melding of happy races and forgiveness of past sins.

But the radical left, typified by the inner circle of the Manchurian Candidate, backed Obama’s duplicitous ramblings because they understood the REAL significance of his “utopian” vision of the future.  And that vision has assumed the form of law in ObamaCare as the claim of universal coverage becomes a scheme of nationwide enslavement.

Five men have the deadly serious job of making certain that it doesn’t come to pass.


Photo Credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)
Understanding The Slave Mentality « The Grunge Factor
By: Brandon Smith



In the initial stages of nearly every recorded tyranny, the saucer eyed dumbstruck masses exhibit astonishing and masterful skill when denying reality.  The facts behind their dire circumstances and of their antagonistic government become a source of cynical psychological gameplay rather than a source of legitimate concern.  Their desperate need to maintain their normalcy bias creates a memory and observation vacuum in which all that runs counter to their false assumptions and preconceptions disappears forever.  It is as if they truly cannot see the color of the sky, or the boot on their face.  The concrete world of truth becomes a dream, an illusion that can be heeded or completely ignored depending on one’s mood.  For them, life is a constant struggle of dissociation, where the tangible is NOT welcome…

This is the problem that we in the Liberty Movement deal with most often in our writings and films.  Our confrontation with willful ignorance has been epic, even by far reaching historical standards.  The gains in social awareness have been substantial, and yet the obstacles are incredible.  Unprecedented.  As an activist trend, we have an almost obsessive drive to draw back the curtain so that the public has at least the opportunity to see what is on the other side.  Unfortunately, there is another danger that must be taken into account…

It is one thing to bear witness to the rejection of truth in our time and the oblivious attitudes of many towards the growth of totalitarianism.  Eventually, though, a second phase in the development of oligarchy arises.  I am speaking of the point at which tyranny becomes so blatant that the skeptics have to acknowledge its existence, but after doing so, they choose to rationalize it as necessary.  Yes, there are many in this world that will laugh at the prospect of the Orwellian nightmare only to happily embrace it when it arrives in full color.

I was recently looking into the divisive issue of U.S. Marine Sgt. Gary Stein, whose position has come under threat due to his criticisms of Barack Obama and his founding of the ‘Armed Forces Tea Party Facebook Page’.  What I discovered was a large number of Americans in support of Stein’s right to speak as a citizen (even under Marine regulations) against the unconstitutional actions of any president or presidential candidate.  I also discovered a considerable number who wanted to see the soldier dishonorably discharged, or even set upon a noose as punishment.

Now, we all know that the Department of Defense monitors web news and social networking activity, and they have been caught red handed in the past posing as regular citizens with strangely militant pro-authoritarian views (look into their organized propaganda attacks on websites dealing with the levee failures during Katrina, for instance).  It is by no means a stretch to suggest that they would also troll the comments sections of mainstream news articles in an attempt to engineer a fraudulent consensus that Sgt. Stein’s actions have been negatively received by the majority of Americans.  But that aside, the underlings at the DOD are still Americans, and the views they espouse are still expressions of a subsection of this country (a small elitist one).  Also, sadly, there are plenty of non-government-paid people out there who believe exactly as they do.

Surely, we can debate over the details of Marine regulations until our ears bleed, and I could point out several facts that the mainstream media did not cover in their hit pieces on Stein (like the fact that he went to his superiors and asked them to advise him in the handling of his political position long before the present charges against him were ever formulated, and the fact that he followed many of their suggestions…), but ultimately, the regulations of the Marines or the Federal Government are irrelevant.  Such laws are transitory, and are usually written so broadly that the authorities of the day can execute them however they wish to fit their needs at the moment.  The real question here is one of principle, moral compass, and Constitutionality (a document which is a reflection of eternal natural law).  We have to set aside the pointless legalese of defense standards in the case of Sgt. Stein and ask ourselves an important question; do U.S. troops have a right to free speech?

If you believe so, then their rights are not limited or exclusive.  They are free to say whatever any other American has a right to say.  If you believe they do not, then you have relegated the troops to the position of second class citizens, or even property of the state.  There is NO in-between.  Discipline and military coherence be damned.  Either these men and women have First Amendment protections and are full citizens or they are mechanisms of the government whose civil liberties have been erased.

Even though I understand the psychology behind it, I am still shaken with raw electrical astonishment when confronted by those who support the latter notion that American soldiers are indeed property of the state, that their actions must be dictated by the president and not the Constitution, and that this is required for the military to function.

Very few of these absurd multitudes ever ask what “function” such a military, populated by ethical robots who are blindly subservient to the dictates of a single man, would actually serve?

What good is an unprincipled military?  An unprincipled government?  An unprincipled society?  What reason is there for these constructs to exist?  The Nuremberg Trials solidified the reality that soldiers will be held accountable for following criminal orders, and still, there are some who claim that our troops must adopt a shoot first pay later methodology.

I bring up the circumstances of Sgt. Stein to illustrate the situation our nation is currently facing; we are on the threshold of total despotism, where the naysayers who shrugged off the threat of rogue government yesterday suddenly embrace it and support it today.  When Stewart Rhodes first formed the Oath Keepers organization, the same talking point was consistently used in an attempt to derail it; “The orders you would refuse to obey could never occur in this country…”

And yet, many of the warnings of Oath Keepers have come to pass, including the unlawful disarming of peaceful U.S. citizens during the disaster in New Orleans, the institution of government directed assassination programs of U.S. citizens under Bush and Obama, the passing of NDAA legislation which includes provisions for indefinite detainment of Americans without trial, warrantless wiretapping, surveillance, and even home invasion by authorities is becoming common, and the Obama Administration has put into place several executive orders (including the The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO) which pave the way for Martial Law to be declared.

The cold hard reality is, the Oath Keepers were right, and Sgt. Stein is right.

And, now that this is becoming undeniable, the opponents of their tenets are switching gears to fight for the implementation of unconstitutional laws which they used to deny were even possible.  Can this situation be any more insane?  Oh yes…

There are no limits to the surrealist hell that can be unleashed when dealing with what I like to call the “Slave Mentality”.  The slave mentality takes many shapes.  It is pervasive in times of social distress, and, it can be infectious.  The psychologist Carl Jung wrote in his book ‘The Undiscovered Self’ that the cruel sociopathy seen in the populations of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia is actually latent in many of us.  All it needs is the right set of sociopolitical circumstances and a weak enough will, and the shadows in the hearts of lesser men are given license to come out and play.  This is just as true in America, where people now operate on assumptions that the state is an absolute provider in the event of national calamity.

But what are the signs of this unconscious desire for collectivism and control?  What makes a slave do what he does?  Here are just a handful of explanations to consider…

The True Slave: The true slave is not a person who has been shackled, beaten, tortured, and made to comply under threat of death.  As long as that poor soul has the spirit of rebellion and is ever seeking freedom, they are not imprisoned fully.  The true slave is a person who enjoys their subservience, who is weighted with fear by the very idea of independence from the system, and who would actually fight and die to maintain the establishment which enslaves them.  The true slave is not able to imagine living any other life beyond his micro-managed existence.

The Facts Lose Value: The worst flaw of the slave is not necessarily his ability to overlook the truth, but his ability to see it, comprehend it, and then shrug it off anyway because it is contrary to his mission to fulfill his private delusions.  For the slave, the truth exists, but is no longer useful.  Lies make his universe turn, and facts are a tool to be used or cast aside at his leisure.

The Obsession With The Law:
The slave mentality, though illogical and psychotic, still requires a certain foundation to hold it together.  The laws of governments tend to suffice.  These laws may go completely against the force of inherent conscience, but because the slave has already abandoned listening to his inner voice of reason, this does not bother him much.  If you have ever wondered why modern tyrannies always feel the need to put their horrific enforcements in writing first, THIS is why.  Oligarchs understand that the law provides the slave with a means to rationalize his participation in the crimes of the state.  After all, if some gut-bloated bloodthirsty elitists in government etch their mad inbred ramblings into law, then we have no choice but to follow them, right?

The Need To Be Accepted: A slave seeks harmony not within, but without, even when that “harmony” is with a system that is designed to destroy him.  The viciousness of collectivism lay in its ability to comfort converts with atrocity.  As long as the slave feels as though he is a part of the machine, and accepted by the group, he cares not what the machine does to others.  Common arguments include; “We all have to live together, and so we must sacrifice our selfish individualism for the greater good…” or “Governments are here to protect us and we should do everything we can to make their job easier…”  Rarely if ever do they question if the system is legitimately helpful or harmful.  The system just “is”, it fulfills their need to be coddled, and that is good enough for them.  For all their talk of “unity” and the “greater good”, collectivists are for the most part deeply selfish.  They do not support or participate in the collective for the sake of others.  They do it to satiate their personal desires.

The Need For Control:
I suppose it’s ironic, but the average slave loves tyranny because it affords him a perceived seat at the table of power, perhaps for the first time in his entire life.  Collectivist slaves are often people who have felt weak and inadequate since childhood.  While honorable human beings fight this personal uncertainty by strengthening themselves physically and mentally, and improving upon their own character, the slave takes the easy route by joining with bureaucracy and living vicariously through its conquests.  Through the state, the hollow, cowardly, and stupid, have the ability to “show the world who’s boss”, and get revenge for a life filled with meaninglessness.

The Need For Structure:
An individual takes responsibility for himself, learning over time to provide his own structure which works at his pace and serves his unique needs.  A slave does not have the energy or the drive to do that, and so, he asks the establishment to tell him how he should live.  He will hold at face value the word of nearly anyone in a position of petty authority.  When confronted with those who go their own way, or who rebel against the cookie-cutter template for social participation, the slave sneers in disgust.  Independent rebellion is abhorrent to him, because the system provides him with his very identity.  To insult the fabric of the system is to insult who he is.  It’s pathetic, but common…

The Need For Vindication: Sometimes it is not enough for certain people to have their own world view.  The slave seeks approval for his world view at every turn, even if that world view is twisted by bleary eyed logic, and will go so far as to force others to agree with it so that they can feel safer in their beliefs.  It is natural for people to seek out others with similar views and ideals, but, it is not natural or healthy for those same people to use the government apparatus as a weapon to frighten the rest of us into submission just so they can become more confident in their ludicrous slapdash philosophies.  Slaves want a world without contradiction.  Laughably, everything they do is a contradiction.

What I have seen in a number of the reactions to the honest activism of Sgt. Gary Stein is a knee-jerk bias that reeks of the slave mentality, but it offers us a window in gauging the leanings of the general public.  Now that the once theoretical dangers of federal fascism are breaking the surface of the water and circling the American sinking ship, the great test is to watch closely where the masses place their priorities.  Will they take the path of the individual, admit to the laboratory mutation that our government has become, and try to make things right again?  Or, will they take the path of the slave, forget their past follies and empty arguments, and jump on the totalitarian bandwagon?  Certainly, it is not as if the cheerleaders of the state usually get out of the tumult with all their limbs intact.  In most cases, they are lucky to get out alive once the smoke clears.

One might think that the lessons of history would be guide enough, but then again, the average slave has taken every conceivable measure to ensure that his particular fantasy land is magical enough to withstand substantial examination.  The system is their drug, and the upheaval that free thought brings is such a buzz-kill…


You can contact Brandon Smith atbrandon@alt-market.com
Op-ed:
Will the Supreme Court do the right thing  
By: Diane Sori

As I sit here waiting with baited breath to see if the Supreme Court will do the right thing and overturn not only the individual mandate but the entirety of ObamaCare, one thing I am certain of is that is if it is indeed overturned, either partially or fully, Obama will most definitely start a rampage of desecration on the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution.  All his blovations of the last few days show his complete lack of regard for the principles and rights our Founding Fathers set down when they created the greatest document to freedom the world has ever known.

Obama alluded to the fact that no court has ever overturned “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”.  Oh, how wrong he is…in fact the Supreme Court has overturned 158 Federal laws since its inception (as of 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available; the database may be updated in 2012).

In addition, the Supreme Court has declared a total of 1,315 laws unconstitutional using the process of judicial review.

A little history: The first time the Court declared a federal law unconstitutional was in Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion for Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), in which he asserted Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it extended to The Supreme Court an act of original jurisdiction not explicitly granted by the Constitution. 

Here’s a list of the number of laws found Unconstitutional or Preempted in the years between 1789-2002 according to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158
1789-2002 State Statutes held Unconstitutional.........................................935
1789-2002 City Ordinances held Unconstitutional.....................................222
1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws......................224
Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional..............1,315
Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws............................224
Total Laws Overturned, all governments.................................................1,539

And this, the so-called Constitutional law professor, Barack Hussein Obama, did NOT know!

So, with all his bloviations, I believe what Obama is really saying is that the Supreme Court must not be allowed to overturn his precious bill that was passed by the Democratic majority.  Remember, not one Republican voted for this bill and rightly so, as they knew it was something the majority of Americans did NOT want.

This case has Obama more worried about his legacy, especially in this election year, than he is about doing what is best for the majority, as he continues to cater and pander to his voting base, whether it be the die-hard libertards, the sheeple, the apathetic, or those tied to government handouts and freebies he so loves to spend OUR taxpayer dollars on.

I know Obama has no respect for, nor does he honor, the Constitution, the very document ‘We the People’ hold dear.  Obama and his left-wing political cronies do everything possible to trample and dishonor this document, and they show no signs of letting up.  And knowing that, I sit here and wait for The Court’s decision.  I just hope and pray that the justices have the guts and courage to do what they know is the right thing to do…overturn this monstrosity and send a strong message to Obama that he can NO longer trample and desecrate our beloved Constitution.  Who knows, maybe if they do, the ball will start rolling towards Obama’s political demise.


Holy Shroud! Was resurrection story inspired by the cloth?

NBC's Keith Miller discusses the debate over the Shroud of Turin in a 2010 report.

The Shroud of Turin has been seen as many things over the past 620 years, ranging from true burial cloth of the risen Jesus to clever medieval fake, but Cambridge art historian Thomas de Wesselow puts together a 448-page-long case for one of the lesser-known theories in his new book, "The Sign": that the shroud's negative image of a naked, bloodied man was really produced by Jesus' decomposition, and that the stories of his resurrection were inspired by the display of that cloth to his earliest disciples.

"The message really is that the Shroud of Turin is authentic," de Wesselow told me. "This is the only rational way of understanding this image. It can be understood entirely naturalistically. There's no reason to invoke a miracle to explain the image."

De Wesselow acknowledged this could be a hard sell for believers as well as for skeptics. "There are two big things I am arguing against," he admitted.

He's already taking flak from both sides.

"It's breathtakingly astonishing," said Joe Nickell, a senior research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry who has written extensively about the shroud. "He's clearly not a doubting Thomas. He's come up with some rather silly ideas, and then as people often do, he's fallen in love with them."

Meanwhile, in a column about the shroud, the Catholic Herald's Francis Phillips basically brushed off de Wesselow's views, saying they were "too eccentric to reproduce here."

Legends and lore for Easter
"The Sign" is the latest example of shroud lore that comes out during the Easter season, just around the time when millions of Christians are dwelling on the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. (I'm linking to other examples at the end of this item.) The Shroud of Turin has a clear line of provenance going back to around 1390, but when you try to go further back, you can easily get swept up in tales of the Knights Templar and legendary relics like the Veil of Veronica and the Holy Mandylion.

De Wesselow comes at the story from his background in art history. He's been researching the story of the shroud full-time for the past five years, and has woven together an explanation from scientific findings that seem to support the shroud's authenticity, plus perspectives on the animist beliefs of ancient peoples.
"I've studied images, what they mean and how they affect people," de Wesselow said. "In the old days, people saw images as potentially alive. They had potentially a consciousness. ... That type of thinking was absolutely standard before the modern age. It has nothing to do with an optical illusion, and it has nothing to do with people being stupid."

De Wesselow picks up on the idea that the shroud is actually a "vaporograph," colored by a chemical reaction between the gases exuded by a dead body and the carbohydrate deposits on the surface of Jesus' burial cloth. Blood stains were left on the cloth as well. When the shroud was taken from the body, the ghostly image remained behind — and de Wesselow said Jesus' disciples could have interpreted that image as the spiritual manifestation of their leader.

"The appearances of the risen Jesus were simply viewings of the shroud image," he said.

Here's what de Wesselow thinks happened next: After a series of viewings in the Holy Land, the shroud was and taken to the city of Edessa in modern-day Turkey, where it came to be folded up, framed and venerated by the Byzantine Christians as the Mandylion. The cloth was transferred to Constantinople in the 10th century, and disappeared in the year 1204, only to turn up again in France in the 1300s. The shroud was transferred to Turin in 1578, and it's been there ever since.

Holes in the theory?
What about the biblical references to the risen Jesus conversing with the apostles, or eating fish to prove he was really real, or letting St. Thomas touch his wounds? De Wesselow noted that the first accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection were written down decades after they supposedly occurred. "In that time, there's plenty of room for all the legends to be added to the story. ... These are stories written by sophisticated individuals later on to prove the point that there was a physical resurrection," he said.

Is there any evidence that dead bodies could actually produce the sort of vaporograph that de Wesselow is talking about? "We haven't got anything precisely similar," he acknowledged, "but I don't think that's surprising."

He pointed to a phenomenon known as the Jospice Imprint: In 1981, a cancer patient died at an English hospice and left a partial imprint of his body and face on a mattress cover. "It seems to have been formed from urine pooling around his body," de Wesselow said. That's not what he thinks happened in Jesus' case, but he nevertheless cited the imprint as "another example of a strange image."

De Wesselow totally buys into the evidence provided by the Shroud of Turin Research Project, to the effect that the image is not an artistic forgery but the real imprint of a battered man from centuries ago. That's a huge leap of faith right there. If you accept that, there are only so many types of explanations for the shroud you can come up with. De Wesselow said his explanation addresses the shroud mystery as well as the roots of belief in Jesus' resurrection.

"There are explanations involving a miracle, or that Jesus was spiritually resurrected and appeared in visions to his disciples," de Wesselow told me. "Since the 18th century, scientists have tried to explain the resurrection, and they've basically given up. They've basically forgotten about the whole problem. What I think I can do is provide a fairly coherent explanation which is completely naturalistic. It's a better alternative to the traditional Christian view."

A skeptic speaks
Nickell, however, prefers to stick with his own skeptical view. "I think the resurrection appearances can be seen as pretty much the same kind of thing we have today with apparitional experiences — ghosts, if you will," Nickell said. "We could see ourselves in such a situation with, say, Elvis sightings. You can understand them as experiences that people had but were illusory."

The way Nickell sees it, the biggest argument against de Wesselow's "cloth-as-Jesus" hypothesis comes from the scriptures themselves: There are only vague references to burial cloths in Matthew, Mark and Luke. The gospel of John, meanwhile, refers to Jesus being covered by separate cloths for the face and the body, which is "fatal to the Shroud of Turin," Nickell said.

"The bottom line for me is, if this author were correct, and Jesus' shroud had survived, surely one of the holy evangelists would have made note of it," Nickell said. "If it had been kept and had a remarkable picture of Jesus on it, we would have known about it. And we don't."

So what do you think? Is the shroud a fake, a miracle, or the real relic of a dead man?

Watch the NBC report here:
Fighting for free speech in a Manhattan courtroom
from: Jihad Watch 
 
GellerMuiseYerushalmiSpencer.jpgGeller, Muise, Yerushalmi, Spencer

Pamela Geller has a good account of our free speech hearing yesterday, regarding our lawsuit against the New York City MTA for refusing our pro-Israel ad. An excerpt:
[MTA director of real estate Jeffrey Rosen] almost irreconcilable thinking gave even the most astute among us great pause. Even the judge seemed astounded when he admitted that ads saying "Southerners are bigots" or "Blondes are brain-dead" would be acceptable, but ours was "demeaning." Which it was not.
Mr. Rosen went on to admit that in the past fifteen years, the MTA had never before rejected an ad based on its being "demeaning": ours was the first. 
What I found contradictory was that Rosen admitted that he would run an ad saying "Support Israel, defeat jihad," but somehow it was not OK to run it with the tagline, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man." 
How can that be reconciled with his claim that the ad was insulting to a religious group -- Muslims -- based on his understanding of the word "jihad" as a religious concept that had nothing to do with violence and terrorism?
And how does he further reconcile his claim that the ad was demeaning to a nationality ("Palestine," which doesn't even exist) with his position that the anti-Israel ad was not demeaning to a nationality (Israel, which really does exist)? 
The issue is viewpoint censorship versus content censorship. And of course it's all ridiculous because not only did Rosen (who is a lawyer) agree, but both lawyers for the defense agreed that our ad was political speech, which is the most protected class of speech under the First Amendment.
Needless to say, our crack world-historical legal team, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, was brilliant. Yerushalmi was relentless and caught Rosen in numerous self-contradictions, leaps of logic, and inconsistencies. Muise made a ringing summation, explaining the case's First Amendment significance. In a just world, this would be an open-and-shut case. Muise made the point that pro-choice ads that the MTA ran, that demeaned women and pro-life advocates (based on religious beliefs), were deeply offensive to him as a Catholic.
So clearly the MTA is being selective in which religion can or cannot be offended. Is that the MTA's position -- that homicide bombers, the targeting of innocent civilians, and violent Jew-hatred are sacrosanct and cannot be criticized?
ProIsraelAd.jpg

DEFENDING THE WEST

Islamization of America accelerates

Exclusive: Pamela Geller cites 3 recent examples of 'capitulation' to Shariah


Printed in Jihad Watch

This has been a week of attempted advances for the Islamization of America (and Britain as well). Those who think it isn’t happening should ponder the case of Wegmans, a supermarket in Rochester, N.Y.

Wegmans has put up a sign asking customers buying pork or alcohol not to use a particular checkout line when a Muslim teenager is on duty as the cashier. Only after public pressure from readers of my site AtlasShrugs.com and Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch.org did the sign come down.

This was more Islamization of the marketplace. This is a pattern. If you don’t want to handle meat that’s not halal, work for a Muslim butcher. Don’t take a job at Wegmans, Wal-Mart or Target. But this Muslim cashier’s special line was not about that. It was about imposing Islam on non-Muslims. Muslims are seeking special accommodations for a “special class.” (Islamic law places Muslims in a special class, giving them rights that non-Muslims do not have.)

This was part of a systematic campaign to impose the Shariah on the secular marketplace. Muslim workers suing Disney over its 60-year-old dress code or Muslim cashiers strong-arming Wal-Mart and Target over their refusal to handle meat that is not halal is all part of a much larger supremacist effort. It has succeeded in Europe, which is all but doomed. They mean to replicate it here. This is well-documented in my book, “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”

When I posted about Wegmans’ initial capitulation to Shariah at AtlasShrugs.com, I received an email from a man with a disability that requires him to use a service dog. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, a disabled person with a service dog must be allowed public accommodation and admittance. But when he entered a kabob restaurant in Virginia, the Muslim owner immediately confronted him, made a scene about his dog and demanded that he leave. (Muslims consider dogs unclean.) Only after the disabled man told him about the ADA and threatened to file a complaint did he reluctantly allow him to stay. He had to give in, but Muslim cab drivers in Europe have already refused blind passengers with seeing-eye dogs, and Islamic supremacist groups are certain to demand exemption from the ADA sooner or later.

Meanwhile, Robert Spencer has a groundbreaking book coming out later this month: “Did Muhammad Exist?” It is a bombshell. I have read it, and I can tell you that it shatters every conventional and accepted myth on the history of Muhammad and Islam. Is it any wonder Islamic supremacists want to squash it?

Spencer was scheduled to speak at a lunch hosted by MEF at the offices of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (Kramer Levin), a law firm in New York City. But the Hamas front known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) heard about it and sicced their dogs on Kramer Levin, demanding the enforcement of the blasphemy laws under the Shariah (Islamic law considers any critical examination of Islam to be blasphemous and subject to the death penalty), and it worked. Kramer Levin canceled the Spencer event. Kramer Levin readily acquiesced to the prohibition of the truth by Islamic supremacists. Imagine this, an American law firm, no less.

Meanwhile, over in Britain, the BBC has refused to screen “Can We Talk About This?” a play about the Islamic threat to the freedom of speech. Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director-general, has admitted in the past that there is a “growing nervousness about discussion about Islam,” but his spokesman denied that this refusal had anything to do with the play’s “content or themes.”

Does he really expect anyone to believe that?

The dhimmi BBC should have its license revoked, pulled. They are undeserving. Certainly all U.K. taxpayer dollars should be withdrawn. The media are too important in the information battle space to be allowed to become a tool of Islamic supremacists. The media are our first line of defense in the war against free speech, and they capitulate without a whimper. This is self-enforcement of Shariah.

Islamic supremacists are more assertive in the United States and Europe than they ever have been before. They’re building large mega-mosques in communities where the local Muslims can neither fill nor afford them. They’re demanding – and receiving – special privileges for Muslims in workplaces and special installations for Islamic prayers in public universities, as well as in airports and other public facilities.

They’re bringing back prayer in public schools – but only for Muslims, while insisting that Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists can assert no such constitutional privilege under our law: They are seeking special legal status for Islam. They’re shutting down the national debate we urgently need to have about Islam and Islamization, demonizing anyone who suggests any anti-terror measure or who asks the Muslim community in the U.S. to do something effective about the jihadists and Islamic supremacists in their midst, labeling them “bigots,” “racists” and “Islamophobes.” They’re persecuting anti-jihad activists in the courtroom and private citizens who dare to report suspicious behavior by Muslims.

And worst of all, ignorant non-Muslims like the people in charge at Wegmans, Kramer Levin and the BBC are helping them attain their goals. But the fact that Wegmans reversed itself after an outcry from freedom fighters shows that resistance can be effective.

This craven capitulation to subversive elements must end. And if we act, we can end it.

WND EXCLUSIVE

Terror cells on high alert to attack U.S.

Revolutionary Guard source warns of 'response' to interference with Iran's nukes

By Reza Kahlili

Terror cells have been placed on high alert to attack targets in the United States and Europe should Iran’s nuclear facilities be attacked, a source in the Revolutionary Guards says.

The terror cells in the U.S. are being coordinated by Quds Force personnel operating out of the Iranian Interests Section in Washington, the source says. Because Iran and the U.S. have no diplomatic relations, Iran’s Interests Section operates under the umbrella of the Pakistani embassy.

“These cells work out of safe houses where ammunition and explosives are stored, each with an operational commander who reports back to Iran,” the source says.

Analysts in Iran believe Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, has provided two choices to the West: either accept a nuclear Iran or face all-out retaliation if its nuclear facilities are attacked.

According to the source, who has served in the Guards’ intelligence apparatus, Iranian leaders have long prepared for an all-out confrontation with the West. The Guards’ commander, Hussein Babai, has openly stated that after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, Quds Force and Hezbollah terror cells began expanding in cities across Europe and America.

In an interview last October, Rep Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, stated he was convinced that Iranian diplomats out of New York and Washington, D.C., were involved with terrorist forces in Iran, attempting to spy on America.

The source says these cells are divided into two groups: one is operational and awaits the order to attack; the other gathers information, monitoring such sensitive sites as power plants, water and food distribution, refineries, railroads and others along with information on officials of the host countries and their activities. This information, transferred to Iran, is being used by the Quds Force command in Tehran “to select targets for maximum effect.”

In testimony before a U.S. House panel in March, the director of the New York Police Department’s intelligence analysis unit, Mitchell Silber, revealed that the Iranian diplomats had carried out “hostile reconnaissance” of sites in New York as many as six times, alarming police officials that the city might be targeted for terrorist attack.

The operatives enter the Western countries through several means, but some use fake identities and claim to be part of religious minorities under persecution in Iran. According to the source, several hundred have entered the U.S. as members of the Baha’i faith whose lives supposedly are threatened by the Islamic regime.

Others enter from Mexico where the cells are supported with cash from an illegal drug operation. Businesses run by Hezbollah, mosques and Islamic foundations provide another source of financing for these cells in America. Other assets, the source indicates, are of Mexican and Latin American origin, which the Guards’ intelligence apparatus has longed worked to train and recruit.

Hassan Abassi, a former Guard commander and current strategist, has stated that the Guards have identified more than 800 sensitive sites in the U.S. to be attacked, and “if America dares to destabilize the Islamic Republic of Iran, it should have no doubt that we will destabilize America.”

Last week the Guards warned that any retaliation to any threat by Israel or the West will be much more devastating than the recent terror attacks on Israeli interests worldwide.

The cells within the U.S. and Europe are now on high alert, according to the source. Targets have been chosen and are prioritized: First, attack energy resources (power, gas and oil facilities); second, create fear by attacking high-population areas; last, assassinate officials of the host country who have supported war with Iran.

If Iran is attacked by America or if America supports Israel in an attack, then these assets are to retaliate. However, the source says, their actions will be sequential unless the attack goes beyond the nuclear sites with the aim of overthrowing the Islamic regime, in which case there is to be an all-out response.

The source indicates an all-out response will include attacks on other countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, after Israel has been targeted by hundreds, if not thousands, of missiles.

The most ominous message from the source is that an all-out response will not be based on a defense doctrine but rather on the belief that total chaos will hasten the return of last Islamic messiah for the final defeat of the infidels. It believes that the coming will take place from the city of Qum in Iran.

Meanwhile, the General Command of Iran’s Armed Forces has warned it will provide a crushing response to any threat by America and Israel that will jeopardize their “disgraceful existence.”

The Arab Spring is “a result of the message of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its path, which is based on true Islam,” the command’s statement, issued days ago, said. “This message has not only helped with the spread of the Islamic Awakening in the region but has spread through protests in Europe and the U.S. (the Occupy Wall Street movement).

“Soon with the help of Allah, in this most significant juncture in human history, the evil and despotic powers will be defeated and a new world order will take place, led by the Islamic republic. … This leadership today has created the biggest danger yet to the fake and illegal Zionist regime and has sent shock waves to the infidels’ empire with its center at the White House.”

The United States would not be safe from retaliation if Iran is attacked by Washington, the Iran newspaper quoted a senior Revolutionary Guards commander on Tuesday as saying.

“In the face of any attack, we will have a crushing response. In that case, we will not only act in the boundaries of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, no place in America will be safe from our attacks,” Massoud Jazayeri was quoted as saying by the daily.

Watch a telling video here, with translations by Reza Kahlili here:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/terror-cells-on-high-alert-to-attack-u-s/

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award-winning book, A Time to Betray. He is a senior Fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

Who needs WikiLeaks when our enemies have ObamaLeaks?



In a deliberate American campaign to scuttle any planned Israeli hit on Iran, the Obama Regime is leaking classified intelligence assessments and documents that rip deep into Israel’s most sensitive military zones. Nothing less than sabotage.

(How many more times does Obama have to deliberately undermine the security of our allies before he is charged with treason?

Israel Hayon There should not be a shred of doubt by now that when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back,” proclaimed US President Barack Obama at the AIPAC conference earlier this month. 

 
“There is no good reason to doubt me on [Israeli] issues,” he similarly grumbled to The Atlantic.  “I have made a more full-throated defense of Israel and its legitimate security concerns than any president in history.” 

I have kept every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security… We’ve got Israel’s back.” (The security commitments were made by previous administrations, which Obama wouldn’t dare break until he gets a second term…G-d forbid)

Well, Obama definitely has a thing with Israel’s back. But he doesn’t seem to “have” their back. He is “at” their back. Stabbing them in the back, it appears.



Worst of all is the revelation (through Foreign Policy Magazine, yesterday) of State Department documents and CIA-provided details of Israel’s secret “staging grounds” (airbases) in Azerbaijan, from which the IAF can more readily strike into Iran. 

In the article, “senior intelligence officers” and former CENTCOM commanders name specific Azeri airstrips from whence Israel is apparently operating; name Israeli officials involved in managing the secret relationship with Azerbaijan; and provide astonishing detail on the air staging logistics that would be involved in an Israeli military operation there.

This follows upon the Congressional Research Service study leaked earlier in the week, which pans Israel’s ability to do much damage to Iran, and suggests that an Israeli strike would uselessly stir up a hornet’s nest. Great cost, with little gain, the report said.



Two weeks ago, the Obama administration leaked to The New York Times results of a classified Pentagon war game dubbed “Internal Look” which forecast that an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely draw the United States into a wider regional war in which hundreds of American forces could be killed.

This is to say: Don’t you dare act, Israel, or the Obama administration will blame you for Americans getting killed. And to make sure that Israel understood just how directed this leak was, the newspaper was allowed to publish the exact location, date, parameters and some names of participants in this war game.  

A fully-authorized leak. A targeted kill.



So, for all the talk of “complete coordination” between the US and Israel on the Iran file, it seems that Obama is playing rough with Jerusalem. Obama said that he “is not bluffing” when it comes to stopping the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons. “Not bluffing,” perhaps, but it seems that he meant that meant not bluffing about stopping Israel from acting against Iran.

Obama boasts at length at every opportunity about upgrades in US-Israel intelligence sharing and weapons development that he has authorized. Aside from being a benefit to America well as Israel, these upgrades are, of course, primarily aimed at holding Israel back from attacking Iran. The enhanced security cooperation is a bear-hug designed to handcuff Israel. And it is counterbalanced and canceled out by security sabotage such as the Azerbaijan expose.

Obama is at Israel’s back, indeed.

Watch Ambassador Bolton's interview with Greta here:
http://barenakedislam.com/2012/04/05/who-needs-wikileaks-when-our-enemies-have-obamaleaks/