Say Anything Blog

I got this by Email today:

On Easter the ex-cheerleader (age 19) in this picture was watching a road that lead to a NATO military base when she observed a man digging by the road. She engaged the target, and she shot him.

Turned out he was a bomb maker for the Taliban and he was burying an IED that was to be detonated when a US patrol walked by 30 minutes later. It would have certainly killed and wounded several soldiers.

The shot was measured at 725 yards. She shot him as he was bent over burying the bomb. The shot struck him in the butt blowing in to the bomb which detonated. He was blown to pieces. The Air Force made a motivational poster of her. Her name is Kimmy.
To you we say, HOO-AH! Thanks for your service.

Jim Reed
Munitions & Explosives Safety Specialist
NTC Ft. Irwin , CA

A federal appeals court dismissed a civil rights complaint by 11 Philadelphia Christians, ruling their First Amendment rights were trumped by the First Amendment rights of homosexuals at the city’s taxpayer-funded “Outfest” celebration in 2004.

“The city has an interest in ensuring that a permit-holder can use the permit for the purpose for which it was obtained,” this week’s opinion from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. ”This interest necessarily includes the right of police officers to prevent counter-protestors from disrupting or interfering with the message of the permit-holder.”

“It is without question that Judge Stengel’s decision has set a precedent to eliminate the First Amendment rights of others by citing that a ‘permitting scheme’ can be used by police and event organizers to ‘exclude persons expressing contrary messages’ in public areas and at public events,” Marcavage said earlier.

Besides Christianity itself being under assault by the government, mostly based on a pro-homosexual agenda, our First Amendment right to free political speech in the public square is also under assault. In this case, it is shameful that the rights of homosexuals to the public square were ruled as being greater than the rights of any group, even when they are not disruptive, from protesting the homosexual agenda of the group having a legal permit. Does that mean that civil rights advocates should not be allowed to protest KKK rallies in the public square? Does it mean that if a Democrat candidate has a scheduled rally in the public square no one protesting their candidacy may be present at the same time?

Free Speech means that everyone has an equal right to the public square, even if what they have to say is offensive to another group. But, now Free Speech is limited to that speech approved by the community and all other speech can lawfully be silenced. Sounds like the Soviet Union to me!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69881

Teachers, pastors facing ‘criminalization of homophobia’

Christians will face prison for speaking out against homosexuality if Brazil’s Senate passes a bill approved unanimously by its House of Representatives.

The measure is considered the country’s newest attempt to promote homosexuality, disguised as an act to combat discrimination, the Catholic News Agency reports.

If anyone prevents actions of “homosexual affection” in public or private locations open to the public, they could face up to five years in prison for doing so, the Association of the Defense of Life reports.

The bill also seeks to penalize private and public school administrators with up to three years in prison if they refuse to hire openly “gay” teachers.

According to the CNA, the measure will force prison time for any “moral, ethical, philosophical or psychological expression that questions homosexual practices.”

The ADL claims the bill could spell disaster for churches and teachers.

“[A] priest, a pastor, a teacher or even an average citizen who says in a sermon, a classroom or public conversation that homosexual acts are sinful, disordered or an illness could be denounced and detained,” the association said.

Only weeks ago, WND reported the president of Brazil said ”opposing” homosexuality makes you a sick person, and he believes such thoughts need to be criminalized.

This is NOT just in Brazil, such hate crimes laws are being passed throughout much of the world, even in Canada and while not as severe yet, even in the United States.

This is wholly anti-Christian in nature, as I assure you that no country would dare arrest and imprison Muslims for attacking homosexuality as being a sin. The homosexual community with their small numbers have big money to buy votes and thus sway politicians to support these laws.

Beyond the crime of saying homosexuality is wrong, I was fascinated by the idea in this law of it being illegal to try and prevent physical acts of affection between homosexuals in public. So, I guess if in a park, near children, if homosexuals are engaging in oral sex or sodomy and a parent tried to encourage them to put their penises away, that could land them in prison.

Such laws are making their way to America, in California we are very near to having such laws passed by our legislature. This is a violation of the First Amendment in that it unnecessarily infringes upon our rights of free speech and freedom of religion. This is not a states rights issue, it is a degradation of the morality of our nation and that to our everlasting peril.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69775

A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church’s moral teachings on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “defamatory,” “insensitive” and “ignorant” will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution’s prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a “foreign country” meddling with and attempting to “negatively influence (San Francisco’s) existing and established customs.”

The anti-Catholic diatribe had been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it.

Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith,” he said.

“In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. … Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases,” Muise said.

Thomas More attorneys argued in the District Court case that the “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message” that Catholics are “outsiders, not full members of the political community.”

The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.

This is another salvo by S.F., homosexual activists and liberals generally against the Christian Faith. Like many other countries around the world we are rapidly moving towards making Christianity a crime punishable by law and our own national Sodom and Gomorrah - S.F., along with California is leading the battle.

This is official government, including judicial, hostility towards people of faith and while it doesn’t matter to a lot of people, it violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69693

Global economy facing ‘perfect storm’ as inflation hits 16-year high - and the worst is yet to come

Panic gripped the City and Wall Street as the global economy drifted towards ‘a perfect storm’, adding to pressure on Gordon Brown a week before a crucial by-election.

The shock rise in inflation to 3.8 per cent in [Britain] means it has more than doubled since Labour came to power in May 1997. In a double blow for cash-strapped families, economists warned the cost of living will keep on rising and interest rates will not come down.

No respite from rising energy and food prices

Bank of England policymaker Andrew Sentance warned yesterday there will be no respite from the pain of rising energy and food prices.

He said: ‘Inflation is being pushed up in the short term, and it will take time to get it back under control.

‘That will require a squeeze on spending and incomes in the UK and other economies, with consequences for economic growth and employment in the short term.’

In a speech in Windsor, he said the good times are over for Britain as the country enters a ‘significant’ slowdown in economic growth.

He said: ‘In the face of the current oil and commodity price pressures, we cannot expect to sustain the benign world of steady growth and consistently low inflation that has characterised the last decade and a half across many developed economies, including the UK.’

If public expectations for rising prices get out of control, an even sharper downturn may be needed, he added

Yes, this comes from the British Media, but I am asking our resident economists at SAB if they see the global economy in this kind of crisis and if so, could it mean a global depression in the near future.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035373/Global-economy-facing-perfect-storm-inflation-hits-16-year-high--worst-come.html

If Obama still feels ambiquous about the insitution of marriage, despite being pushed into it by Michelle; what does that say about what policies we might expect from him as POTUS?

Barack Obama’s Struggle Over Whether Marriage Had Become ‘An Outdated Institution’

A new detail about the courtship of Michelle Obama:

It took two years for Obama to finally propose. Though she knew he didn’t fear commitment, Michelle had become a bit irritated with his struggle over whether marriage had become an outdated institution.

Wow. And with this offhand comment, a thousand new excuses are born. “Honey, it’s not that I fear commitment. It’s that I’m struggling over whether marriage has become an outdated institution.”

I recall from that other Obama profile in the New Yorker, this one on Michelle:

Barack had a more bohemian attitude toward romance. “We would have this running debate throughout our relationship about whether marriage was necessary,” Obama told me. “It was sort of a bone of contention, because I was, like, ‘Look, buddy, I’m not one of these who’ll just hang out forever.’ You know, that’s just not who I am. He was, like”—she broke into a wishy-washy voice—“ ‘Marriage, it doesn’t mean anything, it’s really how you feel.’ And I was, like, ‘Yeah, right.’ ”

Richard Starr asks, “Wasn’t it a little, um, outdated, to be doubting the institution of marriage in the early 1990s?”

From National Review: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTRhNzk0YzI5OTQ2M2Q0ODRlMWRjYjFmODI5NDgxMzU=

Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza yesterday, pumped up the crowd by describing how Hispanic communities are “terrorized” by government immigration officers.

“When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids,” Obama said, “when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working, and we need to change it.”

The crowd, quietly listening before Obama began his tirade, reacted immediately to the sentiment that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are terrorizing communities. Applause, shouts and cheering swelled through the audience as Obama characterized atrocities allegedly committed by government officials.

In November of last year, following an incident where a mother and nursing baby actually were separated by ICE action, the agency released new written guidelines for handling single parents, pregnant women, nursing mothers and other special child or family care situations. The New York Times reported the new guidelines allow nursing mothers to be released unless they pose a national security risk.

“We are faced with these sorts of situations frequently, where a large number of individuals come illegally or overstay and have children in the United States,” an ICE spokesperson told the Times. “Unfortunately, the parents are putting their children in these difficult situations.”

Obama also criticized McCain for changing his mind on extensive immigration reform. This is pandering in its worst form, it is playing with our national sovereignty and national security to gain hispanic votes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69612

Court battle over daughters pits dad against kidnappers
Criminals seek ‘custody’ alleging Christians converted to Islam

The father of a Christian family has gone to court to fend off a custody claim launched by those suspected of kidnapping and raping the father’s two young daughters, according to a new report from Compass Direct.

“Yesterday a judge in Pakistan’s Punjab province ordered further investigation into the kidnapping of Saba Younis, 12, and Aneela Younis, 10, who went missing on June 26 in the small town of Chowk Munda,” the Compass report said.

“The kidnappers filed for custody of the girls at the local police house on June 28, stating that the sisters had converted to Islam and their father no longer had jurisdiction over them,” the report said.

The father, Younis Masih, was summoned by police to testify in the “custody” case, and “police initially refused to file a case against the kidnappers,” Compass said.

But the family still has not seen the girls since they were taken and Khalil Tahir, a lawyer working with the Christian family, said it is possible they have not only been raped but sold to a brothel.

“My Muslim countrymen think we [Christians] are not human beings. They think we do not have dignity,” Masih said in a telephone conversation.

These are our Pakistani allies, this is Sharia Law and this is how Islam regards both women and all infidels. Can you imagine a kidnapper raping your daughter and then seeking to take away legal custody in court. I fear if it were my daughters and if they appeared in court I’d kill every one of them and a few more.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69355

Obama changes tune on united Jerusalem
Takes back speech advocating holy city as Israel’s ‘undivided capital’

Honestly, this guy is beginning to make John Kerry look good when it comes to flip-flops.

Once he said:

“Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.”

Now he says:

“...this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech, and we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given,” Obama stated yesterday during an interview on CNN’s show, “Fareed Zakaria – GPS.”

“The point we were simply making was, is that we don’t want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the ‘67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent. I was not trying to predetermine what are essentially final-status issues.”

Wait just a frozen North Dakota minute: How can he say keep Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, while he actually meant no barbed wire down the middle? That is gibberish, nonsense, even really stupid lying. It is clear that when talking about barbed wire dividing the city, it would have to have meant he anticipates Palestinian control over part of Jerusalem, which is wholly contradictory to the concept of an undivided Israel controlled Jerusalem. The two statements cannot possibly, outside the Obama Spin Machine, be reconciled.

Then there is Obama’s reported key man for Israel-Palestinian issues:

According to top Israeli diplomatic sources, Obama is expected to appoint Kurtzer as a top U.S. broker on Israeli-Palestinian issues.

Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, has long been recognized by Israeli leaders, including prime ministers, as biased against Israel and is notorious for urging extreme concessions from the Jewish state. He was appointed as a primary Obama adviser on the Middle East earlier this year.

Daniel Kurtzer

Obama’s appointment of Kurtzer raised eyebrows among the pro-Israel Jewish community.

“We oppose the appointment of Kurtzer because of his long, documented record of hostility to and severe pressure upon Israel,” said Zionist Organization of America National Chairman Morton Klein.

Kurtzer has been blasted by mainstream Jewish organizations, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

I am warning the voters now that Obama, his Christian profession notwithstanding, is pro-Islam, pro-Palestinian rights and anti-Israel. No, it won’t become clear until he is POTUS, but this man wants to turn our foreign policy regarding Israel upside down and it will bring the world to the brink of WW-III.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69571

Massachussetts plans expansion of ‘gay’ weddings’
Change would allow out-of-state duos to ‘marry’

What is the purpose? To create havoc across America, forcing other states to recognize gay marriages, even if they have passed laws to the contrary.

Lawmakers in Massachusetts are resurrecting a once-abandoned bill that would allow out-of-state duos to visit, obtain a Massachusetts “marriage” and then return home and create “havoc” with it, according to a pro-family organization.

“This bill would destabilize the Massachusetts marriage laws,” wrote Brian Camenker in his Mass Resistance alert on the issue. “Currently no out-of-state couple can get ‘married’ in Massachusetts if that marriage would not be legal in their home state. This would overturn that law.”

Bring in the California Supreme Court decision:

the recent events in California have apparently energized the homosexual lobby. They apparently persuaded Sen. Robert Creedon (D-Brockton), Senate chairman of the judiciary committee, to take the unusual step of resurrecting it from the study to be voted on. Creedon, normally a pro-life, moderately pro-family senator, isn’t running for re-election this fall. According to press reports, Sen. Diane Wilkerson (D-Mattapan), who led the charge to push for huge taxpayer-funding for homosexual programs in the schools, is the major force behind this also,” he wrote.

Despite people like Rob, who sincerely believe this and legalizing drugs are rightfully state rights issues, as perhaps they normally should be, under the Constitution: Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, [which] addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial rulings” of other states;” I have long believed that once homosexual marriage was legalized within a state or two, the Full Faith and Credit clause would force other states to recognize these marriages in every legal sense of the term.

There is little doubt that extremely liberal Massachuessetts will try and could succeed by this clever tactic to bring the Full Faith and Credit Clause into effect and SCOTUS would have to demand these marital contracts be recognized in every state.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69346

State troopers rebuke students for singing national anthem
Dems send security to halt patriotism in capitol rotunda

Yes, State Troopers with Democrat appointed Sgts-At-Arms orders a stop to the singing of National Anthem in the State Capitol.

School students attending a youth leadership conference have been scolded by armed security officers in the California Capitol in Sacramento for singing the “Star-Spangled Banner” and “God Bless America” in the rotunda, according to organizers of the conference.

“The patriotic expression was apparently so egregious that state troopers were called in to the rotunda to rebuke the students,” a statement from The Capitol Resource Institute said today.

“This was a ghastly overreaction to some students expressing their patriotism in the seat of government,” said Karen England, executive director of CRI, and director of the youth conference. “These young leaders have sacrificed a week of their summer to come learn about our government system and this is the ‘welcome’ they receive from the government.”

“Just moments after the students finished their impromptu patriotic expression, no less than four CHP officers descended upon the rotunda, along with two sergeant-at-arms. They confronted our staff and demanded to know why our students were singing in the rotunda without a permit from the rules committee. Apparently in the five minutes it took to sing the two patriotic songs, someone had called security and complained,” she wrote.

“The City on the Hill students were absolutely shocked … Why would their elected officials send armed guards to stop them from expressing such love for their country? And why do citizens need a permit to sing patriotic songs in their public buildings?” she said.

The young leaders, however, were undeterred. They asked for and received a government “permit” to sing the national anthem in the capitol rotunda tomorrow at 1:15 p.m. and are inviting friends and family to join them.

Not only is this shockingly stupid by the State Police and the Democrat led Legislature, it is a suppression of freedom of political speech inside the seat of government.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69366

McDonald’s: Christian boycotters ‘hate’ homosexuals

CEO says company has obligation to ‘make a difference … and we do’

First, McDonald’s uses the tired old charge of “hate” for homosexuals if anyone objects to that lifestyle choice. It is deliberate to marginalize anyone not supporting their pro-homosexual agenda.

Those who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons are participating in “hate,” according to an official for McDonald’s, the worldwide purveyor of Big Macs and Happy Meals.

“Hatred has no place in our culture,” corporate spokesman Bill Whitman told the Washington Post in response to a campaign by the American Family Association for a boycott of the burger-and-fries outlets because of the corporation’s advocacy for the homosexual lifestyle.

“That includes McDonald’s, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment,” Whitman said.

Next, they lie through misdirection about why a Christian group is advancing a boycott of McDonalds. They want the public to believe Chrstians are against hiring homosexuals or giving them the same benfits and rights of other employees, when the real reason for the boycott was McDonald’s being active in multiple ways in promoting the homosexual political agenda.

“Mr. Whitman has intentionally avoided addressing the reason for the boycott. This boycott is not about hiring gays or how gay employees are treated. It is about McDonald’s choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting their agenda,” the AFA alert said.

AFA said McDonald’s donated $20,000 to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in exchange for membership in the NGLCC and a seat on the group’s board of directors. The NGLCC lobbies Congress on a wide range of issues, including the promotion of same-sex marriage.

AFA had asked the corporation to remove its name and logo from the NGLCC website, where it is listed as a “corporate partner and organization ally.” AFA also requested that McDonald’s remove the endorsement of NGLCC by Richard Ellis, vice president of communications for McDonald’s USA, from the website.

McDonald’s has the right to fight against the boycott, they have the right to promote the gay agenda, where they cross the line, IMO; and cause me to want to join the boycott is that they engage in inflammatory, anti-Christian language and lie about the reasons for the boycott. That makes them openly anti-Christian and dishonest.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69295

A dog dead on the floor in a pool of blood and a smoking gun nearby. And the only “witness” to the tragedy was a man who told officers the dog committed suicide!

The report comes from the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, who wrote of Marlys Duggan and the loss of her beloved dog, Patches, a 2-year-old Jack Russell terrier mix.

Police arrested Ryan Cullen Hayes, 49, the son of Duggan’s neighbor, on charges of animal cruelty, reckless endangerment and prohibited use of a weapon while drunk, the report said.

Well, actually it may not have been suicide after all:

According to a report from officers, Hayes denied having anything to do with the shooting, saying the dog had shot himself.

“But when officers asked how it was possible a dog could have put pressure on the trigger to shoot himself in the face, Hayes finally said he did not mean to shoot the dog and that it was an accident,” the report said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69153

University attacks student for reading this book
Rights organization challenges officials to prove claim or shut up

The original story was posted at SAB about a man reading a book with KKK in the title that, was in fact a story about a defeat for the KKK, wherein black students then filed a complaint just for seeing him read the book and university charges were filed of racism against this man.

The school, “Indiana University-Purdue University,” then backed off because it appeared that the man was reading a book from their own library and people were upset that this was an attack on the freedom of everyone to read offensive materials, in other words, censorship. So, case closed right, the book was not in support of the KKK, merely reading the book could not be considered racism or hate speech or an attempt to make others feel uncomfortable, as if that should be a crime anyway. Thank God, case closed or was it?

A student at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis who first faced discipline when officials caught him reading a history book that was available in the school library during a break at work was cleared of those charges, but now officials say he is guilty of something but they won’t say what.

“This looks like a classic example of a college making things worse in an unprincipled attempt to save face,” Shibley said. “IUPUI’s own letters to Sampson made clear that his reading a book about the Ku Klux Klan was the problem, and the university claims to have completely exonerated him of all charges. If so, why are its spokespeople now telling The Wall Street Journal that the problem was really some other mysterious conduct that the university will not reveal to anyone, including Sampson himself?”

A person commenting here at SAB has often been upset about any attacks on our educational system, any charges of liberalism and partisan political activities in every segment of academia; and I expect will now defend this university of condemning a university stident, cuasing harm to his academic career, all absent any specific charges, just because they simply think he is guilty of something.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69212

U.N. scheme to make Christians criminals
Sharia-following Islamic nations
demanding anti-’defamation’ law

This scheme can even impact the internet and blogs like SAB forced to deal with anyone making any statement that might be perceived as being anti Islam.

Dozens of nations dominated by Islam are pressing the United Nations to adopt an anti-"defamation" plan that would make Christians criminals under international law, according to a United States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide.

“Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry,” the American Center for Law & Justice said yesterday in announcing its petition drive.

The discrimination is “wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called ‘Combating Defamation of Religions,’” the announcement said. “We must put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith that attempts to criminalize Christianity.”

(Story continues below)

The “anti-defamation” plan has been submitted to the U.N. repeatedly since about 1999, starting out as a plan to ban “defamation” of Islam and later changed to refer to “religions,” officials said. It is being pushed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference nations, which has adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, “which states that all rights are subject to sharia law, and makes sharia law the only source of reference for human rights.”

In the United States, a plaintiff sued his Internet service provider for refusing “to prevent participants in an online chat room from posting or submitting harassing comments that blasphemed and defamed plaintiff’s Islamic religion.”

“They’re attempting to pass a sinister resolution that is nothing more than blatant religious bigotry,” the ACLJ said in its promotion of its petition. “This is very important to understand. This radical proposal would outlaw Christianity … it would make the proclamation of your faith an international crime.”

Anti-Christian bigotry is growing around the world, while no one dares say anything negative about Islam without their being attacked, arrested or sued. While this is about Islam trying to impose Sharia Law on the world, making it into a one-world religion, make no mistake that our hate laws against anyone, even in the pulpit objecting to homosexuality, are playing a big role in this global anti-Christian bigotry.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69163