Dr. Laura is a Twit. She is NOT a Biblical Scholar. She is a Political Hack and nothing more.
The photo is:
Leviticus 23:24 "Say to the Israelites: 'On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts"
I received the following in an email today.
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here.
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.
Some time ago "The Kent State Tribunals" were begun. There was significant testimony given, but, the truth is there were many more people alive and witnesses to the actions that day.
There is more testimony being taken tomorrow and the testimonies already recorded are online. This session began today in San Francisco and will continue there tomorrow.
The photo is Memorial to Jeffrey Miller on Ohio State Campus. Taken from approximately the same perspective as John Filo's famous photograph.
The recording of testimony will resume in October for two days in New York City.
This is an important and effective method of recording a moment in time where unrest of students was so overstated by the Washington administration that it created an atmosphere that demonized them unleasing weapons against unarmed citizens. THAT is not a minor isssue.
Now, forty years later, it is safe to record the moment from memories of those present on 'the day four students were killed' for political power. There is absolutely no other reason why those students were killed that day. They were simply students protesting the harnessing of their generation to die in a war that was killing millions of Vietnamese. They were not armed. It was the end of the semester and everyone was going home. No one was occupying buildings and there was no interruption of classes. It was Final Exams and the exams were nearly finished. It was the last act of frustration with war before leaving campus for the summer and they never breathed after that moment.
I can't help believe President Castro is very serious about the 'brink of war' with nuclear weapons. He has a unique circle of friends and I am sure there are many whom feel as though if they don't act now they won't have an opportunity later.
I am also quite sure their observation is correct. The military exercises in the Pacific and the sanctions by the USA of Iran is the beginning of sincerely permanent measures by the USA to 'end the threat' of nuclear weapons.
If President Castro's friends are talking about 'acting' on their observations it is good news for the USA in that they are actually achieving measures serious enough to end nuclear threats.
I thought President Obama had invited openness and conversation all these leaders in ways that will promote nuclear non-proliferation. It would be good for President Castro to promote peace and commerce with his friends and The West in a way that is peaceful and productive. Perhaps with age comes wisdom enough to change the dialogue.
...Castro, (click title to entry - thank you) who will mark his 84th birthday on Monday, appeared lucid and healthy during his 90-minute appearance before a full session of Cuba's legislature, though an aide helped him walk around the stage.
It was the first time he participated in an official government act in four years, and the latest in a string of recent public appearances, after four years largely out of the limelight, that have fueled speculation that he's increasing his leadership role in Cuba.
The picture is of a Gitmo detainee being processed.
The difference between the 'disposition' of Gitmo detainees that are sincerely enemies of the USA and responsible for American deaths and Anwar Al-Awlaki is the fact 'Alwaki is still out there and American.'
...Federal authorities Wednesday granted two civil liberties groups a license (click title to entry - thank you) they need in challenging the government's authority to use lethal force against U.S. citizens designated as terrorists.
The action by Treasury Department officials comes just one day after the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed suit to receive the license they need to go to court. They say it is a first step toward trying to stop the potential targeting of alleged U.S. terrorists abroad.
Regulations give Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control authority to license those who provide legal representation to challenge the government....
The CIA has already investigated the 'influence' Awlaki played in the Fort Hood violence that lead to many deaths of USA soldiers. Those findings were submitted to the USA military. It is all academic from there.
But, the 'basis' of the argument is that somehow Awlaki has to be arrested, read his rights, given a trial and then sentenced before the USA can pass judgement on his 'death sentence.'
Once the CIA determined 'the role' Awlaki played in the deaths of American soldiers, he was judged as an 'enemy combatant' status.
Enemy Combatant under the Geneva Conventions states, "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war."
The difference between that definition and the 'status' of American Awlaki is he is not detained.
We already know there are persons such as Osama bin Laden on "The Most Wanted List" with a price on their head. "The Most Wanted List" includes Americans. Does that mean they can be hunted? Yes. That means someone 'better be' hunting them.
Does American Awlaki have a special status outside the influence of the intelligent community to be hunted because he is OPERATING outside the USA and an American?
No.
Should the USA mlitary and/or CIA try to take the 'jerk' alive? Sure, but, if they aren't able to and the guy dies then I guess he loses, huh?
If Alwaki's father has information leading to the 'safe arrest' of his son, KNOWING, he had absolutely nothing to do with the deaths of the soldiers of Fort Hood.
Even if Alwaki's father has information leading to the 'safe arrest' of his son at all, I suggest he provide it and end 'the danger' of his son's current status.
I would strongly suggest the lawyers (now properly processed with credentials) for Alwaki's father come forward with that information and ask for a further investigation of the evidence at hand exonerating his son. Otherwise, Alwaki may be an American, but, as an Imam advocating hatred of a CLASS OF PEOPLE, namely Americans he is in danger of being killed while 'WANTED.' Just because he was born in the USA and educated in the USA does not exonerate him from advocating and inspiring the acts of others against an entire CLASS OF PEOPLE.
Imams in the USA do not have special status. This is not an 'Islamic' middle ground where holy men can make outrageous statements and expect people to carry out violence against others. For how long has The West stated that kind of influence among the young men in the Middle East is an issue? A long time. We advocate the closing of madrassas for that reason.
So, an American Imam is no different than any other citizen KNOWN to have invoked words of hatred that manifested in violence. He is wanted. He is dangerous. It is determined. If there is evidence otherwise then it needs to be submitted and investigated to change his status, but, the 'idea' that as an American he can avoid the 'intervention' of American law and military is hideous.
The USA made a mistake. They allowed his website to be viewed by the people of this country because we practice Freedom of Speech. What we as 'generous' people did not discern was that our generosity would be used against us in allowing such openness.
As an Imam he authorized the deaths of USA soliders still within our borders. He is as guilty as any general of an opposing military force.
..."Eight years ago, (click title to entry - thank you) our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."...
That was in the year 2000.
THEN.
CAME.
THE BUSH TAX CUTS of 2001 !!!!!!!!!
Greenspan calls for repeal of Bush tax cuts
Warns of crisis if US coffers drained further
By Sewell Chan
New York Times
August 7, 2010
...“I’m in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money,’’ Greenspan, 84, said yesterday in a telephone interview. “Our choices right now are not between good and better; they’re between bad and worse. The problem we now face is the most extraordinary financial crisis that I have ever seen or read about.’’...
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/08/07/greenspan_calls_for_repeal_of_bush_tax_cuts/
The issue is the irresponsible handling of documents simply dumped at Wikileaks.
Escalating the circumstances by focusing on a soldier whom Americans view as an act of conscience is not the answer.
I believe holding people responsible in a way that won't allow this to happen again while running an internal investigation to secure the country from such scandal and victimization of its military personnel is the correct path to take.
The Pentagon said it was conducting an investigation into whether information in the logs placed coalition forces or their informants in danger. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images
...As members of the US Congress raised questions about Pakistan's alleged support for the Taliban, officials in Islamabad and Kabul also traded angry accusations on the same issue.
Further disclosures reveal more evidence of attempts by coalition commanders to cover up civilian casualties in the conflict.
The details emerge from more than 90,000 secret US military files, covering six years of the war, which caused a worldwide uproar when they were leaked yesterday.
The war logs show how a group of US marines who went on a shooting rampage after coming under attack near Jalalabad in 2007 recorded false information about the incident, in which they killed 19 unarmed civilians and wounded a further 50.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/27/afghanistan-war-logs-tensions-strained
The release of information occurred to put the USA on trial. I would think that is fairly obvious. Whether the USA 'deserves' to be put on trial is a question many have, but, when it comes to putting the USA on trail in a public forum is the question. If the 'leaker' did so to the World Court to determine human rights violations this would be more appropriate, but, that wasn't the venue.
In all honesty, I don't know if the documents should be classified. It appears as though the documents are in regard to actual combat situations that could be testimony of any soldier in the military if they decided to discuss them in a public forum. I think the Defense Department needs to put this into context and realize 'the truth' about the war within these documents is probably not a reason to raise the tenor of the confrontation of Wikileaks.
Wikileaks is simply attempting to legally out maneuver the USA Defense Department in order to cause further embarrassment and 'self protect' even if the national security of the country is at stake.
Determining whether or not these documents are STILL issues of national security is not my priority. I am not engaged in Afghanistan to know the brevity of that decision, but, to create an atmosphere of animosity within the USA is the wrong thing to do.
The Congressman that is demanding treason charges and death of this soldier is way out of line and is using this issue for poltiical fodder. It is not, nor should it be. It is up to the Defense Department to decide the damage here AND to reduce the size of the 'army of people' deployed throughout the country and military with 'security clearance' of one type or another. I believe that is the issue and not whether or not the battlefield is secure. I doubt these documents will do anything at this point to compromise troops. It isn't current information.
The information proves that the 'Counter Insurgency Measures' that are 'suppose to be the best venue' of defense is a lie. Basically, that is the case. Where COIN is suppose to be working and providing a measure of security to the people of Afghanistan so they 'render their fear of the Afghan government and USA meaningless' to 'disarm the propaganda' of the Taliban; is what the realease of documents is all about. In other words, COIN is a lie because that is not what is actually happening.
To me COIN is not a lie, it is a desperate attempt to continue to carry out a war that was wrongfully abandoned in 2003. That is what the issue is to me. Trying to 'go back' to 'readdress Afghanistan' to 'complete' a mission that was primarily abandoned for the invasion into Iraq is the issue at hand. A war nearly ten years old that isn't accomplishing the goal of destroying al Qaeda and securing allies and the USA from the act of violence on September 11th is the issue. Obviously, and only now that President Obama took office do the American people understand what really happened and unfortunately we are only beginning to realize the degree of negligence of the national security of the USA during the Bush/Cheney years that occurred.
COIN was painted as a 'real strategy' that would end the conflicts in both countries. That hasn't occurred. It isn't going to occur as the USA is dealing with people that kill for 'their god' in a way that is suppose to 'dominate the world' in glory to Allah. It's nuts.
The AID workers were Christian, but, that has happened in other countries around the world before. Missionary work is dangerous to begin with and to realize they are conducting missionary work in a war zone in Northern Afghanistan is about as known risk as any in the world. Whether they should have been protected by the miltitary, either Afghan or USA is a good question. But, this type of violence against religious missionary work occurs and it not unique to a war strategy.
Whether or not Christian NGOs should be allowed in Afghanistan is a question someone has to answer. Simply because The West sees 'egalitarianism' as a high priority to its communities isn't necessarily the best 'theory' for a war zone.
I don't understand how COIN would even allow Chrisitan NGOs access in an area where Muslim dominated communities are suppose to be the focus to the best stability of the nation. COIN is dealing with radical Islamic insurgents (I don't care to know the dictionary meaning of Islamic either.) and yet are allowing Christian NGOs to administer care in some of the most violent areas of the country. That is absurd. That is a counter insurgency strategy? No, that is active aggravation of the local insurgency.
Like. What are you doing already? And I am suppose to take COIN and the USA military and NATO seriously? No. This is not a well run strategy and makes no sense at all. The USA and NATO with COIN as a directive doesn't even have enough control of the battlefield to carry out their strategy.
COIN is the issue. It is the reason for the Wikileaks documents and it is why the corruption of Afghanistan flourishes.
The Wikileaks documents only proves COIN is a 'dreamscape' that never was possible. Soldiers have a right to defend themselves and COIN puts them right in the middle of villages of civilians where they can't discern who is the enemy. COIN 'creates' tension and conflict and does not defuse it.
That is what Wikileaks has done. IT exposed the defeat of COIN.
Is it worth a young soldier's life in charging him with treason? No. He hasn't killed anyone and the release of OLD documents hasn't and doesn't either.
...A third Afghan man traveling with the IAM group said he survived by reciting passages from the Quran and saying, "I am Muslim. Don't kill me."...
The Taliban are 'playing the game' of deception and the USA isn't even calling this a war so much as measure of 'counter insurgency.'
This is ridiculous. You know the Third Reich existed and now the Taliban do. When is this war going to be a war and not a hand holding ceremony and get this over with. COIN is not a strategy, its a 'borderline personality disorder' dreamscape.
Either fight the war the USA is suppose to fight with its sophistication or leave. This is ridiculous. The Taliban have IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVISES and the USA can't defeat these bigots? This is nuts.
Give the Aghan military all the weapons it wants to lead a strong ground assualt against these morons and get out of the country. End of discussion.
