Thursday, January 21, 2010

Military Contractor puts Bible Verses on Gunsights

Who Would Jesus Shoot?
by Justin Fung

In case you haven’t already seen this, it’s been discovered that gunsights on weapons used by British and American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are inscribed with coded biblical references, including:
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)
For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6)
It’s absolutely mind-boggling to me that carved onto weapons of war are words of truth and peace — words from a man who embodied and heralded a kingdom characterized by peace, and from a man who announced an alternative to empire and spoke of faith, hope, joy, gentleness, goodness, and peace. How in the heck do these things go together?!
The website of Trijicon, the U.S.-based manufacturer, states: “We believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals.” Which of course is clearly congruent with SHOOTING people.
No wonder Christians have a bad name. You’d think we’d learned our lessons from the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. But apparently not.

I think Justin has a great point here. I do personally believe there is a such thing as just violence. I just don't believe it's something the US is involved in. Police Officers who shoot a criminal who is trying to kill someone-that's just violence.

But Iraq? Nope. Afghanistan? Nope. We are fooling ourselves if we think Jesus would approve of these wars. And I'm sure he loves it that we put his name and words on weapons of death and destruction.

Oh wait. Wouldn't that be taking the Lord's name in vain? Oh yeah. I forgot about that one. No biggie, it's just one of the ten commandments.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Newt thinks he is top 2012 material.

Former House Speaker Gingrich considers himself among top 2012 presidential prospects for GOP
Associated Press
CARY, N.C. (AP) — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he considers
himself among the top Republican prospects for the 2012 presidential election,
adding that he believes there will be plenty of GOP options for voters to
consider."I think I'm probably on a list of seven or eight possible candidates
at this stage," Gingrich said. "We have a lot of people around the country who
would like to have somebody who represents a commitment to replace the current
failed programs and to develop a set of solutions that are practical and

Read the rest of the article here
This is not what the GOP needs right now. We need someone fresh and not full of empty air and emptier rhetoric. We also need someone controversy-free, or at least has minimal skeletons in their closet. Newt is not a winner in either category, as the paragraph above says absolutely nothing, and Newt has way too many skeletons in his closet. I don't want to vote for a man who had ethics sanctions voted against him overwhemingly by the US House of Representatives, as Newt did in 1997.

Another problem I have, and I believe most other moderates and centrist would as well, and rightly should have, is the fact that Gingrich is constantly trying to bring the US "back to its Christian Heritage." I don't want my President trying to bring this nation to some period in time when the State bordered on State Religion (McArthyism anyone?).

Not to mention his leading of the charge against Clinton for his affairs and cover-up while having his own extramarital affairs.

All in all, Newt just isn't a great leader. Maybe he once was, but he isn't someone that I, as a moderate/progressive Republican, could see myself following. And I just don't foresee others following him, from either side (or the middle) of the aisle. To win, we need a charismatic leader without more empty rhetoric.

Crossposted at Republicans United

Donate to Haiti

There is an estimated 100,000+ dead, more displaced, and the country is in chaos.

If you would like to donate, go to and click on the Haiti link.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Robertson and Limbaugh hate Haiti

This is further proof that they are both, and I don't use this term lightly, jackasses.

First, Pat Robertson:
Read it here or here

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about. [Haitians] were under the heel of the French...and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, ‘we will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French.’ True story. And the Devil said, ‘OK it’s a deal.’ Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another.”

Blaming 100,000 deaths on sin and voodoo. This is the same guy who said Katrina and 9/11 were God's wrath on the US for abortion and gay marriage.

Pat Robertson worships an imaginary God. Pat Roberson is no Christian.

And then there's Rush Limbaugh being his normal pompous self:
""This will play right into Obama's hands...they'll use this to burnish their, uh, shall we say, credibility with the black community, both the light-skinned and black community in the country. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there; could not wait to get out there...Besides, we've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US income tax."

What does that even mean, Rush?

Go back to rehab, Jackass.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Google may pull out of China: will this increase or decrease censorship?

Google said Tuesday that it may leave China and shut down its strictly monitored site there,, citing censorship rules and a targeted cyber attack on its network infrastructure.
In a blog post, senior vice president of corporate development and chief legal officer David Drummond said the search giant first detected the attack last month and thought it posed a security threat, adding that the company frequently faces cyber attacks of varying degrees.
But an investigation of the attack exposed evidence that showed the attackers' primary goal was to access Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, Drummond said. While two accounts were hacked, the accessed information was limited to the date the account was created and subject lines, not the content of any emails.
"We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech," wrote Drummond in the post.
(read the rest of the article here)

I know there are probably "big business" reasons that Google is looking at pulling out of China, such as the market there not working out for them like it does here, but really, it's all about the free market, and freedom in general. There isn't one in China. At all. So money-wise, Google is getting worked over trying to operate over there. Not to mention that ethically, they were having to adhere to censorship, which Google, at its core, does not believe in. Last year, the Chinese government blocked all sites with "Tiananmen Square", including the website, for 8 days surrounding the anniversary on June 8th.

And now Google's servers are being targeted, by the Chinese government and its silencers, to get information on dissonants within the Chinese people...not okay.

On the surface, I support Google pulling out of China, as well as other companies doing the same. But, one has to look at history. If all of the free world begins pulling out of China due to their censorship and human rights violations, pulling companies, resources, and essentially boycotting China, what will happen? Darkness. The country will fall behind. Look what happened to North Korea. Look what happened to the USSR during the Cold War.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Pulling out may help, but it also may make things worse. We need to figure out how to not abandon those we disagree with. We need to help Google, and other companies like it, figure out how to help develop free markets, and freedom itself, in China. This should be something that we can all agree on, conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, Progressive, neo-con, and old-school far-right Republicans.

Crossposted at Republicans United

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Ron Paul tells Cheney to STFU

(CNN) – Dick Cheney is taking criticism from at least one member of his own party over the former vice president's recent and persistent criticisms of the Obama administration's handling of national security issues.
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and upstart 2008 presidential candidate, told CNN's Larry King Monday night Cheney is in no place to criticize Obama's handling of the war on terrorism.
"I think he had his eight years, and he's caused a lot of trouble for our country and perpetuated a war in Iraq unnecessary and wrong-headed," said Paul. "I would say it would be best he not be so critical right now."
Paul was a constant critic of the Iraq war during his unsuccessful presidential run. While he is currently not seeking a higher office, his son, Rand, is seeking the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky.
Paul's comments come several days after Cheney released a tough-worded statement criticizing the president's response to the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day.
"He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war," Cheney said in the statement. "He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."'
White House Communications Director Dan Pffeifer later responded the president "is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action."
I knew I liked Ron Paul. Haven't I been saying this since January of 2009? Hmmm...Cheney needs to shut his mouth unless he's ready to offer real alternatives to Obama's strategies. So far, all he seems to do is naysay and tell Obama to go back to his and Bush's [failed] strategies. If you want to be a real leader, admit your administration screwed up and stop trying to tell Obama to continue to do what you did, what we voted against in November '08...maybe come up with something new for once.