Tom Sowell: Deepest Bow Is Reserved For World Opinion

Deepest Bow Is Reserved For World Opinion

By THOMAS SOWELL IBD: 17 Nov. 2009

In the string of amazing decisions made during the first year of the Obama administration, nothing seems more like sheer insanity than the decision to try foreign terrorists, who have committed acts of war against the United States, in federal court, as if they were American citizens accused of crimes.

Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Conventions, nor are they among those covered by it.

But over and above the utter inconsistency of what is being done is the utter recklessness it represents.

The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993. Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense — information that told the al-Qaida international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it.

This was nothing more and nothing less than giving away military secrets to an enemy in wartime — something for which people have been executed, as they should have been.

Secrecy in warfare is a matter of life and death. Lives were risked and lost during World War II to prevent Nazi Germany from discovering that Britain had broken its supposedly unbreakable Enigma code and could read their military plans that were being radioed in that code.

“Loose lips sink ships” was the World War II motto in the United States. But loose lips are mandated under the rules of criminal prosecutions.

Leadership(?): Barack Hussein Obama

This Is Post-Racial?

IBD 24 July 2009

Leadership: Barack Obama promised a new “post-racialism.” But when a black pal was arrested by a white policeman for disorderly conduct, the president’s response was pure old race politics. So which is it?

During a press conference otherwise devoted to health care, the president on Wednesday interjected himself into a local police matter when he addressed the arrest of his friend Henry Louis Gates, a Harvard professor who got himself into an altercation with a Cambridge, Mass., cop on July 16.

Seems the cop, Sgt. James Crowley, had the cheek to ask Gates for identification during a routine burglary investigation.

That made the professor so angry that he hurled charges of racism, screamed outrage that Crowley didn’t know who he was, warned the cop not to “mess” with him and then created enough of a public disturbance to get himself arrested. The whole matter proved to be an embarrassment for all, and the city later dropped the charges.

But instead of admitting the most-likely truth — that his friend had made a fool of himself hollering racism over a legitimate police inquiry and let his academic ego get the better of him — Obama moved unexpectedly into the crudities of race-baiting, even after admitting he didn’t have all the facts.

“Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

This fits nicely with the stereotype perpetuated at places like Harvard — that of white working-class cops going around rousting innocent blacks to preserve a white power structure.

But if that stereotype was ever true, it was before black mayors, black police chiefs, community organizing, sensitivity training and large university endowments for scholars such as Gates.

(It came out Thursday that Crowley himself is a police academy expert on racial profiling, having been handpicked for the job by a former police commissioner who is black and who says he has “nothing but respect for him as a police officer.”)

It was also before the rise of professional race-baiters such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, who use racism allegations to make political hay.

The election of Barack Obama was supposed to get us beyond grievance politics, reparations and all the things that create pointless conflict. Sadly, the president didn’t rise to the task in this case.

Unloved Stimulus

IBD: 15 July 2009

Spending: The stimulus isn’t working, and Americans don’t want another. At least, that’s what our latest IBD/TIPP Poll shows. So why is Congress mulling a second stimulus when the first has so obviously failed?

In our national poll taken last week, 53% said the $787 billion stimulus plan passed in February was “not effective” in “getting the economy going in the right direction.”

……

So while we have very little economic activity to show for all the stimulus and bailout money spent, we’ll have a massive debt hanging over our collective heads for decades to come.

……

With joblessness now at 9.5%, White House economic adviser Christina Romer on Tuesday admitted there was no way to tell how many jobs were created or saved. Stimulus, it seems, is faith-based economics.

……

Hasn’t anyone noticed that despite a 20% jump in spending over the last year, tax revenues have plunged 18% — largely because many of the “millionaires” Congress is going after are going broke?

So are the rest of us. Web site E-forecasting.com estimates the U.S. has lost over $108 billion in real GDP since the stimulus began.

SUBMISSION

Frank Gaffney is a friend –

He signed his recent book “War Footing” to me.

Don

S-U-B-M-I-S-S-I-O-N

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

How appropriate that Barack Obama featured Aretha Franklin in his Inaugural festivities since her signature song is “Respect.” Literally from the moment she finished belting out “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” on Jan. 20, the new president has been conveying his “respect” for the Muslim world. Unfortunately, the way he practices it seems to be spelled S-U-B-M-I-S-S-I-O-N.

Several observers have noted in recent days that Mr. Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world is not only defensive and apologetic. It explicitly embraces a narrative that is factually erroneous and deprecating to his own country.

For example, in his Inaugural address, the president spoke of seeking “a new way forward [with the Muslim world], based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” He amplified this idea during his first post-Inaugural interview, which was granted to a Saudi-owned network, Al Arabiya: He is determined to “restore” the “same respect and partnership America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.” – ???

The problem with this formulation is that it misrepresents the more distant as well as the recent past, even as it panders to those (abroad and at home) who would blame the United States for the ills of the Muslim world. As Charles Krauthammer put it in his syndicated column last week, over the last 20 years, “America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. … It is both false and injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.”

The president also told Al Arabiya that: “My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.” Lest there be any doubt about the priority he attaches to this messaging, Mr. Obama repeated the point. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes.? We have not been perfect.“?

For good measure, the new president described America as a country of “Muslims, Christians, Jews” and others - a presumably intentional upgrading of adherents to the faith of his father, Islam, from the second place position he accorded them in his State of the Union address several days before. (The rankings of both orderings obviously reflect something other than demographics; there are far fewer Muslims than Christians in the United States and, according to independent estimates, only half as many – or less – than Jews.)

Mr. Obama has also seriously mischaracterized our enemy as “a far-reaching network of violence and hatred,” averring “We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence done in that faith’s name.” Such statements deliberately ignore the animating and unifying role in jihad of authoritative Islam’s violent and hateful theo-political-legal program: Shariah.

What is really worrying is that Mr. Obama’s actions and rhetoric are almost certainly being perceived by his target audience as evidence not of respect but of subservience – precisely what Islam (literally, “submission” in Arabic) requires of all of us, Muslims and non-Muslims, alike. Consider the following:

• Mr. Obama has made no secret of his desire to cultivate improved relations with the mullahs of Iran, who have repressed their people and threatened ours for 30 years. It appears he started to do so months before his election, as a senior campaign adviser, former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry, met repeatedly with a representative of Iran’s genocide-supporting president, Mahmoud Ahamadinejad. In recent days, Obama special envoy for Afghan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, hired as a senior adviser Professor Vali Reza Nasr – an Iranian expatriate with an appalling record of shilling for the Islamic Revolutionary Iranian regime.

• According to GeostrategyDirect.com, a newsletter published by The Washington Times’ ace national security reporter Bill Gertz, “Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from al Qaeda in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said al Qaeda has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. ‘For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to al Qaeda on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States,’ a diplomatic source said. ‘Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office.’ “

DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD “TREASON”?

If surrender in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran were not enough, upcoming opportunities for Mr. Obama to exhibit American submission to Islam include ordering U.S. participation in the United Nations’ “Durban II” conference - thereby legitimating its Iranian-dictated, rabidly anti-Israel, anti-American, Holocaust-denying and “Islamophobia”-banning agenda; adopting the program for undermining Israel promoted by longtime Friends-of-Barack Rashid Khalidi and Samantha Power (the latter just appointed a senior National Security Council official); and reversing the FBI’s long-overdue decision to end its association with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a prominent front organization of the Muslim Brotherhood (whose stated mission is “to destroy America from within.”)

Whatever Barack Obama’s intentions, the kind of “respect” he is exhibiting toward Shariah-adherent Muslims will surely be seen by them as submission. And that spells only one thing: D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R.

THIS TIME THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT is RIGHT

NOTE THE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE – STILL VERY VITAL

Obama is slick as a serpent – that’s sad for America – “the Religious Right” didn’t get it right!

Superstar Messiah Obama.....(Not...)

Sandy Rios – Guest Columnist – 7/23/2008

“For Obama, faith is not simply political garb, something a focus group told him he ought to try. Instead, religion to him is transforming, lifelong, and real.” That’s a quote from “The Faith of Barack Obama,” published by Thomas Nelson, the world’s largest Christian publisher, scheduled to be released in early August by author Stephen Mansfield, an evangelical Christian biographer of New York Times bestseller, “The Faith of George Bush.”

Highly respected Catholic professor at Pepperdine School of Law, Douglas Kmiec is also effusive in his support of Obama: “Obama said he earnestly wants to ‘discourage’ the practice (of abortion) despite the distortions of some who think if they affix the ‘pro-abortion-won’t overturn-Roe-label’ to the senator, pro-lifers like myself won’t give him the time of day. Sorry, good friends, not this year,” he wrote in the Chicago Tribune.

Kmiec was reporting on a recent meeting with Obama that included Franklin Graham, Bishop T.D. Jakes and about 30 other religious leaders. Late in 2006, Obama had stood on the stage of Rick Warren’s influential Saddleback Church, declaring his faith in the context of fighting HIV/AIDS, gladly taking on the mantle of implied endorsement.

Soon the Obama campaign will begin appearing on Christian radio and Internet outlets, and they’ll be hosting thousands of “American Values House Parties,” where attendees will discuss Obama and religion.

Yes, indeed. The Barack Obama campaign has a wonderful plan for your life … especially if you are an evangelical. And he has plenty of help to expedite the plan.

But one stubborn evangelical is calling out the charade: Dr. James Dobson, respected founder of Focus on the Family and unquestionably the current leader of the “Religious Right.” “I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson declared on a recent broadcast.

So, who’s right? Is Barack Obama deliberately distorting the Bible (Yes.) and Christian theology as a means to a political end or is he in fact, a man of great faith?

Stephen Mansfield wrote, “Young evangelicals are saying, ‘Look, I’m pro-life but I’m looking at a guy who’s first of all black’—and they love that; two, who’s a Christian; and three, who believes faith should bear on public policy.”

[Christians believe we are commanded to encourage a Christian Worldview]

But at a 2006 “Call to Renewal” conference, Barack himself said, “If God’s spoken, then His followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts regardless of the consequences. To base one’s own life on such uncompromising commitment may be sublime, but to base our policymaking on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.” [READ THAT CAREFULLY] Translated: First, faith should not bear on public policy. Secondly, Barack Obama will not be seeking a state of what he calls “sublime.”

[He’s telling us – don’t count on him to follow God’s Commandments.]

Kmiec insists Obama, “earnestly wants to ‘discourage’ the practice” of abortion.” Then how come Obama has a 100 percent voting record supporting it? [abortion] —has opposed any and all restrictions on it?—and has NARAL and Planned Parenthood fairly salivating at the thought of his election?

Dobson, on the other hand, claims Obama distorts scripture. In a recent policy speech, Obama boasted that he drew his willingness to champion the homosexual agenda from the Sermon on the Mount, not on some passage in the “obscure” book of Romans. I wonder if he noticed that part of Jesus’ sermon that said to look at a woman with lust was the same as committing adultery. Did he glean from that passage that to look on another man would somehow be okay? When he mocked the relevance of passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, I wondered if he’d read the passage in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (which includes Leviticus and Deuteronomy). I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17).

At the 2006 conference, he also chided his audience, “Let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.” He surely didn’t have himself in mind, did he? His devotion to scripture must mean he knew about that “obscure” book of Romans—that formative epistle written to the early persecuted church in Rome that transformed Martin Luther and catalyzed the Protestant Reformation and has been the bedrock of orthodox Christian theology for centuries. That obscure book? The one that warns, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness….”—and goes on to speak very directly on sexual morality: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another…. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Romans 1: 18, 24, 26-27).

This passage would probably be Exhibit A of why Obama thinks to base policymaking on such “uncompromising commitments” would be “a dangerous thing.” How would one face homosexual activists with such unflinching certainty?

“For Obama, faith is not simply political garb, something a focus group told him he ought to try. Instead, religion to him is transforming, lifelong, and real,” declared Mansfield. The exception, apparently, is when that faith interferes with the reigning public policy orthodoxy on abortion and homosexual rights.

There are other moral reasons to support Obama, argues Douglas Kmiec. Feeding the poor is one of them. “He intends to ask government and non-governmental entities—and you and me—to do our part.” But what Professor Kmiec may not know is that Obama really hasn’t been doing his part. According to Obama’s released tax returns, from 2001-2004 he gave less than one percent of his income to charity.

“He’s dragging biblical understanding through the gutter,” Dobson declared passionately. And he’s right.

With great bravado and eloquent phrasing, Obama twists and turns every phrase so effectively that while championing a radical moral agenda, he feigns strong Christian faith. While boasting concern for the poor, with his own wealth he looks the other way.

A man of deep Christian faith? Not by the definition of the Jesus he claims to serve and the Bible he quotes so frequently.

Thank God for Dr. Dobson’s boldness on this one. This time the “Religious Right” is right!

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ “

4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Note: God knew that evil existed in His perfect setting – His perfect garden, His perfect plan – all His creation had to do was to obey His plan for life.

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Shortly – later God said: “What is this you have done?  The women said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14.  So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, – cursed are you above all livestock and all the wild animals!  You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust, all the days of your life.

The Good Doctor

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 12 January 2009

Health Care: Barack Obama considers neurosurgeon Sanjay Gupta for surgeon general, and fellow Democrats grouse. Is it because he’s unqualified? No, it’s because they think he opposes nationalized health care.

---

Leading the charge against Gupta is Rep. John Conyers, who has introduced legislation that would force Americans into a nationalized medical care system. The Michigan Democrat is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee chairman and therefore has no vote or formal role in the appointment process for surgeon general. Yet, “he is lobbying the Senate and the incoming president to reject Gupta,” according to The Hill newspaper.

In a “Dear Colleague” letter, Conyers, who has someone else in mind for the post, told fellow lawmakers it’s “not in the best interests of the nation to have someone like this who lacks the requisite experience needed to oversee the federal agency that provides crucial health care assistance to some of the poorest and most underserved communities in America.”

Conyers has also made his case to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who does have a part in the appointment process, and who had plans to call Obama directly.

Gupta, who is not only a highly regarded neurosurgeon but a professor and CNN medical correspondent, is also opposed by Michael Moore, with whom he had a 2007 television run-in. Moore happens to be a good friend of Conyers, a supporter of nationalized health care and opponent of Gupta’s appointment.

Involved on the periphery is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. He blogged Tuesday that he has a problem not with Gupta’s qualifications but his “mugging” of Moore over the 2007 documentary “Sicko” and how Gupta “accused Moore of lying.”

Krugman, another long-time advocate for national health care, says Gupta’s nomination is “a small thing.” But it’s “another example of the lack of accountability that always seems to be the rule when you get things wrong in a socially acceptable way,” he adds.

Rather than be flayed by the likes of Krugman, Gupta should be recognized for the public service he performed by fact-checking Moore, a propagandist who has a history of staging scenes to support his point of view and deceiving his audience.

If the campaign for nationalized health care is, as Conyers puts it, “done for” should Gupta get the job, then anyone truly interested in public health should hope that Gupta is quickly ushered into his new job. The U.S. needs universal care like Canadians need even longer waits for treatment under their version of what Conyers, Krugman, Moore, et al. have in mind.

American Jewish Indifference

IMPORTANT!

Please note that Israel is our only real friend in the world and we are Israel’s only real friend.

Don

=======================================================

American Jewish Indifference

More Articles By Caroline B. Glick

Caroline B. Glick
Posted Nov 26 2008

Apparently Israel is no longer a voting issue for most American Jews.

Seventy-eight percent of American Jewish voters cast their ballots for Senator Barack Obama on November 4. Obama, who boasted the most liberal voting record in the Senate, has never distinguished himself as a firm supporter of Israel and opposed the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that called on the State Department to place Iran’s Revolutionary Guards on its list of international terrorist organizations.

Obama counts no deeply committed Zionists among his close associates. Men and women like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Samantha Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Ayers, Robert Malley and Rashid Khalidi were all people Obama turned to for advice, guidance and support in his early years in politics and as a U.S. senator considering a run for the White House.

His “pro-Israel” advisers — mainly late pick-ups as the presidential race progressed — included no ardent Zionists to oppose the voices of his anti-Israel advisors. Instead, Obama turned to Dennis Ross and Daniel Kurtzer to advise him on the Middle East. These men, like his designated White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have views of Israel that are indistinguishable from the positions of Israel’s post-Zionist Meretz party.

During the course of the campaign, Obama gained notoriety for his hard left promises to appease U.S. foes like Iran, largely at the expense of U.S. allies like Israel. It could have been presumed that his expressed willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have raised red flags throughout the American Jewish community.

After all, given the failure of the now five-year-old European-U.S. attempt to appease Iran into ending its nuclear weapons program, it is apparent that a direct U.S. presidential dialogue with Ahmadinejad will be perceived by Iran as a green light to complete its nuclear weapons program.

But American Jewish voters were only too happy to believe Obama’s unconvincing attenuations of his pledge to hold talks with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. American Jews were also eager to accept his unconvincing disavowals of his association with the likes of Wright, Power, Khalidi, Malley and Brzezinski.

Obama is now signaling his support for the so-called Saudi Peace Plan, first released in 2002, which calls for Israel to essentially destroy itself in exchange for its Arab neighbors establishing “normal” relations with it.

The Saudi plan calls for Israel to remove itself completely to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and accept millions of foreign-born, hostile Arabs as full citizens as part of the so-called right of return of the descendants of Arabs who left Israel in 1948.

The fact that the Saudi initiative — even if Israel were to commit national suicide by taking such steps — limits the relations the Arabs would have with the rump bi-national state to “normal” rather than “peaceful” shows clearly that far from being a peace plan, it is a blueprint for Israel’s destruction.

In light of all of this, it is apparent that by voting for Obama, four-fifths of American Jews voted for a candidate more openly hostile to the U.S.-Israel alliance than any other major-party presidential candidate in the past generation.

One might argue that American Jews were simply unaware of Obama’s actual views on Israel. It is true, after all, that the U.S. media worked overtime throughout the campaign defending and hiding Obama’s longstanding connections to haters of the U.S.

But despite the media effort to conceal or explain away difficult truths about Obama’s character, concerned American Jewish voters had access to the facts. Any number of alternative media outlets provided a steady stream of information about Obama’s associations with Israel bashers.

More than anything else, the willingness of American Jews to believe Obama is pro-Israel shows they simply didn’t care that much. If they had cared, they would have scrutinized Obama’s alarming connections at least as carefully as they attacked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for her anti-abortion views. They would have wondered what it means that Obama spent twenty years of his life in the pews of a deeply anti-Semitic church at least as much as they wondered about a Jews for Jesus preacher who once spoke at Palin’s church.

There are several possible and complementary explanations for American Jewry’s apparent indifference to Israel’s fate.

High assimilation rates cause many American Jews to feel more attachment to non-Jewish causes than to Jewish causes. At the same time, the watering-down of Jewish teachings in various Jewish communities and the replacement of Jewish law and traditions with amorphous and trendy concepts of “social justice and “multiculturalism have engendered a basic ignorance of the exceptional significance and beauty of Judaism among a large portion of American Jews.

Then there is the leadership crisis affecting world Jewry. Weak and uninspiring Israeli leaders and weak and uninspiring American Jewish leaders have failed to assert and explain the connection between Israel’s security and the wellbeing of the American Jewish community.

Whereas until the 1980s it went without saying for most American Jews that their fortunes were directly tied to Israel’s security, today the unity of Jewish fate has been lost on ever widening circles of American Jews.

To all of this must be added the unique self-perception of American Jewry. The American Jewish community is the only community in Jewish history that refused to view itself as an exile community. Even before the American Revolution, Jewish settlers in the New World viewed America as a permanent home.

As a consequence, on a philosophical level American Jews have always held Israel and Zionism at arm’s length. They could support Israel as a refuge for persecuted Jews from other countries, but they couldn’t support Israel as the permanent and irreplaceable homeland for all Jews without revoking the foundational belief of their American Jewish identity.

Today Israel is threatened with annihilation and the U.S. Jewish community is suffering from more blatant and organized anti-Semitic attacks than it has seen in the past fifty years. But during this year’s presidential campaign, the basic truth that the security of all Jews is dependent on the security of Israel was no match for the full consequences of failed leadership, assimilation and the basic American Jewish desire to reject the singularity of Jewish destiny.

Israel’s next government will be called on to defend Israel against Iran and its Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese proxies, And it will be called to act at a time when the U.S. is led by an Obama administration pledged to appease these forces. Israel will have to rally all of its supporters in the U.S. to its side in order to stand up for its survival.

In light of the American Jewish vote, it is an open question whether Israel will receive the help of its American Jewish brethren in its hour of need.

Caroline Glick is deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her Jewish Press-exclusive column appears the last week of each month. Her new book, “The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad,” is available at Am

NOW AVAILABLE

The Real Messiah: Prophecies Fulfilled

_

ORDER NOW:

http://store.coralridge.org/ProductDetails.aspx?pc=115363

or Call: 1-800-988-7884

ALSO IF YOU ARE NEAR ANN ARBOR – WE HAVE COPIES HERE

Please contact: dvancurler@aol.com

NRA Magazine Cover – Obama

American Rifleman Cover – - Barack Obama on Gun Control

American Rifleman Mag -

NRA website: www.nra.org/