Yearning for Jesus

Where are you Lord? Come Lord Jesus come! Have you ever just come to a point where nothing or no one else really matters? A point where you are just so consumed by onething and that's the only thing that will satisfy you. Where you are wanting something so bad that you begin to literaly pant for it? That's where I'm at now in my desire for Christ. I love my wife and kids and I know that they love me. I have good job and good friends, a roof over my head, plenty of food to eat, but none of these things and people give me the joy and peace that God gives me through my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is the only one that.... me. I can't even truly express the way His love touches me,surrounds me,engulfs me,searches me,uplifts me,completes me,gives me hope and causes me to want to love him and others in the same matter.
The problem is I fall short and don't love Him like I should. I don't seek Him like I should. I don't love others like I should and I am reminded of my wretchedness,the blackness of my heart. In light of His goodness and grace, His mercy and forgiveness, His unfailing love towards me which He lavishes upon me unconditionaly, who am I too be unloveing and unforgiving towards anyone. After a brief moment of contemplation I realize that I am not worthy of Him. And because He is so Holy, so righteous, so pure and I am... well me, at times He seems so far away. Yet His graces reaches me where I am and causes me to long for the one who reedemed my soul with His own blood and I cry out where are you Lord. Come Lord Jesus come.

Missing URGENT NEED YOUR HELP!!!!

Antichrist (the movie)

I've been hearing a lot lately about this new film coming out called Antichrist. And of course when I heard the title I immediately assumed that this would be another horror movie, or a movie about antichrist the person who the bible warns us is coming in the last days. But when I read an article on Telegraph.co.uk which really was an interview with the star of the movie, William Dafoe, I was shocked to learn the true story of the film.

I've never seen the movie but basically it is about a psychiatrist (Dafoe), and his wife whose son dies after he falls out of a window while they are having wild sex (apparently throughout most of the movie) and not paying attention to him. He and the wife both fall into depression, her more deeply than him, but he recovers somewhat and feels like the treatment his wife is getting is not good enough. So he decides that he can treat better than the doctor she is already seeing. His therapy involves "hurting her" which according to his definition means more raunchy sex, and self mutilation. My description is far less detailed than the article, and Olga Craig, the journalist who wrote the piece, says that her description is way less graphic than what actually takes place on screen. Below is an excerpt from the article.

Olga craig -"Antichrist, which was previewed at the Cannes film festival amid a brouhaha of media moral outrage, whipped up a storm of indignation (most genuine, some affected) among critics who are aghast that the British Board of Film Classification has given the film – from the pen of Lars von Trier, the cult Danish film-maker – an 18 rating.

They are even more aghast at its unsimulated, nigh on pornographic scenes of uninhibited passion in which Dafoe and his co-star, Charlotte Gainsbourg, couple with feverish abandon before indulging in a frenzy of genital self-mutilation, mutual masturbation and an eye-watering quasi torture sequence. For those of you whose interests lean towards the prurient, I suggest you read a no-holds-barred description of the film on the internet. For those of a more delicate disposition, the following will suffice.

Dafoe and Gainsbourg – a psychiatrist and his wife – are grieving over the death of their only son who, in an artfully shot opening scene, falls from a window while they are engaged in the film’s first of many unflinching sex scenes. Gainsbourg suffers a breakdown. Dafoe rails at her therapy and medication and insists upon treating her himself. She protests that he is too close. Arrogant and overbearing, Dafoe insists.

They retreat to their secluded cabin. What ensues is a moving and thought-provoking journey through the dark and gritty themes of grief and guilt. There are moments of extreme tenderness interspersed with unfathomable fantasy: others of wanton sexual abandon that border on, then invade, the boundaries of what most would consider decency. Mediawatch-UK has denounced it as ‘shocking’ and critics denounced it as ‘an abomination’ and ‘sadistically violent’. "

WOW! After reading this article I can fully understand why they entitled this film Antichrist. It totally and undeniably made in the spirit of the antichrist. It opposes all that is of God and the teachings Jesus Christ which are found in the holy word of God. It shows the depth of the depravity of the human heart on many levels on and off camera. First off William Dafoe is a married man which means that he is committing adultery. Secondly his wife doesn't mind and even has watched while some of the sex scenes while they were being made, and she even made dinner for them all sometimes after the crew was done filming for the day. Thirdly, apparently some people have given this movie rave reviews as if genital mutilation and gross immorality are something to be raved about. Lastly the title itself is a direct affront to the Lord Himself. It shakes a defiant fist at God and unabashedly challenges His authority from the very moment the idea for this movie was conceived in the corrupt mind that it originated from. Everything about this movie promotes unholiness,ungodliness, unrighteousness and all things that are called good.

Who's side is Obama on?

During the uprising in Iran over the scam of an presidential election, in which many peaceful protesters were killed, president Obama went out of his way to keep silent about the whole situation. From the contested election results, to the murder of innocent iranian citizens who demanded to be heard by their government,Obama was conspicuously quiet about the injustices that were exacted upon the voters of that land. He said he didn't want to appear to be meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation, however when it comes to Israel he has no problem with dictating to them what they should do within the borders of their own country.He told Israel that they should stop building settlements for jewish citizens on their on land It sure seems to me that he has no problem with meddling in Israeli affairs. He has broken his back to appease the muslim world, but clinched his teeth and talked very tough when comes to our closest ally in the middle east. I wonder if Israel needed America in a time of war would Obama respond favorably and decisively with Israel or choose not to "meddle" in our friend's business.

No Greater Love

What a mighty God we serve! How great is His grace towards them that fear Him and call upon His Holy name. He loves you! Jesus loves you, He loves you, He loves you! Look at the cross and see Gods love for you. Look at Jesus and see the Heart of God. His hatred of sin and rebellion, but the love, grace, and mercy towards the rebellious, towards those who turn to Him in repentance and humility of heart and mind.

Just being me: Obama to release trained jihadists on american soil

Andrew C. McCarthy

May 1, 2009

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,

/S/

Andrew C. McCarthy

cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section

Obama to release trained jihadists on american soil

The more I learn about Barack Hussein Obama, the more I am convinced that he is really destroying America on purpose. I don't think someone can be as incompotent as he is concerning human behavior and the difference between friend and foe. Nor could it be that he's drank to much of his own kool aid in thinking that if everyone just talks to each other that we can come to peaceful agreements no matter what the dispute. The Kim guy in North korea and the Ahck-blah guy in Iran has already shown that they don't want to talk, so why does he insist on trying to communicate with them.Plus, with all that he's said about this country lately to arab world, and now this article stating that the govt. plans to release trained jihadists, I sincerely believe that he is up to no good