Friday, April 29, 2011

Man Arrested in Hemet CA for Reading His Bible

US Man Arrested Outside Calif. DMV for Reading His Bible Out Loud
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 7:46am by Jonathon M. Seidl at

When Mark Mackey, a member of the local Calvary Chapel, showed up to the DMV office in Hemet, CA on February 2, he had a goal: read the Bible and introduce those waiting in line to the “gospel of Jesus Christ.” And for about 15 minutes he was successful. That is until a California Highway Patrolman took the Bible from his hands, arrested him, and told him he was guilty of preaching to a “captive audience.”

According to reports, Mackey wasn’t the only one arrested. Pastor Brett Coronado and Edmond Flores, Jr., who were accompanying him, were also taken into custody.

A press release from the group Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is representing the men in a lawsuit, says the men were arrested for “impeding an open business” under Penal Code Section 602.1(b). But, the group calls the justification under that statue a stretch.

“The charge of ‘impeding an open business’ was enacted in large part to protect businesses against protestors who block the doors of an open business,” the release says. “At the time of the arrest of these men, the DMV was closed, and they were standing at least fifty feet away from the entrance.”

“This is an abuse of power on the part of the CHP,” said Jennifer Monk, associate general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “The arresting officer could find no appropriate penal code to use when arresting these men. The purpose of the arrests appears to have been to censor them.”

A closer look at the Penal Code Section 602.1(b) may, at first glance, cause even more outrage for those such as Monk who are upset by the case. According to section c-1 of the law, the “preachers” would seem to have been okay if they were from a union:

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are
permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.

But according to Lt. Michael Soubirous of the San Gorgonio Pass CHP Station, which oversees the Hemet area, the men were arrested because they didn’t have a permit.

“The whole thing is, when you go to the DMV, you are not allowed to do any other business,” Soubirous told the Banning-Beaumont Patch. He said a permit is required on state property for anything other than the intended business.

“We would have granted them a permit to go out and preach,” Soubirous explained. “There is a mechanism to be allowed to protest…We don‘t inhibit people’s right to free speech–we regulate it.”

Despite the arrests, the district attorney has not pursued criminal charges. Still, Advocates for Faith and Freedom is going through with its lawsuit.

“Whether this was an intentional violation of our clients’ constitutional liberty or whether this was an act of ignorance on the part of the CHP, this lawsuit is important in order to preserve the liberty to read the Bible aloud on public property without fear of criminal prosecution,” said Robert Tyler, General Counsel for Advocates for Faith & Freedom.

You can view the group’s complaint here.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Muslims Beat Evangelist, Assault Pregnant Wife

By BosNewsLife Africa Service at

Devoted Christians can face persecution in several parts of Ethiopia, rights groups say.

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA (BosNewsLife)– Christians in Ethiopia were mourning Thursday, April 28, after Muslim extremists reportedly killed an evangelist and assaulted his pregnant wife.

The attack happened last week, April 21, in the south-central town of Worabe, an area that is 97 percent Muslim, Christian rights activists said.

“Muslims lured Evangelist Abraham Abera from Kale Hiwot Church, his home and place of ministry, and told him that his friend was sick and needed immediate attention. Abraham left with the men, who turned on him, beating him with rods,” explained advocacy group International Christian Concern (ICC) in a statement.

ICC, which has close contacts with Christians in the region, said the evangelist’s pregnant wife, Birtukan, was also attacked when she tried to intervene. ”Abraham died on the spot and his wife, who sustained a severe head injury, was left unconscious in the street. She was found and taken to a hospital in [the town of] Butajira, where she regained consciousness on April 22 and was able to recount the details of the attack,” ICC added.

Birtukan reportedly said that as Muslims were beating her and her husband, they told them, ”You (Christians) are growing in number in our area. You are spreading your message (the gospel). We will destroy you.”


Though Birtukan did suffer injuries to her mid-section, her unborn baby “did fortunately survive the attack,”ICC added. Ethiopian officials could not immediately be reached amid reports that the suspects remain at large.

Birtukan reportedly said she knew at least two two of the attackers. She said Christians have suggested that the men may not be arrested because local officials are also Muslims.

“Christians in Worabe and its surrounding areas are persecuted at the hands of Muslim radicals, and the local government officials, who are Muslims, don’t protect Christians. We urge the higher government authorities [state and federal officials] to intervene and protect us,” ICC quoted an unidentified Christian leader as saying.

“The brutal killing of Evangelist Abraham and the beating of his wife, Birtukan, is deeply troubling. We urge the federal government authorities to investigate this latest attack as well as reports of persecution against Christians in the Silte zone,” stressed Jonathan Racho, ICC’s Regional Manager for Africa.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Muslim Brotherhood seized the Egyptian Revolution

RECENT NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINE: ‘Surprisingly, the Muslim Brotherhood appears to have seized the Egyptian revolution’

WELL, DUH! This must come as quite a shock to Obama Regime officials like Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who assured us that the Muslim Brotherhood was a mostly secular movement.
HOT AIR - Even some hard-nosed realists might find themselves a bit surprised at how quickly the nature of the Egyptian revolution changed after Hosni Mubarak fled:

In post-revolutionary
Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.
It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment. As the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence. But what surprises many is its link to a military that vilified it.

But what happened to all of those young idealists in the street that drove Mubarak out of power and put their trust in the military to protect them? Well, they don’t seem to be around any longer, but suddenly facial hair is the new fashion on the street:

“We are all worried,” said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone.”

Friday, April 22, 2011

The Stations of the Cross (Via Crucis)

Anrew Klavan - Sensitivity Training 101

From Andrew Klavan's On the Culture -  Sensitivity Training 101: Abandon all your principles. Defending ideals like individual liberty and freedom of expression can be offensive to others and dangerous to yourself.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion?


Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion?

Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan, who has been covering the Geert Wilders trial so lucidly for the last couple of weeks, contributes the following overview of the case and its larger ramifications.

Geert Wilders as Galileo

Freedom of speech or freedom of religion?
by H. Numan

It seems that quite a few readers have lost track of what exactly is going on during the Wilders trial. The issue at stake is on what basis our society will come to rest: which is more important? Freedom of religion, or freedom of speech? Not just in The Netherlands, mind you. This trial has much broader consequences.

Let me start off by making it easy: freedom of speech does not mean you have the freedom to shout “FIRE!” in a cinema, for example. There is ample jurisprudence on that one. Freedom of speech has its limitations. You have the right to say what you feel about any religion, but you may have to clarify that in court. Again, there is ample jurisprudence about that topic as well.

Piss Christ by Andres SerranoThere is a current trend, both in Europe as well as in the USA to give freedom of religion far more importance than it actually deserves. That is what is at stake. Currently, someone put an image of Jesus in glass of urine, as an art form. Utterly tasteless, I fully admit. But it falls completely under freedom of speech.

I understand that some (not even that many) Christians are offended. None of them is burning down art galleries, beheading artists, or killing other Christians to show their dislike. That is in stark contrast with mohammedanism, which would go completely berserk if an artist were to place a koran in a jar of urine. They’d happily kill any number of people, including their own, to show their fury. It doesn’t matter at all where the artist lives: be it Nova Zembla, Antarctica, or anywhere between.

This has already happened many times. Offend mohammedanism — anywhere on the world — and we will take revenge. Terry Jones burned a koran, in America. Which is well within his constitutional right to do. It was not (yet) possible to kill that infidel, so they went berserk in Afghanistan. Much easier to do there anyway. Not that easy to kill infidels, sadly. Most infidels in Afghanistan wear flak jackets and carry M16s. So they picked a few of those that don’t and a large number of mohammedans as well. About 24 people killed altogether, as I recall.

The reaction is Chamberlainian: We have to change our laws, in order to compel to their religious beliefs. That is the world on its head. But many politicians will happily appease themselves into dhimmitude. The Dutch government is doing that right now, actually. All for oil…

The Wilders case is far more complicated than that. Wilders is an elected parliamentarian. He cannot be prosecuted for his words outside parliament. But he can be prosecuted for his statements made in public outside parliament. And that is what happened.

That seems not unreasonable, until you read the charge, and see how this circus progresses. The DA did not want to prosecute, because he considered it an impossible case to win. The court had to order the DA to do so, which he then unwillingly did. His demand was release from prosecution. A DA can do that. Normally, the court would by then understand that the case is utterly hopeless and dismiss it.

However, this is a purely political trial. Make no mistake about that. The court did order the prosecution to proceed, and put Wilders on trial. Fortunately, Wilders is defended by the best lawyer in the country. The first trial was dismissed into a re-trial. Not unprecedented, admittedly. However, this particular outcome was absolutely unheard of. Certainly in a trial of this magnitude.

If you had watched the judges blunder along, the DA making a fool of himself and most important: if you had seen the complainants utterly misbehave and show their unprofessional hatred, you’d be disgusted. This was not a trial, this was being put on the stake. If the court had any decency, as one might expect from a court, it should have ordered all the complainants inadmissible.

Wilders trial — Mohammed Enait and Nico Steijnen

One of the councillor-complainants was arrested the day after the trial for climbing over a fence into a military facility. The man is a professional hippie (with filthy hair and ponytail), but he’s pushing 60… He behaved exactly like that in court: as a hippie high as a kite on grass demanding that his (unreasonable) demands be met. Not professional at all. An angry fishmonger would have presented his case more clearly and less revoltingly. Another one already showed his blatant hatred for the entire legal system (in which he actually works) by appearing with a muslim headdress and refusing to remove it. (One is not allowed to wear funny hats in Dutch courts; only a magistrate has that privilege.)

So now we see the Wilders-show Part II: “The hanging continues”.

Wilders must be found guilty. Anything goes to get his head into the noose. After the murder of Pim Fortuyn, having him popped by accident is rather difficult to do. Although the murder of Fortuyn was all too obvious, the organizers got away clean. I doubt if they can do it again. Nobody would believe for a minute that Wilders had been murdered for the sake of poor baby seals. (The murderer of Fortuyn claimed to have murdered him for animal welfare.)

Bram MoszcowiczSo we have to open the dirty tricks book, and see what we can use. The phone call for Moszcowicz was a set-up. He didn’t fall into it, but barely so. Only after seeing the entire clip second by second, many times, did I begin to understand the set up. It was very cleverly done. If you watch the clip just once, you won’t spot it. Certainly not if you don’t understand Dutch. Because the whole trick was linguistic.

What many people — amongst others minister Piet Heijn Donner — do not understand is that shariah law does not have to be implemented as one single package. Muslims would be perfectly happy to see it become enforced in little steps. Piet Hein Donner made himself ridiculous in the previous government by stating he saw no problem with Shariah law, provided it was democratically approved.

Rotterdam Mosque, Geert Wilders

Sheer ranting nonsense: that implies he has no problems with gas chambers, either, or cannibalism, provided a legal majority (in both parliamentary chambers) approve of it. Of course that’s impossible. But the big difference is that shariah law can be applied without even changing the constitution at all. If I can understand that, why has the minister of justice such a hard time understanding this? He has a much better legal training then I’ll ever have.

Nobody will ever come up with a shariah book of law and propose that it become Dutch law in parliament. First both houses must approve, then both must be dissolved, after new elections the matter is put to both houses and only then would shariah law be Dutch law. It won’t happen that way, because it never happened anywhere on this planet that way. Yet, the minister seems to think so.

The first step is already taken. Both in the USA and in The Netherlands. We have to make any religion more important than freedom of speech. That is what is on trial in The Netherlands, and that is why the left-wing powers behind it go full steam to get Wilders convicted. Once any religion can no longer be insulted, it’s a tiny step to forbid questioning of all religions. After all, have you ever met a fundie who is not offended by serious questions regarding his beliefs? And from there we simply enforce that new law, but only to the maximum when the religion is mohammedanism. After all, mohammedans have no problem at all insulting any other religion. They do so daily.

It seems so innocent: in order to protect innocent lives, we have to act when somebody burns any religious book. But nobody will legally act if someone places a crucifix in a jar of piss. Cover a koran with bacon, however, and it’ll be the electric chair for you. Maybe not today, but it is well on its way.

— H. Numan

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Rev. Reorus Torkillus Day - April 17, 1640

On this date, April 17, 1640, Rev. Reorus Torkillus, a Swedish professor from Gottenberg, arrived at Fort Christiana, New Sweden (present-day Delaware). The 41-year-old minister was the first Lutheran pastor in an area that would become part of the United States. Torkillus held services in the fort and died three years after his arrival.

The Swedish colony in Delaware was established by Peter Minuit in 1638--the same man who colonized New Netherlands for the Dutch. Minuit purchased land in Delaware from the Iroquois for a Swedish colony. He established Fort Christina, near present day Wilmington. It was the first permanent settlement of Europeans in Delaware.

The Lutheran Church was the State church of Sweden, and the Swedish rulers were interested in providing for the spiritual needs of the colonists and the Indians. They sent a pastor to New Sweden. 

map of New Sweden

Palm Sunday 2011

 Matthew 21 (English Standard Version)

The Triumphal Entry

Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once." This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying,

"Say to the daughter of Zion,'Behold, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'"

The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, "Who is this?" And the crowds said, "This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee."

Friday, April 15, 2011

Things Your Lutheran Pastor Totally Loves: Talking With Biblicists


International Community Helping Bosniaks Create an Islamic State

Bosnian Serb leader accuses international community of helping Muslim Bosniaks create an Islamic state

posted at:

"We have no right to be naive." Indeed. "Bosnian Serb leader calls for referendum on scrapping country's top war crimes court," by Irena Knezevic for The Associated Press, April 13 (thanks to George):

The Bosnian Serb leader has accused the international community of helping Muslim Bosniaks create an Islamic state and claims the country's top war crimes court is an illegal institution that demonizes his people.

Milorad Dodik told the Bosnian Serb Parliament Wednesday that the State Court had so far convicted ten times more Serbs than any other ethnicity, and called on lawmakers to approve a referendum for those living in the Bosnian Serb part of the country that will decide whether they should continue to answer to the court....

Dodik claimed Wednesday that the court continues to present Serbs as the sole guilty party in the war, and is thus justifying international efforts to take away Serb autonomy. He accused the international community of helping Muslim Bosniaks create an Islamic state.

"We have no right to be naive," he told the Bosnian Serb Parliament. "The creation of an Islamic state is a project... Unfortunately some of the people representing the international community who sit in Sarajevo and elsewhere in the world for their own reasons support the realization of that Bosniak goal."...

Thursday, April 14, 2011

How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization

Does the Bible Matter In the 21st Century?

By Vishal Mangalwadi, Published April 13, 2011, 

In his quest to change oppressive regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, President George W. Bush argued, “Everyone desires freedom.” True. Everyone also desires a happy marriage: can everyone therefore have one?

Afghanistan, Iraq, Ivory Coast, and Libya ought to teach secular ideologues that freedom does not flow from the barrel of a gun. Nor does it flourish in every culture.

Why do most American presidents place a hand on the Bible to take the oath of office? Secular education has made that a meaningless tradition, but the tradition exists because the Bible is the secret of America’s freedom. Forget the Bible and America will go the way of the first Protestant nation – Nazi Germany.

Plato saw Greek democracy first hand and condemned it as the worst of all political systems. That’s why the spread of the Greek culture, called "Hellenization," did not stir a struggle for democracy. In AD 798, the English scholar Alcuin summed up the then European wisdom to Emperor Charlemagne: “And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.” Indeed, the voice of a corrupt people is often the devil’s voice.

The cancer at the heart of America’s political economy is cultural. This great nation was built by an ethic – a spirituality that taught citizens to work, earn, save, invest, and use their wealth to serve their neighbors. This biblical ethic has been replaced by secularism’s entitlement culture that teaches people that they have a right to this, that and the other without corresponding obligations to work, save, and serve. This new culture forces the state to take from productive citizens or borrow from other nations and spend it on man-made rights. This corruption of character is destroying the world’s greatest economy, but can democracy allow leaders to go against the voters’ voice?

The people’s voice began to be honored as God’s voice only because the sixteenth century biblical Reformation began saturating the hearts and minds of the people with the Word of God. Those who prayed, “Your kingdom come, your will be done in Scotland (or England, or Holland)” found the grace to free themselves from the tyranny of men. Not just Islamic, but every culture that rejects the kingdom of God condemns itself to be ruled exclusively by sinful men.

Almost everyone desires a happy marriage, but without the Bible, America cannot even define, let alone sustain marriage as one man–one woman, exclusive, and life-long relationship. The West became great because biblical monogamy harnessed sexual energy to build strong families, women, children, and men.

Human history knows no force other than the Bible that has the capacity to dam sexual energy to build powerful families and nations. Indeed, no non-biblical culture has ever been able to require husbands to “love your wives” and give them the spiritual resources to do so.

Vishal Mangalwadi is the author of "The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization." (Thomas Nelson)

Monday, April 11, 2011

Double Standard in UK

Call the police! Desecrated copy of the Bible on display at Glasgow Gallery of Modern Art! No, wait, the police only come out for Qur'ans...


As noted here yesterday:
"Would they have been arrested for burning a Bible? A Bhagavad-Gita? A Torah? A Talmud? The Analects of Confucius? The Tao Te Ching? Why not? Absurdities lie on either end of the spectrum of enforcement: either admit there is a double standard and the Qur'an is protected unlike any other book, or exhaust resources protecting all religions' holy writ from physical desecration, from the most ornate King James Bible to a paperback copy of Dianetics."

Indeed, the British blogger "Archbisop Cranmer" has called attention to this work of "art", a desecrated Bible sitting on proud display (including the words "F--- the Bible" scrawled in it) at taxpayer expense while a Welsh assembly candidate (party affiliation is immaterial to the question of free speech) got hauled into jail for burning his own copy of the Qur'an.

If authorities do not abandon their double standard, they admit they are already ruled by fear. They will fold like a tent on the issue of free speech when threatened with violence.

"BNP member arrested for burning the Qur'an in his own garage," from Archbishop Cranmer, April 10:
...Contrast the response of the police over this man's decision to burn a copy of the Qur'an with their complete indifference to the desecration of the Bible. The response to that 'exhibit' was measured, but the offence to many Christians was no less palpable. But Sion Owens has been arrested under the Public Order Act.
Since when has it been possible to commit a public order offence in the privacy of one's own garage?
The Home Office is reported to have ‘absolutely condemned’ the book-burning incident. A statement said: ‘It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society.’
Curious, that. For there are some who would say precisely the same about the Qur'an. Indeed, Dr Richard Dawkins might even say it of the Bible.
The state permits freedom of artistic expression, and the Bible is considered fair game. One cannot coerce the non-believer to revere that to which he or she is completely indifferent and, in an increasingly post-Christian and secular context, the Bible is perhaps no more sacred than the latest Harry Potter book.
But we are reminded time and again that the burning of the Qur'an is one of the most offensive acts to Muslims that could be imagined. Certainly, it is sacred to many millions, who assiduously wash even before touching it and keep it on the very top shelf in a place of supreme honour: they take the word of Allah very seriously indeed. And yet, for millions more non-Mulsims, it is nothing but a book, and for some of these millions, a vile book indeed. Certainly - how shall His Grace put it? - not everyone agrees that it is 'God's guidance' on any matter whatsoever.
In the UK, there is now pressure even upon public libraries to set aside the Dewy [sic] Decimal Classification and place the Qur'an on the top shelf.
His Grace has said many times that he is not one to condone the burning of books; that is, unless he is cold and has run out of logs. And he certainly would never condone causing gratuitous offence.

The right to do so must exist, or freedom of speech is a hollow platitude.
But there is an emerging state coercion here which is moving perilously close to the need for an 'I am Spartacus' moment: not, in any sense, either to support the odious BNP or to cause offence to Muslims; but to stick two fingers up to the ubiquitous, illiberal totalitarianism which denies freedom of expression by negating the right to offend against the supposed sensibilities of minorities. The doctrine of the state is compelling respect and enforcing reverence for that which the majority may consider profane....

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Minnesota-Duluth 2011 National Champions

Bulldogs' long wait is over: UMD men win college hockey title
By: Kevin Pates, Duluth News Tribune at

The Minnesota Duluth men’s hockey team celebrates its first national
 title after Saturday night’s 3-2 overtime victory against Michigan.
 (Clint Austin /

ST. PAUL — After 50 years of Division I hockey, Minnesota Duluth still had one small matter to settle Saturday night at Xcel Energy Center.

The Bulldogs had yet to win an NCAA Division I championship.

No. 5-ranked Michigan came into the title game as the NCAA leader with nine championships and had pushed through the Division I tournament by beating three straight Western Collegiate Hockey Association teams.

No. 9 UMD stopped the Wolverines in their tracks as senior winger Kyle Schmidt, just 10 days removed from hand surgery, buried a pass from center Travis Oleksuk at 3:22 of overtime to beat Michigan 3-2 before an announced crowd of 19,222 at the Xcel Energy Center.

UMD’s fourth straight win and a school-record seventh overtime victory finished a job started six months earlier. The Bulldogs had their title.

“It wasn’t looking good for a while after surgery (March 29). For three or four days I couldn’t shoot, I couldn’t hold my stick. I was icing my hand, five, six, seven times a day to help the healing,” said Schmidt, who had a screw inserted in a broken right hand, that also was broken Dec. 29th at practice and needed surgery. “The coaches gave me a shot to get back on my line and there was no way I wasn’t going to play.

“(Oleksuk) put the puck on my tape and I had half the net to shoot at. All I could think was ‘I can’t miss this one.’ ”

On a night when Michigan held the top-scoring line in Division I without a point and killed eight of nine UMD power plays, the Bulldogs found a way to win.

UMD’s No. 2 line accounted for two goals — from Oleksuk, whose dad, Bill, was a former Bulldog scoring star, and Schmidt. Freshman center Max Tardy of Duluth, who figured he had just six shifts in the game, scored his first collegiate goal on a second-period power play. He had been put on UMD’s No. 2 power play this week for Schmidt, who was trying to keep his hand healthy. Junior goalie Kenny Reiter made 22 saves. Defenseman Brady Lamb had two assists.

The Bulldogs (26-10-6) finished 6-1 in the postseason, and outshot Michigan (29-11-4) 38-24. The Bulldogs were in the title game only once previously, losing to Bowling Green State of the Central Collegiate Hockey Association 5-4 in four overtimes in 1984 in Lake Placid, N.Y.

“We knew Michigan’s background and that they had won so many titles, but we felt (that) if we played our game, we’d have a decent chance,” said UMD freshman winger J.T. Brown, who was named tournament MVP. “We have the skills and the work ethic to beat any team. Even after we got behind we kept saying ‘The next one. The next shift. We’ll score on the next one.’ That was our best game of the playoffs.”

The Bulldogs fell behind 1-0 after one period, then rallied with two second-period goals from Oleksuk and Tardy. Michigan, the CCHA regular-season champion, tied it with 2:14 left in the second period on a Jeff Rohrkemper goal.

There was no scoring in the third period, a considerably better third period than in Thursday’s 4-3 win over Notre Dame, when outshot 15-2.

Then on UMD’s second shot on goal of overtime, the Bulldogs became champions. Michigan goalie Shawn Hunwick expected Oleksuk to try a wraparound attempt from behind the net, instead Oleksuk, a junior from Thunder Bay, Ontario, backhanded the puck to Schmidt at the crease. Hunwick couldn’t react fast enough and the guy who was named the Unsung Hero in Division I on Friday scored his 11th goal of the season and 26th of his career.

“Our No. 1 line carried us all year, all the way through the playoffs, and tonight we needed someone else to pick us up, and it was our night to do that,” said Oleksuk.

Special teams play led the Bulldogs in the previous three NCAA games and UMD had two power-play chances in the first period, but came up empty.

Michigan’s No. 3 line connected from a faceoff in the offensive zone as seniors Matt Rust and Ben Winnett combined. Rust won the draw to Winnett, who cranked from the top of the left circle to the near side by Reiter with 5:18 left in the opening period. The Rust line, given the task of checking the high-scoring Jack Connolly line, put the Wolverines up despite being outshot 12-8 through 20 minutes.

UMD’s best early chance came as Connolly rang a power-play shot off a pipe to Hunwick’s right 6:24 into the game. Two minutes earlier, Michigan scoring leader Carl Hagelin thought he’d scored, knocking the puck from under Reiter’s leg. Yet the Hockey East referees working the game determined a whistle preceded the shot.

“We turned the puck over way to many times and we had just too many penalties,” said Michigan coach Red Berenson. “When one team gets nine power plays and the other team gets four, it doesn’t add up. We were on our heels a lot.

“UMD is a better team than we thought they were during the regular season. They’re the real deal. Their power play is as good as we’ve seen all year.”

Goals eight minutes apart gave UMD a 2-1 lead midway through the second period. Oleksuk, whose dad, Bill, scored 90 goals at UMD, snapped in a bouncing puck at the right circle 99 seconds into the period, ending Hunwick’s shutout streak at 85 minutes and 14 seconds. Fourth-line center Tardy scored just 22 seconds into a power play. He worked a 2-on-1 backdoor play and put in his own rebound.

“I tried to pass to Oleksuk, a defender’s stick got in the way and knocked the puck right back to me and I shot right away,” said Tardy, a former Duluth East star. “The goalie couldn’t get back.”

Tardy pulled on his jersey, to show the Bulldog to the crowd, which roared its approval for a 2-1 lead. The goal came 22 seconds into power-play No. 4. Rohrkemper, a fourth-line center, tied it.

The lone Minnesota entrant in a Minnesota Frozen Four then waited for its moment in OT. The Bulldogs had won five overtime games in their first 14 this season to put themselves on the fast track. The fourth-place team in the WCHA claimed the first NCAA title for the league since Wisconsin beat Boston College 2-1 in Milwaukee in 2006, another home-state victory. In the last NCAA final at Xcel Energy Center, home-state Minnesota beat Maine 4-3 in overtime in 2002.

The UMD women’s team won its fifth Division I title in 2010, over Cornell University 3-2 in three overtimes, at Ridder Arena in Minneapolis.

UMD coach Scott Sandelin, who had the Bulldogs in the 2004 Frozen Four, made his message simple entering sudden death.

“I told them it’s our time. I told them, ‘You’ve been in this situation all year. You’ve been in the most (OT) games, won the most (OT) games. It’s your time,” he said

Schmidt sealed the deal.

Minnesota Duluth............ 0-2-0-1—3
Michigan.......................... 1-1-0-0—2

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Grace Luteran Church Repels the Arrogance of Bishop Pederson

The following is a report written by Dean Kallenbach about Grace Lutheran Church in Eau Claire, WI. published 04/07/2011 at

Two days after 56% of the congregation voted to leave the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (falling short of the 67% required by the constitution), the congregation council of Grace Lutheran Church voted tonight to join Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC).

The council, before an overflow crowd in its church parlors, approved a motion that would have the congregation dually affiliate with LCMC and ELCA. Proponents of the measure said action needed to be taken to demonstrate to the 288 people who voted to leave the ELCA that they should stay with Grace, and joining LCMC demonstrated that their voice was heard on Sunday. Some dissenters warned that the ELCA has said it does not allow dual rostering, but others pointed out that several churches in the 90's were affiliated with both Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and ELCA, and only stopped dual rostering with the Missouri Synod forbade it.

The vote to join LCMC was one of several taken by the council Tuesday night. Early in the meeting, Pastors Rolf Nestingen and David Irgens were asked to leave the hall while an e-mail to them from ELCA Synod Bishop Duane Pederson was read to the gathered crowd. The email, which was addressed to the pastors by the bishop at 6:37p.m. April 3, about two hours after the vote to leave ELCA fell short, advised the pastors that they must now move forward and work to stop schismatic discussions in the congregation, and work toward healing. Bishop Pederson indicated in the letter that, as bishop and pastor of the Synod, he intended to hold a worship service this Thursday night, April 8 at Grace Lutheran Church. The bishop said he would lead worship, and he intended for pastors Netingen and Irgens to assist him in the liturgy. The bishop, in the email, instructed the pastors that they had a clear choice, and said if they were unwilling to support the ELCA, they should resign their call at Grace. He promised to work with them to come up with an appropriate severance package. Bishop Pederson concluded the email by saying the public vitriol that had occurred over this issue had diminished Christ in the Eau Claire community, and that the decisions they make will affect the congregation from this day forward.

Pastor Rolf Nestingen and Bishop Duane Pederson
Pastor Rolf & Bishop Pederson
Council President Anne Carter said the Bishop has no authority to declare that he will hold a service at Grace, that there is no such provision of a "forced service" in either the Grace constitution or that of the ELCA. The council decided there will be no service April 8.

The chair also pointed out that the 56% who would have chosen to leave the ELCA in Sunday's vote were also standing with the pastors, and that it was inappropriate for the bishop to suggest they resign. The council passed a resolution affirming full support of both Pastors Irgens and Nestingen in the call that Grace has made to them, and furthermore resolved to preserve the ministry at Grace Lutheran Church by thwarting those who would remove them or request their resignation. The resolution passed. The pastors were invited to return, and they were greeted with warm applause by most of those gathered. Council President Carter pointed out that it is unlikely the pastors will get any pastor care themselves, and that the congregation must help take on that role.

A resolution was brought before the council to declare a nine-month moratorium on discussion of the disaffiliation to allow a period of healing. If staff took part in uttering disparaging remarks against the ELCA or its leadership, they would be subject to a 30-day suspension without pay. That resolution was defeated.

The council spent a great amount of time discussing the membership roster. A number of people showed up to vote Sunday who were not on the membership roles. At the direction of the pastors, anyone who declared in good conscience that they were active members who had either giving or attended worship in the past two years was allowed to vote, even if they weren't on the roster. Work will continue on firming up the roster.

There was significant discussion about a mailing that was sent out just a few days before Sunday's congregational meeting by an unofficial organization calling itself Grace For All. That letter, which was sent to much of the congregation in a highly produced piece, made several inflammatory statements about the ramifications of vote in favor of disaffiliation with the ELCA. This mailing was sent in spite of a motion the council had passed at its last meeting that neither side of the issue would disseminate materials to the membership unless those materials were first approved by the council. There is some question about whether congregational funds or materials (such as the official mailing list) were used to send the mailing. Those things will be investigated, and the congregation has asked the committee of Grace for Call to come before it at a special council meeting Tuesday, April 12 at 7 p.m.

During the discussion regarding joining LCMC, which occurred late in the meeting, the pastors pointed out that such a decision would not change they way they preach or how the Gospel is shared at Grace. One member said she had surveyed the 25 Sunday School teachers, and 18 had indicated to her that they would finish their commitment through May, then leave Grace with their families to a church in which they felt the materials and the teaching could be purely Biblical. She supported the resolution to join LCMC as giving those teachers some reason to stay.

After the vote to join LCMC, it was recommended a committee be formed to implement that change.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Barnhardt Rebukes Graham

Ann Barnhardt defends freedom and the US Constitution against Sen Graham, tyranny, and elitest hypocracy.

Monday, April 4, 2011

Psychopath’s Argument: Free Speech Kills People

The Psychopath’s Argument: Free Speech Kills People

by Dr. Nicolai Sennels

“But she’s asking for it! She knows I’ll beat her if she says things like that. And still she says it — it’s like she’s begging me to hit her!”

This is the typical psychopathic husband’s explanation for domestic violence, and as an experienced psychologist I can smell this kind of sick logic from miles away. Unfortunately, far too often this is also the explanation given by the media, politicians, and not least violent Muslims when they explain the Islamists’ aggressive reactions to cartoons and Quran-burnings. We are even responsible when Muslims run amok and commit terror after we create art or satire based on their prophet and religion. Either we cease to tease and criticize, or we must accept the consequences.

Jyllands-Posten and Kurt Westergaard have been held responsible for more than a hundred deaths — often trampled by their fellow Muslims — in the wake of the publication of the famous Mohammed cartoons. The same accusations now hit Terry Jones and his minister colleague Wayne Sapp, as eleven UN staff in Afghanistan were killed by Muslims in response to Jones’ and Sapp’s Quran-burning event. Several of the UN staff were beheaded.

But drawings and Quran burnings do not kill. They do not trample people to death and they do not chop their heads off. Only people do such things.

Jyllands-Posten, Westergaard, Jones and Sapp are not mass-murderers — and not in any indirect way, either. No artist or non-violent activist should be ashamed or feel guilty about the violent actions that others take in response to their peaceful actions. Those who believe otherwise can go and talk to the psychopathic wife beater, because they have something in common. Socialist analysis especially often victimizes dysfunctional people, and categorizes their aggressive behavior as natural and automatic reactions — and thereby supports the psychopath’s argument.

A rewrite of the U.S. National Riffle Association’s famous slogan would read: “Free speech doesn’t kill people. People kill people.”

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Shells Evangelical Lutheran Church Arson

Police: church fire involved 'foul play'

Posted: Apr 02, 2011 7:24 PM PDT Updated: Apr 02, 2011 8:22 PM PDT

Saturday, April 2, 2011

American Service Women Donning Headscarves

Don’t forget your hijab, soldier! American servicewomen encouraged to wear headscarves in Afghanistan by Caroline May - The Daily Caller published: 3:46 PM 03/31/2011, updated: 12:47 PM 04/01/2011

In an effort to get closer to the local population, American female soldiersstationed in Afghanistan are being encouraged to wear a Muslim headscarf when interacting with civilians. But some question whether the practice constitutes cultural sensitivity or a form of appeasement that is degrading to U.S. soldiers.

Major Kyndra Rotunda, executive director of the Military Law and Policy Institute and AMVETS Legal Clinic, told The Daily Caller that while the women are not being ordered to wear the head scarf, encouragement is tantamount to a demand.

“They say they are encouraging women to wear the headscarf when they are out and about and on patrol. But the problem is — and I think anyone who has been in the military understands that being encouraged to do something is about the same thing as being ordered — it really puts them in an uncomfortable position when their commander says, ‘We really want you to do this, technically you don’t have to, but we really want you to do this,’” she said.

Lt. Col. Michael Lawhorn, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, stressed to TheDC that while commanders are encouraging American women to wear headscarves while engaging with civilians, they are not having them wear the headscarf in lieu of their kevlar helmets.

“Nobody is saying, ‘Okay as we head out onto this dangerous street, you wear a hijab instead of your kevlar helmet,’” Lawhorn said. “As women are on some of these engagement teams and they are going to go into places where are going to predominantly be dealing with other women, like giving them medical information or finding out their concerns are in the local community. Local commanders are encouraging them — not demanding, but encouraging — if they feel more comfortable — ‘Feel free to wear a headscarf.’”

Rotunda remained unconvinced, telling TheDC that helmets are always the preferred head wear among soldiers.

“Even if it is outreach, you never know what to expect. You really should be wearing your kevlar helmet, it is a safety issue,” she said.

Retired Col. Martha McSally, whose grievance about being forced to wear the Muslim abaya while stationed in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s resulted in 2002 legislation outlawing the practice of making female soldiers wear Muslim religious garb in Saudi Arabia, told The Daily Caller that the sanctity of the uniform should not be sullied with outside accessories like the hijab.

“Another thing that makes this inappropriate is that they are wearing it with their uniform,” she said. “All the services have several-hundred-page regulations about what is appropriate and is not appropriate to wear with the uniform, and we have very strict guidelines … You are representing the United States government. You are wearing the U.S. military uniform, and it confuses what you are representing when you add this to the uniform.”

In mid-February one of the sponsors of the 2002 legislation that outlawed the practice of making female soldiers in Saudi Arabia wear the abaya, Rhode Island Democratic Rep. James Langevin, wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting more information about soldiers in headscarves.

“I understand the mission in Afghanistan is drastically different than the situation our female troops faced in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 10 years ago,” Langevin wrote. “However I am interested to know the precise policies or operating instructions that are currently being employed with regard to the garments worn by female service members in Afghanistan and other Muslim nations.”

Langevin continues to wait for a response.

Female service members are not the only ones concerned. Retired Navy SEAL Scott Taylor told TheDC that he has been troubled by reports of women wearing the headscarves with their uniforms.

“I am completely oppose appeasement to a culture rather than respecting it,” Taylor wrote in an email. “My personal Middle Eastern experience in a very conservative country has taught me that Muslims can feel respected without submitting to an impersonation of their culture. There is little or nothing gained by an American woman in a Hijab, in what is deemed by some as cultural sensitivity. Women in Female Engagement Teams can successfully complete their stated mission without utilization of the Hijab. Encouraging (which coming from leaders is basically an order within the military) this approach is against what the American soldier in uniform stands for. Soldiers operating covertly are a different story.”

Colonel Martha McSally is hopeful that the experience she had in Saudi Arabia being forced to wear the abaya will not be repeated in Afghanistan with the hijab.

“I am a civilian now, I retired from the Air Force, these things will not apply to me, so there is no personal connection in that sense. But as an American and someone who went through this with the abaya … I feel on principle, for the same reason the abaya was wrong, this is wrong,” she said. “It is important to be sensitive to the local culture in any mission, and understand the culture but this is not about shaking with your left hand or showing the bottom of your feet … this symbolizes that women have a lower status than men.”

Major Rotunda is hopeful that Congress will get involved to ensure that female soldiers are no longer pressured to comply.

“It is clearly within Congress’s realm to pass another provision like what they passed in 2002,” she said. “If the military on its own doesn’t stop this nonsense.”


The Pentagon responded to Rhode Island Democratic Rep. Jim Langevin’s concerns about female soldiers being encouraged to wear the hijab while serving in Afghanistan Thursday evening.

The letter, penned by U.S. Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, said the military is not directing or requiring female soldiers to wear the headscarf, but instead giving them option of wearing one with their uniform if they deem it appropriate.

“The general consensus among female Service members working with the local population in Afghanistan is that they should have the flexibility to wear a head scarf if they, along with their command, determine the mission or their safety are enhanced by it, as long as it is a personal choice,” Mullen wrote, adding that in some Afghan regions female soldiers have been prohibited from wearing headscarves.

Col. Martha McSally, whose frustration about being made to wear the Muslim abaya while stationed in Saudi Arabia during the 1990s resulted in legislation banning the practice of forcing soldiers to wear Muslim garb in that country, told TheDC that, whether women are being forced or allowed, wearing the hijab sends a bad message.

“The whole point I have been trying to make is that this is a strategic and not tactical issue. And the Commanders at General Petraeus’s level or above should have never AUTHORIZED it as an option, due to the wrong message it sends,” McSally wrote in an email. “I understand that you may not get immediate access to a village if the women don’t wear hijabs, but we shouldn’t be so desperate to do ‘whatever it takes’ to win over rural Afghan men and women that we are willing to compromise who we are.”

Mullen added that some women feel the headscarf helps them to better perform their jobs.

“They feel this gesture helps them in accomplishing their mission by serving as a sign of courtesy and respect to the locals,” Mullen wrote.

The ambiguity of the policy leaves McSally scratching her head. In an occupation where rules are king, McSally told TheDC the lack of precision is concerning.

“If we have even abandoned these practices about the importance of the wear of the uniform and command level policies and instead take a ‘wear whatever you choose in your view of what helps your tactical mission,’ that is inappropriate as well,” McSally wrote.

Postmodernism Poster

Friday, April 1, 2011

Eight Killed and Two Beheaded in Afghanistan


Picture of the Week

Last week brought a sober reminder that every religion has its
extremists, as Christian radicals burned one copy of the Quran
(and Muslim radicals attacked a half-dozen churches, burned
dozens of Bibles, and slaughtered 321 people in 26 terror attacks)


Another Excellent Example Of Why The UN Mindset Is Useless...And Dangerous

A major story worldwide today had to do with the murder of 8 UN staff members in Northeast Afghanistan by a mob of the locals in Mazar-i-Sharif. Two of the victims were decapitated, and it's worth noting ( no one else in the media has) that all of the victims were non-Muslims.

The Afghans were stirred up by the local mullahs over the burning of a Qu'ran in Florida by two preachers. Apparently a crowd of them came pouring out of the Blue Mosque in Mazar-i-Sharif after Friday prayers and attacked the nearby headquarters of the United Nations.

They took weapons from the armed guards ( who either refused or had orders not to fire on the 'protesters'), shot the guards and several other UN staff down in cold blood...except for two, which they captured and decapitated, undoubtedly while screaming 'Allah Akbar!'

Remember, these were people who had interacted pleasantly with the local community, overseeing things like food, aid and medical care...and of course, scrupulous observance and kow towing to the local customs. In the end, what mattered was that they were infidels.

I found this piece by UN staffer Una Moore to be particularly illuminating:

The men who broke into the UN compound, set fires and killed 8 people weren’t Taliban, or henchmen of a brutal warlord, or members of a criminal gang. They weren’t even armed when the protests began –they took weapons from the UN guards who were their first victims.

Foreigners committed to assisting in the rebuilding of Afghanistan have long accepted the possibility that they might die at the hands of warring parties, but this degree of violence from ordinary citizens is not something most of us factored into our decision to work here.

Tonight, the governor of Balkh province, of which Mazar-i-Sharif is the capital, is telling the international media that the men who sacked the UN compound were Taliban infiltrators. That’s rubbish. Local clerics drove around the city with megaphones yesterday, calling residents to protest the actions of a small group of attention-seeking, bigoted Americans. Then, during today’s protest, someone announced that not just one, but hundreds of Korans had been burned in America. A throng of enraged men rushed the gates of the UN compound, determined to draw blood. {...}

This is not the beginning of the end for the international community in Afghanistan. This is the end. Terry Jones and others will continue to pull anti-Islam stunts and opportunistic extremists here will use those actions to incite attacks against foreigners. Unless we, the internationals, want our guards to fire on unarmed protestors from now on, the day has come for us to leave Afghanistan.

So according to Ms. Moore, the UN guards allowed a crazed mob - whom she calls 'protesters'- to break in, take their weapons and turn them on the guards and the people they were supposedly protecting, all without firing a shot? Heaven forbid they should defend themselves!

As far as her statement that she and her fellow 'Internationals' never expected 'this degree of violence from ordinary citizens' in Afghanistan goes, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

In the last decade alone, there have been numerous Bibles, Torah scrolls, churches, synagogues and Buddhist and Hindu shrines destroyed by Muslims in the name of Islam, as well as thousands of non-Muslims slaughtered...all without a word of complaint or condemnation from most of the Muslim world. Had she and her fellow 'Internationals' not heard of that somehow?

In fact, it doesn't even take real damage to Qu'rans to stir Muslims to violence in this fashion..remember how many people were killed over the fake Newsweek story a few years ago about a supposed Qu'ran flushing at Club Gitmo?

Many Muslims are absolutely lovely people ( and I link to some of them here on this site). But far too many Muslims seem to live in a state of barely suppressed rage, and if it was not something like Terry Jones and a Qu'ran bar-b-cue, it would be something else.

In one respect, I agree with Ms. is high time we all got out of Afghanistan and allowed them to stew in their barbaric, 7th century miasma.

Res Ipsa Loquiter