Welcome to the archives of the Ft. Hard Knox project (2007-2010). To find what you’re looking for use the search bar or click on one of the categories to the right. If you have any questions, please e-mail Jenn@FortHardKnox.com.
Welcome
Posted July 28th, 2010 by forthardknox
![[del.icio.us]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Facebook]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Exposing More David Ray Griffin Lies 2
Posted July 27th, 2010 by Victor Chabala
Continuing from my previous article, here are some more of David Ray Griffin’s lies exposed. Again, unless otherwise indicated, all of Griffin quotes ( which I found at 911myths.com) are from Griffin’s book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.”
Claim 5, from page 265: “After the 1999-2000 millennium alert, … Clarke held a meeting of his Counterterrorism Security Group devoted largely to the possibility of a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda… [T]he possibility was imaginable, and imagined” (source )
Readers will notice that Griffin is rather vague here and doesn’t describe the type of aircraft or where the hijacked plane would go. However, here is the full quote in context from page 345 of the 9/11 Commission Report from 911myths.com: “In late 1999, a great deal of discussion took place in the media about the crash off the coast of Massachusetts of EgyptAir Flight 990, a Boeing 767. The most plausible explanation that emerged was that one of the pilots had gone berserk, seized the controls, and flown the aircraft into the sea. After the 1999 — 2000 millennium alerts, when the nation had relaxed, Clarke held a meeting of his Counterterrorism Security Group devoted largely to the possibility of a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda.17
In his testimony, Clarke commented that he thought that warning about the possibility of a suicide hijacking would have been just one more speculative theory among many…” As you can see, while it was discussing a possible suicide hijacking, specifics were lacking ( source ).
Claim 6 from page 265: “In early August 1999, the FAA’s Civil Aviation Security intelligence office summarized the Bin Laden hijacking threat… [T]he paper identified a few principal scenarios, one of which was a ‘suicide hijacking operation’” ( reference )
Of course, in typical “truther” fashion, Griffin is engaging in quote mining. Here is the quote in its proper context provided by 911myths.com: ““In early August 1999, the FAA’s Civil Aviation Security intelligence office summarized the Bin Laden hijacking threat. After a solid recitation of all the information available on this topic, the paper identified a few principal scenarios, one of which was a “suicide hijacking operation.”The FAA analysts judged such an operation unlikely, because “it does not offer an opportunity for dialogue to achieve the key goal of obtaining Rahman and other key captive extremists. . . . A suicide hijacking is assessed to be an option of last resort.” As you can see, despite Griffin’s claim to the contrary, this actually bolsters NORAD’s statements
Claim 7, from page 265, “A CIA report on June 12, 2001, said that KSM “was recruiting people to travel to the United States to meet with colleagues already there so that they might conduct terrorist attacks on Bin Laden’s behalf. On June 22, the CIA notified all its station chiefs about intelligence suggesting a possible al Qaeda suicide attack on a US target over the next few days.” (source )
Anyone with an ounce of logic would realize this is pretty flimsy evidence- where is the mention of hijackings? Furthermore, those increased threat reports were NOT limited to the United States. The G8 summit in Genoa, Italy was also a possibility (reference ).
Claim 8 from pages 265-266, “In late June [2001], because of threats, Italy closed the airspace over Genoa and mounted antiaircraft batteries at the Genoa airport during the G-8 summit which President Bush attended” (258). We learn elsewhere that the Italians kept fighters in the air over the city, and that the threat was taken so seriously that Bush stayed overnight offshore, on an aircraft carrier. Although this example, like the first one, is about a threat in Europe, not the United States, it obviously counts against the thesis that there was a “failure of imagination” with regard to the possibility that terrorists might try to use airplanes to attack President Bush. (Another puzzling thing about this example is that the Commission, in mentioning that “antiaircraft batteries” had to be mounted at the Genoa airport, failed to point out that the White House and the Pentagon already have their own antiaircraft batteries, which would shoot down any aircraft except one with a transponder signal indicating that it belongs to the US military.)” (reference)
Once again, the threat was not necessarily in the United States or about hijackings. In addition, Italian officials stated that the anti-aircraft batteries were meant to deter a small plane, not a commercial jetliner, plus there are other problems. While Bush did stay on the carrier overnight- and it would not be unreasonable to assume that he did so to reduce his exposure to possible terrorist attacks, there’s no evidence that threats from the air were the specific reason. Terrorist attacks can come from many directions, plus other leaders, such as Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia also stayed offshore. (source )
Last but not least, claim 9, from page 266, “On August 6, 2001, the Presidential Daily Brief included an intelligence memo stating, amongst other things, that “[one threat report said] that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft… FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks… CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives” (reference )
First, as we see here, the PDB memo was nothing more than a status report and, if you’ll pardon my language, a rather half-assed one at that.
Second, the hijacking report was an old one from 1998 ( hmm, once again, when CLINTON was president), and couldn’t be corroborated ( source ).
This quote from page 262 of the 9/11 Commission Report further shoots down Griffin’s claim: “Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” As you can see, it was a rather vague description and could describe just about any type of terrorist activity (reference ).
Clearly, the only omissions and distortions are from David Ray Griffin.
Exposing More David Ray Griffin Lies
Posted July 27th, 2010 by Victor Chabala
Now, it is time to expose some more of David Ray Griffin’s lies.
David Ray Griffin does not consider the claim that NORaD didn’t recognize the threat of airliners as missiles to be valid. Once again, 911myths.com provides a quote from his book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,” “The contention that the threat really was not recognized was based partly on the fact that the Kean-Zelikow Report combined the second and third presumption into a single twofold presumption–that commercial airliners would not be (1) hijacked within the United States and then (2) used as guided missiles by suicide hijackers. Given the fact that both conditions would need to be met to have a counter-instance to Eberhart’s “no recognition” claim, the Kean-Zelikow Report can dismiss seeming counter-instances by pointing out that one or the other of the two conditions was not met. The Report mentioned, for example, a proposed readiness test for NORAD based on the idea of “a hijacked airliner coming from overseas and crashing into the Pentagon” (346). This example, by having the aircraft come from overseas, provided no refutation of the contention that no one had imagined a plane hijacked within the United States and then used to strike the Pentagon–the crucial difference being that if the plane were coming from overseas, there would be plenty of time to identify the aircraft and scramble interceptors.
However, even with the stipulation that both conditions would have to be met, there is considerable evidence that counts against the credibility of Eberhart’s claim.
Some of this evidence is, surprisingly enough, provided by the Commission itself. I will list nine examples provided in the Kean-Zelikow Report that either clearly do, or at least may, contradict the Report’s endorsement of Eberhart’s “no recognition” claim.” Griffin implies that the plane from overseas hitting the Pentagon is the whole point of the exercise- however, that particular scenario was scrapped as being too unrealistic ( source).
Prior to 9/11, NORAD considered the main threat to be from cruise missiles. Aircrafts as weapons were considered a possibility in the late 1990’s ( hmm, I believe it was CLINTON who was president then) but they were concerned about aircraft laden with WMD’s, NOT passenger jets. In short, they are acknowledging that they were aware of the possibility of suicide hijackings but it was considered unlikely ( reference ). Hmm, I believe it was CLINTON who was president in the late 1990’s.
David Ray Griffin considers the fact that there are reports of the possibility of suicide hijackings, planes as weapons, or both to be “proof” that he is right. However, those qualifications are rather broad. Furthermore, the military NEVER said they were unaware of said reports, as evidenced by this quote provided at 911myths.com: “Now, there were some talks about in post hijack situations where they talked to about people over the demands were made that they were going to crash, one instance, into the Eiffel Tower, but even the work that was done and the hijackings that were planned for the Philippines, which is a well-known plot, they planned to hijack the airplanes and blow them up primarily.
So, no, the threat perception, there was not — the intelligence did not point to this kind of threat, and I think that explains our posture.”
9/11 Myths.com has some much more stringent qualifications than Griffin, and proceeds to show the problems with his 9 claims. I will deal with the first four claims in this article.
For your reference, all of Griffin’s quotes ( which I found at 911myths.com) are from his book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” unless otherwise indicated.
“First, we have this quote from page 264 “[A]n Algerian group hijacked an airliner in 1994, … possibly to crash it into the Eiffel tower” (345). The airplane was hijacked in Algiers. But since the distance from Algiers to Paris is less than the distance across the United States, there might have been less time to intercept it than is available to intercept a plane hijacked within this country. It would, therefore, not take much imagination to transfer the scenario to the United States” (source )
However, here is the FULL quote provided by 911myths.com: “an Algerian group hijacked an airliner in 1994, most likely intending to blow it up over Paris, but possibly to crash it into the Eiffel Tower.
9/11 Commission Report
Pages 344-348
Footnote #14 to Chapter 1:
…The Algerian hijackers had placed explosives in key areas of the cabin. However, there was some speculation in the media based on reports from a passenger aboard the plane that the hijackers had discussed crashing it into the Eiffel Tower” (reference )
Note the phrase, “ MOST LIKELY INTEDNING TO BLOW IT UP OVER PARIS,” and you’ll see that they only TALKED about crashing the plane into the Eiffel Tower.
In point of fact, it was actually a hijacking that occurred on the ground and the plane stayed on the ground for a day. When the plane finally did take off, it was with the regular flight crew at the controls. In short, this was a conventional hijacking and comparing it to 9/11/01 is comparing apples to oranges ( reference ).
Second, there is this quote, also from page 264, “In early 1995, Abdul Hakim Murad-Ramzi Yousef’s accomplice in the Manila airlines bombing plot–told Philippine authorities that he and Yousef had discussed flying a plane into CIA headquarters” (345). It was, we saw, this plan that provided the basis for Wolfowitz’s “failure of imagination” comment.” (source )
However, while it does allow the possibility of suicide pilots, it does NOT necessarily have anything to do with hijackings or commercial airliners as weapons. In point of fact, the aircraft in phase one were simply going to be blown up (reference ).
Claim three, from pages 264-265: “In August of [1998], the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the World Trade Center. (344-345). The Commission does not explicitly say that the plane would be hijacked from within the United States, but it also does not explicitly say otherwise.” (source )
However, here is the FULL sentence, “In August of the same year, the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the World Trade Center.” ( reference )
Notice there was no mention of the type of plane and here is another quote from 911myths.com that exposes David Ray Griffin for the fraud he is: “For the August report, see Intelligence report, “Terrorism: Alleged Threat by Arab Terrorists to Attack the World Trade Center in New York,” Aug. 12, 1998. An FAA civil aviation security official believed the plan was improbable because Libyan planes were required to operate within airspace limitations and the Libyans did not possess aircraft with the necessary range to make good on the threat. Jack S. interview (June 13, 2004). On September 30, 1999, the FAA closed the file on the August report after investigation could not corroborate the report, and the source’s credibility was deemed suspect.” Notice the threat COULD NOT BE CORROBORATED.
Claim four from page 265: “[Richard] Clarke had been concerned about the danger posed by aircraft since at least the 1996 Atlanta Olympics… In 1998, Clarke chaired an exercise [that] involved a scenario in which a group of terrorists commandeered a Learjet on the ground in Atlanta, loaded it with explosives, and flew it towards a target in Washington, D.C.” (345) The Commission elsewhere concluded the description of this exercise by saying that the terrorist group “took off for a suicide mission to Washington” (457-58 n98).” ( source )
However, Griffin isn’t quite being honest here. If you read the paragraph closely, you’ll see that it isn’t necessarily about a hijacking and it was a private aircraft laden with explosives that Clarke was concerned about. Furthermore, the Department of Defense was not inclined to offer resources, which makes it pretty obvious they thought that type of attack was highly unlikely. In addition, Richard Clarke himself said that since the reports were 5-6 years old, combined with the volumes of other reports that the intelligence community received, it is understandable they may have missed a few things ( reference ).
I will address claims 5-9 in the next article.
Facts About Scramble and Intercept Times
Posted July 26th, 2010 by Victor Chabala
Okay, here are some more lies and/or half-truths that “truthers” tell.
One lie “truthers” use is that of the scramble time from Otis Air Force Base. They claim that eyewitness testimony casts doubt that the fighters were scrambled at 8:52 and use this quote, found at 911myths.com, which they got from here, to “prove” their point: “William Wibel, principal of a school inside Otis Air National Guard Base, is inside the Otis base preparing for a meeting when he learns that the WTC has been attacked and his meeting is canceled. He says, “As I drove away, and was listening to the news on the radio, the 102nd was scrambling into duty.” [Cape Cod Times, 9/12/01] The WTC crash does not break on local news and radio until about 8:52 a.m. Even if he hears CNN’s early reporting starting at 8:48 a.m., it still presumably takes time to learn the meeting is canceled, go back to his car and so forth. NORAD says the fighters took off from Otis at 8:52 a.m.”
There’s one tiny little detail “truthers” forget- they are citing what a REPORTER wrote, which means they’re getting the information secondhand. The reporter does not necessarily write the sequence of events in chronological order in their article (source ). 911myths.com provides this quote from the Cape Cod Times, “Wibel was preparing for a meeting with military commanders when he first heard about the first World Trade Center crash. That meeting was abruptly canceled.” They further point out that if Wibel was with the military commanders, the meeting cancellation might have been a response to the initial scramble order. 911myths.com provides this alternative sequence of events: “ a) Wibel prepares for the meeting, b) hijacking alert, c) meeting cancels, and Wibel packs up, d) hears WTC has been attacked and leaves.” Yes, this is also speculation, and 911myths.com admits as much but they also correctly point out that it’s still perfectly plausible.
Furthermore, there is also another possibility. Wibel may have been so far inside the base he didn’t hear the planes take off or he simply ignored the sound of the jets. After all, if you live on or near a military base, you tend to get used to the sounds of aircraft taking off and landing, shelling, etc ( source ) I can vouch for this as I live near Camp Pendleton. Every now and then, Camp Pendleton does its war games and we hear choppers and shelling, but I’m so used to those sounds that I simply tune it out.
Another lie is found in David Ray Griffin’s book ““ The New Pearl Harbor.” Griffin claims that Flight 11 should have been intercepted within 10 minutes of being hijacked, but he clearly needs to do a better job of research ( reference ).
Despite what people believe, the air traffic controller does not simply pick up the phone and call the nearest airbase- there are procedures that must be followed. Here are the steps that they must go through, as outlined by 911myths.com: 1) Air Traffic Control (ATC) must first determine that there is a problem and the loss of radio contact or sudden course changes aren’t a result of some other routine cause. After all, loss of radio contact can simply be equipment malfunction or weather and a sudden course change may also be weather related, 2) If there is a problem, the ATC will report the problem to their supervisor and explain why they’re worried, 3) If the supervisor concurs, he will call the FAA and ask to speak to the hijack coordinator, who is the one who deals with NORAD, 4) The FAA hijack coordinator requests an escort by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC), but, guess what- the planes aren’t scrambled yet ( source). The thing is hijacking is a law enforcement issue, so law enforcement has to ask the military for assistance. Then, the duty officer of the National Military Command Center ( NMCC) has to call NORAD to ask about the availability of fighters. Then they have to get the okay from a representative of the secretary of defense, which can take a while. Clearly, just these steps alone can take MUCH longer than 10 minutes ( source ).
The Payne Stewart intercept is a case in point- it took 76 minutes, NOT 20, as “truthers” claim ( reference ). Air Traffic Control lost contact with Stewarts place at 9:33 am EASTERN Daylight Time and the intercept occurred at 9:52 am CENTRAL Daylight Time ( reference ).
Let’s not forget the Jan 2002 incident where teenager Charles Bishop crashed his plane into a Tampa, Florida skyscraper- before the crash, he flew very low over a military airbase but no intercept occurs. NORAD was unaware of the problem until 5:13 pm, almost 10 minutes AFTER Bishop had crashed. They alerted the fighters at 5:16 pm, the fighters took off at 5:21 pm and reached Tampa at 5:45 pm, meaning, had an intercept occurred, the intercept time would have been 55 minutes ( source )
Then, on or near June 20, 2002, 9 months AFTER 9/11, 2 F-16’s failed to intercept a Cessna that passed too close to the White House. 911myths.com provides the following timeline: “
7:59 p.m. Cessna enters “restricted” air space
8:03 p.m. FAA notifies NORAD
8:04 p.m. Cessna enters “prohibited” air space
8:06 p.m. Two F-16s get orders to scramble
8:06 p.m. Cessna passes White House “within a few miles”
8:17 p.m. F-16s take off from Andrews AFB. Intercept occurs “a few minutes later.”
You will notice that in spite of tightened security, streamlined intercept procedures and the fact that the fighters were less than 10 miles away from Washington, DC, the time from the problem to the fighters taking off was 18 minutes and the planes arrived on the scene a little bit after that ( reference ).
Furthermore, even after the fighters take off, identification and intercept are not certain- in 2002, military jets could only ID and intercept about 40% of intruders in training drills ( reference ). Now, if they can only successfully ID and intercept 40% of intruders in training drills, it seems to me that in an actual combat situation, that rate might be lower as things happen so fast in the heat of the moment
More Real Facts About Flight 93
Posted July 26th, 2010 by Victor Chabala
Now that the FHK site is up and running again, it’s time to provide the facts that “truthers” have been leaving out. We will deal with Flight 93 in this article.
First, we have the “truther” claim that Flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland and they use an AP bulletin to “prove” that claim. However, what “truthers” DON’T tell you is that the bulletin was in error and AP retracted it a short time later. Liz Foreman clarified by stating that only the link to the story was moved but they forgot to remove the story and she admitted it was her mistake due to the hectic nature of that day. It’s called human error- there is NOTHING suspicious about that. The flight that did land in Cleveland was Delta Flight 1989 (reference ).
Second, we have a claim by David Ray Griffin in his book “ A New Pearl Harbor” quotes an article in which CeeCee Lyle’s husband says she screamed, “ They’re doing it, they’re doing it,” followed by a “whooshing sound,” which Griffin claims indicates a missile hit ( source ). However, here is the ACTUAL quote from the postgazette.com Griffin is citing: “CeeCee Lyles let out a scream.
‘They’re doing it! They’re doing it! They’re doing it!” she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn’t understand. Then the line went dead.’” ( reference ) If you scroll further up in the article, you’ll see that CeeCee Lyles was talking to her husband about the passengers were planning the counter-attack we know occurred ( Oh, and before any “truther” brings up John Farmer’s book, “ The Ground Truth,” where he says the black box shows the hijackers crashed the plane because they feared the passengers would gain control, it’s still true that it was the decision of the passengers to fight back that kept Flight 93 from its target- and his book was about the bureaucracy, and NOBODY will deny that bureaucracy is a problem), so it’s a fairly safe bet that her statement, “ they’re doing it,” was referring to the passengers fighting back. You will see there is NO MENTION WHATSOEVER about a “whooshing” sound. Furthermore, missiles don’t make whooshing sounds; they make explosions ( source ).
Third, is the claim is that eight minutes before the crash, a passenger, Glenn Cramer, locked himself in the bathroom and called 911 and said, in an understandably frantic tone that they were being hijacked. The conspiracy theorists also claim Cramer heard an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane. However, the only part that is true is that Cramer made the 9/11 call ( source ).
There are several problems with this claim: 1) As we see here, the plane crashed at about 10:03 am and the alleged white smoke and explosion occurred at 9:58 am. Just how the heck is a plane that was hit by a missile going to remain in flight for another 4-5 minutes?! Did someone turn off gravity? The debris also would have been spread out over a MUCH larger area. The most obvious problem, of course, is this: Planes generally fly in the 30,000 ft range, where the air is thinner than at sea level- that’s why the cabin is pressurized. Had the plane miraculously remained in flight after being holed by a missile, rapid depressurization would have resulted, which means that there is NO WAY Mr. Cramer would have seen any white smoke as it would have been sucked out as a result of the depressurization (reference ). After all, any physics book will tell you that air will flow from areas of higher pressure to areas of lower pressure, or “downhill,” so to speak.
Finally, despite conspiracy theorists’ claims to the contrary, the fact that one of flight 93’s engines was found far from the main debris field does NOT prove that it was shot down. Airline expert Michael K. Hynes, who investigated the TWA Flight 800 crash in 1996. He points out that at very high speeds, it’s not unusual for an engine to tumble across the ground. Yes, the engine fan was found 300 yards away, but what “truthers” don’t mention is that it was found 300 yards to the south, which is the DIRECTION FLIIGHT 93 WAS TRAVELLING AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH! This is consistent with Newton’s 1st law, which state that an object at rest tends to remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Remember, the plane was going over 500 MPH ( about 805 kilometers/hr) which is between 700 and 800 ft/second ( between 213 and 243 meters/second)There is also a statement by conventional weapons expert Robert Sherman in the Pittsburgh Pulp describing the missile theories regarding Flight 93 as “ the usual paranoid crap.” He further states that plan crashes tend to do strange things to the plane ( source ).
I Watch MSNBC
Posted May 7th, 2010 by Henry Knox
I do.
Sure, I could watch Fox News, but I pretty much know what I am going to get there and I have no problem admitting the coverage is a bit to the right.
MSNBC on the other hand is a new adventure every day.
I for one had no idea so many people agreed with Keith Olbermann. So many in fact he is booked solid with them until mid 2021. There are so many guests who agree with every word he says and enjoy parroting it back that he simply is unable to accommodate the few who do not.
And Chris. God, I love Chris Matthews. The other day he wanted to make sure the Times Square thing was not the work of “Right Wing Nuts” so badly that he asked his guest several times if we could really ever dismiss that possibility. When told they generally like the anti-government target and Times Square is the sort of open capitalism the right likes, the poor guy really seemed confused.
No confusion last night when he explained how the current president is one of the most intelligent ever who spends his time studying every issue. Unlike Keith, Chris likes to have a Dem & Rep talking head on because it’s fun to play two on one (more so when you can cut to commercial for your team). It was as if he wanted to scream “Don’t you get it? This man is a genius and for you to disagree him is just insane. Are you insane?”
No, I’m not because for me to believe that our president is a genius and puts all this effort into such a pile of garbage relabeled polices is the very definition of insanity I find. It’s much kinder to accept we don’t want someone studying the issues, we want someone with a grasp of the issues. Two years in the Senate does not a leader make no matter how bright people tell him he is all the time.
As for the genius thing.. hmm.. hey wait – didn’t Jimmy Carter work with nuclear reactors in the Navy? Yeah. I bet he was a smart one indeed which makes me think about Truman who was not at all well educated yet had something both Carter and the current genius in chief lack; common sense and a direction for our great nation.
GOP Seeks to Maintain Social Media Edge
Posted May 6th, 2010 by Dr. Bill
PBS: As part of a look at how both political parties are connecting with constituents on the Web, Ray Suarez reports on how Republicans and their allies are looking to harness new media in advance of this year’s elections.
Franklin Graham vs. the Marxofascist Insurrection’s Unholy Alliance
Posted May 6th, 2010 by Arlen Williams
Franklin Graham, Honorary Chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, 2010, tells the gospel truth…
[youtube 83xnqzfyQ4c]
…but he need not be so pessimistic about our future, if Americans are willing to wake up and “repent,” i.e., turn to the truth, and yield ourselves to it (hence, the word under-stand). That is how to truly become aware and strong. And people who do this will fulfill the responsibilities with which God charges them. Those who are Sovereign Citizens of America will carry out our responsibilities to govern our nation and influence our culture. For example, that is what you are doing, right?
But you know this is no anti-Christ we are facing, Franklin. Not enough talent. Of course, the spirits involved are anti-Christ; very much so. And Barack Obama knows he should not outwardly oppose Christianity. That has been tried, before. Rather, a good neo-Marxist will wear sheep’s not wolf’s garb, while he: 1. changes the message, 2. psychologically ostracizes those who “cling” to the true message, and 3. exerts a controlling influence over those who receive his “gospel.”
Thus, Obama has repeatedly asserted that, “our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” That is a tenet of Marxism, including its Christian co-opting arm of liberation theology, but it is adversarial to the salvation which is offered by Jesus Christ directly, to every single one of us, through His ultimate sacrifice. Someone should warn Barack Obama that it is not only very harmful but very dangerous, to come between God Incarnate and the individual whose freedom He bought forever, by His own blood.
I just called evil anything that intervenes against the work of the Holy Spirit of God, directly dealing with any person, as He testifies of: 1. God’s sinless holiness, 2. man’s being lost in sin, alienated from God, and 3. Jesus’ offering us one lovingly specific way back to God. One of many such interferences is the competing ideology of Islam. Shortly after 9/11, Franklin Graham cited Islam as evil. There is the divisiveness of which he is accused. And so, he was uninvited from today’s (Christian) National Day of Prayer ceremony, at the Pentagon.
Ideological divisiveness appears to be a grave sin, in the irrationally truthless world of relativism and cultural Marxism. That is okay, though — truly. Jesus himself warned He came to bring just this sword of perfect divisiveness, between the singular truth and every denial of it. He even let us know that the world would hate those who joined Him in proclaiming the truth, just as it hated Him.
Unlike Barack Obama’s Department of Defense, you see, God’s Son allows the freedom to hear God, if we wish, and to receive His grace, if we choose.
Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.
- Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:32-43
Submitted to you on this Christian National Day of Prayer, May the Sixth, in the Year of our Lord, 2010. – AW
House Republican Leader Boehner to Receive Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award Tonight at 6 PM (Eastern)
Posted May 5th, 2010 by Americans United for Life
Americans United for Life is hosting a reception this evening to present House Republican Leader John A. Boehner with the 2010 Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award.
Leader Boehner will be recognized both for his extraordinary leadership in the fight to prevent taxpayer- funded abortion and for his work to protect women’s health in his own state of Ohio.
WHAT: 2010 Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award Reception
WHEN: Remarks begin at 6:00 p.m. EST Tonight
WHERE: 655 15th Street NW on the rooftop [Washington, D.C.]
PRESS REGISTRATION: email press@aul.org
About the Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award
The Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award was established to honor the legacy of Representative Henry J. Hyde, former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Each year, it is awarded to an elected official who demonstrates outstanding leadership in the cause of Life.
This award was recently covered by National Journal and Life News.
Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public- interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.
AUL’s legal team has been involved in every pro-life case before the U.S. Supreme Court including the successful defense of the Hyde Amendment. AUL also publishes Defending Life, the most comprehensive state-by-state legal guide of its kind, which is distributed annually to legislators across the nation.
Recently, Americans United for Life detailed the facts on taxpayer-funding of abortion during the debate over federal health care legislation, provided legal assistance to states working to opt out of abortion provisions created by federal health care law, and has taken a leading role in educating policymakers on the record of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees.
Welcome to the new Church 2.0 category on Ft. Hard Knox. Here, you will find great resources for any Christian wanting to become more effective in online activism, especially in Church outreach.
If you haven’t already, be sure to download our free .pdf file on Church 2.0.
Finally, if you use a feed reader, you’ll want to add FHK’s Church 2.0 feed to your reading list!
Best and Worst States for Business 2010
Posted May 5th, 2010 by Jack Givens
Living in California I am well aware of the impact of the terrible economy we are in at the moment. This report from ChiefExecutive.net highlights perhaps the greatest issue facing our state: We hate business. California has managed to rank 51 out of 50 states (DC was included).
D.C. Council Votes on Legalization of Medical Marijuana
Posted May 4th, 2010 by Concerned Women for America
The D.C. City Council will hold a final vote this week on the legalization of marijuana for medical use.
Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, said,
Although pain management is an important function of modern medicine the legalization of marijuana is more about regulating illegal drug use than medicine. California’s experience should inform D.C.’s decision. The recreational use of ‘medical’ marijuana in California is so rampant that it has become a common gag line in popular media. Physicians are not without alternatives for the treatment of chronic pain. To use this argument to advocate for the legalization of a drug with such dangerous affects is absurd.
A federal report released by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHS) in 2002 concluded the younger children are when they first use marijuana, the more likely they are to use cocaine and heroin and become dependent on drugs as adults.
It is common sense that marijuana is a gateway drug to other illicit drugs and behaviors. It is mind-altering and inhibits decision making and discretion, affecting not only the user but others around them.”
Unquestionably, legalizing marijuana for medical purposes is a slippery slope. The proven consequences of legalization of marijuana are abuse and misuse. Women and mothers have enough to worry about without the easy availability of marijuana added to the list.
Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.
Churches making their message app-licable (Mobile phone apps specific to churches, ministries growing)
Posted May 4th, 2010 by Alex Murashko
For tech savvy Christians or for just about any of the faithful under 35 years old it’s a no-brainer: spreading the Gospel means using the tools available now . and for a growing number of churches that means having their own iPhone app.
Before getting into why churches like Mars Hill and Saddleback, as well as ministries of every type, have increasingly embraced apps used in mobile devices such as the iPhone, here’s the basic definition of app:
APPlication – The term is shorthand for “application” and was used in the IT community for decades but became newly popular for mobile applications, especially since the launch of Apple’s App (online) Store in 2008. An app is software that is commonly used for business or entertainment. It can be virtually any type of program. You might be familiar with its use in media players such as iTunes.
Why apps for churches and ministries?
Tech leader, Chris Ediger, works for Giant Impact, which includes a leadership development group and program named “Catalyst.” The group hosts conferences in the U.S. and last month launched their own app during Catalyst West. Ediger explains why Catalyst, along with software and app developer company, Subsplash, made the free app available.
“We are very content rich and so we knew we wanted an iPhone app that would enable us to dish our content out to another platform as well as make it easier for people who were out and about to be able to tap in and read, listen, and watch our content wherever they were at,” Ediger said. “Those that attend our conferences tend to be between 18 and 35 years old. For them, technology has just been kind of built-in. It’s always been a part of their lives. They were probably buying iPhones the day they came out three years ago.”
Ediger said it’s a good idea for churches to make themselves and their message easily accessible through apps and their websites.
“The good news about all these phones is that there all web-enabled and so for a church or ministry to be able to position themselves and make content and their websites accessible through those phones is just getting easier and easier,” he said. “Even if they don’t go as far as to develop an application for those phones, just creating mobile websites needs to be a given.”
Catalyst leadership training events draw 30- to 40-thousand people per year, according to Ediger, and draw more than 100,000 people that “we interact with online that may or may not come to one of our events.” iPhone apps are a part of that interaction.
“The import thing for us is that we want people to have access to the content that they want to have access to, when they want to have access to it, in the format that they want to have access to it,” Ediger said. “We don’t want to be an inhibitor to that.”
National Day of Prayer (American Minute for May 5th)
Posted May 4th, 2010 by William J. Federer
President Washington declared a National Day of Prayer after the Whiskey Rebellion, as did President John Adams when France threatened war, and President Madison during the War of 1812. President Tyler declared a Day of Prayer when President Harrison died, and as did President Taylor during a cholera epidemic.
President Buchanan proclaimed a Day of Prayer to avert civil strife, as did Lincoln during the Civil War.
President Andrew Johnson proclaimed a Day of Prayer when Lincoln was shot, as did President Wilson during World War I.
In 1952, President Truman made the National Day of Prayer an annual event, stating:
“In times of national crisis when we are striving to strengthen the foundations of peace…we stand in special need of Divine support.”
President Reagan made it the first Thursday in May, saying:
“Americans in every generation have turned to their Maker in prayer…We have acknowledged both our dependence on Almighty God and the help He offers us as individuals and as a Nation…Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States…do…proclaim MAY 5, 1988, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon the citizens of our great Nation to gather together on that day in homes and places of worship to pray.”
When technology collides with the real world…
Posted May 4th, 2010 by Jenn's Tech Tips
Here’s a partial screen shot of a privacy notice I received today at the end of an e-mail, with my annotation in red. I believe I know what they were trying to say, but methinks this needs a bit of re-wording:
Now THIS, Ms Napolitano, is a ‘man-caused disaster.’ (Reality Check in the Gulf of Mexico)
Posted May 4th, 2010 by Jenn Sierra
Oil Spills are not ‘Natural Disasters,’ and the ‘largest one in the world’ didn’t happen recently.
My heart truly does go out to the people in the Gulf Coast who are losing their livelihoods because of carelessness on the part of BP and Anadarko. At least they are hiring some of the displaced fishermen, albeit requiring them to sign their rights to sue away in the process. At least the POTUS finally woke up and realized we have a problem. Over the coming weeks and months, look for Americans to do what Americans do best – in reaching out to our fellow countrymen (and the animals), and helping where help is needed.
That being said, let’s get a couple of things straight. This oil spill is not a “natural disaster.” A natural disaster is caused by natural forces, not faulty placement of a blowout valve on an oil rig. Yes, it’s going to wreak havoc on the local ecology for awhile, but let’s not blame God for this one. THIS, Ms Napolitano, is a “man-caused disaster.” Also, this oil spill is not the “worst in history,” as some are claiming.