Pastor Hagee: The Antichrist Is Gay, “Partially Jewish, As Was Adolph Hitler” (Paging Joe Lieberman!)

By- Suzie-Q @ 8:00 PM MST

From: Huffington Post
By-Max Blumenthal

Posted June 2, 2008 | 06:31 AM (EST)

On March 16, 2003, on the eve of the United States’ invasion of Iraq, Pastor John Hagee took to the pulpit to warn of the coming Antichrist. In his sermon, “The Final Dictator,” Hagee described the Antichrist as a seductive figure with “fierce features.” He will be “a blasphemer and a homosexual,” the pastor announced. Then, Hagee boomed, “There’s a phrase in Scripture used solely to identify the Jewish people. It suggests that this man [the Antichrist] is at least going to be partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx.”

This “fierce” gay Jew, according to Hagee, would “slaughter one-third of the Earth’s population” and “make Adolph Hitler look like a choirboy.”

Hear Pastor Hagee’s latest Judeophobic, anti-gay rant in this video, created by Bruce Wilson of Talk2Action.org

Exposed here for the first time, Hagee’s comments identifying the Antichrist as a partly Jewish homosexual arrive in the wake of a furor the pastor provoked by describing the Holocaust as an act of God. Hagee’s chilling sermon about the Holocaust prompted Sen. John McCain to reject the preacher’s support, an unexpected turnabout after McCain spent over a year soliciting his endorsement.

Days after McCain’s rejection, I reported that a key McCain ally, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, planned to deliver the keynote speech at Hagee’s upcoming Christians United For Israel (CUFI) summit. As the story exploded into the mainstream press, pressure mounted on Lieberman to withdraw.

But Lieberman stayed the course, declaring in a prepared statement, “Pastor Hagee has devoted much of his life to fighting anti-Semitism and building bridges between Christians and Jews… I will go to the CUFI Summit in July and speak to the people who have come to Washington from all over our country to express their support of America and Israel, based on our shared eternal values and our shared contemporary challenges in the war against terrorism.”

Lieberman will be joined at CUFI’s conference by Rep. Elliot Engel, a Democratic congressman from New York with a fairly progressive voting record. On Thursday, May 29, I asked Engel’s press secretary, Joseph O’Brien, if Engel still planned to attend Hagee’s gathering in light of his remarks about the Holocaust. O’Brien told me Engel would respond shortly. So far, Engel has said nothing.

Engel is slated to speak on CUFI’s “Middle East Briefing” panel this July. He will be joined on the panel by Republican Rep. Mike Pence, Weekly Standard editor and New York Times columnist Bill Kristol, and Christian right activist Gary Bauer.

Perhaps these Hagee allies could not fathom that a zealous “supporter” of Israel like Hagee could also be an anti-Semite. They may have believed, as conservative Jewish columnist Jeff Jacoby apparently did, that Hagee’s remarks on the Holocaust, as jarring as they were, were theologically correct, and therefore excusable. “As anyone even fleetingly familiar with the Hebrew Bible knows,” Jacoby wrote, “it is not ‘crazy,’ let alone anti-Semitic, to believe that Jewish suffering can be a punishment from God.”

But now…

But now that Hagee’s political allies have listened to the preacher’s sermon identifying the Antichrist as a homosexual Jew, how can they still share a stage with him? Is attributing Jewish ancestry to the Man of Sin not anti-Semitism in its most classical form? Are the conspiratorial screeds of Nesta Webster,Henry Ford, and David Duke not replete with passages disturbingly similar to this most recently revealed jeremiad of Hagee and to many of his past sermons?

Hagee’s allies must ask themselves what price they are willing to pay for the backing of his political empire. All of them diminish themselves by standing by side. But those who are Jewish like Lieberman, and who have highlighted their faith to enhance their moral authority, must know now that the price of entering Hagee’s kingdom is their soul.

No more excuses. All elected officials must withdraw from Hagee’s upcoming summit.

Update: Did you know that God tricked the Florida Jews into supporting George W. Bush in 2000? Pastor John Hagee explains:

Read Full Post »

Sen. Lindsey Graham: McCain’s Policies Would ‘Absolutely’ Be An ‘Extension’ And ‘Enhancement’ Of Bush’s

By- Suzie-Q @ 6:00 PM MST

From: Think Progress

By Ben at 12:06 pm

Graham: McCain’s Policies Would ‘Absolutely’ Be An ‘Extension’ And ‘Enhancement’ Of Bush’s»

In a widely-ridiculed speech last Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) noted that “you will hear from my opponent’s campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I’m running for President Bush’s third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy.” He added that he believes those comparisons are “false.”

But it seems that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), McCain’s chief surrogate and attack dog, disagrees. Today on ABC’s This Week, Graham stated unequivocally that McCain’s tax and health care policies were not only an extension of Bush’s polices but also an “enhancement”:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring Senator Graham back in on this because you brought up two. You said the tax policy and the health care policy were essentially, Senator Graham, John McCain is calling for an extension or maybe enhancement of the Bush policies.

GRAHAM: Yeah, absolutely.

McCain’s speech last week represented a feeble attempt to distance himself from Bush, something his top surrogate acknowledges is futile. Strangely enough, McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said recently that Obama’s economic polices, not McCain’s, would represent a third Bush term (a claim ultra-conservative Robert Novak even found absurd).

But the simple fact is that Graham is right. McCain is proposing massive tax cuts that primarily benefit higher-income households, ignore other priorities and drive up the national debt by trillions. And McCain’s health care policy would raise costs and abandon the uninsured. That sure sounds like an “extension” and “enhancement” of Bush’s policies.

Read Full Post »

Evening Jukebox… Calling All Angels

By- Suzie-Q @ 5:55 PM MST

Lenny Kravitz- Calling All Angels

Read Full Post »

$4 Dollars A Gallon Reality! Bush Hadn’t Heard That!

GEF @ 4:28 PM MST

Gas Hits $4 a Gallon; Bush “Hadn’t Heard That”

By: C&L

Just a little over three months ago, President Bush declared he “hadn’t heard” that gasoline would soon reach $4 a gallon. Today, the milestone anticipated by all save the President of the United States came to pass:

“Drivers are paying an average of $4 for a gallon of gasoline for the first time. AAA and the Oil Price Information Service say the national average price for a gallon of regular gas rose to $4.005 overnight from $3.988. But consumers in many parts of the country have already been paying well above that price for some time.”

Given the stratospheric – and uninterrupted – rise in oil and gas prices, Bush’s February 28 display of ignorance is all the more jaw-dropping. Asked by a reporter about the looming arrival of $4 gas, Bush the former oil man did what comes naturally and played dumb:

Q What’s your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing —

THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You’re predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?

Q A number of analysts are predicting —

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah?

Q — $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.

Perrspectives has more on Bush’s mind-numbing mindlessness and his dismal history of broken promises to “jawbone” his Saudi and Kuwaiti friends into opening the spigots.

Read Full Post »

McCain Is Getting $58,000 A Year In Disability Income But Refuses To Vote For The GI Bill Because “It’s Too Generous”

By- Suzie-Q @ 10:30 AM MST

From: AMERICAblog

Sunday, June 08, 2008
Why is McCain getting $58,000 a year in disability income?
John Aravosis (DC) · 6/08/2008 12:07:00 PM ET

First off, I find it fascinating that John McCain, who is refusing to vote for the GI Bill for our troops because “it’s too generous,” is himself getting $58,000 a year, tax-free, from the US government for his military service. Had McCain been getting that amount every year since Vietnam, that would total $2,000,000 for the man who isn’t into overgenerous government. I just find that interesting.

His staff responded with the classic “he was tortured for his country.” Yeah, we get it. The torture card. It’s to McCain what 9/11 was to Giuliani’s candidacy – the never-ending name-drop. Though what McCain’s staff actually said was downright, um, we’re being nice to Clinton now, so I won’t say Clintonian. Here’s the quote:

McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. “Tortured for his country — that is how he acquired his disability,” Salter said.

Technically? What does that mean? Usually, it means that under the strict reading of the law, you’re covered, but in fact it’s kind of a nudge-nudge-wink-wink situation – that’s what “technically” means. It’s called parsing, which is something you do to “technically” claim something is true, when on its face it really isn’t. So is McCain “technically” disabled, and taking $58,000 a year tax free from the government, or is he actually disabled? I would imagine there are other solders who are actually disabled who could use the money. And if he is actually disabled, just how disabled is he?

I think our troops should only get the best, and we’ve beaten up the administration a lot for leaving our injured troops and vets in the lurch. But I also remember from those articles how hard it is for our current injured troops to get the health care they need (the military is actually refusing to diagnose PTSD in order to save money on benefits!). I’m just not sure that the McCains, who own “eight or nine houses,” should be getting $58k a year tax-free from the government for a “technical” disability when others who don’t have families worth a gazillion dollars could use that support a lot more. The median household income in the US in 2006 was $48,201. I know vets who have done well for themselves in the workplace and, as a result, refuse to take any federal medical benefits. They feel it would simply be wrong to take what amounts to federal welfare when they’re rich.

I mean, the man built his own lake to go fishing at one of his 8 or 9 houses. Yes, he served his country. But something is wrong when we’re paying millionaires $58,000 a year, especially when those same millionaires complaine that we were being “overly-generous” to our troops currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the very least, it’s terribly hypocritical.

PS Let’s not forget that the Republicans decided that the last election should be about whether a Vietnam war hero, who was awarded the Purple Heart, really was injured enough to get those medals. Imagine what the Republicans would have done had the Democratic candidate been profiting to the tune of $58,000 a year from the feds for a “disability” that didn’t stop him from staying in the military another eight years, where he took over the command of a training squadron, and which didn’t stop him from later getting elected to the US Congress for 26 years. Yes, you can be disabled and do all that, but again, imagine had the Democratic candidate had the vigor of John McCain, while claiming to be disabled to the tune of $58k a year. They’d eviscerate us. And they did, when the candidate was John Kerry.

Read Full Post »

Joe Biden: “Attack Dog” After McCain’s Warrantless Wiretap Flip-Flop

By- Suzie-Q @ 9:00 AM MST

From: Carpetbagger Report

Biden blasts McCain after warrantless-wiretap flip-flop

Posted June 8th, 2008 at 11:00 am

One of the traditional roles for a presidential running mate is a willingness — and ideally, a propensity — to be an “attack dog,” going after the rival party and saying the things the candidate would say, if he or she wasn’t trying to appear above the fray.

It’s probably too soon to talk too seriously about Joe Biden’s chances of making the ticket, but if he’s auditioning for the part, and hoping to prove himself as a sufficiently aggressive pugilist, I think he’s doing an awfully good job.

We learned this week, for example, that John McCain has completely reversed course on the White House’s authority to conduct warrantless searches of Americans’ phone calls and emails. Six months ago, asked specifically whether federal statutes trumped a president’s war-time authority, McCain said, “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law.” Now, McCain has apparently given up on this, and embraced the Bush administration’s “sweeping theories of executive authority.”

Biden, not willing to let opportunities like these pass him by, pounced. (via mcjoan)

…Biden wrote that the FISA statute, which he helped draft, “made clear the exclusive legal steps the President must take in order to conduct national security surveillance.”

“President Bush chose to ignore the law and now it seems Senator McCain will continue this policy,” Biden writes. “Once again – there is no daylight between President Bush and Sen. McCain.”

“We all share the goal of capturing the terrorists and protecting national security and we can do that without violating the privacy of the American people,” he added. “Like President Bush, Sen. McCain is presenting the American people with a false choice — national security or civil liberties. We need a President who understands that we can have both. It’s what our values and our Constitution demands.”

First, good for him. Second, this seems to be part of a trend.

This comes two weeks after Biden went after Joe Lieberman’s latest defense of McCain’s foreign policy worldview…

Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was “naïve and inexperienced” for advocating engagement; “What is it he wants to talk about?” he asked.

Well, for a start, Iran’s nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we’re stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.

Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without “preconditions” – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.

…which came a week after Biden went after Bush for his “appeasement” talk…

“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset … and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”

…which came a few months after Biden made Rudy Giuliani look pretty ridiculous on international current events, back when the former mayor looked like a credible presidential candidate.

I’m not saying Biden’s the ideal running mate. First, Biden led the way on that ridiculous bankruptcy bill, and I’ll probably never forgive him for it. Second, he eschews message discipline, and is well known for sticking his foot in his mouth with embarrassing gaffes.

That said, the more he stays on the offensive against McCain and his cohorts, the more I like him.

Read Full Post »

Robert Fisk: The West’s weapon of self-delusion

Sudhan @10:45 CET

There are gun battles in Beirut – and America thinks things are going fine

Robert Fisk | The Independent, June 7, 2008

So they are it again, the great and the good of American democracy, grovelling and fawning to the Israeli lobbyists of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), repeatedly allying themselves to the cause of another country and one that is continuing to steal Arab land.

Will this ever end? Even Barack Obama – or “Mr Baracka” as an Irish friend of mine innocently and wonderfully described him – found time to tell his Jewish audience that Jerusalem is the one undivided capital of Israel, which is not the view of the rest of the world which continues to regard the annexation of Arab East Jerusalem as illegal. The security of Israel. Say it again a thousand times: the security of Israel – and threaten Iran, for good measure.

Yes, Israelis deserve security. But so do Palestinians. So do Iraqis and Lebanese and the people of the wider Muslim world. Now even Condoleezza Rice admits – and she was also talking to Aipac, of course – that there won’t be a Palestinian state by the end of the year. That promise of George Bush – which no-one believed anyway – has gone. In Rice’s pathetic words, “The goal itself will endure beyond the current US leadership.”

Of course it will. And the siege of Gaza will endure beyond the current US leadership. And the Israeli wall. And the illegal Israeli settlement building. And deaths in Iraq will endure beyond “the current US leadership” – though “leadership” is pushing the definition of the word a bit when the gutless Bush is involved – and deaths in Afghanistan and, I fear, deaths in Lebanon too.

Continued . . .

Read Full Post »

Amid Barack Obamamania, John McCain could still win the US presidential election

Sudhan @10:15 CET

By John O’Sullivan | Telegraph.co.uk, June 8, 2008

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton exited the presidential race, pledging loyal support to Barack Obama. In reality she was shaking her fist defiantly at the victor. Her prolonged farewell, though undignified, is not hard to understand.

Unless she bullies Obama into making her his vice-presidential candidate – which looks unlikely – she is leaving national politics as well as the 2008 campaign.

Despite all the praise for her gallant uphill fight, Mrs Clinton blew a sure thing. As the candidate of inevitability, she lost. As the candidate of competence, she won most major battleground states, but lost the nomination because her campaign failed to organise in the smaller states. As the candidate with an unrivalled Democratic Rolodex, she lost the “super-delegates”.

Even her late emergence as the friend of Joe Sixpack reflected her loss of most other Democratic constituencies rather than her recruitment of a new political base. She is a very implausible leader of a white working class that is drifting steadily towards the Republicans.

Continued . . .

Read Full Post »