I was originally going to send this to this persons email, but his website doesn’t give any way to contact him, so this is just an open post for him to respond to in case he ever sees it.
Feel free to respond whether you agree or disagree.

Hello Mr. Stewart,
This is a letter that I’m going to post on my blog https://1personofdifference.wordpress.com
I Post this in response to your article “It’s the Blood of Jesus!” on your blog page:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer’s%20Corner/Doctrines/blood.htm
I and my wife have been going to your website for quite some time as we are researchers and concerned by the heresies and apostasy going on in God’s church today. One major heresy and apostasy is hyper focusing on something that is not crucial to salvation and making something to be more than it is to be divisive and cause confusion in the church. I would strongly urge you to rethink your stance on this and to repent and also to apologize to John Macarthur for the deplorable way that you have accused him of not being a Christian brother. This letter is in hopes of edification not of pointing fingers. Paul tells us what we are supposed to do when a brother is wrong and I do so humbly and with love.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Seventh Day Adventist’s being severely incorrect in a lot of things and being cultish in nature, I think you are way off and on the fringe of participating in heretical acts.
If you have had any change in your beliefs but have yet to change your website I would welcome any comments to my blog post.
This is not to attack you; you did enough attacking in your comments about John Macarthur. We are called to be discerners, rightly dividing the word of truth by brother Paul in 2 Timothy.
There is a specific misunderstanding in your desire to promote the blood of Jesus over Jesus himself.
What is my argument that what you are saying is heresy? The argument that I have laid forth and answered in these pages is that you are in essence saying that Jesus’ birth, earthly testimony, torture, death, burial, resurrection into heaven is not enough to save us, that he had to perform a final work. This after jumping all over the Seventh Day Adventists for the heresy of requiring works to enter into heaven in their pushing of the “Work of investigative judgment”.
You are attempting to get us to believe that Christ’s work on the cross was not enough he had to perform a “work” of his one, before he could atone for our sins. This idea of yours doesn’t seem the slightest bit heretical too you? When Jesus said, “It is Finished” he was talking about the need for the Old Testament and its need for animal sacrifice as a temporary atonement each time an Israelite sinned. He was also saying there would be a new Passover and it would bring the Holy Spirit into our lives. We would no longer need a physical sprinkling of a lambs blood over our doors to protect us from the Spirit of Death. We have the forever lamb’s blood in our hearts which as Paul tells us is the living temple, sanctified and held holy by the spirit who is the physical/spiritual embodiment of Jesus our High Priest.
Why do we not see in the word of God that our redemption wasn’t finished until he ceremoniously dripped his blood on the mercy seat. That is part of what was finished on the Cross, Old Testament rabbinical and priestly ceremony.
Hebrews 9:12 – Hebrews 10:19-42 – do indeed point to Christ’s blood, but to just simply see the blood as the be-all/end-all and to say there was more than the cross, is not only incorrect but heretical.
First, we know that the sacrificial lamb had to be without blemish. Christ was without blemish, both before and after his physical death.
By the time Jesus was talking to Mary, he had been buried in Joseph’s tomb, and the stone had been rolled away and he was gone… When the women came to care for his body (T)he Angel of the Lord said to them … “Who have you come for? He is raised from the dead.”
By the time Mary had come to seek him, Jesus had gone to the gates of hell in a representative fashion of our fallen state (The sins of the world were placed on him and God turned from him as God could have no sin, or know no sin. Since Jesus is part of the triune Godhead, Jesus had to literally be not only physically separated from the Holy Father but spiritually separated from the Father as well.) I personally think that is what scared him so much in the garden was the knowledge of that spiritual separation more than the physical death.
While I respect Dr. DeHaan and listened to the DeHaan clan on the radio for years, I think Dr. DeHaan was incorrect in several aspects in the piece you quoted from his book, “The Tabernacle.”
I don’t believe that what he was telling her was that he wasn’t consecrated yet. He was consecrated by the very fact that he was Jesus Christ. I believe he was cognizant as a man that Mary was a human, and she would probably have her hopes up that he would remain with them in his sanctified body so they could worship him on earth. Remember also that she was a Jew and the Jews of the day had the thought that the Messiah would bring God’s kingdom to earth and defeat the Roman tyranny. I think the reason he said don’t touch me was because he didn’t want her heart to be broken when he left. Even the men who were his disciples, who should have known better after following him everywhere for three years, had a hard time believing that he had returned from the dead. In fact this brings my point to bear that you and Dr. DeHaan are wrong in your ideas about why the Christ told Mary not to touch him. If you remember, at the time that he met the disciples in the upper room, he talked with Thomas, and because of Thomas’s doubts he told him to touch his hands and feel his wounds so that he would believe wholeheartedly. This would tell us that what you and Dr. DeHaan believe is wrong.
Remember he wasn’t just some guy walking around the outskirts of the city with bloody holes in his hands and feet, he was God as well as man. The very fact that he was the atonement for our sins through his death, burial and resurrection, means that he was consecrated to begin with because as we know from the Old Testament history the lamb had to be spotless. But there the comparison ends because he was not only spotless from birth but perfect and Holy. I believe that you are incorrect in your interpretation of scripture as to what our Lord Jesus meant when he said, “It is finished”.
Jesus was referring to the Old Testament covenant. What do I mean by that?
1. Jesus himself is now the Holy of Holies and the Mercy seat.
2. The Tabernacle is no longer necessary, as Paul tells us in Corinthians, and Jesus tells the Disciples before the day of Pentecost. The instant of our salvation, the Holy Spirit enters our body and our body becomes a living temple that we are required to treat with reverence and dignity.
3. As Jesus breathed his last breath on the Cross, darkness came over the whole earth. The Veil that covered the entrance of the Holy of Holies was ripped in two. This is significant in its timing following’ Jesus cry of “It is Finished!” He physically and spiritually became the lamb that was slain, without blemish, totally replacing the need for Old Testament restitution or atonement. No longer were our sins just covered over, but totally removed. As we read in the word, “totally blotted out from The Book of Life.”
4. As with most Old Testament history, the Passover was merely a foreshadowing of Jesus’ work on the Cross. The act of spreading the Lamb’s blood for the passing over of the spirit of death, was to be done by the head of each household. Yes the blood of a lamb was the Icon that the spirit of death was looking for, but the actual application of the blood was applied by human hands. Jesus as the son of man and the Son of God was the true personification of the lamb’s blood preventing the Spirit of Death from taking us to eternal spiritual damnation and death.
5. Where did Christ’s blood come from? It came from the Roman Centurions beating him, whipping him with a cat of 9 tails, and putting the Crown of Thorns on his head, then nailing his hands and feet to the Cross, then finally from the spear thrust into his side, blood and water flowed, mingled down.
Your hyper-fixation on Christ’s blood, and trying to say that he wasn’t sanctified before going up into heaven, and that Christ’s work wasn’t done on the cross simply because he hadn’t sprinkled the blood on the Mercy Seat yet is a damnable heresy and you are hoisted on your own Petard that you falsely accuse our Brother John Macarthur of.
He was already sanctified and holy before he came to earth so there was no need not to be touched, and as we already said he was touched by Thomas. There is no Biblical evidence that he had already ascended then re-descended before speaking with the Apostles, so the mere fact that Thomas touched him physically, totally destroys your argument.
Your assertions are not only wrong, but heretical because you are calling Jesus’ death on the cross an incomplete and insufficient work.
What Macarthur is saying is correct, while Christ’s blood is certainly a part of the sacrifice for our sins, it is not alone in its importance to our salvation. Jesus’ physical blood as it flowed through his veins was no different than yours or mine. It was needed to remain inside the body to sustain life, like water and food and nutrients. It is the penultimate culmination of Jesus sacrifice for us, but it is neither the only part nor the most important part. When you add the blood however to everything else however, it becomes the blood of the Lamb of God that washes away, not just covers our sins.
When John Macarthur states that his physical blood is merely a manifestation you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ignorantly or intentionally missing what Macarthur is saying.
The blood of a mere mortal would not atone for anyone’s sins. It is a factor among many factors.
1. Jesus is son of man and Son of God, a full part of the Holy Trinity.
2. Jesus had to make a way for an end-all/be-all for our sins.
3. Jesus was born a perfect birth through the spirit as foretold in Isaiah and other Old Testament proclamations
4. Jesus’ earthly life had two purposes, to wake the sleeping and point the way to eternal salvation in heaven and to glorify the Father.
5. Jesus taught that through him and his death, burial, and resurrection was the only path to salvation through faith. Isaiah tells us that the lamb came that he might be slaughtered and lifted up.
6. Christ was betrayed and through that betrayal, and the sins of the world, became totally separate from God for a short time so that the Holy Father, could bring to bear the full brunt of his judgment against his son for the guilt of the world.
7. He was prosecuted and persecuted and had a crown of thorns put on his head, beaten so bad he needed help walking, and then his hands and feet were nailed to a cross and then the cross was raised to cause torture and a slow death by suffocation.
8. He descended into hell, was raised again and seen by a large witness of people, and then was taken up into heaven where he sits on the throne next to God the Father.
In the following paragraph, Dr. DeHaan is completely wrong when he asserts that this is a comparison between the Old Testament priest and Christ as our new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, “we remember that the high priest after he had offered the sacrifice, was to enter the holy of holies, before he did anything else, with the precious blood. No one was allowed to approach him. Everyone was shut out until this was completely done.”
When Christ died on the cross it was truly finished. To say that he had to go to heaven and sprinkle his blood on the Mercy Seat is heresy because it’s adding works to Christ’s gift of his death on the Cross at Calvary. Jesus was and is perfect, the son of man and the Son of God, nothing else was required. He is the mercy seat. He is the Holy of Holies and he resides in our hearts which is the new temple. Indeed, Christ’s blood was shed on the Mercy Seat, but it was done as he was dying on the Cross.
You mix metaphors with reality. You say that he had to go to heaven to sprinkle his blood on the Mercy Seat. Well if you are relating him as the high priest, then that is an incorrect and heretical assumption and adding to the word something that is never spoken. If Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit is going to come down and fill us, and Paul tells us that the temple is now in our bodies, why would Jesus have to go to Heaven to the Mercy Seat when the Mercy Seat was in the temple in the Holy of Holies in the first place?
If God the Father sent his Son to die here on earth because he had to be a human with spiritual perfection, and all the Old Testament points to this like a lighthouse in the fog, why would his work on the Cross not complete our salvation and he had to go to Heaven?
By making this Heretical assumption, you are literally removing the holy deity of Christ, and his work on the Cross, and personifying a single part of the case of salvation.
We are not called to judge men or their salvation, we are called to seek out their fruits and judge their fruits. I see no fruit of heresy or lack of salvation on the part of John Macarthur. I may not 100% buy the 5 points of Calvinism but I would certainly not deny him as a brother in Christ, nor call him a heretic.
Jesus on the Cross said it was finished and it was! To add anything to that or take anything away from that is strongly warned about in Revelations 22.

Advertisements

USMagazine, Friday, June 17, 2011, 6:44am (PDT)

  • Angie’s good deeds continue!

     Angelina Jolie touches down in Altinozu, Turkey, on Friday afternoon, where she’ll meet with nearly 10,000 refugees from war-torn Syria.

    The Associated Press reports that 36-year-old Jolie, Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner, will be greeted at the refugee camp with a 16-yard banner reading “Goodness Angel of the World, Welcome.”

     The refugees have fled Syria due to a violent crackdown on anti-government protesters.

     Jolie, whose last humanitarian visit was to Tunisia (where thousands had fled from Libya) in April, is currently staying with Brad Pitt and their six kids in an $11 million mansion in Malta. Pitt, 47, is filming “World War Z” in the southern European nation.


  • While I feel sorry for the People of Syria that had to flee to Turkey, they obviously have no clue what an angel is!

Bill “I have to spew manure” Maher has done it again.

He has stated that Weiner’s actions of sending unwanted, unasked for, pornographic pictures of himself to a minor female, is less offensive, and less psychotic than Dick Cheney who used to shoot birds with a Shotgun.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20110615090020.aspx
CNN Gives Maher Platform to Accuse GOP Candidates of ‘Horrible Society-Killing Ideas,’ Call Cheney ‘More Psychotic’ Than Weiner

By: Brent Baker

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 8:50 AM EDT

The night after CNN’s debate in New Hampshire with seven Republican presidential candidates, Anderson Cooper brought aboard left-wing “comedian” Bill Maher to ridicule them. Asked if he “had to vote” for one of them, he named Ron Paul since “he’s a cut from a different cloth than the rest of those people who are of course selling their souls to the corporate interests who back them and who have just horrible, society-killing ideas about America.”

Later discussing Anthony Weiner, Maher used it as an opportunity to deride one of the left’s favorite targets they never tire of vilifying: “Dick Cheney used to go out and shoot birds by the hundreds that were like in a cage. To me, that’s a lot more psychotic than anything Anthony Weiner ever did.” Maher insisted: “He shot and killed an incredible number of birds for absolutely no reason than a blood lust.”

From the pre-recorded interview aired on the Tuesday, June 14 Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, transcript below video (Audio: MP3 clip)

ANDERSON COOPER: You’ve been pretty hard on the field of GOP candidates so far. I think you said at one point that you’ve seen, and I quote, “more appealing lineups on an episode of Law and Order Special Victims Unit.” Did you change your mind at all after last night’s debate?

BILL MAHER: No. Of course it got even worse. It’s tough sledding there. As a progressive, as a sane person just to watch that, to see that, you know, Republicanism has really become a religion. And when I say religion, I mean they just have a series of baseless assertions that they cleave to, you know. And it’s like if there was just one sane person in that room to give perspective. But there wasn’t. So you have seven people up there who are all claiming things like, you know, things we know don’t work like reducing taxes will somehow magically increase revenue and somehow by keeping the profit motive in the health care system that’s going to solve that problem. So, you know, it’s very hard for someone to watch that debate who is not in that bubble. And I am not in the bubble.

COOPER: If you had to vote for one of them is there one you would vote for? Who would you vote for? I mean, if you had to pick?

MAHER: I’d vote for Ron Paul, if I had to pick. I mean, Ron Paul is at least not a panderer. He’s sincere. He’s got the right ideas about getting our troops home. And I like Ron Paul. I think he’s a cut from a different cloth than the rest of those people who are of course selling their souls to the corporate interests who back them and who have just horrible society-killing ideas about America. And either don’t know what’s real or don’t care.

COOPER: What do you mean by society-killing?

MAHER: Well, like, like Tim Pawlenty and every one of them competing for this idea of continually reducing taxes when we are – on the one hand they are screaming about how we’re in debt and on the other hand the answer is to somehow decrease revenues. You know, they all act like god created the world in January of 2009, and then Barack Obama completely screwed it up.

….

COOPER: Do you think he [Anthony Weiner] should resign?

MAHER: At this point, yes. Not because I think he did anything so incredibly awful. I mean, Dick Cheney used to go out and shoot birds by the hundreds that were like in a cage. To me, that’s a lot more psychotic than anything Anthony Weiner ever did. But the point is this is America. We have to live in reality.

COOPER: Dick Cheney wasn’t shooting birds in a cage. He was hunting.

MAHER: He was not hunting, Anderson. There’s a difference between hunting which, I’m not a big fan of either, and when you go out into this controlled situation where they — I forget what they do to the birds but they do something where they can’t fly. It’s the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. And yes, look it up. That’s what he did. He shot and killed an incredible number of birds for absolutely no reason than a blood lust.

— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center.

A greek jackass, who's name potentially could be Chris.


A guy named Chris, who is an American Jackass.


Hey Matthews –
Are you being intentionally stupid, or worse, are you just pushing the Whitehouse’s official bye-line straight from Washington.
You seriously don’t get it that someone, who’s entrusted with working for American citizens, did something that shows stupidity, an extreme lack of morals and ethics, and betrayed the trust of his wife and his marriage vows. Like Clinton, this has nothing to do with what a man has done in the secrets of his bedroom, although he was incredibly wrong in what he did. It has everything to do with, if his own wife can’t trust him to stand up to his wedding vows, how can the citizens that voted him into office trust him? I don’t trust most politicians as far as I can throw a feather, but one who shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he can’t be trusted by his actions, deserves to be evicted from his job. If I sent inappropriate and lewd pictures from a work computer in an office at a regular employer I would be fired without a moment’s notice. This man is also under investigation for sending these pictures to an underage female. What brilliant subterfuge do you want to spew to distract from that piece of news Chris?
Belows is an article that has to be evidence of one of the stupidest things ever said by an American so called journalist.
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20110610113105.aspx

Matthews: Weiner in Trouble Because His Behavior Offends ‘Culturally Backward’ Christian Conservatives

By: Geoffrey Dickens
Friday, June 10, 2011 11:42 AM EDT

On Thursday’s Hardball, Chris Matthews determined that Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner could be in danger of being forced out of Congress by Blue Dog Dems who face uphill battles in red states because, as he put it, “people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally – you can say backward if you want…don’t like this kind of stuff.”

During a discussion about Weiner’s chances of survival, after being caught sending lewd pictures to women via Twitter, the MSNBCer claimed the liberal congressman didn’t have to worry about his, according to Matthews, culturally superior constituents in New York – the “56 percent in Brooklyn and Queens” who “can live with this guy.” Instead he had to be concerned with his Democratic colleagues fearful about re-election in the “conservative culturally part of the country.”

The following excerpt was aired on the June 9 edition of Hardball:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: If you’re a Blue Dog Democrat from a conservative culturally part of the country, where you’re fighting out every election with two or three points to spare, if you’re a — if you’re are [Jim] Matheson from Utah or you’re from Oklahoma and you’re a [Dan] Boren — and he’s leaving Congress – your life’s getting difficult enough defending the East Coast and the left coast Democratic Party. They’re too far left. Look at what happened in Arkansas last year. It’s getting very, very hard to defend the behavior, politically, of the party. Now you throw on top of that immoral behavior, indiscrete behavior, embarrassing behavior, gross behavior like this, and you still have him in your midst. And that’s my question to you. If you’re Steny Hoyer, who does speak for the Blue Dogs, if you’re Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker, who has to deal with them, don’t you have to deal with the fact – you’re losing any chance of getting back a 218 majority?

I want you to pick this up, Ben. This is, to me, the stakes here. If he stays, they never get the leadership back. They never get the Speakership back because the people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally – you can say backward if you want – but they don’t like this kind of stuff at all. They’re not part of that 56 percent in Brooklyn and Queens who say, “okay, we can live with this guy.” Your thoughts, Ben? Isn’t that the cutting edge of this?

— Geoffrey Dickens is the Deputy Research Director at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Geoffrey Dickens on Twitter.

MSNBC AND NBC SHOULD SERIOUSLY WATCH CBS ARCHIVES OF DAN RATHER COMITTING JOURNALISTIC SUICIDE!

 

NBC Predicts ‘Tough Day’ for Palin with Release of E-Mail ‘Political Minefield’

By: Kyle Drennen

Friday, June 10, 2011 11:27 AM EDT

At the top of Friday’s NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer declared that it “could be a tough day for potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin. We’re live in Alaska, where thousands of her e-mails as governor there will be released today.” Later, fellow co-host Ann Curry introduced a report on the upcoming release by proclaiming that Palin was “about to face a new political minefield.”

Without having seen a single email, national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff argued that Palin “may now be facing a storm.” The headline on screen throughout the segment read: “Problems for Palin? Thousands of E-mails to be Released.”

Isikoff noted how “Palin used her personal Yahoo e-mail account rather than government accounts to conduct state business, to try to keep her communications private.” A sound bite was included from former Palin aide Frank Bailey, who bashed her in a recent book. He ominously claimed: “There seemed to be almost a paranoia about keeping her communication private. She, at times, would have me go in to her state account and delete and purge out e-mails that she didn’t want to, essentially, ever be discovered.”

Isikoff speculated on the contents of the e-mails, assuming the information would all be damaging to Palin:

What might be in the e-mails? Controversies like troopergate, Palin’s alleged effort to get rid of an Alaska state trooper who was in a messy divorce with Palin’s sister. And a response to questions about her daughter Bristol’s pregnancy during the ’08 campaign….And Bristol’s boyfriend, Levi Johnston. Then there’s the famous tanning bed she had installed in the governor’s mansion and the nearly $17,000 in per diem expenses she billed to state taxpayers when she spent nights in her home in Wasilla.

Wrapping up his report, Isikoff got in one final dig at the former Alaska governor: “News organizations first requested these documents nearly three years ago in the summer of 2008….Longer, in fact, than the time Palin was actually governor.”

Here is a full transcript of the June 10 segment:

7:01AM ET TEASE:

MATT LAUER: Plus, what could be a tough day for potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin. We’re live in Alaska, where thousands of her e-mails as governor there will be released today.

7:13AM ET SEGMENT:

ANN CURRY: Sarah Palin says that she’s still thinking about making a run for president, but she’s about to face a new political minefield today. Thousands of e-mails from her time as governor of Alaska are due to be released within hours. NBC national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff is in Juneau, Alaska this morning with more on this. Hey Michael, good morning.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Good morning, Ann. Today, Alaska officials have finally agreed to turn them over, more than 24,000 of Sarah Palin’s e-mails are due to be released here this morning. It’s a massive document dump that could offer new clues into what kind of governor Sarah Palin was, and if she runs, what kind of president she could yet become.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Problems for Palin? Thousands of E-mails to be Released]

Fresh off her bus tour that attracted a crush of media attention, Sarah Palin may now be facing a storm of a different kind. The release of thousands of e-mails from Palin to more than 50 top aides and officials in Alaska.

SARAH PALIN: I, Sarah Palin-

ISIKOFF: The e-mails cover the first two years of her tenure as governor and continue through September 2008, including the first frantic weeks after John McCain plucked her from obscurity as his running mate.

When she was governor, Palin was a frenetic BlackBerry user, firing off e-mails daily to top aides about state policies and venting about her critics. But Palin used her personal Yahoo e-mail account rather than government accounts to conduct state business, to try to keep her communications private. According to Frank Bailey, a former close political aide who recently wrote a book sharply critical of her.

FRANK BAILEY: There seemed to be almost a paranoia about keeping her communication private. She, at times, would have me go in to her state account and delete and purge out e-mails that she didn’t want to, essentially, ever be discovered.

ISIKOFF: What might be in the e-mails? Controversies like troopergate, Palin’s alleged effort to get rid of an Alaska state trooper who was in a messy divorce with Palin’s sister. And a response to questions about her daughter Bristol’s pregnancy during the ’08 campaign.

SARAH PALIN: Then we have our daughter, Bristol, she’s on the bus with the newborn.

ISKOFF: And Bristol’s boyfriend, Levi Johnston. Then there’s the famous tanning bed she had installed in the governor’s mansion and the nearly $17,000 in per diem expenses she billed to state taxpayers when she spent nights in her home in Wasilla. Palin says the e-mails won’t be a distraction.

CHRIS WALLACE [HOST, FOX NEWS SUNDAY]: Are you worried that some of those e-mails could be damaging?

PALIN: No. Because, you know, I think every rock in the Palin household that could ever be kicked over and uncovered anything is – has already been kicked over.

ISIKOFF: News organizations first requested these documents nearly three years ago in the summer of 2008. But state officials say that the sheer volume of Palin’s e-mails was so great it’s taken them this long to process the request. Longer, in fact, than the time Palin was actually governor.

CURRY: Alright, well thank you so much. Michael Isikoff this morning.

— Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Kyle Drennen on Twitter.

Michael
Isikoff, Lestor Holt, Bill Dedman – or Larry, Moe, and Curly come back to life on
NBC and MSNBC!

I ran across the article below  by Brent Baker from Media Research Center –

I classify the article under“The NBC has more money than brains, ethics, or real news stories category, or.. the

What-else is new category.”

 These people actually flew to Alaska and wasted thousands of dollars for what?

Are you freakin serious? The only bombshell here is that liberal News like NBC,
MSNBC, CNBC are all owned by liberal billionaires and they don’t focus on real
important stuff. They focused on Sarah trying to give her kids healthy food and
what selection of drapes she wanted in the Governor’s mansion.

Gee well
I guess that’s not much of a bomb shell either because the liberal press has
been doing that for years!

The above words are my personal opinion and as such are currently protected under the first amendment.

If you don’t believe me, stop being a mindless liberal follower and go read the Constitution for yourself.


NBC the Most Excited by Palin’s E-Mail, Yet Fails to Dig Up Any ‘Bombshells’

By: Brent Baker

Monday, June 13, 2011 8:49 AM E
Much of the media made
fools of themselves with their excited obsession over the release of Sarah
Palin’s gubernatorial e-mails, but NBC News went the furthest, sending, as did
CNN, reporters to Juneau as the network uniquely led its Friday night newscast
by hyping the non-news as a major event. “On the broadcast tonight,” anchor
Lester Holt heralded, “mail call. Thousands of pages of e-mail from Sarah
Palin’s time as Governor. What we’re learning about her tonight.”

Following a story from “national investigative correspondent” Michael Isikoff
in which “MSNBC.com investigative reporter” Bill Dedman had the gall to
complain “we waited longer for these records than Sarah Palin was Governor,
almost a thousand days,” NBC’s David Gregory recognized, in an
understatement: “As Mike and his team are finding, not a lot of bombshells
here.”

ABC also got into the act, but didn’t send any on-air personnel to Juneau. On
Saturday’s World News, however, John Berman trumpeted his big discovery
proving Palin’s hypocrisy: “While these days Palin is criticizing parts of
Michelle Obama’s national battle against obesity…she once e-mailed an aide
asking for ‘low carb foods…just don’t want the kids to have too much
sugar/white carb stuff.’” That should pretty much discredit her.

CBS showed the best news judgment,
not mentioning the Palin e-mails on Friday or Saturday’s CBS Evening News.

Isikoff’s find – Palin once praised something candidate Barack Obama said:
“Among the e-mails, this exchange from Palin to an aide written a few weeks
before she was picked by McCain, praising then-candidate Obama’s energy policy
speech. ‘He gave a great speech this morning in Michigan – mentioned Alaska,’
adding, ‘we need to take advantage of this and write a statement saying he’s
right on.’ Then in a later e-mail telling an aide, ‘he did say ‘yay’ to our gas
line. Pretty cool. Wrong candidate.’ Palin later became one of Obama’s fiercest
critics on energy policy.”

From the top of the Friday, June 10 NBC Nightly News:

LESTER HOLT: Good evening, I’m Lester Holt, in tonight for Brian.
Sarah Palin’s short rise from obscurity to a source of endless political
fascination reached a new level today as reporters lined up to scour thousands
of pages of e-mails from her time as Alaska Governor. Looking for deeper
insight and clues into her political ambitions. Responding to media requests,
the state of Alaska released 24,000 pages of e-mails covering the period from
December 2006, when she was sworn in as governor, to September 2008 when she
was named John McCain’s running mate. With Palin a potential presidential
challenger, the question tonight is: Could her foes try to use them to try and
define her candidacy? NBC’s national investigative correspondent Michael
Isikoff has been examining some of those e-mails. He joins me now from Juneau,
Alaska, with more. Michael, good evening.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Good evening, Lester. News organizations have waited nearly
three years to get access to these documents. Stacks of e-mails from Palin’s
time as Governor. Palin and the state of Alaska fought having to make them
public. But now that they are, a Palin spokesman said today that they show she
was a very engaged Governor and that everybody should read them.

A media frenzy Alaska hasn’t seen since 2008. Journalists jockeying to get
their hands on thousands of pages of e-mails sent by Sarah Palin to more that
50 top aides and officials in Alaska. The 250 pounds of documents contain
e-mails from Palin’s first two years as Governor and continue through September
2008, including the chaotic first weeks after John McCain thrust her into the
national spotlight as his running mate.

As Governor, Palin was a frenetic
BlackBerry user, firing off e-mails but using her personal Yahoo e-mail account
rather than government accounts to conduct state business — all in an effort
to keep her communications private. News organizations like MSNBC.com first
requested the e-mails in 2008, but prying them loose from state archives hasn’t
been easy.

BILL DEDMAN, MSNBC.COM INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: The state public records law
calls for a ten day release of public records. We waited longer for these
records than Sarah Palin was Governor, almost a thousand days.

ISIKOFF: Among the e-mails, this exchange from Palin to an aide written a few
weeks before she was picked by McCain, praising then-candidate Obama’s energy
policy speech. “He gave a great speech this morning in Michigan – mentioned
Alaska,” adding, “we need to take advantage of this and write a statement
saying he’s right on.” Then in a later e-mail telling an aide, “he did say
‘yay’ to our gas line. Pretty cool. Wrong candidate.” Palin later became one of
Obama’s fiercest critics on energy policy. Palin says the e-mails won’t be a
distraction.

SARAH PALIN, ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY, JUNE 5: I’m sure people are going to
capitalize on this opportunity to go through 25,000 e-mails and perhaps take
things out of context. They’ll never truly know what the context of each one of
the e-mails was or each one of the issues were that I was working on that day.

ISIKOFF: The e-mails have lots of redactions, and so far, there are no
bombshells, but they do show Palin’s irritation with what she calls the
“lamestream media.” Writing from the McCain campaign trail, she writes in one
e-mail: “It drives me crazy to catch all the corrections.” And in an earlier
e-mail, “I feel like I’m at a breaking point with hurtful gossip.” Lester?

Palin’s Painted Flag
a “Breach of Federal Law”

“The whole thing [Sarah Palin’s bus tour] could be in breach of a
federal law, because the United States Flag Code establishes important rules
for the use and display of the Stars and Stripes, the flag of the United
States. Under standards of respect and etiquette, it’s made clear that the flag
of the United States should never be used for any advertising purpose
whatsoever. Yet that’s precisely what Sarah Palin is doing. She’s using the
flag of the United States for her own financial purposes. She drapes herself in
the Stars and Stripes and makes millions of dollars in the process. This has
got nothing to do with the presidency and everything to do with filling her
pockets.”

— MSNBC’s Martin Bashir on his 3pm ET Martin Bashir, May 31.

Martin. Martin. Martin… please, go be a real journalist and find something really truly worthy of reporting. Perphaps watch the movie about Woodward and Bernstein, or perhaps the movie with Nick Nolte and Julia Roberts for inspiration. Or even better yet watch Superman for inspiration from Clark Kent.

The best you can come up with is that Sarah Palins bus has a rendition of the American Flag on it? Please, any Constitutional law that the forefather’s intended to protect the emblem of our Nation went out the window in the 60’s and 70’s when the encroaching liberalism  and Fabian Socialism of the US Supreme Court began chipping away at the true meaning when they said it was guaranteed under the First Ammendment of the US Constitution to burn a flag and to drape a flag over your naked body and prance in a parade.

Don’t stand on your liberal soapbox and preach to America about the supposed evils of commercialism and Sarah Palin. Are you travelling with her in her Motor-Coach? Have you asked her to confide in you her inner secrets as to what she’s doing while she’s travelling?

Perhaps you’re jealous that your not riding along with the press squad that’s waiting on her every breath to announce whether she’s going to run for President in 2012?

Poor little Martin can’t play with the big boys?