Amillennialist Contra Mundum | Verbum Domini Manet in aeternum

Yahoo promotes those who would deny religious liberty to Christians (and other theists), but denies access to those pointing out the absurdity -- and intolerance -- of their position

2012-01-22T20:07:00.000-08:00

Those enjoying the benefits of the freedom founded on Christ's teachings would deny that liberty to those who follow Christ. Shameful hypocrisy.

The article in question was approved by Yahoo's editors, but some comments critical of their intolerance have disappeared. My response to the nonsense hosted here:

To declare oneself an "atheist" is to declare a belief regarding deity. So, to be consistent, the author must advocate that only agnostics be allowed in government. They're the only ones not asserting a position on god(s).

Besides the obvious self-disqualification of his "argument," this atheist would protect religious liberty by denying it to Christians and other theists, the overwhelming majority of humanity. Brilliant.

It was Christians who founded a "nation conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Who professed the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

(What can you expect from someone who considers both the Skeptics Annotated Bible a reliable source of information and the slaughter of the most innocent and helpless among us something worth defending?)

Godless ideologies (Nazism, Communism) resulted in the extermination of tens of millions of innocents in the last century. On the other hand, it is the Bible's teachings that have resulted in the equality, liberty, and prosperity of Western Civilization.

The ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are the direct result of the Christian worldview of their creators. Even those Founders who were not some sort of traditional Christian (nearly all were) were shaped in their thinking by the Christianity which permeated their civilization. Recall Thomas Jefferson, cited often in arguments against Christianity and religion in public life, who called Christ's teachings the most sublime in human history and most freeing for Science, Liberty, and the human mind.

As for violence in the Bible, (besides accounts of human evil) none was committed in service to religious intolerance. Capital punishment under the Mosaic Law was for the people of Israel only, a contract into which they entered voluntarily. Divine judgment against Egypt was carried out by God, not Man. Judgment against Canaan was for unspeakable evil (child sacrifice in devotion to Molech, for example; it is worth noting that Israel itself later suffered the same fate for the same sins). Nowhere do you find commands to war against unbelievers to make the world Hebrew.

Defaming Christ has to be the most vile and ridiculous element of this slander. The Son of God committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies and going so far as to not only pray for His murderers, but to die for the sins of all (even those who hate Him). Jesus taught a separation between the civil and the religious ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's"), the equality of all ("Treat others as you want to be treated"), and the value of all ("What you do to the least of these, you do to Me.").

Perhaps it is the suicidal ignorance of the Christ-hating left who, in their zeal to destroy Christians and Christianity, will ally themselves with genocidal, totalitarian pedophiles, but there is one major "religion" which commands the enslavement and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. That's the only belief system which has -- for fourteen hundred years -- waged offensive warfare against "unbelievers." That's Islam.

No, Andrew Riggio's confused. His false moral equivalence between Christianity/Judaism and Islam is absurd and despicable. Don't throw Muhammad's dirty bath water on the Baby.

Verbum Domini 1.5: What is the true God like?

2012-01-04T19:30:00.000-08:00

THE BIBLE SHOWS US GOD'S NATURE

For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed (Malachi 3:6).

God is unchanging; eternal.

But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

God is omnipotent (all-powerful).

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17).

for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything (1 John 3:20).

God is omniscient (all-knowing).

"Am I a God at hand, declares the LORD, and not a God far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD (Jeremiah 23:23-24).

God is omnipresent (present everywhere).

Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy (Leviticus 19:2).

God is holy.

The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness . . . (Exodus 34:6).

God is merciful, gracious, slow to anger (patient), always loving, and always faithful.

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love (1 John 4:8).

God is love ("loving").

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

God is faithful, just, and forgiving.

DOES GOD WANT TO SAVE ALL OR ONLY SOME?

who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

God wants ALL people to be saved.

ONE GOD, OR THREE?

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one (Deuteronomy 6:4).

The word translated as "God" here is "Elohiym"; literally "gods." The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge states regarding this verse:

Simeon ben Joachi says: "Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim. There are three degrees, and each degree is by itself alone, and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other."

This parallels part of the explanation of the Trinity in the Athanasian Creed:

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance . . . .

"Elohiym" is found also at the Creation:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" (Genesis 1:26).

(Some try to argue that "elohiym" used here is the royal "We" or that God is speaking to the angels. The latter doesn't fit at all, since God and the angels would be creating Man in their image and likeness.)

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20).

(New Advent notes regarding this passage:

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.)

Here Christ names the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Baptism.

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, Thus you shall bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them, The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace (Numbers 6:22-26).

And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory" (Isaiah 6:3)!

Just as with "elohiym," we see again the use of three in YHWH's blessing His people and in describing His nature.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Here the Apostle Paul names the Trinity in his benediction.

And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16-17).

In Christ's baptism, we see all three Persons of the Trinity present.

REVIEW
YHWH reveals Himself as one God, three Persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. All three are called "God," all three do the acts of God, and the characteristics of God apply to each equally.

Christians use the word "triune" to describe God: "Tri" means "three," "une" means "one." "Trinity" is the "Three-One."

The Church has summarized its understanding of YHWH in three major creeds, the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian. Here is the Athanasian Creed, from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library:

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic[*] faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

*"catholic" means "universal"

Now it's official: Obama befriends the Muslim Brotherhood

2012-01-04T14:17:00.000-08:00

More good news, from here:

The Muslim Brotherhood? Even Mubarak knew they were bad news, outlawing them for their "Islamist ideology" (just plain "Islam") and historic ties to militants (read "obedient Muslims").

As Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, how can Obama be unaware that the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within"?

Befriending those sworn to your destruction? Neville Chamberlain tried something similar. How'd that turn out?

This is like Jews befriending Hitler. Or Ukranians befriending Stalin. Or hens befriending the fox.

What is Obama thinking? First, he gives a speech from Al-Azhar, the head of Sunni Islam -- which, by the way, makes genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah's name "beautiful" -- and demands that the Brotherhood attend. Then he helps overthrow the despots of various Islamic states, the end result of which is the B'hood's rise to power. (But when the people of Iran protested against Islamic Allahocracy? Obama was eating ice cream.)

Now, he's making it official: B. Hussein Obama is Islamic terrorism's BFFWB*. He thinks that you're too stupid to realize it or too perverse to care. Obama's counting on your hatred of Christians and Jews to lead you to ignore the fact that ascendant Islam tolerates nothing but Islam. That means no atheists, homosexuals, progressives, etc.

Will you defend Obama's alliance with Islamic jihad and your own destruction?

*Best Friend Forever . . . With Benefits

Verbum Domini 1: God tells us about Himself

2012-01-02T21:29:00.001-08:00

Is there a God?
An atheist says: “There is no god.”
An agnostic says: “I don’t know if there is a god.”

What does God say?

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good (Psalm 14:1).

THE NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
How can we know about God?

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork (Psalm 19:1).

For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God (Hebrews 3:4).

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

All people know about God from Nature.

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . (Romans 2:15).

And all people know about God from Conscience.

The natural knowledge of God tells us that there is a God Who is wise, powerful, and holy.

THE WEAKNESS OF THE NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
What is the weakness of the Natural Knowledge of God? We don’t know:

1. Who the true God is
2. About the promised Savior from sin (Jesus)

Why does God give people natural knowledge about Himself?

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us . . . (Acts 17:24-27)

God gives people knowledge about Himself from Nature and Conscience to lead them to seek Him.

THE REVEALED KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
How can we know what God is really like?

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known (John 1:18).

Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father' (John 14:8-9)?

God shows us what He is really like through Jesus.

From where does this Revealed Knowledge come?

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me . . . (John 5:39).

no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:16-20).

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world (Hebrews 1:1-2).

God reveals Himself to us through the Scriptures. These were written by His Prophets and Apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Apostles told the world about what Jesus said and did.

"Bible" means "book."
"Scriptures" means "writings."

REVIEW
The Bible tells us:

"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22).

1. Who the true God is

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name [Jesus] under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

2. Who our Savior is: Jesus

Islamic propaganda on Blu-ray and in 3D

2011-12-06T23:02:00.001-08:00

Hello, Martin,

I am a fan of yours. I always appreciate your reviews; of all the critics here, your tastes match mine most closely.

I'm writing tonight in response to your review of Arabia 3D, specifically the characterization of Arabia and its role in the world, especially with regard to Islam.

As someone familiar with Islamic history and theology, it is clear that this BD is best described as propaganda in service to fourteen hundred years of Islamic slavery and slaughter.

Muhammad was a genocidal pedophile, a vicious warlord. When he managed to recruit enough followers to conquer his neighboring tribes, he did, until he possessed most of Arabia. At that point, the only options left to pagans was conversion or death; the "People of the Book" -- Jews and Christians, mainly -- had a third option: Slavery as dhimmis.

The much-touted "golden age" of Islam was golden only to Muslim males, as jihad and shari'a (Islamic law) require the rape, enslavement, and murder of all non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to convert and makes Muslim women (and little girls) nothing more than sex slaves, chattel to be used and abused at the whim of their "husbands."

As for the often-claimed-but-rarely-substantiated "scientific advancements" under Islam? Any genuine discoveries were stolen from the non-Muslims suffering under Islamic rule or from the Greeks, whose cultural legacy was stolen by Islam's armies as they raped and decapitated their civilization. (For example: our "Arabic" numerals? Stolen from Hindus, seventy to eighty million of whom were butchered by Muslim armies.)

I know that you are a fair and decent man, and my comments here must be revolting, but every one is true. Please investigate for yourself. Google "Asma bint Marwan" to see what Muhammad had done to a poetess who mocked him. Research 'Aisha, Muhammad's favorite "wife." She was only six when the monster "married" her (he was in his fifties), and a prepubescent nine when he began raping her.

And here's a little something that goes a long way toward explaining the causes of the "conflict in the Middle East":

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews" (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (Qur'an 5:82).

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

"Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path" (Qur'an 5:60)!

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."

Regards,

Santiago

The Church had the full benefit of its sacred texts in the first century

2011-12-01T09:49:00.001-08:00

A complete Isaiah, c. 100 B.C. - 50 A.D.

From here:

Hello, Ard,

You claimed that Christianity lived on "oral cultures for the better part of a century without the full benefit 'of its sacred texts' and for centuries without either an Old Testament or New Testament canon."

That's simply not true.

You admit that the early Church had the Septuagint and the writings of the Apostles, the documents that form Christendom's canons (plural, which I'll discuss later). That was during the lifetime of the Apostles. Unless they lived for "centuries" and didn't compose their Gospels and Epistles until the ends of their lives, the Church had the "full benefit" of its sacred texts in the first century.

A few examples:
-Galatians was authored c. 51-53 a.D. That's less than two decades after Christ's ascension, not "the better part of a century."

-Papias referred c. 125 to the Gospel of John (c. 90). That's less than one century after Christ's earthly ministry, not "centuries."

-The last document to be received by the Church was John's Revelation, c. a.D. 95. That's less than six decades after Christ's death and resurrection. (And the reason that it came so late is because John did not receive it until then).
Since you're focusing on "canon" as in some grand poobah/council declaring something official (are you repeating the Muslim lie regarding Nicaea?), then it's clear that you misunderstand the term. "Canon" simply means "measure" or "rule." If it's something official you want, then the Church had -- and has -- no "canon." Luther struggled with James (and a few other books). In reaction to Luther's rearranging of the apocryphal books as an appendix in his translation, the Church of Rome declared certain texts "canonical" which even Jerome, the translator of its official Bible, considered less-than-inspired. And what of the rest of Christendom?

There is no one, official "Canon" (though there's a lot of overlap). Depending on whom you ask (Roman Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Slavic Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, or Ethiopian Orthodox?), you'll get varying canons. Does that mean that the Church has gone two thousand years "without the full benefit 'of its sacred texts' and [. . .] without either an Old Testament or New Testament canon"?

One last point: Considering that the Apostles used the Septuagint and many of the "reformers" were actually "deformers" [heretics], it seems to me that Reformation-era opinion is, for the most part, irrelevant.

"Hallelujah," Canadian Tenors

2011-11-05T12:24:00.000-07:00

Islam or "Islamism" the difference between Liberty and death

2011-11-02T09:22:00.000-07:00


"Give me shari'a, or give me death"? "Forbid it, Almighty God!" We know what course Mr. Henry would take.

Islam forbids anything critical of the genocidal pedophile Muhammad, even if it's true. When non-Muslims refuse to state plainly that Muslims' killing, maiming, and raping in Allah's name is Just Plain Islam, when they try to distinguish falsely between true, historical, Qur'anic, Islam-the-way-Muhammad-intended Islam and a fiction like "Islamism," they're implying that Islamic supremacism and violence in service to it are merely aberrations carried out by "extremists highjacking a great world religion of peace" (Thank you, President Bush).

In fact, McCarthy, et al. are self-imposing Islamic law. More importantly, they're aiding its establishment over the rest of us.

You can't defeat an enemy you cannot name, and you can't survive an enemy you let in the gates. A genocidal, pedophilic, totalitarian ideology by any other name is just as odious.

Two cents on the Spencer vs. McCarthy debate over misdefining Islam:

The problem with non-Muslims' putting all their hopes for avoiding the inevitable Armageddon with Islam in some sort of "reformation" is that the success of the Protestant one -- Luther's, at least -- was in pointing the Church back to the Word of God, which leads to truth, the forgiveness of sins, and freedom.

Attention paid to Islam's core texts is exactly what the non-Muslim world and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls (and boys) don't need. Muslims pointing to Islam's "sacred" texts are directing their coreligionists to "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight . . . the People of the Book until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued . . . [Paradise] belongs to those who slay and are slain [fighting in Allah's cause]" (Qur'an 9).

To Andy McCarthy and the rest of you alleged Islamorealists: Don't wish for an Islamic reformation. You're already in one.

American ideals for an ideal America: An American Reformation

2011-11-02T09:08:00.000-07:00

[DRAFT]

Our Founding Fathers declared that we believe that the Christian God gives to all certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. They created a Constitution to protect our rights from enemies foreign and domestic, including our elected officials.

We, the American people, have allowed them to violate those laws with impunity. It is time for an American Reformation.

Following are propositions which, if enacted, would restore, preserve, and enhance American independence and prosperity for all.

Acknowledge publicly that the United States federal government has, over the last century, ignored, violated, and debased the United States Constitution bequeathed to us by our forefathers and apologize to We the People.

End all government agencies/bureaucracies existing in violation of the Constitution.

End all illegal immigration. Expel all illegal immigrants. Secure the borders.

Declare publicly that shari'a is genocidally-incompatible with the American Bill of Rights and Western Civilization's concepts of freedom of speech, religion, and conscience, and all propaganda, apologies, incitement, and infrastructure in support of it is illegal.

End all individual, corporate, and international welfare, including to the United Nations.

Abolish the Federal Reserve. Allow free market forces -- individuals acting in their own best interest according to their best judgment, knowledge, skill, and effort -- to encourage and reward prudence, hard work, and savings.

Return to a Gold Standard to preserve what is left of the value of the U.S. dollar.

All members of Congress shall be term-limited.

No member of Congress shall receive any sort of retirement benefits upon the end of their term(s).

While in office, Congress shall submit to all mandates imposed on the American people.

Congressmen can receive a stipend (tied to the average private sector wage at the time of their election, or some other equitable, conscientiousness-inducing amount), but shall receive no taxpayer dollars for travel, celebrations, dining expenses, petty cash, or slush funds.

The federal budget must be balanced.

No deficit spending.

No bill proposed in Congress (or law when ratified) shall be longer than 500 words.

All bills, negotiations, deliberations of Congress will be live-streamed, archived, and transcripted and posted online for all to view in perpetuity.

All presidential executive orders shall be limited to the same requirements Congressional laws.

End Eminent Domain.

A Resolution regarding Islam

2011-10-27T12:46:00.001-07:00

[DRAFT]

WHEREAS Qur'an is considered by Muslims the perfect, immutable (by men), and eternal word of Allah,

WHEREAS Muhammad is declared by Allah (by way of himself) to be a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please it and therefore considered by Muslims to be the "Ideal Man," and so his words and deeds as recorded in Hadith (sayings) collections and Sira (biographies) are considered prescriptive for Islamic life and doctrine,

WHEREAS Muhammad -- according to those texts -- preached and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, theft, extortion, polygyny, wife-beating, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, treason, and blasphemy on religious grounds against non-Muslims and Muslim apostates, women, and children,

WHEREAS no major schools of Islamic jurisprudence reject those words and deeds as inhumane or unlawful,

WHEREAS Muslims who reject Muhammad's words and deeds are considered apostates and therefore deserving of death,

WHEREAS shari'a, Islamic law, is derived from Qur'an, ahadith, and sira,

Let it BE RESOLVED that shari'a is incompatible with . . .

China's honest language regarding the "jihad"against it

2011-09-28T15:44:00.000-07:00

They called it "jihad."

A Communist state doesn't understand Man's God-given, unalienable rights or government's responsibility to protect them, but it does understand self-defense, unlike the United States. For how can we defend ourselves against an enemy we can't even name? No wonder they're not afraid of us. Not only are our gutless and compromised leaders unwilling to tell the truth about the Religion Which Shall Not Be Named, but we elect as our president someone who at best is an Islamophilic former Muslim.

And note the bias in this article's title: "China blames Muslim extremists" rather than "Muslims kill again in Xinjiang."

From here:

Captured suspects confessed that their ringleaders had earlier fled to Pakistan and joined the separatist "East Turkestan Islamic Movement," and received training in making firearms and explosives before infiltrating back into China, the Kashgar government said.

"The members of this group all adhere to extremist religious ideas and adamantly support Jihad," said the statement, referring to the Arabic term for struggle used by advocates of militant Islam to describe their cause.

In memoriam, September 11, 2001 a.D.

2011-08-30T00:54:00.000-07:00

Father Mychal Judge, murdered by devout Muslims practicing their "faith" as Muhammad intended, September 11th, 2001.

Honor those whose lives and loved ones were taken violently from them ten years ago by allowing no one to lie about why those innocents perished.

It was neither American interventionism, European colonialism, poverty, disenfranchisement, the Jews, nor George W. Bush.

It was Islam.

We are all Belgium now: B. Hussein Obama, America's $27 trillion* mistake

2011-08-06T14:44:00.000-07:00

Samson's cut his own hair, and Delilah wasn't even cute this time, just a scrawny illegal immigrant from Kenya with a teleprompter and a dream.

America's credit rating has been dropped to AA+ status, equal with Belgium's and below England and Australia's. But don't worry: Obama's work is not done. Let him be clear: He'll not rest until we're Greece.

Standard and Poor's merely acknowledged the truth about how absurdly unsustainable is our national debt, and what is Obama's response? Not something honorable, like resignation and an apology. Not even an "Oops." Instead, S & P's made a "two trillion dollar mistake."

No, the mistake is America's.

Even if the federal government's total spending commitment will be $48 trillion instead of $50 trillion, what difference does two trillion make? The chains of oppressive, enslaving debt are still bound to our children and our children's children for generations, and they're still unbearable. This economic disaster was completely foreseeable -- and avoidable -- but the American people continued to elect and re-elect thieves and destroyers.

When every act an executive performs undermines his organization, only two possible explanations for that malfeasance exist: titanic, colossal, unprecedented, cataclysmic incompetence or intent.

Regardless of why, Obama and his fellow statists have been working diligently to bankrupt and disarm America, and they've succeeded now in crippling our economy, an achievement King George III, Hitler, Khrushchev, and Usama bin Laden only dreamt of.

How much time do we have left? Why is no one calling for impeachment? Where is the outrage, America? No one's going to save us from ourselves; our enemies are drooling at our demise and our rivals are grinning smugly behind our backs.

How much more evidence does the electorate need -- do leftists themselves need -- that Socialism/Communism/Marxism is suicidally destructive? Whom do they think will protect them when the savages are at the door? When you bind the strong man, who is left to protect you?

We had a Republic, for as a long as we kept it.

*The current $14.5 trillion debt + the $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling (how long do you think it will take our elected tyrants to squander that?) + the additional $10 trillion in 10 years = $27 trillion in suicidal debt

To Democrats, preventing them from spending us into oblivion is the same as holding hostage, raping, and butchering little children in Allah's name*

2011-08-02T02:46:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden calls patriotic Americans who want to preserve the Republic "terrorists," here:

"We have negotiated with terrorists," an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. "This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money."

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists."

*Like the Muslims of Beslan.

Muhammad Ali lies, since obeying Islam leads naturally to the mass murder of non-Muslims, not "mutual understanding"

2011-08-02T00:52:00.000-07:00

Either the disabled former boxer is being used by his spokesman to propagandize for Islam, or he's doing it himself. From here:

In a letter to the people of Norway written under his name, the boxing great says his "heart goes out to each of you as you deal with the unimaginable grief of your loss."

Ali wrote that the richness of diversity is something that makes the world a better place and that no one should fear multiculturalism. People, he said, have the same ideals no matter what religion or race they are.

The "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery of non-Muslims and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls do not "make the world a better place." And somehow, I don't think Islam's victims share those "ideals."

And notice that "multiculturalism" here means "Islam." Has it always been so?

"I see the same wishes for our children to have happy, healthy lives; I see the same concerns for others less fortunate than ourselves; I see the same desire for peace and dignity," Ali said.

How does "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9"5) promote "peace and dignity," again?

And note the pathetic attempt to imply that following Islam is good, but opposing it is bad. This is utter nonsense, since it is Islam which leads to mass suffering and death, not resisting its evil:

The man who confessed to carrying out the massacre, Anders Behring Breivik, has said the attacks were part of a plan to start a cultural revolution and purge Europe of Muslims while also punishing politicians who have embraced multiculturalism.

Ali, a Muslim, said those who commit unspeakable acts in the name of race and religion "fail to understand that we share far more with our fellow beings than those aspects that set us apart."

How can that be, since Muhammad preached and practiced mass slaughter, child-rape, serial rape, slavery, mutilation, torture, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, blasphemy, and treason in Allah's name?

I suppose that to someone inured in Islam, such ghastly crimes are not "unspeakable," but -- judging from the way in which Muhammad's atrocities are glorified in the Islamic texts -- worth bragging about.

He went on to say that the best way to honor the victims in Norway is to reach out and embrace others in a celebration of common human values and aspirations.

Did you notice that, dear reader? Honor innocent, dead non-Muslims murdered (inexplicably) in opposition to Islam by . . . embracing Muslims!

Next is some Islamospeak worthy of a college student completing a written exam:

"The collective power of such individual proactive acts can have a tremendous aggregate impact and provide a lasting honor to those who are no longer able to take such action themselves," Ali wrote.

Ali's spokesman, Craig Bankey, said the former heavyweight champion, who suffers from Parkinson's, communicated his thoughts in the letter to his wife.

If Ali's writing to his wife, why is the letter "to the people of Norway"?

Statists in both parties selling out the American people

2011-08-01T23:56:00.000-07:00

"Sales pitch" is right, since the greedy fiends in both parties are selling out the Republic. At least China might find a bargain or two.

When passed, this deal with the Marxist devil will be the largest debt-limit increase in American history (it and the second-greatest both coming during the Obama reign). To illustrate how depraved our politicians have become, the United States treasury lacked the legal authority to hold a total debt of $2.4 trillion until 1987. This is a $2.4 trillion increase.

John Boehner's right about something else: His deal with Obama doesn't violate any of the principles exhibited in recent years by the Republican establishment. It's too bad that burying the nation, our children, and our children's children into perpetuity under crushing debt doesn't violate any of their "principles."

Subversive, exploitative fools. Emasculating America removes the only bulwark protecting them from the barbarians. I suppose they're hoping to ingratiate themselves to their new masters by feeding on whatever's left of us.

"There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles," he [Speaker Boehner] said. "It’s all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down. And as I vowed back in May – when everyone thought I was crazy for saying it – every dollar of debt limit increase will be matched by more than a dollar of spending cuts. And in doing this, we’ve stopping a job-killing national default that none of us wanted."

It's too bad Ron Paul doesn't understand jihad and shari'a, because he gets duplicitous crooks enslaving the electorate for their own political and financial benefit. Nothing's changed in thirty years:

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.

No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the "cuts" being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family "saving" $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.

The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith and credit of the United States is being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever, in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family's income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.

In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of "cuts" that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to "cut". It would only take us 5 years to "cut" $1 trillion, in Washington math, just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.

A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply returned to that year's spending levels, which would hardly be austere, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending, and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.

We pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger "cut" than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.

Imperious Obama

2011-08-01T23:24:00.000-07:00

Breathtaking arrogance. What right does any politician have to tell free people that they must give away their time, talent, and treasure? Is there no limit to the ways in which this tyrant and his accessories seek to violate the American people? Is there anyone in either party who will oppose Obama's imperial overreach? Where are the calls for impeachment? Where's the plain speech pointing out the fact that the current occupant of the Oval Office is an illegitimate usurper and an enemy of the Republic, a demagogue, a thief, and a fraud? (I'd use the word "treason," but to commit it, one must be a member of the group he betrays, and based on Obama's birth certificate forgery and social security number from Connecticut, it seems unlikely that the Marxist destroyer qualifies.)

There exists no guarantee that America should continue free and strong. This is the climax of a process that began nearly a century ago, when politicians found that they could lie, cheat, and steal, and the American people stopped caring to hold them accountable.

The latest nail in America's coffin, here:

Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women's preventive care under President Barack Obama's health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

"These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Isn't that odd? "President Barack Obama's health care law." Sounds like a royal edict, doesn't it? At least they're giving him credit for it now.

And a "requirement" is no "guideline," unless you're selling something.

China's honest language regarding the "jihad"against it

2011-08-01T11:54:00.000-07:00

A Communist state doesn't understand Man's God-given, unalienable rights or government's responsibility to protect them, but they do understand self-defense, unlike us. For how can we defend ourselves against an enemy we can't even name? No wonder they're not afraid of us. Not only are our gutless and compromised leaders unwilling to tell the truth about the Religion Which Shall Not Be Named, but we elect as our president someone who at best is an Islamophilic former Muslim.

(And notice the bias in this article's title: "China blames Muslim extremists" rather than "Muslims kill again in Xinjiang.")

From here:

Captured suspects confessed that their ringleaders had earlier fled to Pakistan and joined the separatist "East Turkestan Islamic Movement," and received training in making firearms and explosives before infiltrating back into China, the Kashgar government said.

"The members of this group all adhere to extremist religious ideas and adamantly support Jihad," said the statement, referring to the Arabic term for struggle used by advocates of militant Islam to describe their cause.

Obama the grinch that tried to steal Social Security

2011-08-01T11:40:00.000-07:00

It's surprising to see a Democrat say anything negative about the Usurper-in-Chief. It's shocking to see a Democrat say something fair regarding Republicans.

What is not surprising is that Obama would propose cutting Social Security (since the meetings were held behind closed doors, he probably thought that he could demonize Republicans with their acceptance of his indecent proposal). After all, he's nearly destroyed the Republic, on the verge of stealing from our posterity and the world the greatest civilization in the history of Man.

Democrat Representative John Conyers reveals that Obama, not Republicans, proposed cutting Social Security:

The Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-Mich.) said that President Barack Obama proposed cuts to Social Security in the debt limit negotiations, not congressional Republicans.

"Because everybody’s criticizing republicans. Guess what? Every Republican that’s in the Congress was legitimately elected like all of us – that was a choice that voters made,” said Conyers when speaking with the Out of Poverty Caucus at the Capitol on Wednesday."

Liberals eagerly exploiting Norway's dead innocents in order to defame Christians, Conservatives, and others who oppose slavery, rape, and genocide on "religious" grounds

2011-07-24T02:31:00.000-07:00

Who's urging anyone to kill their own children in resistance to Islamic cultural and immigration jihad?

Is [the New York Times'] Scott Shane grossly nescient or perversely mendacious? No one of at least normal intelligence could possibly conclude that opposing the rape, slavery, and slaughter of innocent non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to convert [to Islam] leads logically to the mass slaughter of [your own] non-Muslim children.

And Marc Sageman, former CIA? No, opposing genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah's name is not the "infrastructure from which Breivik emerged"; neither is resisting great evil mere "rhetoric."

John D. Cohen, a counterterrorism coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security and another Times "expert" declared stupidly that the Norway massacre “is a dramatic reminder that in trying to prevent attacks, we cannot focus on a single ideology.” Really? What was Breivik's "ideology"? "Kill non-Muslims because you fear Islam?" How do you prevent the unidentified insane from going on a killing spree? But dozens of attacks have been carried out in the United States by Muslims acting in obedience to Muhammad and his allah. One nut like Jared Laughner versus thousands of Muslims. Why doesn't Cohen want us to defend ourselves?

One obviously insane non-Muslim in no way negates the fact of fourteen hundred years of violent jihad around the world, including seventeen thousand attacks since 9/11 alone.

Tell the truth.

Below are some interesting questions relating to the Left's obvious talking points: A jihad group takes credit for the mass slaughter but then retracts, and the Norwegian monster's Facebook page in English was edited to include "Christian" and "Conservative" before it was taken down, while the butcher was in custody:

The 3 Big Questions About Anders Behring Breivik’s Facebook Profile

1: Why is there a version of Anders Behring Breivik’s Facebook profile not showing Christian / Conservative? Even Google’s cache of the Facebook profile retrieved on Jul 22, 2011 23:52:36 GMT supports this factor.

2: How was Christian / Conservative added prior to the profile being removed from Facebook? If our PDF was printed out/saved at Jul 23 01:39 GMT, and the profile was deleted soon afterwards by Facebook, how was a detained Anders Behring Breivik able to change it?

3: Which then needs to be asked, Who had access to in changing the Profile before it was removed?

Who in the world would want to smear Christians and Conservatives as terrorists (and has tried before)? Who would fake documents in order to deceive the public and stifle political opposition? The Usual Suspects and their propagandists in the media.

Pakistani Muslim buying politicians from both sides of the aisle

2011-07-19T18:12:00.000-07:00

Which takes some of the excitement from Christie's going to Iowa, since he's beholdin' to his own Muslims. And where were the reports of Obama's selling himself during the election?

If a politician's got political, financial, or familial ties to Muslims, and he doesn't explicitly condemn Islam, jihad, and shari'a, then you can't trust him.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. NRSC, Obama donor arrested as Pakistan agent:

Law enforcement sources say the FBI has arrested an agent of Pakistan's official state intelligence service, accusing him of making thousands of dollars in political contributions in the United States without disclosing his connections to the Pakistani government.

Syed Ghulam Fai will appear in federal court this afternoon in Alexandria, Va. He's not charged with being a spy. But he is charged with being an unregistered agent or lobbyist of the Pakistani government.

He's the exective director of a group called the Kashmiri American Council. ...

Fai's largest contribution, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, was to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to which he gave $5,000 in 2006 and $1,000 in 2008. He gave smaller sums more recently to the DSCC and the DNC, and has given $5,000 to Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), $250 to Barack Obama and $500 Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.).

UPDATE: Brian Walsh, NRSC Communications Director, emails: “This pre-dates the current leadership at the NRSC but nonetheless it’s very disturbing and we’re happy to cooperate with any of the appropriate authorities investigating this matter."

If you want to know if you're a Christian, look at yourself, see your sins, and then look to Christ

2011-07-16T23:19:00.000-07:00

Anyone who can look at himself and find reason for confidence before God is a liar, for we sin daily and much. And so a gospel which depends on us in any way is no Gospel at all.

Offered in response to someone looking at himself to know if he is saved:

You’re making up your own canon and not simply stating what God has revealed.

What did Paul say when he inspected his own fruit?
“I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate [. . .] For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (Romans 7).
(The Greek for “keep on doing” is “prasso,” which means “to do habitually.”)

So, Paul hadn’t “licked” the “evil” he “hated” but committed it “habitually.” By your standard, he was no Christian.

What was Paul’s answer to this dilemma? “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7).

What does Christ say about what we should see when we look inside ourselves? Should we see our good works, or should we see our sin and then . . . our Savior?
“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

“I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18).
God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be honest about just how bad your sins really are, because Christ paid for them all. Here’s great news for the wicked, from Martin Luther [. . .]:
“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.

“We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?

“Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”
Like the tax collector, St. Paul, and Martin Luther, when we look at ourselves, we should see our sin and then look to the Son of God Who gave His life for sins of the world. If you want to know if you are a Christian, see your sins, and look to Christ.

Jerry Brown facilitates homosexuals and other sexual deviants' assault on California's children

2011-07-16T11:25:00.000-07:00

Why are the Democrats disenfranchising necrophiliacs? After all, their alternative lifestyle choice -- which is just as valid as yours, if not more so -- involves only consenting adults -- well, one, actually -- and no one's getting hurt. (It's hard to hurt your "partner" when they're already dead.)

This is the epitome of selfish: To destroy a society and its children, all for a moment's gratification.

The California legislature and its governor are at least accessories to sexual predation; to use American public schools as vehicles for homosexual indoctrination and recruitment is a crime against God and Man and an abomination the Founding Fathers never intended for the system they created.

To claim a reduction in bullying as justification for this atrocity is merely to blow smoke. Bullying is immoral, period. What reaction do the geniuses behind this legislation think that forcing their perversion on others will stimulate? (Just as 9/11 stirred Americans to discover the truth about Islam and mobilize against it, so too will this subversion motivate citizens to action.)

To claim historical justification is ridiculous, since what someone does with his genitalia does not make him historically-relevant or noble (indeed, what he doesn't do can be to his credit). To view great figures from the past in terms of their deviancy is to demean their accomplishments. And if Governor Brown wants to be truly historically-honest, he should state plainly which moral societies have ever endorsed sodomy.

To equate sexual practice with racial identity is a crime against logic and against those who've struggled for [racial] equality under the law, since the former is an act, the latter, phenotype. In fact, those attacking Michelle Bachmann and others who oppose [on religious/moral grounds] the legitimization of sexual deviance [. . .] must also demonize Martin Luther King, who gave the following advice to a young man concerned about the target of his "marital impulse":

Your problem [lusting for other males] is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired.... You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

Even an amoral, atheistic naturalist must reject homosexual behavior as literally deviant, since not only is it statistically unusual, but the survival of any species depending on sexual reproduction is threatened by widespread same-gender activity.

To claim, as one commenter on the article does, that "'gay' means two men or women love each other" is simply perverse and hellishly dishonest. I love my father, but we're not copulating.

This is one step closer to societal endorsement of NAMBLA. And how will senseless liberals stop Islam's Allah-sanctioned polygyny, pedophilia, and sexual slavery of non-Muslims?

It is not "hate" to state eternal moral truths. Addressing pernicious sin honestly is the loving thing to do, especially since Christ's mercy is greater than our sin.

Jerry Brown pushes California into the abyss here:

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation requiring public schools to teach students about the contributions of gay and lesbian people, making California the first state to adopt such a measure.

The bill was cheered by gay rights advocates, and Brown said in a written statement Thursday that it "represents an important step forward for our state."

The legislation requires instruction in the social sciences to include the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, as well as people with disabilities and members of other cultural groups.

It would prohibit teaching from textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on people because of their sexual orientation.

"History should be honest," the Democratic governor said in a written statement. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."

Written by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the legislation was approved in the Legislature along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

Republicans and conservative groups railed against it again on Thursday.

Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, said Brown is "out of touch with what I think are still mainstream American values."

"That's not the kind of stuff I want my kids learning about in public school," LaMalfa said. "They've really crossed a line into a new frontier."

Leno's Senate Bill 48 is similar to a proposal that was approved by the Legislature in 2006 but vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, argued that students were already protected from discrimination.

Existing California law requires public school instruction to include the contributions of women and other minorities, and it prohibits materials that reflect adversely on people because of race, gender or other characteristics. Leno's bill adds gay and lesbian people to that group.

"We are currently censoring a very important chapter of civil rights history about a community which has historically been demonized and discriminated against, and in recent decades has had success in fighting for its civil rights and first -class citizenship," said Leno, one of the first openly gay men to serve in the Legislature. "Excluding this from our textbooks and classrooms does a disservice to our students."

He said the law will result, for example, in lessons about gay rights advocates such as Harvey Milk, the slain San Francisco supervisor.

Site of Christ's baptism defended by Jews, mined by Muslims

2011-07-15T23:08:00.001-07:00

So much for the dual myths of innocent "Palestinian" victimhood and Israeli oppression. How much longer will Western media and politicians sustain Muslim lies?

Christian Site Opened in the West Bank:

Israel opened the traditional baptism site of Jesus to daily visits on Tuesday, a move that required the removal of mines in the West Bank along the Jordanian border. The site is one of the most important in Christianity. Until now, it had not been regularly open to the public since Israel captured the site and the rest of the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war. Palestinian officials said the move was illegal and called it part of “Israel’s monopoly over our historic and touristic resources.”

No, Christ was a Jew in Israel. It's not your site, blasphemer.

Obama admits it: He's "sold" the Republic down the river

2011-07-15T22:47:00.000-07:00

And he thinks that eight out of ten of us want to have more of our hard-earned income confiscated and squandered on individuals, corporations, and nations who neither deserve nor appreciate it.

Is this Obama's morbid sense of humor? A sly double entendre? Like when Muslims addressing non-Muslims refer to Islam as "peace," never explaining that Muhammad's idea of "peace" is that condition when there's no one left to disagree?

Here it is, straight from the Bankrupter-in-Chief:

"The American people are sold," President Obama said.

"The American people are sold, I just want to repeat that."

"You have 80% of the American people who support a balanced approach. 80% of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."

Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, Saul Alinksy, and . . . Lucifer, today's Democratic leadership

2011-07-14T15:18:00.000-07:00

How long until Muhammad's added to that list?

In 2008, when it looked like Hillary might win the Communist Party's nomination, I took comfort in the fact that if she won, it might be good for the country: After all, McCain was going to do a little more slowly and a little less obviously -- and with the veneer of "patriot" -- just what any other Liberal would do. With Hillary in charge, the nation would plunge swiftly into a Leftist dystopia that would make it impossible for anyone to ignore or lie any longer about just how destructive, cruel, and illiberal Liberalism actually is. She'd provide the shock therapy that would cure the patient before it was too late. And what happened?

America elected Dr. B. Hussein Kevorkian.

Regardless, it looks like my confidence in Hillary was unfounded. It turns out, you get the one, you get that other one:

"... the community organizer ... must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.' -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model." -- Hillary Clinton, BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969.

"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...." -- The Nation
A psychopath is a person without conscience; someone who constantly breaks the moral rules of the community. Saul Alinsky was a "community organizer" who found a career that fit that personality disorder. In the Orwellian upside-down world of the Left, community organizers disorganize communities. That is the meaning of revolution, to overturn whatever exists today in the raw pursuit of one's own power.

[. . .]

Alinsky's personality fits the definition of a psychopath -- someone who has no guilt or shame toward others. But Alinsky also discovered how to teach psychopathic behavior to college students. That is the key to his success: To persuade hundreds of thousands of ignorant young people that it is much more moral to be immoral. Or, as Bill Ayers famously said, "Bring the Revolution home; kill your parents."

Bill Ayers is now a highly influential professor of education. That is not an accident; it reflects a deliberate program of radical agitation and propaganda through the school systems. If you want to know who brought down American education, Bill Ayers is part of the answer.

A lot of the Boomer Left is marked by psychopathic behavior, in politics and in the rest of life. That is why the actions of the Left are so shocking to many of us.

Alinsky's disciples -- including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- have a warlike political style. They learned politics as war from the Master. Obama is so well-trained in Alinsky tactics that he used to teach workshops on it. That is why Obama can knowingly violate Federal law against usurping the presidential power to negotiate with Iraq before ever getting elected. Actual election to head of state by the voters means nothing, just as it means nothing to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who have negotiated with Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in clear violation of law while serving in Congress.

[. . .]

Alinsky called ordinary Americans "the enemy." Normal people don't declare war on all of society. But Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that radicals
"...have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt ... They are right ... "
Normal, decent America is the enemy for these people.

Obama and Hillary are lifelong followers of Alinsky. They use his tactics and ideology. That is why American politics became the politics of personal destruction when the Boomer Left came to power.

[. . .]

Liberal Democrats used to be normal Americans before the Boomer Left rose to power. Hubert Humphrey and Harry Truman had a strong sense of American morality. They despised the Stalinist Left and fought to keep them out of the Democrat Party. They were sensitive to ordinary shame and guilt, the emotions that make us civilized. When Bob Dole asked "Where is the shame?" in the 1996 presidential election, the answer came out: Not in the modern Democrat Party. People without guilt or shame make merciless power mongers.

But the single most important point about Alinsky's "community organizing" strategy is that normal people can be trained to act like psychopaths: To become convinced that a "higher morality" allows them to act without conscience. As Alinsky wrote admiringly about V.I. Lenin, well known as a large-scale murder leader:
"Lenin was a pragmatist; ... he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot box but would reconsider after they got the guns!"
[. . .]

Alinsky called this "pragmatic radicalism." He differed from his Communist friends only in being more practical and less ideological. Alinsky was a radical because it suited his personality, because it was fun, brought him power and influence, and made him feel good. He was very clear in saying that, and he inspired the Boomer Left to follow his lead.

Alinsky dedicated Rules for Radicals:
"... to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."

So now, the American people are realizing that we must remove from all positions of power and influence, whether in politics, jurisprudence, media, or academia, the leftist, subversive, degenerate, and satanic enemy within.

Any Conservative 8% better than Obama

2011-07-14T14:00:00.000-07:00

Even Sarah Palin?

And that's from Gallup. What country are those 39% living in? Must we assume now that four-tenths of the electorate are either deranged, Communist, or Muslim?

Considering the fact that too many Republicans have for too long been the other side of the Democrat coin, America must elect only actual Conservatives. (In the eighteenth century, they were called "patriots.")

"Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%":

Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the 'Republican Party's candidate for president' than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%.

Timothy Geithner admits that his boss believes that you exist to finance him and his fellow statists

2011-06-25T21:48:00.000-07:00

"Government programs" is a euphemism for "Vote for us, and we'll give you other people's stuff. If they complain, we'll call them 'racist,' 'corporatist,' 'greedy,' or -- gasp! -- 'conservative'!"

Liberals would be much more honest if they'd just admit: "We're oligarchists, and we deserve to rule over you, slaves."

Geithner's admission is a surprise only to those who haven't been paying attention to the president "ready to rule from Day 1." From here:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

Another dishonest apology for Socialism

2011-06-25T21:38:00.000-07:00

In response to an attack on the plain truth about Socialism at the ironically-named Rational Revolution:

The "rebuttal" above is intellectually dishonest. Ad hominems? Tu quoques? Class envy? Biblical commands spoken to individuals applied to political systems?

The ultimate minority is the individual; if any one's rights are violated, then no one's rights are safe. Socialism is evil because it makes the individual subservient to a select few and -- in our case -- the majority who elect them. Rather than government existing to protect each person's God-given, unalienable rights, the individual exists as a resource to be exploited by the state.

Does the individual exist to provide power and position to politicians, or do their power and position exist to protect our rights? Who knows better how to spend your wealth, you or a politician? Who deserves your property: whomever you choose -- your children, for example -- or a stranger?

There's a word for consuming the fruits of another's labor against their will: Slavery.

The meaning of "day" in Genesis

2011-06-25T12:47:00.000-07:00

There is no room for compromise between the Word of Christ and falsehood, regardless of whatever form the devil's lie happens to be taking at the moment.

A nice summary of why we should just take God at His word. "The Meaning of 'Day' in Genesis":

What can we conclude concerning the length of the 'days' of creation? The usage of the word 'day,' with a number, means a 24-hour period. The absence of the article does not alter that meaning. Further, the use of 'evening' and 'morning' indicates that normal time is meant in Genesis 1. God, Himself, said that the creation took only six days. We also must ask ourselves, did Moses and God deceive us by using the word 'day,' when it really was a long period of time? If our answer is yes, then we should not use the Bible for any of our beliefs. For, if God can deceive us concerning the events of creation, He might have done that in regards to the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. The bottom line is that we then can have no confidence in God's Word, if the long-day view is held. It is far better to believe God at His Word, and take the creation days as 24-hour days.

Impossible Islamophobia

2011-06-11T00:57:00.000-07:00

. . . Nearly one and one-half millennia of slavery, rape, and slaughter in Allah's name.

. . . 80% of American -- not Pakistani, not Saudi Arabian, not Iranian, but American -- mosques teach jihad/Islamic supremacism.

. . . More than seventeen thousand documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone.

. . . Islam's "Ideal Man" Muhammad -- Allah's "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him -- preached and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, blasphemy, and treason, warning his devotees that "Allah made me do it, and you will too, or else!"

Pointing out simple facts regarding a murderous, malevolent, totalitarian ideology is neither phobic nor intolerant. It is highly rational and moral.

We are in merely the latest phase of an ancient and existential struggle, Allah's War Against Humanity.

Obama's "sensitive" to jihad's practitioners and their supporters but turns his back on their victims

2011-05-04T09:38:00.000-07:00

The question is, "Why?"

When Presidents Clinton and Bush advanced Islam, it could be attributed to well-intentioned-but-suicidal ignorance. Being a[n] (allegedly) former Muslim and the "smartest president ever" means that Obama has no such excuse.

(How can any sentient, literate person not know even basic facts about jihad and shari'a and their foundation in Islam's "sacred" texts by now?)

What does it say about our allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief that he stalled for weeks on doing anything about bin Laden? That for sixteen hours, he "slept on" executing the final operation that successfully sent the Muslim hero to his virgins in hell? (Imagine his surprise) That if not for Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and David Petraeus, UBL would have escaped again?

Why is Obama eager to both provide a proper Islamic burial to "not a Muslim leader" who "mass murdered Muslims" but not to capture or kill the monster responsible for thousands of dead innocents in numerous jihad attacks over the last three decades? What about Obama's mocking President Bush when declaring that capturing or killing bin Laden would be his number one priority, as if Bush was indifferent or distracted? (It's Obama who eats ice cream, golfs, and "sleeps on it" while the world burns.)

And why do we have to worry about enraging Muslims? Why are they offended at the death of one of those "extremists hijacking" their "great world religion of peace"? Why aren't they celebrating with us? Did we worry about whether or not genocidal, totalitarian, racist, Darwinist dabblers in the occult would be offended at what we did to Hitler? Were we sensitive to atheist, militant, anti-federal-government terrorists' feelings regarding McVeigh's end? Did we fret over how homosexual, cannibalistic, evolutionists would react to Jeffrey Dahmer's punishment? That's relief from Muslim Brotherhood propagandists you've been hearing, not righteous anger.

Muslims rejoice only over dead non-Muslims but not the jihadists who make them so.

Only the deranged, the perverse, and Muslims can ask, "what makes you any better than muslims who stone women for similar* reasons set out in the Bible?"

2011-03-26T13:24:00.000-07:00

Could it be that . . . I'm not stoning anyone?

This is not about "being better than" anyone; we are all sinners deserving of God's wrath and dependent solely on His mercy in Christ. This is about telling the truth, by which souls are saved from hell and non-Muslims are saved from hell-on-Earth.

In reply to someone throwing Muhammad's hellish bathwater on the Baby:

Hi, I'm Richard and I think Islam . . . ,

Essentially, you're mad because you're not God. You don't like his definition of "sin" (thanks for admitting that). Fine. Create a universe, and then you can make up your own rules. Until then, can't you at least deal honestly with the Biblical texts? Do you misrepresent the Bible and its God out of ignorance only, or is it just pure cosmos envy?

(Let's see, you hate, defame, and blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and His Christ, attribute sinful human qualities to God (God's "jealousy" is His desire for all to live, not a misogynist's possessiveness), make yourself your own god, and blame God for human evil. Are you sure you're not Muslim?)

If you really were concerned about the Problem of Pain and not just sniping, I'd point out that whatever evils and injustices you want to attribute to God, He endured the greatest evil and injustice of all, willingly sacrificing His own Son (Who willingly made the sacrifice) to pay for the sins of all. God reconciled men to Himself in Christ's body on the cross. The greater mystery is not why God allows suffering, but why He would suffer and die for a sinful humanity which rages against Him.

As for your "arguments" . . .

We have ample historical and archaeological evidence of Christ's words and deeds; what exists for the Greek or other pagan mythologies? Only the historically-illiterate can claim that Christ was a myth. Not even the most hateful liberal "theologians" do so. Not even Muslims.

Your characterization of Christians as "sheep who want to be enslaved and lead [sic] around by the nose" may be true of a lot of Christians, but that's because of human nature, not because of Christ. The greatness of Western Civilization (reaching its zenith in America) is due to Christ's words and deeds, as attested to by Thomas Jefferson, (possibly) Patrick Henry, John Quincy Adams, and Alexis de Tocqueville, to name a few:
"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." -T. Jefferson

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faith have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here." -attributed commonly to Patrick Henry

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest . . . The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence . . . On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." -J. Q. Adams

"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live." -A. de Tocqueville
As for "God created evil," that's just a postmodern, atheistic way of blaming your parents for your own bad behavior. Because if someone does evil, then it must be the fault of whoever made him, right? (You do know that's what Adam did when he first sinned, don't you?) Why do you continue to attribute human evil to God? It's not God murdering, raping, and pillaging or causing the innocent to suffer.

You wonder why God "let[s] millions of innocent children starve to death in Africa while allowing us to live with abundance?" You admit your wealth; why aren't you doing something about it instead of whining and blaming God? You do know that most of those children starving in Africa are starving because of Islam, don't you? So, you're blaming God for non-Muslims suffering at the hands of Allah. Are you sure you're not Muslim?

As for straw men, I've set up none; you stated literally that "Jesus approves of slavery." That's ridiculous. You should be embarrassed.

The laws to which you object were for the nation of Israel only, whom YHWH delivered out of slavery in Egypt to be His own people. Perhaps you missed this little detail, but ancient Israel entered voluntarily into the covenant with YHWH; they agreed to obey all the laws He gave them through Moses. How can you complain about someone else's agreements entered into of their own free will? Since those laws were for ancient Israel only, if you don't like them, you don't have to follow them.

And that highlights one of the fundamental distinctions between Moses and Muhammad: Moses' laws were part of a contract and did not apply to those outside of Israel. In Islam, no one has a choice, anywhere, at any time, unless you call only conversion, slavery, or death "possibilities."

Providing means for dealing with a permanent global institution does not indicate approval or acceptance. (You see the same thing with divorce: God intended one man-one woman for life and hates divorce, but provides certain allowances for it because of the "hardness of men's hearts.") Since the Mosaic laws regarding slavery applied to only ancient Israel and not the non-Hebrew world, any implied or stated equivalence between the Mosaic Law and Islam is obviously ill-judged.

As for the commands to Christians regarding slavery, they are part of a larger principle, which is that Christians are to share the Gospel in word and deed no matter their station in life, the salvation of souls being more important than physical circumstances. That's why slaves who become Christians were told to obey their masters.

Where is the command to enslave? Nowhere. And you might remember that Jesus didn't lead an armed rebellion against the pagan Romans who oppressed Israel (as many expected); on the contrary, He taught His followers to honor Caesar. (And He happened to allow the Romans to murder Him for the sins of the world. What a mean god! He's just like Allah!)

And of course, unsurprisingly, you left out these declarations:
Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) (1 Corinthians)

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Galatians).

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another (Galatians).
If Christ "set us free for freedom," then how can you say that He "approves of slavery"?

As for stoning, only the deranged, the perverse, and Muslims can ask, "what makes you any better than muslims who stone women for similar reasons set out in the Bible?" The question is absurd on its face. Those kinds of false tu quoques are trotted out regularly by Islam's apologists. Are you sure you're not Muslim?

You oppose ancient Israel's method of capital punishment. Of course, stoning is horrific. What form of taking someone's life isn't? So, what should Moses have done? Nothing? (I thought you wanted evil punished?) Where was he going to find a gun? At his local Wal-Mart? Where was he going to plug in an electric chair? Unless you oppose capital punishment, you can't complain about stoning when that was one of the few options available for execution.

As for the reasons for capital punishment and to whom it applied, the Mosaic Law did not sanction stoning women hypocritically or for being raped and not having four witnesses, as does Islam. The regulations under Moses were not a means for keeping a nation oppressed and subservient to a warlord's wishes. And you may recall an account of Christ saving a woman from stoning for adultery by pointing out the hypocrisy of her accusers. Does that need explanation?

A last point: Christianity -- the doctrines derived from the Biblical texts regarding the Messiah -- originated with Moses, not Nicea. That's a common Muslim lie.

Are you sure you're not Muslim?

*"Similar" is not "same." That's just another false moral equivalence and tu quoque.

Contrary to what the "experts" conclude, Obama's foreign policy is neither "a mystery," "incoherent," nor "demented." It's treason.*

2011-03-26T10:10:00.000-07:00

Just like his domestic policy. (But's that's going too slowly for someone who's got only a few months left on his License to Bring Down America from Within.)

Reports this week show that B. Hussein's bombing of Libya to help its rebels is aiding Al Qaeda, who have joined them. That's no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention, since when Iranians protested against Islamic rule in Iran and were murdered in the streets, all Obama could muster was "Let's not get involved in others' internal politics. Where's the ice cream?"

Look at the facts: Obama's enforcing suicidal Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan. He's bombing Qaddafi in Libya to help a rebellion supported in word and personnel by Al Qaeda. He supported Mubarak's removal in Egypt, which has given the country to the Muslim Brotherhood; Egypt's Copts have gone from the frying pan and into the fire.

When President Bush was deciding what to do in response to the global jihad, his ignorance of Islam prevented him from recognizing the truth about our enemy, and he erred accordingly. Obama has no similar excuse.

If the "smartest president ever" who was raised Muslim and attended Qur'an classes does everything he can to aid the rise of Islamic rule throughout the lands of Islam, it's no accident.

It's treason.*

*Of course, for it to be treason, the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief would have to have been American at some point.

Looking for imperfections in me might be easier than facing the truth about Islam, but it definitely isn't "better"

2011-03-23T02:19:00.000-07:00

The following is offered in response to a well-meaning but suicidally-erring Tsaritsyn, here:

Thank you for your concern, Tsaritsyn. Allow me to share mine with you:
-Why do you believe that just because you don't personally know any Muslims who rape in emulation of Muhammad that Muslims don't rape in emulation of Muhammad?

-Why do you believe that just because you aren't personally aware of any Muslims raping in Allah's name that Allah doesn't command Muslims to rape non-Muslims (and Muslim women and little girls)?

-Why do you libel a "brother" in defense of Islamic genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery?

-Why do you believe that my telling the truth about Islam endangers my soul?

-Why do you freely call me a "hypocrite" -- for which you have no evidence -- but refuse to denounce genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah's name and in emulation of Muhammad, of which you have fourteen hundred years of evidence?

-If I've erred or lied regarding Islam, why don't you point that out? If I've told the truth, then why the character assassination?
It is ironic that you accuse me of hypocrisy for pointing out the manifold crimes against God and Man carried out in obedience to Allah and its genocidal pedophile Muhammad, since though you admit (reluctantly and obliquely) that Islam kills, instead of doing something about that, you attack . . . me. In other words, Muslims commit the vilest atrocities against non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls) -- including your "brothers and sisters" about whom you claim to care so much -- and rather than speak and act in their defense, you condemn me for pointing out the evil committed against them!

You're confusing crimes committed by people regardless of (or contrary to) their own belief system with crimes committed by others in obedience to one belief system in particular. In other words, when a Christian murders, rapes, or enslaves, he violates Christ's commands. When a Muslim murders a non-Muslim or Muslim apostate in service to Islam, it is in fulfillment of Allah's mandates. Do you see the distinction?

Of course, all people commit evil. The problem is that rather than condemn genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery -- as any decent religion should -- Islam calls them "beautiful," "Allah-pleasing," and "the best deed after believing," when done in imitation of and in obedience to Muhammad.

And isn't that instructive? Christ declared that the Second Greatest Commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. Muhammad declared that the second greatest deed is to war against unbelievers. Do you see that distinction?

I agree that my posts contain "anger." But since I'm merely quoting Muhammad and referencing Muslim activity in imitation of him, don't blame me, blame him and his followers. The bloodlust, rape, and rapine belong to Allah's apostle alone, for he commanded the faithful Muslim to butcher and enslave those who refuse the "invitation" to convert.

It takes a special kind of ignorance, depravity, or cowardice to equate hatred of evil with the evil itself. Does your god hate evil? If he does, then why are you worried about my spiritual condition and not your own indifference? If he does not hate evil, then why do you worship him?

If I am angry, what is the target of my anger? Could it be the wanton slaughter of innocents -- men, women, and children, young and old -- in obedience to a god and prophet who mock and blaspheme Christ and rape and murder His Bride, the Church? Could it be the Allah-Pleasing Example who beheaded the men of one Jewish tribe who had surrendered to him and then distributed their women and children to his men for rape and slavery? Could it be fourteen hundred years of violating little, prepubescent nine-year-old girls and declaring that "Allah made me do it, and so should you"? Aren't such crimes deserving of scathing attacks? The harshest condemnation? Withering rebuke?

So, what "plank" must I remove in order to condemn jihad and shari'a? Whom have I decapitated to shouts of "Jesus is greatest!"? Whose wives do I keep as sex slaves because a god told me that it makes him happy? Whose little ones am I warping into malevolent fiends in order to have them war against their own blood?

Not even the godless need any compass more than the innate knowledge of right and wrong God gives to all people to understand that it is immoral to murder, enslave, torture, and rape your neighbor. How much more should a Christian, whose God has given us the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and His own Son for the forgiveness of our sins, recognize, expose, and condemn such barbaric evil?

Why don't you see this? Could something be obstructing your vision? Perhaps you ought to examine yourself: Why doesn't the wholesale slaughter of non-Muslims in Allah's name make you angry? Why do you not rage at the rape of non-Muslim women and children to shouts of "Allahu akbar!"? Why do you see the atrocities carried out daily in Allah's name around the world and work up indignation only for those who point out those atrocities?

And what should resorting to argumentum ad hominem show you about yourself? If I've met no, one, some, many, most, or all Muslims, does that negate what Muslims do in waging jihad? Does it ameliorate or negate Allah's brutal commands? How does the number of my Muslim family members, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, neighbors, or fellow citizens change what Muhammad commanded and practiced?

Even if I were the most hateful xenophobe, would that mean that three thousand innocents weren't murdered at Allah's command on 9/11? Would that mean that Muslims haven't committed nearly seventeen thousand terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone? Would that mean that Allah's slaves haven't butchered, raped, and enslaved non-Muslims around the world for the last nearly one and one-half millennia? That Allah doesn't require the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert?

You confuse individual religious expression for what a particular deity requires. You don't make this mistake when you're libeling me, but you make it easily enough when you're obfuscating for Islam. Why is that?

Christ commanded His people, "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." How many Christians do you know who've stopped sinning? Sure, there might be some who claim that they don't sin anymore, but at the moment they do so, they've violated the Eighth Commandment. (For that matter, how many Christians do you know who can identify the Eighth Commandment?) Why should Muslims be any different?

Like adherents to any other creed, the individual Muslim may be ignorant of his religion's authoritative texts. He might know what his texts state but reject them (or portions of them) as human invention. He might know what his texts state and believe that the words are true but reject their applicability to his time and place. He might know what his god commands but ignore the parts he finds problematic. Or perhaps he knows and believes his religion but values his own life and comfort too much to act on his god's commands.

And there are two (worse) cases unique to Islam: The individual, apparently-peaceful Muslim may be exploiting a loophole provided by Muhammad which allows him to please Allah (though not as much) by supporting jihad in nonviolent ways. Or he might be practicing taqiyya, deceiving his non-Muslim neighbors to protect himself (or Islam) as circumstances dictate.

As for what to do? Admit the truth about Islam, and inform others. Resist the advance of shari'a in America. Elect politicians who understand and oppose it.

With regard to following Christ's example, did he obfuscate for, excuse, or ignore evil? To those whose sin He forgave did He say, "Don't worry about it. No, really. It's not wrong; it's just an alternative lifestyle choice. There's nothing to forgive"? Is Christ indifferent to the suffering of innocents? Does he ignore the murderer but attack the murdered?

More personally, if jihadists were about to rape your wife or daughters, would the Son of God want you to stand there wondering about the planks in your own eyes, or would he prefer instead that you act like a man and do something to protect those entrusted to your care? Christ chastised Peter's effort at His defense not because He was a pacifist (have you never read Matthew? The Pentateuch? Revelation?), but because His intention was to die for the sins of all, and Peter's reaction was an obstacle to that. Jesus submitted to human evil in obedience to His Father for the forgiveness of our sins.

I know Christ's warnings against an improper use of language. When I consider my own words, I tremble. As for "how he talked to people," please identify Who said the following:
"woe to you!"

"you devour widows' houses . . . ."

"you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."

"blind guides!"

"blind fools!"

"You serpents, you brood of vipers . . . !"

"white-washed sepulchres!"

"how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?"

"den of thieves!"

"it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."

"Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

"I wish they'd go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"*

*That last one is St. Paul. You know the other Speaker.
You believe that "looking for imperfections" in me is "better, and harder" than defending all that you hold dear against the most vile totalitarian ideology in human history. It's a whole lot easier to attack and defame a Christian warning about the danger posed by jihad and shari'a than it is to defy those waging jihad and promoting shari'a, isn't it?
"Muhammad - the messenger of Allah - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves" (Qur'an 48:29).

Our War of Self-Defense Against Allah is not about "harming" Muhammad; it's about preventing his followers from harming us in obedience to him

2011-03-13T17:49:00.000-07:00

A brief clarification on why we fight from here:

I can't believe that you guys have the energy to continue discussing this topic for over a year with no progress in both sides! It's very simple, who wants to believe that Mohammed (PBUH) is the last prophet of Islam, that's cool. And who wants to believe that Mohammed (PBUH) is nothing but a cold murderer and rapist, that's also cool. Your own belief won't do any good or harm to him. So, let's stop discussing a topic we will never agree on.
Obviously, A. Hussien, Muhammad (HIUH) was both Islam's "last prophet" and "a cold murderer and rapist." That's according to your own texts.

We're not trying to "harm" the genocidal pedophile -- he's already some demon's perpetual virgin -- we're trying to prevent both Muslims from obeying and imitating Muhammad (HIUH) and self-loathing, suicidally-ignorant Useful Idiot dhimmis from aiding them.

Is there any doubt as to why Keith Ellison wants to avoid an honest examination of what leads Muslims to imitate Muhammad?*

2011-03-07T00:01:00.000-08:00

In an interview in which he was a guest along with Representative Peter King, not-so-stealth agent-for-jihad Keith Ellison -- whose Minneapolis congressional district is "fertile recruitment ground" for Muslim terrorists headed to Somalia -- complained about King's (sham) hearings into why Muslims obey Muhammad's commands to murder and maim non-Muslims. (King himself dances around the truth by avoiding "jihad" and referring instead to efforts to "radicalize" American Muslims.)

According to a report on local news, while Ellison supports investigating the causes of "radicalization," he opposes a focus on Muslims.

That makes sense. Centuries of Buddhists blowing up and beheading non-Buddhists to shouts of "Gautama is greatest!" indicate the need to focus on someone other than Muslims, right? You'd have to be either perverse or suicidally-ignorant to endure attack-after-attack, day-after-day, year-after-year, century-after-century by one group of people and still deny the obvious.

Speaking of liberals, is it any surprise that an Islamophilic media which promotes CAIR as an honest source of information on Islam for non-Muslims would try to legitimize a Muslim politician whose hajj was paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota? MAS -- along with dozens of other Muslim individuals and organizations within the United States -- is tied to Hamas founder the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to bring down Western Civilization from within.

You remember the Brotherhood. They're the tyrants invited by the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief to rule Egypt.

Funny how that keeps happening.

*Alternative titles for this post: "1940s Europe to hold hearings on efforts to radicalize Nazis; Goebbels opposes focus on Hitler" and "Chickens to hold hearings on efforts to radicalize foxes in hen house; fox opposes focus on foxes"

To justify genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery, one needs only to point to Muhammad

2011-03-05T19:17:00.000-08:00

In response to Tsaritsyn, who asks, "how is your view, or your argument any different [than those who misquote, propagandize, and stereotype]?"

I'm telling the truth. If not, point out my error.

And if I'm quoting the Islamic texts, what "only one interpretation" am I "assuming"?

How I understand the texts doesn't matter. What matters is how Muslims interpret them. The fact is, devout Muslims have traditionally understood Muhammad's words and deeds as recorded in Qur'an, hadith, and sira literally. Centuries of commentary on those texts explain, for example, that even disbelief is "warring against Allah." Al-Ghazali, the "greatest Muslim after Muhammad," affirmed the necessity of warring against and subjugating non-Muslims. This is why no major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare against "unbelievers" who refuse both the "invitation" to convert and the demand for surrender and tribute. That's 99% of official Islam.

In speaking of Christ and Allah, I've had everything flung at me. But Abraham, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad absurdum, ad nauseam, are merely false tu quoques, deflections, red herrings, distractions, as if those events -- even if they were proof of Christianity/Judaism being "just as bad" as Islam, which they are not -- negate fourteen hundred years of genocide, rape, and slavery in obedience to Allah and in emulation of his genocidal pedophile Muhammad.

In fact, those false charges from Muslims and their Useful Idiot dhimmis highlight the distinction between Christianity and Islam: When God commanded Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a test, did he command Abraham to kill other peoples' sons? But Allah promises paradise to those who kill and are killed fighting in its cause (Qur'an 9:111; no, that's not a typo).

As for the Crusades and Inquisition, where is the Biblical command for them? Nowhere. Period.

Besides that, the first Crusade was called in response to centuries of Christians under attack by . . . you guessed it! Islam. And the Spanish Inquisition? That was a reaction to eight hundred years of Islamic rule in Andalusia.

(I wonder, where did Christians get the idea to use political power in pursuit of religious goals? Could it have been from their Muslim overlords?)

No, only by misquoting Biblical passages can one justify evil with them; with Islam, to justify genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery, one needs only to imitate Muhammad.

As for anti-Semitic propaganda, where have I "twisted facts"? Which Jews are blowing up schools or beheading girls to shouts of "YHWH is greatest!"? Even if they were, to which Biblical text can they point in support of such barbarity? But the jihadists who butcher, rape, and maim every day around the world -- and have done so for the last nearly one and one-half millennia -- find ample justification for their crimes against God and Man from Muhammad's words and deeds.

"kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Egypt's freedom-loving Muslims bring tanks, armored vehicles, live ammunition, and RPGs to war against . . . monks

2011-02-27T22:00:00.000-08:00

For more than a millennium, non-Muslims have endured the ravages of jihad as their husbands, fathers, wives, daughters, sons, and civilizations were beheaded, raped, and enslaved by Islam.

How many of them wished -- prayed -- for the military superiority that the West possesses today? Yet our leaders obfuscate, bloviate, lie, and demonize in defense of Islam, including and especially our treasonous (allegedly) former-Muslim-in-Chief, who knows better.

We are at war. To those who would argue that we cannot become like our enemies, it's not your little girls being kidnapped, raped, and forcibly converted to the religion from hell. What will you do when those malevolent fiends are at your daughters? "Please, go ahead. I don't want to be like you"? This is the time for self-defense, not craven, self-righteous stupidity.

As bad as it was for the Copts under Mubarak, it's going to be hell from here on out. Egypt's Muslim army now wages open war on monks, from here:

Monk Aksios Ava Bishoy told activist Nader Shoukry of Freecopts the armed forces stormed the main entrance gate to the monastery in the morning using five tanks, armored vehicles and a bulldozer to demolish the fence built by the monastery last month to protect themselves and the monastery from the lawlessness which prevailed in Egypt during the January 25 Uprising.

"When we tried to address them, the army fired live bullets, wounding Father Feltaows in the leg and Father Barnabas in the abdomen," said Monk Ava Bishoy. "Six Coptic workers in the monastery were also injured, some with serious injuries to the chest."

The injured were rushed to the nearby Sadat Hospital, the ones in serious condition were transferred to the Anglo-Egyptian Hospital in Cairo.

Father Hemanot Ava Bishoy said the army fired live ammunition and RPGs continuously for 30 minutes, which hit part of the ancient fence inside the monastery. "The army was shocked to see the monks standing there praying 'Lord have mercy' without running away. This is what really upset them," he said. "As the soldiers were demolishing the gate and the fence they were chanting 'Allahu Akbar' and 'Victory, Victory'."

He also added that the army prevented the monastery's car from taking the injured to hospital.

Muslims trying to prove "out-of-context" only highlight what their genocidal pedophile preached and practiced

2011-02-23T23:07:00.000-08:00

Implying error on my part, Fazeel Gareeboo actually quotes passages from Islam's "sacred" texts requiring the enslavement and slaughter of those who refuse the "invitation" to convert.

(Unfortunately, he has yet to denounce them.)

From here:

USC's MSA (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated purpose is to bring down Western Civilization from within), lists the hadith in question as Number 25. As of January, 2006, when I saved a copy of their site (just in case the MSA decided to hide what their genocidal pedophile Muhammad actually said and did), the hadith in question was numbered "24":

Bukhari before the MSA changed its numbering

You'll have to ask USC's MSA why they changed it.

More importantly, you've verified that I've not misrepresented the texts. You've emphasized powerfully the fact that -- according to Muhammad -- the non-Muslim must confess Muhammad and his allah to "save his life and property" from him.

Now that you've admitted that Muhammad commanded and practiced offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam, will you denounce those commands and example, Fazeel?

Not sure whom to support in Libya? Ask the Muslim Brotherhood

2011-02-21T22:49:00.000-08:00

And then choose the tyrant opposing them.

It's a choice between Morgoth and Sauron. The frying pan or the fire. The lesser of two evils, literally.

From here:

"'The most influential Sunni Muslim cleric in the world' misunderstands Islam, calls on the warriors of Islam to murder Gaddafi."

"most influential Sunni Muslim cleric in the world" So much for "most Muslims don't believe that."

If 9/11 weren't enough -- and tens of thousands of other atrocities since then -- that tells you all you need to know about Islam.

And Obama for demanding you respect it.

Add "hatred of Christianity" to the list of reasons "Why nobody understands Islam"

2011-02-21T15:21:00.000-08:00

The redoubtable Ronald Craig sees fit to throw the dirty bath water on the baby with this revealing bit:

"'Abrahamic' is one of Muhammad's lies."

Really? And "Christianity" is monotheistic. Please. LOL.

"Another example of those who hate Christianity so much that they'd ignore or otherwise facilitate the jihad against them[=it?]." (I think you meant "it" there.)

Nah, I hate human stupidity in general too much to waste time specifically on "Christianity". But yes, if you little spiritual sons of Abraham want to wipe each other out and can do it without dragging down the rest of the world with you (not in your plans, I know!), sure, I'd be more than happy to look the other way while you do so.

And seriously, all the hate-mongering you're engaged in? (Yeah, I know, you're just "defending" yourself. LOL!)

WWJD?

Here's my reply:

Speaking of "human stupidity," it's clear that you've wasted no time on either Christianity or Islam.

Here are a few points to consider:
-Christianity is not polytheistic: "Let us make man in our image" ("image" not "images"). "You shall have no other gods before Me." "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one." "The Father and I are one." "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . . . " ("name," not "names").

Just because we can't comprehend YHWH's nature doesn't mean we can't apprehend His nature when He reveals it.

-If Muhammad had been a son of Abraham, he would have said and done what Abraham said and did. According to his own texts, Muhammad "sacralized" the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Clearly, he was no son of Abraham.

-I did not mean "it." Jihad is being waged against you, but your antagonism towards Christianity blinds you to that.

-"you little spiritual sons of Abraham want to wipe each other out and can do it without dragging the rest of the world with you" indicates an utter ignorance of Islam. Even though you know nothing about Christianity, you ought to know by now that Islam is at war with the non-Muslim world, regardless of creed. You think you're safe, but Allah has special hatred for the godless like you.

-How is telling the truth about Muhammad -- whose words and deeds are actual hate; it takes a special kind of nescience (or perverseness) to confuse the two -- "hate-mongering"? No doubt, in your mind Churchill was hateful for telling the truth about Hitler before he began devouring Europe. Do you understand that, Ronald? Muhammad beheads fathers and rapes and enslaves their wives and daughters -- including prepubescent little girls -- and you're calling Christians "hate-mongers."

-We know what Jesus did. Unlike you, He never apologized for evil or conflated it with its resistance.
Deal honestly with the facts as they exist, Ronald.

"Amateurishness" or malice?

2011-02-19T10:23:00.000-08:00

What must one conclude when every decision an allegedly-former-Muslim makes advances jihad against the non-Muslim world? When it was Presidents Clinton and Bush bombing Christians in defense of Muslims waging jihad, enshrining shari'a into the constitutions of two new "democracies" (how's that for oxymoronic?), and agitating for an Islamic Kosovo in the heart of Europe, one could reasonably conclude that they were merely clueless dhimmis either indulging their multiculturalist prejudice against the greatest civilization the world has ever known or operating on the suicidal misconception that Islam lends itself naturally to freedom. But President Obama?

How can the "smartest president ever" who:

-was Muslim,

-attended Qur'an classes as a child (was he illiterate and deaf?),

-has received and given aid to rabid Muslim anti-Semites (yes, that's doubly-redundant),

-attended a rabidly-anti-American "church" for twenty years, calling its anti-Semitic leader his "spiritual mentor,"

-expressed his determination to "stand with the Muslims" after 9/11,

-referred in an interview during his last campaign to "my Muslim faith,"

-described the Islamic call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,"

-invited the Muslim Brotherhood -- whose stated purpose is to "bring down Western Civilization from within" -- to both his Cairo propaganda event and to govern Egypt,

-obfuscated and deflected when an Indian schoolgirl at another photo op in Dar al-Islam asked him about the meaning of "jihad,"

-works tirelessly to undermine the only decent nation in the Middle East, Israel, and

-is bankrupting and disarming the Republic

not know that he's aiding the advance of jihad and shari'a?

I hope that Niall Ferguson is right. Perhaps I'm giving Obama too much credit. Maybe he's only Another Liberal Fraud feigning competence while indulging a typically-leftist loathing of the West.

But if Obama really is as intelligent as his followers claim, then it's not "amateurishness" that leads him to help our enemies and abandon our friends, it's malice.

Niall Ferguson explains Obama's ~~malfeasance~~ alleged incompetence:

If this is what happens in a "moderate, secular" Egypt, wait 'til the Muslim Brotherhood's in power

2011-02-15T18:46:00.000-08:00

CBS News' Lara Logan Assaulted During Egypt Protests:

"On Friday, Feb. 11, the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a '60 Minutes' story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy.

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers."

Keep her in your prayers.

UPDATE: The Muslims were shouting, "Jew! Jew!" while they raped her for twenty to thirty minutes. How did CBS forget to print those little details? We mustn't confuse anyone with the facts, right, CBS? Can't throw a wet blanket on Obama's little rebellion, can we?

Just like Carter, who still doesn't understand that removing brutal dictators holding rabid Muslims in check only allows the rabid Muslims to take over.

Well done, CBS. Great job, Mr. President!

It's not the lack of integration that causes jihad, it's jihad that causes the lack of integration

2011-02-12T00:12:00.000-08:00

Multiculturalism has become Islam's Trojan horse.

How can anyone expect not only the preservation and emphasis of distinctions between cultures but the degradation and denigration of our own (multiculturalism) to result in the assimilation and integration of non-Western cultures? Worse yet, what if one of those alien systems to which some are so eager to prove their tolerance actively seeks the destruction of the West?

The principle that all people deserve respect because they are created in the image of God is completely consonant with the American creed as both are founded on the Word of Christ. On the other hand, the idea that all ideologies deserve respect or possess a moral value equal to our own is discredited every day around the world by Islam. As Ibn Warraq observed:

"A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine . . . ."

Cameron, Merkel, Howard, Aznar, and now Sarkozy --but not Obama! Why? -- Europe awakes to the challenge its forebears faced: The existential threat posed to it by Islam. Only this time, the barbarians are not at the gates; instead, they've been invited in (mass immigration), are living at taxpayers' expense (Socialism serving shari'a), and enjoy special rights under the law (hate speech laws punishing factual statements about Islam).

Note that below, "multiculturalism" now means Islam.

From here:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.

"Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want... a society where communities coexist side by side.

"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France," the right-wing president said.

"The French national community cannot accept a change in its lifestyle, equality between men and women... freedom for little girls to go to school," he said.

But aren't all societies created equal? What sort of culture would endorse gender discrimination?

"We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him," Sarkozy said in the TFI channel show.

That's because the West despises itself.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's ex-prime minister John Howard and Spanish ex-premier Jose Maria Aznar have also recently said multicultural policies have not successfully integrated immigrants.

Merkel in October said efforts towards multiculturalism in Germany had "failed, totally."

The comment followed weeks of anguished debate sparked by the huge popularity of a book by a central banker saying that immigrants, in particular Muslims, were making Germany "more stupid."

Who is more "stupid," the "stupid," or those who invite in the "stupid," subsidize their depravity, and excuse their barbarous anti-Semitism and predatory attitudes toward non-Muslim women?

Britain's Cameron last week pronounced his country's long-standing policy of multiculturalism a failure, calling for better integration of young Muslims to combat home-grown extremism.

I can save the U.K. several billions of pounds and thousands of innocent lives: It's not the lack of integration that causes jihad, it's jihad that causes the lack of integration.

He urged a "more active, muscular liberalism" where equal rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and democracy are actively promoted to create a stronger national identity.

The prime minister, who took power in May 2010, argued that "under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream".

He said this had resulted in a lack of national identity in Britain which had made some young Muslims turn to extremist ideology.

Here again, it's not the "lack of national identity in Britain" which makes Muslims turn to jihad; it's Britain's lack of national pride that has allowed Muslims to wage unopposed their cultural jihad.

Sarkozy said in his television interview Thursday that "our Muslim compatriots must be able to practise their religion, as any citizen can," but he noted "we in France do not want people to pray in an ostentatious way in the street."

Just like the hijab, it's not prayer that's a problem -- does anyone care if some Baptists or Buddhists were to pray publicly? The problem is that Muslim masses overrunning public places is another slap in the face to their host society, another expression of Muslim superiority to their non-Muslim neighbors.

The problem is Islam.

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen late last year came under fire for comparing Muslims praying in the streets outside overcrowded mosques in France to the Nazi occupation.

Marine Le Pen said there were "ten to fifteen" places in France where Muslims worshipped in the streets outside mosques when these were full.

Europe has been a continent of Neville Chamberlains. It's time for some Churchills. He understood Islam:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property -- either as a child, a wife, or a concubine -- must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -- the science against which it had vainly struggled -- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

How can you trust the judgment of someone who's descended voluntarily from Christ (at least nominally) to Smith to Muhammad to Oblivion?

2011-02-07T17:04:00.000-08:00

Self-described in 2005 as "an historical serial religionist - Catholic, Mormon, Muslim - and a current areligionist," Timothy Behrend demonstrates an Islamic zeal in hiding from non-Muslims until it's too late the truth about Muhammad. If he really is no longer Muslim -- someone who claims to be an expert on Islam yet calls an accurate summary of Muhammad's words and deeds a "risible, anachronistic caricature" can hardly be considered trustworthy -- then the good professor is manifesting instead the murderous ignorance and suicidal self-loathing of those non-Muslims whose hatred of Christianity leads them to defend hell rather than their own civilization.

[How can you trust the judgment of someone who's descended voluntarily from Christ (at least nominally) to Smith to Muhammad to Oblivion? (At least Oblivion doesn't necessarily behead innocents and rape little girls.) Below is my reply to another of his lies in defense of the genocidal pedophile, written when all signs pointed to his being still a slave to Allah.]

Whether Muslim, apostate, or just saboteur, Timmy Behrend works to be one reason Why nobody understands Islam:

Timmy defends the genocidal pedophile Muhammad, but attacks . . . pronouns!

Rather than condemn Muhammad's crimes against God and Man as recorded in his own "sacred" texts, he variously:
1) Errs grammatically -- if "them" is "meaningless," then Timmy would not have understood its relation to its antecedent; regardless, "them" is the objective of "they," which is the plural of several third person pronouns including "it."

2) Imputes falsely to me either racism for "inventing racist discourses" or ignorance for believing them;

3) Misrepresents America's suicidally-deranged efforts at self-defense against his braver coreligionists. Anyone paying attention would know that official American policy toward Islam is: "Great world religion of peace hijacked by extremists (if only that had been a pun!) . . . They're just like us . . . All people yearn for freedom . . . Don't jump to conclusions . . . Jihad has nothing to do with Islam . . . Let's give them a democracy!" on which we've squandered billions in treasure and priceless blood;

4) Defames Islam by calling its "beautiful pattern of conduct" a "risible . . . anachronistic caricature;"

5) Contradicts himself by claiming variously that no one can define Islam, no one knows what all Muslims believe, and "no Muslims believe it";

6) Defames Christ, Christianity, and America by confusing all three for "authentic Muslim beliefs" (which he says do not exist; see #5 above);

7) Libels Christians around the world;

8) Engages in more ridiculous tu quoque while demonstrating his utter ignorance of my religious beliefs; instead of throwing out slanderous accusations and hoping at least one will stick, why not deal with fact?

9) Calls my quoting of Muhammad's words and deeds -- which I condemn -- "dangerous for US society and the world at large," but excuses, dismisses, extenuates, and obfuscates for Muslims' quoting -- and actually practicing -- them.
Islam is an ideology, not a race. I merely quote, paraphrase, and summarize Muhammad's words and deeds -- and what his followers have done in devotion to him -- which is why no lie, no logical fallacy, no disgraceful misdirection is too base for Timmy to employ.

Timmy's a credit to his religion. Sorry, I meant "exemplar."

[And just in case Amazon deletes these:

Can't help but confuse categories, Timmy? Or is it just a pathological mendacity?

It's not "non-Christian displays of personal religiosity" that offend; it's personal displays of the most vile ideology ever sprung from hell. "Sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery deserve only scorn. Derision. Obliteration.

Why don't they offend you, Timmy?

And:

Imposing special rights for Muslims -- to the detriment of non-Muslims -- is the essence of shari'a.]

If George Lucas can make Han Solo into a Boy Scout, he can make Jar Jar Binks a mime

2011-02-07T11:51:00.000-08:00

From here:

If Lucas can change Han Solo's essence, then he can change it back. And if he can spend the time and money to redo copious special effects, then he can re-edit The Phantom Menace.

The Revenge of the Sith is closest to the originals in tone and quality; The Attack of the Clones (why that title? Why not "The Rise of the Emperor" or somesuch?) was fine as one continuous fight scene; but with Phantom, the only ones menaced were fans of the original trilogy. And anyone older than seven.

No plot development, no character development, Darth Maul squandered, and too much Jar Jar. If Alderaan had a choice between watching Phantom and a rendezvous with the Death Star, you know what they'd choose. Every time. Seriously, with every viewing of Menace, it's as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

If Lucas can make Han Solo into a Boy Scout, he can make Jar Jar Binks a mime. And give Phantom Menace a plot.

A glimmer of hope in Egypt?

2011-02-04T11:07:00.001-08:00

Powerline has comments from a free Egyptian on the protests. I hope his side wins.

If it does, will the free people of Egypt be either willing or able to say, "No," to the Muslim Brotherhood and their coreligionists?

Now, just in case this isn't clear: This protest is not one made or sustained by the Muslim Brotherhood, it's one that had people from all social classes and religious background in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood only showed up on Tuesday, and even then they were not the majority of people there by a long shot. We tolerated them there since we won't say no to fellow Egyptians who wanted to stand with us, but neither the Muslims Brotherhood not any of the Opposition leaders have the ability to turn out one tenth of the numbers of Protesters that were in Tahrir on Tuesday. This is a revolution without leaders. Three Million individuals choosing hope instead of fear and braving death on hourly basis to keep their dream of freedom alive. Imagine that.

Senate report concludes that the sky is blue

2011-02-03T23:44:00.000-08:00

"the FBI and DOD could have prevented the shooting if they had identified Hasan’s radical Islamist views . . . ."

No kidding.

The obvious problem with this is that the problem was always obvious. Or, it should have been to anyone with even a modicum of curiosity about the world . . . or a pulse. It takes a lot of work to ignore the hordes of data each day highlighting the infrangible link between Islam and mass slaughter, especially after 9/11 and nearly seventeen thousand jihad attacks since. Even without opening a Qur'an, a reasonable person would suspect that something isn't kosher about Islam.

Senators Lieberman and Collins reiterate the Big Lie by implying through their use of "-ists" and "-isms" that what Nidal Hasan preached and practiced that day at Ft. Hood was anything other than Islam-the-Way-Muhammad-Intended. Note their liberal use of violent puns (I guess they didn't get the memo; it's Lieberman and Collins, so yes, that's a pun of my own) and the Orwellian Islamspeak ("radical," "extremist," "Islamist") throughout:

A new Senate report on the 2009 Fort Hood shooting blames the FBI and Department of Defense for failing to recognize or act on alleged shooter Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist views.

If Muhammad commanded, "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5), then how are Hasan's views "extremist"?

The report, released today by Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Joe Lieberman and ranking Republican Susan Collins, says the FBI and DOD could have prevented the shooting if they had identified Hasan’s radical Islamist views and disciplined or discharged him before the attack occurred.

Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to understand and to act on it,” the senators said in the report. “Our investigation found specific and systemic failures in the government’s handling of the Hasan case and raises additional concerns about what may be broader systemic issues.”

Having an allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief who calls the Islamic call to prayer "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," refers to "my Muslim faith," lies at Al-Azhar about the "great world religion of peace," can't answer honestly a little girl's request for a definition of "jihad," and forces Socialism/Communism -- Islam's only secular friend -- down our throats might indicate "broader systemic issues," might it not?

"DOD possessed compelling evidence that Hasan embraced views so extreme that it should have disciplined him or discharged him from the military, but DOD failed to take action against him,” the report said.

At today’s press conference Lieberman noted that an instructor and a colleague had each referred to Hasan as “a ticking time bomb.”

“To me it’s infuriating that a member of our armed services who expressed such radical opinions to other members of our military was not discharged,” Lieberman said.

"Discharged"? How about, "deported"? "Dispatched"?

“The Fort Hood massacre resulted because of what I would call a tragedy of errors – just one after another - by organizations that normally perform effectively. But in this case – for a host of various reasons and frankly some things that are hard to explain – just totally failed to act in a way that as you look back at the evidence with the clarity of hindsight just shouts out, ‘Stop this guy before he kills somebody!’ And he was not stopped.”

Lieberman vowed that the report would be used as a “blueprint” for reforms “so the next human ticking time bomb will be identified early and defused before the next deadly detonation.

That "blueprint" is called "Muhammad's words and deeds."

I've got a surefire, one-hundred-percent-guaranteed, take-it-to-the-bank method for identifying the "next deadly detonation": Look for the devout/orthodox/traditional Muslim. Anything less than that only ensures the attack.

Somehow, I don't think we'll be hearing that from either of the distinguished senators.

So much for clarity.

Muslims beheading the Left's fantasies about Islam, one journalist at a time

2011-02-03T19:25:00.000-08:00

What, if anything, have our "unbiased observers," our professional opinion makers, learned from their experiences up-close-and-personal with Islam? Expecting masses grateful for Obama and the Left's ~~shared hatred of Western Civilization~~ enlightened multiculturalism and support for ~~implementing shari'a~~ their "democracy," what did they find?

Anderson Cooper punched in the head ten times. Christiane Amanpour threatened repeatedly by a man clearly barely able to restrain his rage (I've seen that face of Muslim civility before; he would have snapped if not for his friend's restraining him). Katie Couric "menaced" and shoved. An ABC News team nearly beheaded. A Fox News team "beaten severely."

Will they blame Islam, which inculcates both a deep and abiding hatred for all things non-Muslim and an autonomic resorting to threats and violence? Or will they continue repeating the Big Lie, blaming instead Mubarak, poverty, President Bush, America, or the Jews?

And do you think that Anderson Cooper's noticed yet the stark contrast between the completely peaceful, respectful, and restrained protests of American patriots and the rage of the Muslim street? Will he apologize for his ridiculous and disgusting name-calling and begin to investigate just why the "Arab" world is on fire?

It is, by definition, treason

2011-02-01T17:23:00.000-08:00

The Muslim Brotherhood's stated purpose in America "is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

And President Obama's helping them to take power in Egypt.

The president of the United States is aiding those who are "eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within."

Looks like they're off to a good start.

The balloon's on the other head now, Chris Matthews

2011-02-01T00:34:00.000-08:00

If anyone knows balloon heads, it's Chris Matthews.

Ironically enough, the politician on Chris Matthews' show during his recent fit of name-calling attacking Michele Bachmann as a "balloon head" for rightly stressing the importance of the Founding Fathers' work toward the abolition of slavery was none other than Charles Schumer.

It turns out that the senator isn't smarter than a fifth-grader -- or even Chris Matthews -- as he misidentifies the United States' three branches of government with: "We have a House, we have a Senate, we have a president." [sic]

What are the chances of Chris Matthews calling him names?

Too many coincidences for it to be coincidental

2011-01-31T23:53:00.000-08:00

The Muslim Brotherhood -- whose stated goal is to bring down Western Civilization from within -- is seeking to usurp the Egyptian government in partnership with former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, the "moderate" Muslim who duped the West with soothing talk of "dialogue" and "mutual respect" into doing nothing with Iran, a jihad state in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

How does a Muslim's aiding a Muslim terrorist nation gain Weapons of Mass Destruction deserve a peace prize, again?

Speaking of losing nations entirely to Islamic rule, just as Obama and his Goebbels in the media are trying to convince you that he's the new Reagan, GE's begun a campaign in "remembrance" of the great former president. Yes, that GE. Living-off-your-tax-dollars GE. Just-absorbed-into-the-Obama-administration GE.

It's good to see that while the world burns, Obama's focusing his attention on what really matters.

Another Islamic revolution? For non-Muslims within the borders of Dar al-Islam, it's out of the frying pan and into the fire

2011-01-29T08:24:00.000-08:00

Supporting a popular Muslim insurrection against a government allied to the U.S. worked so well in '79. Unsurprisingly, devastating incompetence (treason?) in domestic affairs isn't the only thing that President Obama's borrowed from the rabid anti-Semite Jimmy Carter.

(Indeed, the allegedly-former-Muslim-in-Chief is trying to convince you that he's a president in the mold of Reagan, hoping that his presidency will follow the same course as the Gipper's. Well, Obama's reign is following the same script, only he's not playing the lead, he's playing the lead's predecessor.

We all knew Ronald Reagan. Obama's no Reagan.)

The American Revolution is the only time in human history that a people fought for its freedom, won it, and founded their new nation on the belief that the Creator gives irrevocably to all people the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of moral Goodness (Happiness). This was possible as an expression of the will of the American people only because of what those people believed: They were the product of a fundamentally Christian civilization. (Even Thomas Jefferson -- often exhumed and paraded by the God-hating left as a "rebuttal" to simple statements of fact pointing out that America was founded as a Christian nation -- declared that he was a Christian in the only sense Christ intended, "sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.")

To expect (or wish for) an uprising in Islamic lands to result in something similar to our own is beyond wishful thinking; you can't expect a culture that considers "beautiful" and "Ideal" the words and deeds of a genocidal, pedophilic, megalomaniacal, emotionally-stunted tyrant to result in anything remotely resembling a free society. And "democracy"? When the people are ruled by Muhammad, democracy is only another path -- stupidly endorsed by the West's clueless and craven "leaders" -- to shari'a. Our own recent history proves this.

In the '90s, President Clinton bombed Christians to aid jihadists. In the last decade, President Bush used our best and bravest to enshrine shari'a in the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq. (The latter's ancient Jewish population is gone and its Christians flee (when they can); those who remain are intimidated, abused, and murdered.) And today, President Obama supports an Islamic revolution in Arab Muslim lands (confirmed here); when it was the people of Iran protesting against a shari'a state, he was . . . eating ice cream.

In Iraq, we removed a nominally-Muslim tyrant (Saddam worshiped himself more than Allah) and replaced him with a system of laws which sends Muslim souls to hell and creates hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls).

What reason do we have to believe that if successful, the current uprising throughout Dar al-Islam will result in anything more than moving its peoples -- especially its non-Muslims -- out of the frying pan and into the fire?

That tune playing in the salon? It'll be a dirge, if there's anyone left to mourn

2011-01-28T11:15:00.000-08:00

A self-loathing, Islamophilic (probably more a case of "anti-Christian") "journalist" attacks those exposing the existential threat posed to the West by Islam, and the devout and the suicidal rush in to his defense.

In response to this piece of perverse and destructive dhimmi propaganda at Salon:

In one breath the author of this article describes opposition to "radical Islamists" as "Islamophobia."

Which is it? If some seek to slaughter in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, then how can anyone's opposition to their "sacralized" genocide (and pedophilia, rape, and slavery) be a "phobia"?

As for Ozzie's outright, bald-faced lie that Islam does not produce terrorists, that is exactly diametric to the truth: Muhammad commanded his followers to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to convert, himself declaring:
"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah’s Apostle said, '. . . I have been made victorious with terror . . .'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Not only do you have venomous Muslims deceiving the ignorant, but you have the crippling and libelous equating of Christianity and Islam:

It is intellectually-dishonest (and suicidally-foolish) to try to equate Christianity and Islam (though to those who declare that Islam is "just as bad" as Christianity, thanks for admitting that Islam is "bad").

It is true that human beings of all religious persuasions do evil, but it is not true that all religions inspire violence equally.

Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies.

On the other hand, Muhammad made "holy" the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, preaching and practicing genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, theft, extortion, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, deceit, and blasphemy, claiming that "Allah made me do it, and so will you . . . or else."

No, the difference between Christ and Allah is literally the difference between Heaven and hell.

It's a memorial, not a campaign stop

2011-01-12T17:52:00.000-08:00

Someone should tell President Obama that it is at the very least inconsiderate to use a memorial for murdered innocents as a kick-off to your re-election campaign. (T-shirts with a re-election slogan "Together We Thrive"? Indeed, the president ran to this photo-op like a schoolboy from his books, but to Ft. Hood and victims of jihad, to school with heavy looks.)

Can you recall the last time a pep rally erupted at a funeral? Besides Paul Wellstone's?

Me neither.

The Left leaped to libel so that they could character assassinate Sarah Palin and other conservatives by smearing them with culpability for the slaughter. Now they're draining the corpses of every last drop of blood.

Disgusting. Vile. Wretched.

So, Muhammad doesn't inspire terrorism, but Sarah Palin does?

2011-01-10T00:18:00.000-08:00

Let's get this straight: Direct commands from Muhammad to butcher everyone who resists his will have nothing to do with fourteen hundred years of Islamic rape, slavery, and genocide -- including 9/11 and nearly seventeen thousand attacks since then -- but one metaphor from Sarah Palin leads to mass murder.

When Nidal Hasan mowed down his fellow soldiers to shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" we were told to resist using our intellect (they called it "jumping to conclusions"). A politician is shot and leftist politicians and their Goebbels in the mainstream media leap immediately to, "Palin did it!"

Unbelievable.

Muslims own a millennium and a half of slaughter, rape, and rapine and thereforemust receive the benefit of the doubt, but an American who actually believes in America? "Get a rope!"

If craven, lying tyrants like the aptly-named Dick Durbin had taken the advice they give in defense of America and the West's actual enemies, they'd have discovered that the Arizona shooter was a "leftist pothead" who followed neither Palin, the Right, nor "God," but instead was a fan of MSNBC, the Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf, scared his teachers, couldn't string together a coherent thought, and laughed at the misery of others while joking about strapping bombs to fetuses in order to commit terrorism. And he was involved with the occult.

In other words, he was a good leftist and a potential Muslim.

But like Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a bunch of dead innocent Americans slaughtered by one of our own go to waste. Unless it's a Muslim doing the killing."*

So, what can we conclude from this tragedy and our "elites'" response to it? First, the Left knows no bounds in how far it will go in order to demonize Americans, using even dead children to achieve its political purposes. Second, if we are to use the Left's own "logic," marijuana, Communism, abortion, college, and the occult cause terrorism. Third, the Left are fiends. Fangs-with-human-gore-imbued fiends.

If you want to blame someone's "heated political rhetoric," blame Obama. He's the one who's spurred his followers to "get in their faces." He's demonized God-and-gun-clingers. And he's referred to "punishing" his political "enemies."

UPDATE: The lying Pima County Sheriff Dupnik could have stopped the killer but didn't:

Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation [. . .]

This was not an act of politics. This was an act of a mentally disturbed young man hell bent on getting his 15 minutes of infamy. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department was aware of his violent nature and they failed to act appropriately. This tragedy leads right back to Sherriff Dupnik and all the spin in the world is not going to change that fact.

UPDATE: Some more of the despicable Left's venom:

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

Don't forget this:

Rahm Emanuel grabbed a steak knife, and he began rattling off a list of betrayers. And as he listed their names he shouted, ‘Dead! Dead! Dead!’ and he plunged the steak knife into the table after every name.

Or this:

Kos scrubbed it. Thankfully, several bloggers were able to capture screen shots of the post that used the word "dead" in relation to Rep. Giffords several times.

Diary headline: "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!" There are also several references to "dead" in the comment thread.

All of it now deleted - something Kos does on a regular basis when he wishes to change history. Kos also seems to have forgotten a posting of his calling for putting a "bullseye" on Giffords' district.

Even Olbermann's chagrined:

"Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans."

He should tell his boss.

UPDATE: The killer was a 9/11 truther and hated Bush. A Tea Party member if I've ever heard of one.

He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

*That is, of course, a reference to his urging his fellow statists to exploit every actual and potential tragedy.

Perhaps Timothy Behrend is right; maybe there really isn't "only one way to read" a text. (That would explain so many Muslims' struggles with premature detonation: They can't follow simple directions because there's "no one way to read" bomb-making recipes).

2011-01-08T22:39:00.000-08:00

The always-posting-but-never-veracious Timothy Behrend does another little jig in defense of jihad:

[. . .] illustrates here that there is only one way to read the Qur'an and one way to read the Bible, and he happens to be the master of both. If your reading of the Qur'an differs from his own (based on a logic of cherry picking and tied to his Christian faith), that just means you don't understand Islam -- even if you've lived it your whole life.

And [. . .], you are equally informed about Mormonism, it seems. Joseph never claimed to be the "last prophet" as you put it. In fact, he was the first in this dispensation of time; since then he has been followed by 15 others, up to and including the current prophet and president of the LDS church, Thomas S. Monson. Is deliberate misrepresentation of Mormonism part of your personal (un)-Christian belief system in the same way as your pinched and shrill testimony of Muhammad and his teachings?

Timmy dances around the central issue with all the vigor of James Cagney, but with neither his skill nor style. It's clear: Timmy's no Jimmy.

Rather than address Muhammad's bloodlust (and just lust), Timmy obfuscates again, this time with ad hominem: "[. . .] is narrow-minded, intellectually-dishonest, self-centered, and illiterate," and diversion and self-contradiction: "You can't know Islam, but I know Mormonism."

How can Timmy imply that there's not "only one way to read" Qur'an and Bible, but then criticize another's comments on Mormonism, as if there's "only one way to read" Mormonism? You know folks, if your reading of Mormonism differs from Timmy's own (based on a logic of cherry picking and tied to his formerly-LDS-now-LSD'd faith), then that means you don't understand Mormonism. Or cherries.

So, Timmy, which is it? Can any person of at least normal intelligence and reading ability discover the facts of a religion's texts, tenets, and timelines, or not? If you say, "No," then you can't contradict anyone's characterization of Mormonism (or Islam), since you can't know either. If you admit that we can determine facts, then do what you've avoided so far: Address Muhammad's words and deeds honestly.

Did Muhammad begin raping little, prepubescent 'Aisha when she was only nine-years-old, or not? Did Muhammad command the faithful to "wage holy war" against "unbelievers" who refuse to convert or submit, or not? Did Muhammad have murdered those who mocked him, or not? Did Muhammad butcher prisoners of war and then rape and enslave their women and children, or not? Did Muhammad claim that Allah considered him a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for you to emulate, or not?

Maybe Timmy's right. Maybe we can't really know what an author means by reading what he writes. Perhaps there really isn't "only one way to read" a text. That would explain so many Muslims' struggles with premature detonation: They can't follow simple directions because there's "no one way to read" bomb-making recipes.

Timmy, lie all you like, but Muslims have spent centuries explaining for the faithful just what Muhammad's words and deeds mean. And no, disputes over minutiae like the age at which one can be slaughtered for apostasy or the genocidal pedophile's proper immediate successor are little more than satan's secret handshake to us: Issues that Muslims kill each other over but mean nothing to rational human beings.

If you really believed that Muhammad's life was praiseworthy, you'd boast about his words and deeds. That you feel compelled to avoid discussing them at all costs instead is all anyone needs to see that you're ashamed of Allah's apostle.

Allah will not be pleased.

Defending the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of non-Muslims in Allah's name isn't all it's cracked up to be

2011-01-03T22:45:00.000-08:00

Some of the better responses (okay, my replies) to the immoral and criminally-nescient fluff piece in defense of Islam here which point out the scriptural and historical justification for jihad and shari'a keep disappearing. Strange. Must be Islamophilic electrons.

(I know it's supposed to be a humor site, but that apologist isn't joking and regardless, there's nothing funny about lying in defense of the raping and enslaving of your women and children because they're the "wrong" religion.)

Why is it that both Muslims and non-Muslims who seek to protect the Religion of Perpetual Denial of Responsibility must resort not to defending Islam, but to attacking whomever is pointing out what Islam actually says and does?

Here are a few of their favorites:

1) [Insert religion here (usually Christianity, but the Jews -- the Jews! -- are gaining popularity nowadays] is just as bad (not realizing that they're admitting that Islam is "bad");

2) Hitler [McVeigh, or some other non-Christian] engaged in slaughter (failing to recognize the numeric disparity: One non-Christian monster vs. millions of Muslim ones. I suppose that for Muslim apologists and their Useful Idiot dhimmis, Mathematics just isn't their game);

3) Playing the victim, or European colonialism/poverty/George W. Bush causes jihad (despite the fact that Christians and other non-Muslims who are oppressed -- especially under Islam -- aren't beheading their neighbors while praising their deities);

4) Not all Muslims are terrorists (as if that means that Muslims are not raping, maiming, and butchering non-Muslims every day around the world in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example).

Here is a response to the murderously-ignorant and kuffarophobic Julie's clueless defense of Islam. Enjoy!

Julie,

The implication that non-Muslim opposition to jihad and shari'a is somehow morally equivalent to someone holding a grudge for something that happened generations earlier is laughable on its face. Muslims are raping, enslaving, and killing now, today, and their atrocities are done in accord with their genocidal pedophile's teachings [and doings]. Undoubtedly, you've never studied Qur'an, hadith, nor sira.

Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all of today's terrorists are Muslim, and they've carried out more than sixteen thousand terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone. Just because all don't kill doesn't mean that those who do are "extremists hijacking a great world religion of peace."

As for "allah," you're right that the word can be used as a common noun to refer to any deity (you don't note this, but Arabic-speaking Christians use the term to refer to the God of the Bible), but we're unconcerned with YHWH, Vishnu, or Molech, since their followers are not blowing up worshipers of other religions at their holy places.

We're concerned with Muhammad's allah, because it requires its adherents to use any means necessary -- including violence -- to make the world Islam, a fact which serves to highlight the absurdity of your reference to ancient Israel.

A one-time, limited, Divine judgment for horrific crimes (including child sacrifice) and for warring against previously-defenseless Israel 3500 years ago is not the same as timeless, eternal, universal, open-ended allah-mandated rape, slavery, and slaughter carried out for the last nearly one and one-half millennia and currently.

Once 3500 years ago versus the last fourteen hundred years and now. Note the contrast.

As for your shamefully nescient tu quoques and false moral equivalences: "Christians did it too," "Christians would be strapping on bomb-vests," and "McVeigh! McVeigh!"?

Millions of Christians today suffer poverty and injustice (especially in Muslim lands). How often do we hear of poor and oppressed Christians beheading the daughters of other religions to shouts of "Jesus is LORD!"? But Muslims commit such crimes piously and with regularity.

Neither did early Christianity commit violence. Islam always has, and does so still. Why?

The reason is because Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies. What about Muhammad?

According to Islam's own "sacred" texts, he preached and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, the assassination of political opponents, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, theft, extortion, deceit, blasphemy, sedition, and treason, declaring that, "Allah made me do it, and you will too . . . or else."

And McVeigh? He was no Christian. Phelps claims he is. To which of Christ's words or deeds can anyone point in justifying their actions? But Muslims every day point to numerous ayat and ahadith in defense of their crimes.

(As for the library at Alexandria, one historical source blames Caesar. Muslims also take credit for it. Don't be so eager to defame Christians in your defense of Muslim slaughter.)

How is it "vicious" to state plainly the fact that Islam advocates and practices genocide? Isn't it more "vicious" to command, preach, and practice genocide? Why are you attacking those merely exposing Islam's "sacred" texts? Why aren't you attacking those who actually believe those texts and put them into practice?

If one participant in a "cycle of violence" worships a god and prophet who require "holy war" against "unbelievers" until they convert, submit, or die, how do you expect that "cycle of violence" to end if its targets put down their arms? Your moral vanity results only in non-Muslims in either chains or the grave.

I hope you're just a Muslim obfuscating for Islam. Muhammad declared that "War is deceit," so I'd expect that from you. But if you're not, if you're just someone with so much murderous animosity toward Christians that you aid those you think are going to stick it to "good white Christian folk," then you're in for a rude awakening.

You really ought to study Islam's core texts, history, and current events. It's not Methodists or Korean War veterans setting off car bombs in front of places of worship, is it?

Does any Muslim possess it?

2010-12-29T03:16:00.000-08:00

No, because if they do, they cease being Muslim. Or their "Islam" ceases being Islam.

From here, in response to more Muslim mendacity:

Honesty is always the best policy, right, Timmy?

Shari'a is not yet part of American legal code (no thanks to Oklahoma's Useful Idiot dhimmi Miles-LaGrange), but your coreligionists are using every means at their disposal to promote it within their respective spheres of influence. You know, things like foot baths in airports, prayer rooms in colleges, demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad, agitating for special rights for Muslims (wearing coverings where prohibited by law), attempting to enforce Islamic norms at the workplace (Swift and Disney, for example). Of course, you avoided mentioning the attempt to establish shari'a courts in Canada and the successful effort to implement Islamic law in the UK, which has allowed dozens of shari'a courts.

But that's not the problem, is it, Timmy? As is your habit, you're dodging the real issue, which is the content of shari'a. You know, wife-beating, pedophilia, the subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims, death for apostasy, all those doctrines-of-peace-and-mutual-understanding.

Which leads us back to where it all began, your buddy, the genocidal pedophile Muhammad. Will you now, after all these many posts, finally have the courage, the decency, the humanity, to condemn his preaching and practicing genocide, child-rape, rape, torture, mutilation, slavery, religious and gender apartheid, spousal abuse, polygyny, theft, extortion, deceit, sedition, and treason?

A simple, "I do condemn them," will suffice.

Prejudice against Islam

2010-12-27T16:19:00.000-08:00

In response to this post, Ray McIntyre offered this:

Let me see:

Muslims died in the WTC buildings. The Mosque is 2 blocks from the WTC ground Zero area. It is being built by a Sufi group, sufis are among those people that those who attacked the WTC attack, murder and whose graves they desecrate.

But I don't imagine this will dent your prejudice and fear.

Many are prejudiced regarding Islam. The question is, who is judging Islam unfairly and out of ignorance? Are those who've read its "sacred" texts "bigoted," or are those who know nothing of what Muhammad actually said and did misrepresenting the "great world religion"?

Here's my reply to someone in the latter group:

It is clear that even nine years after 9/11, nothing's "dented" your prejudice regarding Islam.

Despite propaganda to the contrary, Sufis do not reject jihad against non-Muslims*. No major school of Islamic jurisprudence does. If you want to find genuinely non-violent Muslims, you have to go to groups like the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, who are persecuted as apostates by their more orthodox coreligionists, even in modern, moderate, Muslim nations like Indonesia.

To your ad-hominem-in-place-of-argument: Even if I were prejudiced and fearful, what does that have to do with what Muslims do in obedience to their god and prophet? What about what I've written is false? What does "two blocks" have to do with whether or not we should allow a trophy mosque at Ground Zero? (By the way, "Mosque at Ground Zero" was the name its backers came up with, not its opposition.)

If I quote Muhammad, then where is the "prejudice"? If I cite nearly one and one-half millennia of slavery, rape, and slaughter in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, where is the "phobia"?

Let's examine your logic a bit: Some Muslims who weren't flying planes died in 9/11. Does that mean that their coreligionists flying the planes weren't Muslim? Weren't trying to kill and terrorize non-Muslims? Weren't acting on the words and deeds of their "Ideal Man," the genocidal pedophile Muhammad?

Just the other day a Muslima suicide bomber killed dozens of her fellow Muslims. For fourteen centuries, Sunni have slaughtered Shia and Shia Sunni. None of that internecine violence negates the fact that Muhammad was a bloodthirsty, child-raping tyrant. In fact, Muhammad's words and deeds explain that violence.

So, why do you defend Muhammad's "sacralized" crimes against God and Man? Do you do so out of "prejudice" or "fear"?

*Al-Ghazali was “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad."

Here he is on jihad and dhimma (by way of Andrew Bostom):

"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked . . . One may cut down their trees . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . they may steal as much food as they need . . . .

"[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle . . . Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] . . . on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant [sic] bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] . . . They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. [2] (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D)"

The three words of his obfuscation

2010-12-21T13:07:00.000-08:00

It's an impenetrable mystery. The Attorney General of the United States says that he stays up at night worrying about the next terrorist attack, but he seems to care little about why Muslims kill, referring cluelessly to their motivation being "for whatever reason."

Shouldn't an attorney general have at least a mild curiosity about the cause of 9/11 and more than sixteen thousand terrorist attacks since then?

"The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens -- raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born," he said.

In the last 24 months, Holder said, 126 people have been indicted on terrorist-related charges, Fifty of those people are American citizens.

"I think that what is most alarming to me is the totality of what we see, the attorney general said. "Whether it is an attempt to bomb the New York City subway system, an attempt to bring down an airplane over Detroit, an attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square ... I think that gives us a sense of the breadth of the challenges that we face, and the kinds of things that our enemy is trying to do."

Just who is "our enemy"? I'm stumped.

What possibly could be the common denominator between all these people trying to murder innocents? American citizenship?

Holder says many of these converts to al Qaeda have something in common: a link to radical cleric Anwar Al Awlaki, an American citizen himself.

That clears things up a bit; links to Awlaki cause terrorism. So, from where is he getting the teachings that turn men into bloodthirsty animals? Is a pajama-clad Awlaki in his basement just making things up?

Speaking of basements . . .

"The ability to go into your basement, turn on your computer, find a site that has this kind of hatred spewed ... they have an ability to take somebody who is perhaps just interested, perhaps just on the edge, and take them over to the other side," he said.

Do you have a basement? When you see a Christmas tree, is your first thought, "Kill!"? When you see a Nativity, do you immediately reach for your pants to detonate your underwear? Are you "just interested" in maiming and decapitating unbelievers? Does the sound of "Jingle Bells" cause uncontrollable, murderous rage to well up within you?

Me neither.

To combat the threat of Americans turning to al Qaeda and violence, the United States is monitoring scores of radicals and has set up stings to blunt the threat.

So, Homeland Security has narrowed down the list of potential terrorists to American citizens, people who use computers, and people with basements.

You know, the usual suspects.*

*It's curious that this time, Holder didn't include tea partiers, conservatives, returning military, the Founding Fathers, or octogenarians on his watch-list. Perhaps it was just an oversight.

Qatar funding jihad? Let's give them the World Cup!

2010-12-05T15:53:00.000-08:00

It turns out that those Religionists of Peace keep funding those perverting their great world religion.

When it emerged that most of the 19 were Saudis, the argument against attacking Saudi Arabia was that they were criminals acting independent of -- and contrary to -- the will of their nation. That made sense . . . until I learned that the ideology which motivated their mass murder was the Islam created and sustained in Arabia, the "religion" which fuels and funds the jihad against us.

What kind of "ally" supports murdering and maiming its friends? Could it be that President Bush should have spent less time holding hands with the house of Saud and more time studying Qur'an and Sunnah? Perhaps President Obama should stop bowing and start telling the truth about the Islam of his youth, the Qur'an he studied, the source of the "prettiest sound on Earth at sunset."

As long as our "leadership" continues to obfuscate -- intentionally in Obama's case -- for jihad and shari'a and demonize those who tell the truth about them, we'll continue bleeding.

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.

Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.

The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.

That's the problem, isn't it? Those "militants" aren't "disguised" as "holy pilgrims" at all. Rather, under Islam -- in obedience to Allah and in accord with Muhammad's example -- "militants" and "holy pilgrims" are one and the same.

One cable details how the Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005.

Meanwhile officials with the LeT's charity wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, travelled to Saudi Arabia seeking donations for new schools at vastly inflated costs – then siphoned off the excess money to fund militant operations.

Militants seeking donations often come during the hajj pilgrimage – "a major security loophole since pilgrims often travel with large amounts of cash and the Saudis cannot refuse them entry into Saudi Arabia". Even a small donation can go far: LeT operates on a budget of just $5.25m (£3.25m) a year, according to American estimates.

Saudi officials are often painted as reluctant partners. Clinton complained of the "ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".

But they do "treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority." That's why they're not stopping it.

Muslims, the Justice Department, petty liberal politicians (I know that's redundant), and your local community college are really going to hate this

2010-12-05T15:05:00.000-08:00

In an obvious hate crime against South Asians, this group manages to violate several of the Islamo-Leftists' cardinal rules. Not only are these people singing an actual Christmas song (no nonsense about obese trespassers dressed in red or Muhammad, Buddha, and Gandhi as analogues for Christ -- Liam Neeson, what are you thinking?), but they did it in a fast food court, in public, and they look happy!

Freedom of speech, assembly, and (possibly) religion, all in one excruciating apocalypse.

Merry Christmas!

Mohamud's hate comes from his namesake's

2010-11-30T13:00:00.000-08:00

Observations on Mohamud's hate:

Politics Daily executive editor Carl Cannon asks what made the would-be Portland bomber Mohamed Mohamud hate enough to attempt the mass murder of fellow Americans. It's a good question, and I'm glad Cannon is asking it, but his answer is, as you might expect, a little obscure.

Cannon provides only one explicit answer: "The geographical answer is Somalia..." Well, okay, but what is it about Somalia? You wouldn't know from Cannon's column that Mohamud immigrated to the Untied [sic] States at the age of five.

What is it about Somalia that produced Mohamud's murderous rage? Cannon observes: "[T]he FBI affidavit filed Friday pursuant to Mohamud's arrest quoted the suspect as telling an undercover agent that he had been committed to jihad since he was 15 years of age."

How many five-year-olds possess murderous hate?

I remember my first mass murder; it was my last day of preschool. How 'bout you?

What was Mohamud's reaction to entering Kindergarten here? "Elementary school: So many infidels, so little time"?

What is the best that you can hope for from adherents to a religion the god and founder of which command the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert?

What can you expect from those following a religion where its "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please its god both preached and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, religious and gender apartheid, polygyny, wife-beating, deceit, sedition, and treason?

Simply put, Mohamud's hate comes from Muhammad's hate:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

Allah's elephants

2010-11-23T20:32:00.000-08:00

Timothy Behrend offers the following in obfuscating for Muhammad's ideology from hell, claiming that someone merely relating the words and deeds of the genocidal pedophile and his followers misunderstands Islam. (Allah will not be pleased!)

Timothy and his coreligionists will have to understand if non-Muslims lack interest in the details of satan's secret handshake; we care about neither the direction nor frequency with which they bow to the underworld; zakat is no "charity" when it's denied to non-Muslims but not to mujahideen.

Behrend trumpets:

[. . .] claims, "I am blind to nothing", all the while mistaking a pachiderm's [sic] toenail for the entire elephant.

My reply:

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is another example of the unintentional (and tragic) irony of Islam.

Not only do Muslims take after Muhammad in being the opposite of thick-skinned ("pachyderm") -- Who are you calling 'thin-skinned'? I'll kill you! -- but it is they who wish us to notice only Islam's extremities and not the fact that its extremists are not really "extreme" at all but merely emulating Muhammad's abhorrent example.

(I must apologize for using "extremists" for the reason mentioned above, a fact with which TB has never dealt honestly. I use the term here only because it suited a clever turn-of-phrase.)

A more accurate analogy would be an elephant claiming that a toenail alone is True Elephant and then, when you point out that the nail's only a nail and not an accurate representation of an elephant at all, responds with, "What are you, some kind of racist elephantophobe? Don't mention the trunk. Or the tusks. Not the tail! The ears! Don't say anything about the ears! Stop telling the truth about elephants, or I'll kill you!"

Perpetually propagandizing pachyderms prevaricate petulantly in promoting their pedophile prophet.

Question everything, but don't use skepticism as an excuse for denying the answers when you find them (or they find you)

2010-11-21T15:30:00.000-08:00

One of the great intellectual crimes of the last one and one-half centuries has been the brainwashing of the West into making a false dichotomy between Faith and Reason. At least with regard to Christianity, it is not true that the two are mutually-exclusive; that one is based on Fact and the other emotion; that one is a matter of the heart and the other a matter of the mind; that one is objectively true and the other merely personal whim.

In fact, the Apostle Paul makes this point powerfully in declaring the obvious: If Christ has not risen from the dead, then our faith is futile and we Christians are to be pitied more than all men:

if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ . . . if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins . . . If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15).

Some reflections the nature and proper use of Reason, especially with regard to Faith, in response to a friend:

Official Roman Catholic teaching is that when the Pope defines a matter of faith or morals, he is infallible. (This does not mean that he doesn't sin or err in other matters, such as discipline or personal opinion).

I reject that doctrine, since it conflicts with the teachings of Christ: He tells the truth; it is up to us to recognize and admit that. No office makes a man infallible in any matter; it is only to the degree that the Pope -- or any man -- speaks accurately the words of Christ that he speaks Truth.

As for Luther, he was a miserable sinner, just like every pope, you, and me. His value was that at a time when the western church taught officially that Christians could literally pay (cash) to remove sins, when the Church of Rome preached that God was a terrible, malevolent judge waiting to torment us in hell forever unless we could in some way satisfy His justice on our own merit (an impossible task), when those entrusted with the responsibility to preach faithfully His Gospel instead preached doctrines of hell, Luther rediscovered the clear teachings of Scripture.

He found that God's justice was not in treating us as our sins deserve, but in declaring all of us just (justified, innocent, righteous) in Christ, through faith in Him.

Though all of us sin daily and much and deserve God's wrath, God has had mercy on all of us by sending His Son to become flesh, die for our sins, and rise from the dead. In Christ, God reconciled the whole world -- all of us -- to Himself. He forgives our sins, rescues us from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all people, as the words and promises of God declare.

Luther was completely fallible (just like us); his great contributions were restoring to preeminence in the Church the true Gospel and reviving the teaching that unless something can be shown to be true from Scripture, it has no place as doctrine in the Church.

As for Mr. Jefferson, he was partly correct: We should question everything, but we should not use our skepticism as an excuse for denying the answers when we find them. Or when they find us.

It appears from the quotation provided that Mr. Jefferson misunderstood the nature and purpose of Reason, since by definition, reason is a tool each man possesses to determine objective truth; an "Oracle given by heaven" comes from heaven and not from the mind of a man. (If Man could discover from within all that God intended to communicate to us, then why would He send his Son?)

Some misunderstand Luther's comments on Reason being "the devil's whore;" he did not mean that we should reject the use of reason or the objective truth we determine with it and live in ignorance and superstition, but that we should put Reason in its proper place, which is as a tool that we use to determine fact, especially with regard to understanding the Scriptures as God intended.

Many Christians err in subjugating Scripture to their contra- or extra-Biblical, man-made "traditions" (as in Roman Catholicism and American Evangelicalism) or to their own Reason (as in American Evangelicalism as derived from Calvin; you may recall what Jefferson said regarding Calvin's god). All of us sin, all of us err, and all of us have a responsibility to speak faithfully what God has revealed. So we are responsible not only for the uprightness of our decisions but also the rightness of our declarations.

As for the First Amendment? It opens the door to, invites in to supper, and then locks the door behind to shield from the wolves the skeptic, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, animist, pagan, agnostic, atheist, and truly peaceful Muslim.

So, what specific objections are in the way, my friend?

If the foundation is solid, the structure will be sound

2010-11-20T11:23:00.000-08:00

From here:

All law is the expression of someone's worldview; the American Constitution, which was set up to guarantee the protection of Individual Rights from all forms of tyranny -- was created by Christians (and a few others influenced heavily by Christianity).

Even Thomas Jefferson -- who apparently rejected the deity of Christ -- believed Christ's teachings to be the highest expression of morality and supreme to all others, used tax dollars to fund Indian education in Jesus' doctrines, and attended church services in Congress. He declared:
"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."
Such a system of government depends on the moral goodness, knowledge, and vigilance of its citizens. The recently-accelerated usurpation of our Constitution by power-hungry and condescending elected and judicial tyrants -- who believe that We the People exist to provide them power and position, rather than understanding that their position exists to protect our liberties -- is due not to any fault in our Constitution, but to the American people's ignorance, negligence, and greed.

By contrast, shari'a (Islamic law) -- which sacralizes and institutionalizes the vilest of atrocities, including pedophilia, torture, mutilation, slavery, rape, murder, wife-beating, polygyny, and religious and gender apartheid -- is founded on the words and deeds of Muhammad, whose example is considered by Allah a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please it. This is why no Islamic nation with any form of shari'a enjoys spiritual, cultural, philosophical, moral, technological, or material prosperity, and those non-Muslim nations with Muslim populations of any significance endure constant turmoil, depredations, and every form of insecurity.

Feckless Obama covering-up launch of Chinese missile near Los Angeles?

2010-11-19T15:52:00.000-08:00

Toxic children's toys are not the only things China's exporting to the U.S.:

[. . .]

Two governmental military experts with extensive experience working with missiles and computer security systems have examined the television video and conclude the mysterious contrail originating some 30 miles off the coast near Los Angeles did not come from a jet – but rather, they say the exhaust and the billowing plume emanated from a single source nozzle of a missile, probably made in China.

They further suggest the missile was fired from a submerged Chinese nuclear submarine off America's coast, and point out that the timing of the alleged Chinese missile shot coincided with an increasing confrontation between the U.S. and China, and was likely meant to send a message to Washington.

Indeed, the Federal Aviation Administration documents that there were no aircraft flying in the area at that time, the night of Nov. 8.

"The question that still must be answered is why NORAD's muted response was simply that North America was not threatened, and later our government approved the lame excuse that the picture recorded was simply an aircraft leaving a contrail," said retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Jim Cash.

A former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot and commander of an F-15 squadron and an F-16 wing, Cash was assigned to NORAD as an assistant director of operations at the Cheyenne Mountain complex near Colorado Springs, Colo., and is fully knowledgeable of NORAD procedures.

"There is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general in minutes, and passed to the president immediately," he said.

Even more ominously, cautioned Cash: "We must question the timing of this shot across our bow. The president was abroad being diplomatic, which means trying to placate China which is becoming overly concerned with our handling a totally out-of-control deficit in spending."

[. . .]

Madsen, who today is an investigative journalist, said the Pentagon is working "overtime with the media and on the Internet to cover up the latest debacle. However, even some reporters who cover the Pentagon full-time are beginning to question the Pentagon's version of events ... over the skies west of Los Angeles."

Dr. Lyle J. Rapacki of Sentinel Intelligence Services, LLC, said the contrail incident off the Los Angeles coast is "fraught with peril" due to the defense systems and protocols in place that should have detected the alleged submarine.

"The decision to officially announce that North America was not threatened," he said, "and all the excitement was due to an aircraft leaving a contrail is a decision that reaches beyond the four-star general level and goes directly to a decision made by the commander-in-chief."

Why America is doomed

2010-11-16T21:49:00.000-08:00

The problem with the German-Nazi/Islam-Islamism false dichotomy

2010-11-15T09:02:00.000-08:00

I have a problem with the German-Nazi/Islam-Islamism analogy: It just isn't true.

"German" is a nationality and/or race, but "Nazism" was the ideology, and that was the problem. There were Catholic and Lutheran Germans who risked (and gave) all to protect their fellow Germans who happened to be Jewish.

"Islam" is the ideology Muhammad created. "Islamism" is the Western non-Muslim's confused or craven extenuation of what Islam actually is.

The terrorists who rape and behead innocent Christian schoolgirls, slice the breasts off the women of villages who answer "Muslim or Christian?" wrongly, and detonate their underwear ("Fruit of the Boom"?) in worship of Allah are practicing Islam the way Muhammad intended.

Historical, Qur'anic, traditional, mainstream Islam is the problem, and anyone who claims to follow it is one of its agents, whether or not they decapitate their Jewish neighbor, keep prepubescent nine-year-old sex slaves as "wives," or throw dirt into the wide-open mouths of their receptive Hindu dhimmis when they pay jizya.

A more accurate analogy in defense of "moderate" Muslims would be:

Not all Nazis worked the concentration camps.

Ego Ruderico

2010-11-15T00:26:00.000-08:00

Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (c. 1043 – July 10, 1099), "El Cid Campeador," "The Lord, Master of Military Arts" or "The Champion," would sign his name, "Ego Ruderico," which translates to "I, Rodrigo."

A nobleman and great warrior in occupied Spain, he was banished by Alfonso, had his services rejected by two other Christian rulers, and decided to go to the Moors.

After helping Alfonso come to his senses by leading Muslim armies in a crushing defeat of his combined Christian forces in battle, Alfonso called him back from exile, and the rest is historia.

La firma del Cid

Anderson Cooper calls Dr. Phil a "tea-******"

2010-11-14T11:20:00.000-08:00

It wasn't "tea-partier."

Okay, not really, but he must have been thinking it, since Dr. Phil opposed Cooper's nanny-state mentality with common sense and basic morality: Parents are responsible for what their kids eat, not politicians.

Speaking of data, 100% of kids who ask their parents for Happy Meals . . . have parents.

If Muslims are merely the victims of "good white Christian folk," then why centuries of jihad in India?

2010-11-12T14:08:00.000-08:00

Here's Islam exercising its Constitutionally-protected religious liberties on Hindus.

Strangely enough, the Muslims below said and did what Muslims waging jihad over the last fourteen hundred years throughout the West -- including today's schoolgirl-beheading, underwear-detonating, miniskirt-raping Muslims -- say and do.

I wonder, what's the connection? Why all the violence against non-Muslims in India? Could it be India's colonies in the Middle East? (They didn't have any colonies there?) Prejudice against non-whites? (You mean, most Indians aren't "white"?) George W. Bush? (He wasn't born until the twentieth-century, and the jihad in India began in the eighth?)

No, the reason that Muslims rape, maim, enslave, and slaughter all around the world is because they all draw from Islam's "sacred" texts their inspiration and justification for jihad.

Notice the extraction of jizya -- and vile humiliation -- imposed on the conquered, "zimmi" (dhimmi) Hindus, and the binary option offered normally to polytheists: Convert or Die (emphasis mine):

The Sultán then asked, “How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tribute (kharáj-guzár) or givers of tribute (kharáj-dih)?” The Kází replied, “They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the zimmí (tribute-payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islám is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them under in subjection.' To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islám or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.’ No doctor but the great doctor (Hanífa), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islám.'”
As I have stated in this blog repeatedly, of the 4 schools of Islamic law, only one (Hanafi) even allows Hindus the right to live. The 3 others simply say that Hindus must be killed if they refuse to convert. That is what this Kazi is telling Ala-ud-din. Note also that he says that Hindus are the worst in the eyes of Allah. This is because in the Kuran, the mushriqs (idolators) are considered the worst of the worst, fit to be killed immediately. Kuran 9:5 is very explicit about this "slay the idolators where ever ye find them..." We Hindus must never forget this - that our fate as per orthodox Islam is beheading.
Now you tell me that it is all in accordance with law that the Hindus should be reduced to the most abject obedience.” Then the Sul-tán said, “Oh, doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast had no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal; be assured then that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have, therefore, given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.”
So Ala-ud-din says that he has put into place measures (heavy taxation etc.) in order to reduce Hindus to abject poverty and keep them in a state of permanent debasement.

This was the status of Hindus under Islamic rule. Of course, our school textbooks, written by Marxist liars, will portray this period as a "great flowering of a syncretic culture." I leave it to the reader to judge for themselves what kind of "syncretic culture" our textbooks are talking about.

That last part's pretty funny. Marxism in service to Islam.

I mean, it's not like a Muslim could ever become a Marxist, rise to power, and tax/spend/borrow a non-Muslim people into "abject poverty and . . . a state of permanent debasement," even giving a trillion dollars to a known jihadist government like Hamas, right? Right?

You'd have to be a racist Islamophobe frightened of the bogeyman-under-the-bed to even entertain such an idea. In fact, I'm probably a fascist imperialist who eats puppies just for posting this.

(But wait, Marxists love Islam.)

If someone won't believe Moses -- or their lyin' eyes -- then they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead

2010-11-12T10:49:00.000-08:00

Offered in response at a friend's excellent site:

one of the key claims of evolution -- namely, that the changes in life forms are the product of chance alone -- is not properly a scientific claim as it is not open to testing or verification.

The problem for Darwinian evolution is that all observation shows that it never occurs. Random genetic mutations happen, but they're normally harmful or fatal to the organism. They never add newer, more complex program/structure/function.

If Life is constantly evolving into newer, more complex forms, then how can anyone catch a coelacanth, a fish contemporaneous with the tyrant lizards?

If in five hundred million years, coelacanth evolved into . . . coelacanth, then how did some ape-like organism(s) evolve in only a few million years into Man?

The best Darwinists can do in defense of their creation myth is Lenski's E. Coli, and what do they show? After tens of thousands of generations, the bacteria evolved into . . . bacteria!

The Darwinists demonstrate their inability (or unwillingness) to deal honestly with facts also in how they address the T. Rex red blood cells discovered in Montana. At first, they did everything they could to avoid admitting that red blood cells were discovered in a fossil at least (according to them) 65 million years old. Then, rather than revise their assumptions with regard to dating, they instead suggested that protein has a longer shelf life than they realized!

(And really, moving the goalposts is all that's left to those who believe that Man arose accidentally from microbes by way of maggots, mice, and monkeys. That and name-calling.)

At what point of certainty do you accept a scientific finding?

Observable fact. Whether it's Science or Religion, without observable fact, all you've got is fiction.

No scientist observed the Big Bang (anyway, who's ever heard of explosions building things?). No Darwinist has ever observed abiogenesis (so much so, that they run from the topic). And no one's ever observed a bird hatch from a reptile egg.

Darwinism isn't Science, it's science fiction.

Yet we've got sixteen hundred years of eyewitness accounts of YHWH's intervening in human affairs -- culminating with the Crucifixion and Resurrection -- preserved by the societies in which they occurred.

Histories written, words recorded, monuments made, and worshiped as a god. Yet no one denies the historicity of Julius Caesar. Even allegedly-hostile, non-Christian history calling Christ a "sorcerer" acknowledges (unwillingly, no doubt) His miracles, and still the evolutionists mock.

Two thousand years ago, Paul observed that God's eternal power and divine nature are obvious in the Creation. If someone won't believe Moses -- or their lyin' eyes -- then they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead.

Christians have no reason to be ashamed. All have reasons to believe.

If national suicide is funny, then these guys are hilarious

2010-10-30T22:03:00.000-07:00

Somehow, undermining civilization is funnier when it's someone else's society crumbling at the hands of its own citizens. Is it too soon to declare that the clowns in Washington (real and elected) have got to go?

Always insightful commentary from the gents at Power Line, this time on today's Rally to Reassure the Desperate:

Stewart called on the nation to move forward 'concession by concession,' the way cars yield to one another when they merge from two lanes into one. I don't watch Stewart's show, so I don't know whether he applied this model when President Obama was ramming legislation like health care reform through Congress without making any real concessions to Republicans (not even Olympia Snowe). I do know that Stewart is now criticizing Obama not for insufficient willingness to compromise, but for failing to be even more transformative than he has been.

Stewart also pressed his theory that the 24 hour pundit cycle is making it harder to solve 'our problems.' He offered no analysis to support the implausible notion that cable news and talk shows -- of mostly poor quality to be sure, but also lightly watched for the most part -- are having such an effect.

Stewart seems to be obsessed with punditry. But I believe it washes over the body politic as a whole either unconsumed or taken (as Stewart's performances are) mostly for its entertainment value. The causes, and the most interesting symptoms, of our polarization (if that's what Stewart is complaining about) lie elsewhere.

JOHN adds: 'Polarization' consists of us conservatives and other non-liberals--80 percent of the population--resisting Obama's and Stewart's left-wing agenda.

A question for Muslims

2010-10-23T13:23:00.000-07:00

The Son of God committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He gave the world the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and forgives all sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who trust in Him.

Christ does all this for you.

What about Muhammad?

ABC, YouTube describe abortion as "gruesome," "shocking," and "disgusting," protest having to show its conclusion

2010-10-23T10:51:00.000-07:00

How long until those responsible for the disclaimers are fired for telling the truth?

If abortion is a "Constitutional right," if it is something to be protected, then why would viewing its product shock or disgust? Why do even its defenders consider it "gruesome"? Why would the television station protest that they were "forced" to air the ad? Why would they be reluctant to advertise a fundamental plank in the Democratic Party's platform?

The Left forces sexual deviance down throats of the public (it seems you can't watch a major network show or relevant news report without homosexual propaganda being pushed), and now it's found a new life partner in Islam (though it'll be shocked to find that its new lover is interested not in a long-term commitment but only mut'ah). Why not be proud of what they claim is a fundamental matter of equality and women's rights? If they're only lumps of tissue and not children, why hide anything?

Because those are babies.

Serial child butchers' work exposed; supporters can't help but tell the truth about it:

"An anti-abortion candidate running for D.C. delegate to the U.S. House is airing what is arguably one of this election cycle’s most provocative TV campaign ads, featuring extremely graphic images of aborted fetuses.

The 30-second ad for Missy Smith will air 24 times on local broadcast network affiliates across the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. It is so explicit that it's preceded by a 15-second warning that was added by the stations’ administrators.

Over gruesome images of bloody and lifeless premature bodies, Smith says she had two abortions but has turned against the practice.

“I was told it’s not a baby. They lied to me. They exploited me. Then I learned the truth and I’ve suffered for years,” she says. “And believe me I am angry. My heart has been ripped out. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Norton – they all support the murder of babies and the abuse of women by abortion. It’s time to make child killing illegal again.”

YouTube has pulled the video from its site, posting a notice that it amounted to “a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content.”

WJLA, the local ABC affiliate to first air the ad, noted in its disclaimer that the station was required to air the ad under federal law."

One holocaust exposed (if briefly; even the UK is less fiendish in its policy); now, if only the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of holocaust can receive the same treatment. Nine years of hiding what Islam wrought on 9/11 and in nearly 20,000 documented terrorist attacks since then, amplified now in an apparently coordinated media propaganda push in defense of Islam.

Break the dam. Release the river!

The West self-censors in defense of the murderous, monstrous misogynist Muhammad

2010-10-22T00:56:00.000-07:00

Geert Wilders endures prosecutorial persecution at the hands of his own government, and Juan Williams is fired and mocked publicly. Their crime? They told the truth about Islam (though I doubt Williams realizes what he intuitively understands about Islam; he too is now on the road to discovering Islam the way Muhammad intended).

In light of 9/11 and nearly 20,000 jihad attacks since then, Juan Williams' reaction to those emphasizing their Muslim identity on a plane is not only natural but rational. Their wardrobe choices indicate either their insensitivity, ignorance, perverseness, or intention.

Mr. Williams does err in this: McVeigh was neither Christian nor acting on Christ's commands. On the other hand, the 19 monsters who carried out 9/11 -- and all Muslims butchering, raping, and enslaving non-Muslims around the world for the last 1400 years -- do so in obedience to Allah's perfect, eternal word and in emulation of Muhammad's Allah-pleasing, "beautiful pattern of conduct."

There are moderate (or apostate, or heretical) Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. The sooner we recognize that Muhammad's fascism is the antithesis of Liberty and the mortal enemy of all free people, the sooner we can defend ourselves effectively.

"kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah . . . even if they are the People of the Book [Jews, Christians, and some others] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya [poll tax; essentially protection money]" (Qur'an 9) is incompatible with "all men are created equal . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness . . . ."

The truth will out.

Update: Pamela Geller observes saliently:

Williams is a liberal, and more times than not sides with the leftist/Islamic alliance. This is a lesson for the left, for the "queers for Palestine,' and the feminazis who stay silent in the wake of gender apartheid, clitorectomies, honor killings, etc. Know that you are next.

As long as the decent remain uninformed or silent, and as long as the perverse and the cowardly aid the enemy, we're all next.

Muslims and their Useful Idiot dhimmis coming out of the woodwork to defend NPR's jihad against Juan Williams

2010-10-22T00:40:00.000-07:00

A leftist accidentally told the truth today. Not only that, but he's black. NPR CEO Vivian Shiller can't allow that, can she?

Offered in response to someone claiming that Juan Williams had it coming:

"Juan believes that it is bad for someone to see themselves in terms of their religion, and if they do that they are to be feared. That is the comment of someone who has not risen above their own racism"

First, Williams was not commenting on all religions, he was commenting on Islam. I doubt that nuns make him sweat.

Second, Islam is an ideology, not a race. That anyone repeats that canard speaks only to their ignorance or deceitfulness.

To both you and the earlier poster worried about her husband: Once Muslims stop murdering non-Muslims to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" non-Muslims will stop being nervous around them. Stop the genocide, rape, and slavery and POOF! No more "discrimination."

Islam advances without guns or bombs as its adherents wage their cultural jihad, and your children are the target

2010-10-22T00:27:00.000-07:00

Considering the success Muslims have had infiltrating our government agencies, manipulating our media, and buying our politicians, it is clear that bin Laden and his less-subtle coreligionists acted recklessly. Without 9/11, America would have been boiled alive without a whimper.

Islam advances without guns or bombs as its adherents wage their cultural jihad, and your children are the target:

A reliable voting guide for this election

2010-10-19T18:45:00.000-07:00

If you want a prosperous and free America, you need to cast the right votes this November. There's one way to make sure that you get it right:

Find out whatever initiatives, propositions, candidates, etc. are supported by the unions -- especially the California Teachers Association -- and vote the opposite.

Burning the text responsible for nearly one and one-half millennia of genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery is "hate," but practicing such depravity -- that's religious liberty!

2010-10-16T23:33:00.000-07:00

Obvious racists burning Qur'an.
Do they know something we don't?

I didn't endorse Terry Jones' (apparent) publicity stunt (if he were acting on his convictions, the pile of refuse would have burned), and I don't advocate burning books in general, but has anyone noticed that all during the Islamophilic media's fabricated controversy (in defense of the Ground Zero mosque; it was no coincidence) over his plan to burn Qur'an, those enlightened defenders of the oppressed ignored the genocidal, pedophilic elephant in the room?

"After condemnations from around the world, Jones called off the burning."

Who's calling off "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight those who disbelieve . . . even if they are the People of the Book [Jews and Christians, mostly] . . . Paradise [belongs to those who] fight in his cause, and slay and are slain" (Qur'an 9)?

The West's political and media "leaders" are so blinded by their suicidal ignorance, guilt, and self-loathing, their hatred of Christianity, and their need for approval that rather than condemn Muhammad's medieval* Mein Kampf, they attack those who oppose its martial, monstrous, misogynistic mandates.

It is up to us to inform the ignorant, fire the treasonous, persuade the moderate, expose the deceitful, and oppose the devout. Vigorously.

*Another expression of the West's hatred of its Christian past, Islamic barbarity is compared often to Medieval Europe or Christianity's "early days," not realizing (or caring) that Christ was raising the dead six centuries before Muhammad was a gleam in satan's eye.

Robert Spencer speaks plain truth in one of Islam's Useful Idiot dhimmi factories

2010-10-10T21:24:00.000-07:00

From here:

Understanding Islam is not "hate," but defending Muhammad's depravity certainly is

2010-10-07T01:58:00.000-07:00

In response to another lying in defense of hell:

What does it say about you, Conor, that you feel the need to lie about someone in defense of sacralized genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery?

A "bigot" is someone who hates prejudicially; especially a racial or ethnic group. What do I hate? Whom have I prejudged? What race is Islam, Conor? What race am I?

Speaking of actual hatred, it is Islam which is "bigoted" against all who refuse the "invitation" to convert, requiring the use of any means necessary to enslave or slaughter them. Islam's authoritative texts show Muhammad to be -- in addition to bigot -- pedophile, butcher, and tyrant. Why aren't you attacking him? At least then you'd be telling the truth.

Islam is a set of beliefs; as such we have every right to evaluate the moral rectitude of its doctrines and practice.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm willing to bet that if its practitioners stop beheading schoolgirls (Indonesia), raping and murdering children (Beslan), and using planes as missiles (America) in service to Allah, non-Muslims will stop pointing out those facts.

I hate someone's raping little, prepubescent nine-year-olds and claiming not only that a god required it, but that imitating that behavior is god-pleasing. Why don't you, Conor?

I'm intolerant of someone's murdering innocents to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" just because his victims "warred against Allah" only by virtue of being non-Muslim. Why aren't you, Conor?

Why don't you hate sacralized genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery? Why do you feel the need to libel those who do?

Whose side are you on, anyway?

Lying Reza Aslan hijacks 9/11 by obfuscating for the ideology which inspired it

2010-10-03T19:05:00.000-07:00

Reza Aslan, part of the actual "hate group" whose members hijacked planes and used them as missiles on 9/11, plays on the Left's self-loathing and contempt for Western Civilization by attacking those who oppose Muhammad's murderous and incestuous ideology.

(It's no little irony that one of hell's salesmen would spread its lies at a site named after its chief occupant.)

In response to someone all-too-eager to be deceived by the shameless Aslan:

How suicidally-foolish one must be to deny obvious facts in service to an intolerant, hateful, murderous ideology which denies freedom of speech and conscience and equality under the law to females and non-Muslims.

It is neither hateful, racist, bigoted, nor irrational to oppose "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and sedition in the name of Muhammad's deity.

Rather than aid the downfall of Western Civilization and the extinction of the liberties you enjoy, educate yourselves regarding an ancient existential threat renewed in our day. There may be moderate Muslims (if Reza Aslan is one of them, why is he attacking those defending Life and Liberty?), but Islam itself is not moderate:
"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur'an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah's Apostle said, '. . . I have been made victorious with terror . . .'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Adding fuel to his bonfire in hell

2010-10-01T18:19:00.000-07:00

Smells like roast pig prophet.

Raping a child is hellish enough. When your victim is someone you made your sex slave at Allah's ordaining when she was only a little, nine-year-old prepubescent child, you've reached a new level of depravity. And then you beat her for not trusting you. Why would she doubt?

Worst of all, because the execrable Muhammad claimed to be an Allah-pleasing example for all Muslims to follow -- and indefensibly perverse Muslims believe him -- all that he said and did is prescriptive for the faithful for all time. For 'Aisha and many other Muslim females, that meant and means a lifetime of child rape, sex slavery, polygyny, beatings, and discrimination, all with the threat of "divine" retribution if you complain.

But Liberals love the wife-beating pedophile, defending his brutality as legitimate religious expression protected by the First Amendment.

Math even an "academic" can do

2010-09-29T00:40:00.000-07:00

A few lines in response to Timothy Behrend, a Muslim attacking those who rape, maim, and slaughter in Allah's name. No, scratch that. He's attacking the Biblical God.

From here:

(Notice, dear readers, that Timmy isn't dealing with you honestly. He thinks you're idiots. Rather than address forthrightly the jihad ideology and its Source and Sustenance -- the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad -- he's deflecting, making a false moral equivalence between YHWH and Muhammad, and by implication, a false moral equivalence between Jews/Christians and his coreligionists, which is itself an admission of their depravity. Thanks, for helping out, Timmy!)

Are ancient Hebrews blowing up innocent Gentiles to shouts of "YHWH is great!"? Trying to equate the God of the Bible with your fellow Muslims . . . is that supposed to elevate Muslims, denigrate YHWH, or shame us into silence? (How sad.)

The God of Abraham is the God of Moses. The difference between the Exodus/Canaan and jihad is that the Creator of the universe has a right to punish sin and to preserve His people in anticipation of the coming Savior of all. The God of Moses is not a genocidal, pedophilic warlord promising fellow degenerates a cosmic brothel with perpetual virgins and "boys like pearls" if they kill or are killed fighting to expand his empire. The God of Moses is the one Who gave humanity the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, not the one who "sacralized" their violation. He is the One Who became flesh, committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies. He is not the one who made a sex slave out of a little, prepubescent nine-year-old girl and claimed, "Allah made me do it."

One God gave His life to give heaven to all; one god gives heaven to those who take others' lives. The God Who punished sin by taking the firstborn of Egypt paid for the sins of all by giving up His One and Only Son. Even an "academic" can do that math, Tim.

You hoped that we would confuse the means for the end by focusing on your coreligionists' auto-detonating, not on the reason for their slaughtering non-Muslims, whatever the tactic. Of course, when Muslim armies are stronger, they use more conventional weapons of war. Terrorism is not the issue -- jihad is.

But of course, you knew that.

Everyone gets angry, but only one group of people flies planes into buildings while praising their deity

2010-09-20T20:48:00.000-07:00

More from here, this time in response to the claim that one can use Qur'an and Sunnah to persuade others that violence in Islam's name is illegitimate, a strategy effective with the uninformed but not with those who actually know Islam's texts, tenets, and timelines.

Every verse from Muhammad speaking of peace toward non-Muslims has been abrogated (the doctrine of Naskh) by the numerous later verses of blood:

Naskh. As long as Muslims read Islamic 'sacred' texts in-context, you lose -- we lose -- every time.

So, 'turmoil' causes jihad? Everyone gets angry. Only one group of people fly planes into buildings while praising their deity, finding ample scriptural justification for their atrocities.

Claiming that jihad has nothing to do with Islam -- some might call that "really stupid"

2010-09-20T18:58:00.000-07:00

In another feeble attempt to excuse Muhammad from responsibility for the hell he unleashed, a Muslim refers ambiguously to what his coreligionists do "in the name of Islam" as "really stupid."

The last time I checked, "boys being boys" did not include genocide, pedophilia, slavery, or treason.

Of course, I asked for clarification:

What do you call "really stupid"? Were they sticking their tongues into electrical outlets? Jumping off of garage roofs? Voting Democrat?

Or is that just your extenuating the evil practiced in obedience to Allah's command and in emulation of Muhammad's example?

And if those 'really stupid' acts are actually things like 'killing pagans,' 'striking terror into the hearts' of non-Muslims, or 'being harsh to unbelievers' -- all of which are Muhammad's commands -- then how is attribution to Islam anything but "valid"?

Answering the unthinkable question

2010-09-19T15:52:00.000-07:00

Offered in response to an apparent Muslim who answered "Islam is as Islam does" with "christianity is what christianity does...child molester," implying that Christianity is "just as bad as Islam," or worse:

Analogies can be helpful in showing the essence of a thing, and one might add clarity here: If this were 1943, you'd be arguing to firebomb London since murder occurs in the UK, too, rather than admitting the inhuman barbarism of National Socialism and the need to defeat it.

Evil is found in all societies: All non-Muslims sin and not all Muslims butcher, rape, and maim their neighbors to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" But the issue is not idiosyncratic religious expression which varies by knowledge, zeal, resources, and opportunity and may or may not reflect accurately the will of a particular deity, but what a god requires of its followers as defined by its authoritative texts.

If Islam really is a "religion of peace" no more likely to inspire violence than any other faith, then fine. Nuns must be patted-down by hijab-clad TSA employees, and we've all got to get body-scanned at the airport because there's just no way in the world of predicting who's going to explode until they're trying to land the plane.

If, however, Islam is a system of beliefs that requires the utter depravity committed in its name around the world for the last fourteen hundred years, then you're suggesting that we ignore that explosives-laden elephant-in-the-room and base our self-defense on your assertion that Christians are "just as bad." (At least that's an admission that Muslims rape children.)

This is the unthinkable question: Is Islamic "extremism" condoned, encouraged, or commanded by the religion, or not? If jihad and shari'a are legitimate expressions of Allah's will and Muhammad's life, then your moral equivalences and tu quoques are not only false, but murderous.

When a Christian does evil, he or she does so in violation of Christ's commands. When a Muslim rapes little, prepubescent nine-year-old girls, he does so in emulation of Muhammad's example and with Allah's approval, for Muhammad boasted that Allah not only willed his raping the baby but declared his actions to be a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him.

(Did you catch that? Allah calls Muhammad's raping little children "beautiful." Will you condemn Muhammad's making poor, little, prepubescent 'Aisha his sex slave beginning when she was only nine-years-old? If not, why not?)

Jesus committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies and warning that "anyone who causes a little one to sin" would be better off having a large stone tied around his neck and being thrown into the depths of the sea.

On the other hand, Muhammad "pleased Allah" by committing genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating (commanded, at least), polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, the murder of critics, deceit, blasphemy, sedition, and treason, claiming that "the devil made me do it, and so will you -- or else."

We face an existential threat, one that has devoured civilizations for nearly one and one-half millennia. Defending Islam by attacking Christianity is not only irrational and immoral, it sends more Muslim souls to hell and advances hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls.

Whose side are you on?

Update: Amazon's courageously deleted the above post. Whom does that aid?

First-century Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus confirms essential elements of the Apostles' testimony regarding Jesus of Nazareth

2010-09-12T19:32:00.000-07:00

Jesus declared that if someone won't believe Moses, they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead. For those who care about the truth and question honestly, the Prophets' foretelling and the Apostles' reporting should be enough; but if you need more, below is an authoritative, non-Christian, Jewish, Roman, extra-biblical historical reference to Jesus. Note that all three versions of the passage (one "reconstructed" -- that's scholar-speak for "I made stuff up!") confirm what the first Christians reported regarding Jesus.

Here's the first version of the passage from a Greek translation in which Josephus describes Christ as "wise," "a doer of wonderful works," "a teacher of men who receive the truth," attracting "many" Jews and Gentiles, and that "he appeared to them alive again the third day" (end notes in the original):

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Next is the same passage from an Arabic translation. This one adds "virtuous" to the descriptors. Even though a bit less personal in tone, it confirms the fact that His "many . . . disciples . . . reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive":

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

And for those who don't mind impugning the integrity of the Christian scribes who preserved Josephus' works, here is a "reconstruction" of the passage in a much more hostile tone. Even when mocking Christ and His followers, the same basic facts regarding Jesus are admitted: His miracles ("wizard of a man," "if indeed he may be called a man," "most monstrous of men," "having done wonders such as no man has ever done," "astonishing tricks"), His being called "Son of God" and "Messiah," His many followers ("seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation"), and His resurrection from the dead ("it seemed to them . . . he had appeared to them alive again"). Note also that even this fictional, antagonistic version of Josephus admits that the "divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him."

R. Eisler's "scholarly reconstruction":

Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists'[*] after him is not extinct.

*"Christ" is Greek for the Hebrew "Messiah."

Why shouldn't his magnum opus receive the same honor as its author?

2010-09-10T00:31:00.000-07:00

While I am not in favor of burning books, if any text does deserve a fiery end, it's Qur'an. Ironically, that's where Muhammad is, too.

Would anyone oppose a public burning of Mein Kampf? In 1943? Both Muhammad and Hitler were genocidally-anti-Semitic, wanted to rule the world, and preached a murderous, totalitarian, tribal supremacism. Yet Hitler was only a cheap, secular imitation of Muhammad. Adolf's six million Jews? Muhammad would call that "a start."

The only real difference between the two is that Hitler lacked Muhammad's "spirit" and imagination.* Since the genocidal pedophile cloaked his depravity in a stupid, paper-thin, obviously-false "religious" veneer, his hateful ideology has had a staying power that the fuhrer's lacked. In fact, Hitler lamented Germany's being a Christian nation rather than an Islamic one.

How can anyone call burning hell-in-a-book "disrespectful" or "boneheaded"? Why are both Left and Right trying to suppress anyone's defiance of evil? If "Americans" can burn American flags in acts of "patriotism," then why can't current and potential victims of Islam burn the book which slays them? When the epithet "Muslim" elicits the same shame, derision, and revulsion as does "Nazi," then the West will have a chance at defending what is left of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, of equality under the law for all regardless of creed or gender.

*Since Muhammad feared that his first audience with the demon "Gabriel" indicated that he was demon-possessed, I do not doubt that the idea for Allah and Islam did not come originally from within. Considering the completely self-serving nature of later "revelations" -- Mu' wants a new wife, so Allah gives him permission -- it's hard to know just what was from his allah and what was his own creation. Of course, with sin, all one needs is a push or two. Each time it gets a little easier until eventually, you end up something entirely different from what you thought or wished you were.

Sarah Palin protests burning the inspiration for 9/11, calling for tolerance of "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and treason

2010-09-08T23:51:00.000-07:00

Though I doubt she understands the implication of her advice. Demonstrating the same well-intentioned but suicidal ignorance of Islam infecting so many in the West, Sarah Palin calls burning the text singularly responsible for 9/11 an "insensitive and . . . unnecessary provocation." Funny, I thought putting a monument to the slaughter of innocents over their graves was "insensitive and unnecessary," not to mention the attack itself.

Would anyone complain about a public burning of Mein Kampf? Why, then, are so many distressed about a public condemnation of the single most hateful document in human history? Both Hitler and Muhammad were genocidally anti-Semitic, both wanted to rule the world, both sold their nations on the supremacy of their own tribes. Muhammad's genius (if you can call a genocidal pedophile "smart") -- and Hitler's failure of imagination -- was that the murderous prophet couched his totalitarian and totally-depraved ideology of rape and murder in the garb of "religion," which has given Islam a staying power that no secular system can equal.

And Fox 11 News unintentionally aided the cultural jihad today by hosting two guests -- a progressive rabbi and a conservative legal expert -- who also defended Qur'an. The "rabbi" equated the Florida pastor with Hitler, dredged up the Inquisition and Crusades, and referenced Maimonides as an example of a Jew persecuted by Christians but befriended by Muslims. This is the height of self-destructive moral inversion, historical illiteracy, and tragic irony since Maimonides lamented the severe persecution of Jews carried out by Muslims, the first Crusade was called in response to a desperate plea for help from eastern Christians under siege for centuries by jihad, and the pastor is protesting the ne plus ultra of murderous hatred and intolerance, the source and sustenance of a "religion" commended by Hitler.

Time to cross off another completely nescient politician. What can you expect when even our "experts" on Islam like Daniel Pipes, smart people on the Right like Newt Gingrich, and talk radios' stars like (the guests hosts for) Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher continue to perpetuate the nonsensical and nonexistent distinction between Islam and "Islamism"? There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

Sarah Palin protests against defying tyrants and destroying copies of the inspiration for 9/11:

"Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero"

So, building a monument to the slaughter of three thousand innocents is the moral equivalent of destroying copies of the book which inspired, informed, and mandated their murder?

If that's the best we've got, we're doomed.

"It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance," she continued. "Don’t feed that fire."

The fire is fed by Qur'an, which contains open-ended, universal commands to use any means necessary -- including violence -- to make the world Islam, mandates death for apostates, and along with Sunnah encourages the murder of anyone who criticizes Islam.

You know, "mean-spirited religious intolerance."

Ms. Palin and the others cowering in the corner pleading, "Don't call Islam violent, or Muslims might kill someone!" are behaving in a very un-American way -- Why is anyone encouraging a free man to self-censor in deference to murderous tyrants, again? What are we, French? (At least they're banning something Islamic.)

"If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive."

That's a logical fallacy in the first place: Proving someone else intolerant doesn't prove yourself tolerant. In the second, there was a time when Americans considered it a sacred duty to oppose tyranny. And now our media, politicians, and even our military are telling us to compromise our freedom to burn stuff because our enemies might get mad. What's next? Shari'a courts in the U.S.? Polygymy? Jizya? In that case, we're already following the mandates of shari'a, and the jihadists have won.

And as for General Petraeus's argument that burning Qur'ans will endanger our troops? Don't they have guns? Remove your suicidal Rules of Engagement and let the greatest military the world has ever known do its job. Have our warriors bled and died so that Muslims can threaten us into silence?

As long as the Democrats' hope is in "People are fickle," there's "a glimmer of hope" for the Republic

2010-09-06T20:38:00.000-07:00

Now that enough of the American people have awakened, Democrats appear to be distancing themselves from their core values, running away from the real-world effects of their shameless Statism and its Agent in the White House.

Don't be deceived: These politicians are not concerned about what's best for the nation, how many people they hurt with their oppressive, immoral, and irresponsible policies, enslaving our posterity, or what is morally good. They care only about maintaining their power.

In that respect, our elected tyrants are acting in perfect accord with their beliefs. White House Panicking Over Elections:

"Not only are they running away from President Obama, they're running away from being Democrats in some cases. In some races you actually see the Democratic candidates not really mentioning that they're a Democrat in their campaign ads," Cordes said.

Smith asked his guests to try to identify the source of the discontent: "From your experience on the Hill, have you heard any Democrats in private conversations say, 'You know what? We went down the wrong road. We went after health care. We went after so many other things on the Obama agenda as opposed to, in the end of the day, it's all about creating jobs?'"

The Obama agenda is our enemy's. It is bankrupting and disarming the Republic.

"Not only have we heard that, but we've been hearing it for months," said Cordes. "We heard it during the health care debate that dragged on for a year when the economy was so bad; they focused on health care and they focused on financial regulation.

Also known as "implementing socialism."

"Americans don't feel the impact of those pieces of legislation yet," she said. "There's a lot of frustration on Capitol Hill among Democrats who feel like the President led them down this path. They didn't all necessarily want to deal with health care. This was on the president's agenda, and then they felt like he kind of hung them out to dry."

That's poetic: Obama blamed Bush, and now Democrats are blaming Obama. It's too bad that these politicians' constituencies elected to Congress self-serving, unscrupulous sheep, rather than citizens.

And we are starting to "feel the impact of those pieces of legislation." That's why we're paying attention, and we're not happy.

"Not a single Democrat has run an ad in support of the health care bill since April," VandeHei noted. Cordes pointed out that Democrats are very unhappy about Mr. Obama's speech last week, only the second Oval Office prime time address in his presidency.

"What does he talk about? Not the economy, but Iraq," Cordes said. "And they say, 'No, we need to own the economy. If you’re going to use the power of your office to give a speech like that, talk about the economy."

VandeHei said the Republicans feel more powerful today than they've felt at any point in the last five or six years.

When Republicans had control of the White House and Congress, they behaved like Democrats. That's why those Republicans-in-Name-Only are out of power now and cannot be allowed back in office.

"On top of that, you have this enthusiasm gap that is killing Democrats."

Most Americans -- including Independents and some Democrats -- are not enthusiastic about destroying the greatest nation in the history of Man.

"If you look at the polling data from Gallup and from others, it shows that Republicans are fired up about this election. The liberal Democrats are not. They're not enthusiastic about it. When you have races that are decided by a couple hundred votes, in a House that can be very, very close, that matters," VandeHei said.

He also suggested that Democrats are much more pessimistic than they were merely three or four weeks ago. He cited a recent Gallup poll that showed Republicans with a 10-point generic edge. "They've been polling for 60 years. We've not seen a number like that."

That's good. The Republic's been around for more than two and one-quarter centuries, and it's never seen numbers like the Liberals have brought upon us, either.

Cordes pointed out that predictions show the Republicans can win 45 to 50 seats in the House, and they only need 39 seats to take control.

But VandeHei offered a glimmer of hope for President Obama and the Democrats.

"It's never too late," he said. "Think about how fickle we are in everything in life now, whether it's the cell phone that we choose or what we think about politics or what we do in our daily life. People are fickle.

"I still think you can start to pull people back," VandeHei said. "At the end of the day, it has to be that Obama has to find that magic. How can he get liberals to be as excited about him and about Democratic change as they were two years ago?"

Obama and his Congressional co-conspirators have gotten a lot of people excited about "Democratic change" this November.

And in 2012.

Obama's desire to use the fruits of your labor to increase his political power should come as no surprise

2010-08-31T19:09:00.000-07:00

In 2001, the future president confused protecting the rights of the individual with stealing your property. Notice his regret over the Supreme Court's not "break[ing] free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution," restrictions put in place to protect us from government.

Notice also his use of the mob ("political and community organizing and activities on the ground [. . .] the actual coalition of powers") to "bring about redistributive change." If one gang in black robes doesn't get us, the other gang in street clothes will. Tyrants dress up their malice and greed as "serving the people," but they're really only serving themselves.

Watch out for socialists' ideas of "political and social justice." It's anything but "just":

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Suicidally-ignorant bigots align with their future Islamic overlords in calling ivory "black" and agitating for freedom of beheading, child-rape, and slavery

2010-08-22T19:02:00.000-07:00

An obviously principled defense of religious liberty . . . if you call "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and treason "religion"

What more than blind hatred of Christianity -- and of America for retaining vestiges of its Christian founding principles, along with no small number of Christians -- spurs the godless left to rally in defense of "religious freedom" when the "religion" they're defending will take away not only their freedom, but their heads, their wives, and their daughters?

The truth is, when it is Christians or Jews expressing their religion freely (or engaging in just plain self-preservation, as in Israel's defense of its very existence or the effort to stop the Islamic house of ill-repute at Ground Zero) those defending the mosque now foam at the mouth about separation of church and state.

What in the world do socialists have in common with pseudo-religious, murdering tyrants?

And what race is Islam, anyway?

Deep down inside, many of these craven traitors must understand that when push comes to shove, and they've succeeded in diminishing the influence of Christianity in America so that Islam reigns, they'll be forced to make a choice: Convert, submit, or die. And they must know that when that time does come, they're going to convert. When faced with tyranny, cowards submit. And being the tyrants that many of them are, they'll delight in having a chance finally to stick it to "Good white Christian folk" of every ethnicity.

But these Useful Idiot dhimmis and their Muslim puppet masters misunderstand the American spirit because they are not American in any meaningful sense of the word. Americans do not submit. We do not surrender. We will not stand by idly while the rabidly-ignorant-and-vicious savage those we love.

Look, she misspelled "dead."
Good Muslims make "dead" neighbors.

Notice how the treasonous, clueless media support the cultural jihad in America, a movement which will do away ultimately with their freedom of the press (not that they're using it lately for anything other than undermining the Republic): "which would include a prayer room;" as if having one means that Muslims obeying the word of Allah and emulating Muhammad's example didn't bring down the towers and exterminate the three thousand.

In other words, what comfort to non-Muslims is a "prayer room" when its occupants will be praying for our subjugation and humiliation or slaughter? The mujahideen media gins up opposition to defense of the Republic by Americans opposing a monument to the nineteen and their murderous "god" at Ground Zero:

Opponents of the center, which would include a prayer room, say its proposed location is insensitive and fear it will harbor religious extremism. Those who back it cite the right to religious freedom and a need to promote tolerance and understanding.

Hundreds of opponents on Sunday chanted 'No Mosque,' sang patriotic songs and waved photographs of violent attacks by Islamic extremists.

One sign read: 'Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the terrorists were Muslim.'

Around the corner, supporters chanted: 'We don't care what bigots say, religious freedom is here to stay.'

A supporter, retired school teacher Ilene Kahn, said: 'This has become a political tool to preach hatred. The peace-loving Muslims did not attack us.'

What Ms. Kahn doesn't realize is what every Muslim knows: The mosque represents imperialistic, triumphalist, militant Islam. Also known as "just Islam." Yet, besides Miss America -- who adds treason to lewdness in Muslim eyes; I can hear that fatwa coming, it's coming 'round the bend -- where are the "peace-loving Muslims" opposing the mosque?

Ali Akram, a local doctor who supports the project, said: "The people who say the mosque is too close to Ground Zero, those are the same people that protest mosques in Brooklyn and Staten Island and Tennessee and Wisconsin and California. What radius will they go for?

How 'bout Mecca? But even then, that city belongs to the pagans from whom it was stolen.

Many in the crowd opposing the center were firefighters and construction workers, who carried signs reading: "This is Sacred Ground to New Yorkers."

And it should be to all non-Muslims of every religion and nationality.

One sign read: "Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Islam I Learned on 9/11."

That's pretty much it.

The mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv? Obama says, "Let's not jump to conclusions."

2010-08-20T23:48:00.000-07:00

Just hours after a report declaring that, "The Obama administration has assured Israel that Iran's process of converting nuclear material into a working weapon would take at least a year," the little caliph has a reactor.

Bolton was right:

Iranian and Russian nuclear technicians made final preparations to start up Iran's first reactor on Saturday after years of delays, an operation that will mark a milestone in what Tehran considers its right to produce nuclear energy.

Nationwide celebrations are planned for the fuel loading at the Bushehr facility in southern Iran, while Russia pledges to safeguard the plant and prevent spent nuclear fuel from being shifted to a possible weapons program.

Well, there's nothing to worry about then, is there?

And how much you wanna bet those celebrations included shouts of "Allahu akbar!" and "Khaybar! Khaybar!"?

'The startup operations will be a big success for Iran,' conservative lawmaker Javad Karimi said in Tehran. 'It also shows Iran's resolve and capability in pursuing its nuclear activities.'

The West has not sought to block the reactor startup as part of its confrontations over Iran's nuclear agenda, a clash that has resulted in repeated rounds of U.N. sanctions against Tehran. Washington and other nations do not specifically object to Tehran's ability to build peaceful reactors that are under international scrutiny."