Tuesday, December 09, 2008

British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing

Mark Steyn is not only brilliant, he is courageous. Or, brilliantly courageous. Or, courageously brilliant. However you slice it, Steyn tells the truth about the Religion of Death and our media's failure to do so.

Following are excerpts from his recent article on the latest jihad attack in Mumbai. Steyn exposes the cowardice of those entrusted to inform the public of facts pertinent to the preservation of their Life and Liberty.

One must ask, Where does Mr. Steyn's associate Hugh "Extremist, Fundamentalist, Islamicisicismists have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam" Hewitt fall? Is he silently accepting, too?

What of President Bush? He's confessed his belief that all gods are the same. That goes a long way to explaining seven-and-one-half years of "Religion of Peace" nonsense. Still working to advance Islam by obfuscation, it's good to see that the President hasn't become apathetic his last weeks in office. Doesn't he have an industry to nationalize?

What about Monarch-Elect Barack "I was never a Muslim except when I was one" Hussein?

Here's some clarity:
Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s columnar wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline: “British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.”

Indeed. And so it goes. This time round — Bombay — it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims “found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion.”

Oh, I don’t know about that. In fact, you’d be hard pressed from most news reports to figure out the bloodshed was “linked” to any religion, least of all one beginning with “I-“ and ending in “-slam.” In the three years since those British bombings, the media have more or less entirely abandoned the offending formulations — “Islamic terrorists,” “Muslim extremists” — and by the time of the assault on Bombay found it easier just to call the alleged perpetrators “militants” or “gunmen” or “teenage gunmen,” as in the opening line of this report in the Australian: “An Adelaide woman in India for her wedding is lucky to be alive after teenage gunmen ran amok…”

Kids today, eh? Always running amok in an aimless fashion.

The veteran British TV anchor Jon Snow, on the other hand, opted for the more cryptic locution “practitioners.” “Practitioners” of what, exactly?

Hard to say. And getting harder. Tom Gross produced a jaw-dropping round-up of Bombay media coverage: The discovery that, for the first time in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured, and killed produced from the New York Times a serene befuddlement: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”

Hmm. Greater Bombay forms one of the world’s five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An “accidental hostage scene” that one of the “practitioners” just happened to stumble upon? “I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?”

Meanwhile, the New Age guru Deepak Chopra laid all the blame on American foreign policy for “going after the wrong people” and inflaming moderates, and “that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay.”

Really? The inflammation just “appears”? Like a bad pimple? The “fairer” we get to the, ah, inflamed militant practitioners, the unfairer we get to everyone else. At the Chabad House, the murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as “ultra-Orthodox,” “ultra-” in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for “strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn’t have been over there in the first place.” Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two “inflamed moderates” entered the Chabad House, shouted “Allahu Akbar!,” tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young Rabbi’s pregnant wife. Their two-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mown down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.

The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an “accidental” hostage opportunity — and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it’s not a hostage situation, it’s a mass murder-in-waiting. The sole surviving “militant” revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance. The 28-year-old rabbi was Gavriel Holtzberg. His pregnant wife was Rivka Holtzberg. Their orphaned son is Moshe Holtzberg, and his brave nanny is Sandra Samuels. Remember their names, not because they’re any more important than the Indians, Britons, and Americans targeted in the attack on Bombay, but because they are an especially revealing glimpse into the pathologies of the perpetrators.

In a well-planned attack on iconic Bombay landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the “militants” nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city’s poor in a nondescript building. If they were just “teenage gunmen” or “militants” in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Bombay? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: “Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.”

And yet we take it for granted that Pakistani “militants” in a long-running border dispute with India would take time out of their hectic schedule to kill Jews. In going to ever more baroque lengths to avoid saying “Islamic” or “Muslim” or “terrorist,” we have somehow managed to internalize the pathologies of these men.

We are enjoined to be “understanding,” and we’re doing our best. A Minnesotan suicide bomber (now there’s a phrase) originally from Somalia returned to the old country and blew up himself and 29 other people last October. His family prevailed upon your government to have his parts (or as many of them as could be sifted from the debris) returned to the United States at taxpayer expense and buried in Burnsville Cemetery. Well, hey, in the current climate, what’s the big deal about a federal bailout of jihad operational expenses? If that’s not “too big to fail,” what is?

Last week, a Canadian critic reprimanded me for failing to understand that Muslims feel “vulnerable.” Au contraire, they project tremendous cultural confidence, as well they might: They’re the world’s fastest-growing population. A prominent British Muslim announced the other day that, when the United Kingdom becomes a Muslim state, non-Muslims will be required to wear insignia identifying them as infidels. If he’s feeling “vulnerable,” he’s doing a terrific job of covering it up.

We are told that the “vast majority” of the 1.6-1.8 billion Muslims (in Deepak Chopra’s estimate) are “moderate.” Maybe so, but they’re also quiet. And, as the AIDs activists used to say, “Silence=Acceptance.” It equals acceptance of the things done in the name of their faith. Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy. He was murdered in the name of Islam — “Allahu Akbar.”

I wrote in my book, America Alone, that “reforming” Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Koran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there’ll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there’ll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Bombay in the name of Allah, and that’s just business as usual. And, if it is somehow “understandable” that for the first time in history it’s no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope. Muslims, the AP headline informs us, “worry about image.” Not enough.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Muslim liars and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis violate jihad's victims postmortem

Allah's apologists come out to defend Muslim bloodlust here and here. In doing this, they profane the dead.

True courage is here.

Monday, December 01, 2008

Going from a “tiny minority of extremists” to “Muslims” in Mumbai

In response to one obfuscating for Allah here:

Only the ignorant and the deceitful deny the fact that the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of global jihad is the word of Allah and the example of his genocidal, pedophile prophet Mohammed.

One needs only to examine Islam’s “sacred” texts—Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira—to know this is true. Have you done that? If you have, then you are an accomplice to the slavery, rape, and slaughter of non-Muslims around the world. If not, why post in ignorance?

Either way, you are part of the problem, for Mohammed commanded:
“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).
It is true that most Muslims do not carry out physical violence against non-Muslims and apostates. However, there are a number of nonviolent means to establishing the rule of Allah over all mankind including political, economic, legal, demographic, academic, and media-related efforts. Include those who support violent jihad with their prayers, words, wealth, and wombs, and you’ve gone from a “tiny minority of extremists” to “Muslims.”

And what do you do with those Muslims who say that they reject jihad? How can you know? For unlike the Christian God, to Whom lying is a sin, Mohammed advocated falsehood saying, ”War is deceit,” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268). And since Allah calls Mohammed, “a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah” (Qur’an 33:21), lying in advancing the cause of Allah is a good thing.

As for your charge of bigotry, “Islamophobia” by definition means an “irrational fear of Islam.” What is irrational about reporting atrocities carried out in the name of Allah? Isn’t denying them the real crime? Why are you not outraged at Muslims obeying their god, rather than attacking Powerline for reporting their barbarism?

This is one of the few sites with the courage and veracity to tell the truth about jihad. The threat is urgent and real—just ask the victims of jihad in:


-7/7 London;

-3/11 Madrid;

-the USS Cole, our embassies, and the Khobar Towers;

-the first WTC attack;

-Beirut ‘83;

-the Barbary pirates;

-the Christians and animists enslaved, raped, and butchered in Sudan before Darfur became fashionable;

-modern Israel, since its inception;

-the 70-80 million Indians killed in earlier jihad offensives;

-all of Christian North Africa;

-The Holy Land, which was Jewish and Christian;

-Medieval Spain, which needed 750 years to regain its freedom from its Muslim overlords;

-the Balkans, whose beautiful boys were kidnapped, enslaved, and made into monsters for Allah;

-Zoroastrian Persia;

-Chaldean Iraq;


-and Asia Minor to Indonesia, where Christian schoolgirls are beheaded for Allah.
The clear exposition of the jihad threat should headline every newspaper, nightly news program, inaugural address, and State of the Union until its end. Our immigration, entitlement, energy, and national defense programs should be overhauled accordingly.

Following is just a sampling of the utter depravity thrust upon the world by Mohammed, and it’s the reason that over 12,000 terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11 alone and billions have been enslaved, raped, and slaughtered for Allah around the world since the seventh century:
“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).

“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).

”fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
This is that for which you obfuscate, Zelda.

With Islam, clarification brings more questions

A discussion yesterday with one whom I thought was a good-natured Muslim-In-Name-Only brings up new questions.

If he's had some education in "the book," and is familiar with commands to jihad:
Why the yelling?

Why the rage for my quoting Mohammed?

Why talk about Muslims killing me?

Why refer to monsters ("jihadists") as "my people"?

Why not condemn such evil? Why are you not outraged at Muslims obeying their god and their apologists, rather than attacking me?

And what of his wife? According to him, she's Muslim because she married a Muslim.
In case he hasn't heard, the United States is not under Islamic law.

Sunday, November 09, 2008

What will it be now with President-elect B. Hamas Obama taking power?

It began as a battle cry.

All images property of their individual owners. The song belongs to Toby Keith.

The God-given, unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness belong to all Men.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

America under an Obama Administration, and the antidote

If only the MSM had been half as honest.

Delivered 33 years ago, the speech below by Governor Ronald Reagan seems prescient. Change the names and dates, and this is what we should be hearing from now until 2012:
Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.

And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.

I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?

These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”

In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!

In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.

A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.

Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.

They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.

The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.

Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.

If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.

When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.

The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.

California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.

We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.

We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.

After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.

It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.

That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.

Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”

For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.

We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.

We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.

Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.

Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.

We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.

In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.

What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?

Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.

We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.

I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Barack Hussein Obama: Marxist tyrant, enemy of Liberty

In his own words:
Obama's comments on the same station at the same time suggested his disappointment that the U.S. Supreme Court never had gone beyond the constraints of the Constitution and established wealth redistribution plans.

In that tape, Obama is heard telling WBEZ in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
"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."
Here Farah sums it up:
Barack Obama is an enemy of the Constitution.

If he is elected president Nov. 4 and must swear to defend the Constitution in a swearing-in ceremony Jan. 20, he will not mean it – at least not the way most Americans would mean it.

Obama doesn't like the Constitution as it was written and amended. He sees it as defective, flawed, in need of an overhaul.

This is the document that defines who we are and what we believe as a nation. It is the document that limits government from becoming the oppressor it is in most other nations of the world. It is the document that sets Americans apart from others and binds Americans together. It is the document upon which our national heritage of liberty is based.

Listen to Barack Obama's own words. Read them – again and again. Compare them with what the Constitution actually says and means.

Don't let this dangerous, anti-American radical demagogue shred your Constitution.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Calvinism blasphemes the Living God

From here:

A kind lady writes of Romans 9:
"it then goes on to say that they are “prepared for destruction” and then contrasts them with “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”. If the contrast was not there, I think it could certainly be describing us all who at some point were objects of wrath, but the analogy fails for me if it’s not talking about two distinct groups of people."
In that particular verse there is a distinction being made, but it is not between those created for life and those predestined to hell. I bring up "objects of wrath" to point out that all of us are by nature in that category. Would the Calvinist say, "God created all of us for destruction, but then created some of us again for life"?

In our wisdom we assume sometimes that which God does not say, which is why He warns us to speak only His words.

What does God say? Does He have mercy on some as the Calvinists teach, or does He have mercy on all?
"For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32).
The author observes also,
"You say that Calvinism denies God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience to many. I think a Calvinist would say that it is God who does that."
The God of the Bible has had mercy on all but, as you state correctly, "a Calvinist would say it is God who does that."

Clearly, it is not God Who refuses His mercy to some, it is the Calvinist, by which he blasphemes the Living God.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Let him be president of Kenya. Or Indonesia.

But not America.

Despite his serious flaws, at least Bill Clinton was an American.

FactCheck.org (the Annenberg Political Fact Check, part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and tied to the Chicago Annenberg Project for which Obama worked and from which Obama directed millions of dollars to terrorist William Ayers, his murderer wife Bernardine Dorhn, Irreverend Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, and other anti-American radicals -- admits that Obama possessed Kenyan citizenship until the age of 21. (That might help to explain Obama's aiding Raila Odinga, Kenya's murderous Thug-in-Chief who promised Muslims there to institute Sharia.)

What of Indonesia? According to the registration card released by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Indonesia, B. Hussein Obama was a citizen of Indonesia.

Is he still?

Barack Hussein Obama, the next American/Kenyan/Indonesian president!

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Muslim monster and Obama benefactor Khalid al-Mansour incites coreligionists to dismember whites

You get the one, you get those other ones.

Voting for Obama? This is whom you support:

So, Allah wants white people butchered? Imagine if one of McCain's allies and benefactors made such a statement about any group of people. Conservatives are eviscerated over sincere, orthodox Christianity, where is the MSM over this?

How is it that Obama's mentors, advisers, and friends are racist, anti-Semitic, (mostly) Muslim terrorists?

This is more than a double standard. This is treason. A "person" like this has no place in a decent and free society.

Thomas Sowell nails the essential distinction between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin

Which is the essential distinction between Left and Right.

From here:
. . . The issue that is raised most often is [Sarah Palin's] relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency" if Senator John McCain were elected. But Barack Obama has even less experiencenone in an executive capacity — and his would itself be the heartbeat of the presidency if he were elected.

Sarah Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog, and he has had to explain away one after another of the astounding and vile people he has not merely "associated" with but has had political alliances with, and to whom he has directed the taxpayers' money and other money.

Sarah Palin has had executive experience — and the White House is the executive branch of government. We don't have to judge her by her rhetoric because she has a record.

We don't know what Barack Obama will actually do because he has actually done very little for which he was personally accountable. Even as a state legislator, he voted "present" innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues.

"Clean up the mess in Washington"? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers.

He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate's second largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae, and someone whose campaign has this year sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was at the heart of the subprime crisis.

[. . .]

Sarah Palin is the one real outsider among the four candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency on the Republican and Democratic tickets. Her whole career has been spent outside the Washington Beltway.

More than that, her whole life has been outside the realm familiar to the intelligentsia of the media. She didn't go to the big-name colleges and imbibe the heady atmosphere that leaves so many feeling that they are special folks. She doesn't talk the way they talk or think the way they think.

Worse yet, from the media's perspective, Sarah Palin does not seek their Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Much is made of Senator Joe Biden's "experience." But Frederick the Great said that experience matters only when valid conclusions are drawn from it.

Senator Biden's "experience" has been a long history of being on the wrong side of issue after issue in foreign policy. He was one of those Senators who voted to pull the plug on financial aid to South Vietnam, which was still defending itself from Communist invaders after the pullout of American troops.

Biden opposed Ronald Reagan's military buildup that helped win the Cold War. He opposed the surge in Iraq last year.

Sarah Palin will not be ready to become President of the United States on the first day that she and John McCain take office. Nobody is.

But being Vice President is a job that can allow a lot of time for studying, and everything about Governor Palin's career says that she is a bright gal with her head on straight. The country needs that far more than it needs people with glib answers to media "gotcha" questions.

Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, they are people whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country's fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have not spent decades working with people who hate America. Nor are they people whose judgments have been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway "experience."

It takes one to know one

So, does this make Gadhafi an Islamophobe?

And if Obama's got nothing to hide, why all the lies and obfuscation?

Here's the video:

An enemy of America exposes B. Hussein Obama.

Add Qaddafi to a list of supporters that includes Iran, Raila Odinga, Rashid Khalidi, and Bill Ayers, an adviser to a Saudi prince, a CAIR trial lawyer, and two members of his own campaign with ties to Muslim terrorist groups (not to mention "people from the Islamic world").

Apparently, they were all "just people from Obama's neighborhood."

When all your neighbors are terrorists, it's time to move.

From here:
Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim of Kenyan origins who studied in Islamic schools and whose campaign may have been financed by people in the Islamic and African worlds, Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi said during a recent televised national rally.

"There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama," said Gadhafi in little-noticed remarks he made at a rally marking the anniversary of the 1986 U.S. air raid on his country.

The remarks, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI, were aired on Al Jazeera in June.

"All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man," continued Gadhafi. "They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency. "We are hoping that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity, and in his faith, and that [he will know] that he has rights in America, and that he will change America from evil to good, and that America will establish relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the Arabs [sic]," Gadhafi said.

Gadhafi went on to lament statements Obama made at a June 4 address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in which the presidential candidate stated if he is elected president, "Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided." But it seems Gadhafi was not aware that the next day, during a CNN appearance, Obama explained he meant Jerusalem shouldn't be physically divided with a partition and was not referring to the city remaining in exclusively Jewish hands.

Stated Gadhafi: "But we were taken by surprise when our African Kenyan brother [Obama], who is an American national, made statements (about Jerusalem) that shocked all his supporters in the Arab world, in Africa, and in the Islamic world.

"We hope that this is merely an elections 'clearance sale,' as they say in Egypt - in other words, merely an elections lie. As you know, this is the farce of elections - a person lies and lies to people, just so that they will vote for him, and afterwards, when they say to him, 'You promised this and that,' he says: 'No, this was just elections propaganda.' This is the farce of democracy for you. He says: 'This was propaganda, and you thought I was being serious. I was fooling you to get your votes.'

[. . .]

Gadhafi went on to express his hope if elected Obama will implement a "one state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, meaning Israel would be flooded with millions of Palestinian Arabs who would terminate the country's Jewish nationality.
Sure sounds like he knows Obama.

Here's more details from people who were actually from Mr. Obama's neighborhood:
Obama repeatedly has denied he is a Muslim. His campaign site states: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."

But as WND has reported, public records in Indonesia listed Obama as a Muslim during his early years, and a number of childhood friends claimed to the media Obama was once a mosque-attending Muslim.

Obama's campaign several times has wavered in response to reporters queries regarding the senator's childhood faith.

Commenting on a recent Los Angeles Times report quoting a childhood friend stating Obama prayed in a mosque "something the presidential candidate said he never did," Obama's campaign released a statement explaining the senator "has never been a practicing Muslim."

Widely distributed reports have noted that in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta's Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as "L Soetoro Ma," worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army.

Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students but exempt them from studying religion. Obama's school documents, though, wrongly list him as being Indonesian.

After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled "also as a Muslim, according to documents" in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta.

Laotze blog, run by an American expatriate in Southeast Asia who visited the Besuki school, noted: "All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school, and a young 'Barry Soetoro,' being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam."

Indeed, in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," he acknowledged studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."

"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies," wrote Obama.

The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim.

Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.

"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher, but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old.

The Kaltim Post said Obama's teacher, named Hendri, died.

"I remember that he studied 'mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze.

Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study.

Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who described Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."

"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house. If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny," Amir said.

The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did.

[. . .]

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, notes the Tribune article "cited by liberal blogs as refuting claims Obama is Muslim" actually implies Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim and twice confirms Obama attended mosque services.

In a free-ranging interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."
As is the Black Speech of Mordor to an orc, or raging, spittle-laced German to a Nazi.
The Times' Nicholos Kristof wrote Obama recited, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent," the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.

The first few lines of the call to prayer state:
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet ...

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

By their fruit you will know him

You can tell a lot about a person by his friends.

William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Tony Rezko, Saul Alinsky, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour, Mazen Asbahi, James Johnson, Franklin Raines, and CAIR lawyer Joe Sandler. And don't forget socialist New Party and vote-stealing, Republic-undermining ACORN, fed by our own tax dollars.

Obama's benefactors, advisers, best friends, and mentors are terrorists, racists, radicals, thieves, and Muslims (a sort of "all the above"). Following is a summary of a report exposing the depth of Obama's ties to a Kenyan butcher who caters to Muslim terrorists.

If McCain and Palin don't expose this -- and you can be sure the Obama Media won't -- they will have failed America.

From WND, Obama's ties to ally of Muslims:
Obama and Odinga have been in direct contact since the senator's visit to Kenya in 2006.

Obama remained in active phone contact with Odinga through the New Hampshire Democratic Party primary in January. The Illinois senator continued to support Odinga, turning a blind eye to an agreement signed with Muslims and the post-election violence instigated as part of the campaign strategy.

Obama has advised Odinga on campaign strategy and helped the Kenyan politician raise money in the U.S. for his presidential campaign in the East African nation.

The memorandum of understanding signed Aug. 27, 2007, by Odinga, representing the Orange Democratic Movement, and Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, has been confirmed as a genuine document.

An eight-page document drafted for Odinga as an executive summary of his campaign strategy, entitled "Positioning and Marketing of the Orange Democratic Movement and the People's President – Hon. Raila A. Odinga," that was allegedly prepared by the party's core strategy team has also been verified as a valid document.

Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign strategy called for exploiting anti-Kikuyu tribal sentiments, claiming victory and charging voter fraud even if the campaign knew the election had been legitimately lost. Odinga also was willing to fan the flames of ethnic tribal tensions and use violence as a last resort by calling for mass action that led to the destruction of properties, injuries, loss of life and the displacement of over 500,000 Kenyans. The purpose was to compel the Electoral Commission of Kenya to declare him the winner or enable him to declare himself the winner by force.

Odinga has not completely fulfilled his campaign promises to the Muslims who voted for him, and he continues to cause concern among Kenyans, since he has not declared his position on the Islamic law in the country.
Alinsky would be proud. So would Mohammed.

Hail Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim-in-Chief!

Monday, September 22, 2008

The fox has ravaged the chickens and now wants Absolute Power over the henhouse, no questions asked

They came to bail-out the airlines, and I remained silent. They came to bail-out the automakers, and I looked the other way. They came to bail-out the banks, and I whimpered in a corner.

When the time came for me, there was no one left to bail me out.
Our nation's growing economic feudalism has harmed Americans for decades.

Today, the situation is worse than ever.

It's bad enough that our paper money has been only paper for so long. Add to that perpetually-increasing taxes and inflation, and the American taxpayer is oppressed. We are becoming little more than serfs working the land for our elitist political and economic overlords.

Stalin would be pleased.

Consider the latest real estate mortgage fiasco. Rather than letting lenders and borrowers suffer the natural consequences of their greed and stupidity (and the Liberal pressure to approve loans to people to whom they would not lend a dollar), the American government is forcing us free men -- at the point of a gun -- to pay for their foolishness.

Privatizing profits and socializing risk and loss, the American taxpayer must now finance corrupt CEO and Democratic operatives' bonuses. Where's the political party claiming to defend Liberty by defending us against government?

It's working feverishly to bind fast our chains.

The Muslim Brotherhood exhorts its coreligionists to:
“understand that their work 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.”
That's from "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," a 1991 presentation by Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram, by way of Jihad Watch. Among the Brotherhood's members and friends are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

By the time our politicians are done, they're won't be anything left for Muslims to destroy.

That'll show 'em!

I've read of rumors that Russia and Muslim Oil want to make their currencies based on oil and gold the default for global commerce. China owns ever-increasing chunks of America.

Russia, China, and the global jihad will take advantage of this treachery.

From Spiegel Online:
The most breathtaking aspect about this week s crisis though is that the life raft -- which Washington had only previously used to bail out the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- is being handed out by a government whose party usually fights against any form of government intervention. The policy is anchored in its party platform.

"I fear the government has passed the point of no return" financial historian Ron Chernow told the New York Times. We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams.
Michelle Malkin has much more on this treasonous undermining of the American Republic:
The battle over the Mother of All Bailouts is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. A few fiscal conservatives like GOP Rep. Mike Pence are daring to stand up against this disaster. And where is GOP Minority Leader John Boehner? Chastising the Right not to oppose it because “This is not a time for ideological purity.”

What?! When is there a better time for conservative ideological purity than now — now that we face the most massive taxpayer rescue in American history spearheaded by a phenomenally wrong-headed, ChiCom-promoting, liberal Democrat-installing, Gore global warming alarmist?

Hell, yes, this is a time for “ideological purity.”

Ideological principle.

Ideological courage.

Here is GOP Rep. Mike Pence’s full statement opposing the bailout sent out over the weekend:

“There are no easy answers but there are alternatives to massive government spending”

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Congressman Mike Pence released the following statement in response to the Bush Administration’s plan to bail out the financial market:

“Our financial markets are in turmoil and the Administration was right to call for decisive action to prevent further harm to our economy but nationalizing every bad mortgage in America is not the answer.

“The Administration’s request amounts to the largest corporate bailout in American history. Congress should act, but should act in a way that protects the integrity of our free market and protects the American taxpayer from more debt and higher taxes.

To have the freedom to succeed, we must preserve the freedom to fail. Any solution to our present crisis must preserve our essential economic freedom.

“Congress should delay consideration of any legislation until the facts and competing solutions can be fully debated, consider alternatives to massive government spending and figure out how to pay for the solution through budget cuts and reform instead of more debt or taxes.

“Congress must not hastily embrace a cure that may do more harm to our economy than the disease of bad debt

“Before any bailout is enacted, Congress must set itself on an unalterable path to truly overhaul these Government Sponsored Enterprises from the top down and hold those accountable, in and out of government, who drove them, and our financial sector, to the brink of bankruptcy. Some important work is already underway, but additional reforms are needed. Even now, we read that the Treasury Department is using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase many of these bad mortgages while it seeks the authority to purchase them all. Congress should also ensure that these GSEs can no longer pose a systemic risk to the entire economy while placing them on a brisk schedule to be fully private companies with no guarantee of taxpayer support in times of trouble. And Congress should immediately repeal the Affordable Housing Fund, which will actually siphon off capital from these under-capitalized entities, in order to fund left-wing, third party organizations.

“Next, Congress must consider all available options to put our nation’s economy back on its feet. There are no easy answers but there are alternatives to massive government spending.

“Indexing the Capital Gains tax to inflation (which the Treasury Department can do without any help from Congress), or suspending it for one year, would release an enormous amount of capitol into our economy. Passing an energy bill that lessens the price of gasoline at the pump through more domestic drilling, wind, solar, nuclear and conservation would bring relief to family budgets and create American jobs. Establishing an entitlement reform commission to develop bipartisan solutions to the crushing weight of entitlements would strengthen the American dollar.

“These and other alternatives to a massive federal bailout must be fully considered and debated before Congress acts.

“Finally, any new expenditure of taxpayer dollars should be paid for with fiscal discipline and reform. If Congress decides to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars on a corporate bailout, it must find budget savings to prevent that cost from being passed along to the American people.

“We must address this crisis with forethought, creativity and fiscal discipline. Protecting the American taxpayer from higher debt and taxes and renewing our belief in the power of the free market must be our guide.”
End all entitlements, corporate and private.

Here Michelle exposes the voracious Henry Paulson, who one week ago refused a bailout for Lehman Brothers and followed that immediately by offering a trillion of our dollars to "stabilize" this mess. He's a Democratic operative owned by the Chinese who appoints John Kerry and Barack Hussein Obama's henchmen (yet President Bush chose him!):
Both parties in Washington are about to screw us over on an unprecedented scale. They are threatening us with fiscal apocalypse if we don’t fork over $700 billion to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and allow him to dole it out to whomever he chooses in whatever amount he chooses — without public input or recourse. They are rushing like mad to cram this Mother of All Bailouts down our throats in the next 72-96 hours. And right there in the text of the proposal is this naked power grab: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
You know what Americans used to do to tyrants.

Now, we vote for them.

Tom Tancredo calls for common sense in dealing with Sharia here in America. Mike Pence calls for economic Liberty (and sanity).

Since both positions defend our God-given, unalienable rights, is there any chance Sarah Palin and her running mate will endorse these positions?

Saturday, September 20, 2008

You don't have to say, "Calvin," to promote his heresy

In response to comments from Stan:
The first insult you certainly intend is to use the term "god" (instead of "God")
Your god creates people for Hell. Your god did not pay for all men's sins. Your god does not work to save all men.

Your god is not the God of the Bible.
The second intended insult is the constant use of Calvin's name as if there is a connection on my end.
For not knowing Calvin, you sure argue Calvin.

You've defended at least Double Predestination, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace.
I have never referenced Calvin. I have always referenced Scripture.
You don't have to say, "Calvin," to promote his heresy.

You have taken one or two phrases, divorced them from their contexts, elevated your logic over the Word of God, and denied the clear testimony of the rest of Scripture.
You maintain an absolute, insistent denial that anyone can get their beliefs based on Scripture that differ from yours.
I've cited Scripture for everything I've said and I've asked you to do the same.

God speaks clearly.

If I am misrepresenting Scripture, show me from Scripture. If you cannot -- and if you cannot demonstrate from Scripture the truth of what you claim -- then I would suggest that some revising is in order.
In other words, you refuse to show gentleness and respect, demands from Peter (1 Peter 3:15).
"Gentleness and respect" is not a euphemism for "tolerate falsehood."

If you speak the words of God the way He intends them, we will agree.
Christ has reconciled and justified all. Those who reject His sacrifice for sins are on their own." Allow me a parallel. I go to the people to whom you owe large sums of money and I pay the debt. I don't simply make the payment available; I pay it. At this point, what do you owe? If those people came to you, then, and demanded payment, it wouldn't be fair or, worse, just. It would be criminal. Yet you are saying that all are justified and then arguing that some can still end up paying for the sin you say is paid for.
No, YHWH is saying that.

I quote the Word of God. You use flawed human analogies that end up contradicting His clear word.

Which pleases Him?

That you must resort to obviously flawed analogies demonstrates that your positions are without Scriptural support.

Your way has God holding people in Heaven against their will.
I read "justified" and understand it in its biblical term: "declared just before God". You cannot.
That's ironic.
Obviously you believe that a rebuke is far better than a dialog, that jumping in with both feet is better than actually trying to understand, and charity in all things is not a quality to practice.
That's charitable?
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that you won't understand me and I won't understand you. In deference to your strong distaste for biblical viewpoints that don't align with yours, I'll leave it at that.
Asking for you to produce Scriptural support for claims that blaspheme the Living God is not being mean.

You want me to agree with positions that contradict the clear Word of God.

I will not.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Who are the "right" Muslims?

M. Zuhdi Jasser argues here that those responsible for American security must work with Muslims who are not intent on waging jihad against us now or in the future, rather than the wolves in moderate's clothing with whom they've been engaged, groups like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc.

The only problem is, if Allah and his false prophet require the enslavement or murder of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, what is the difference between "radical" Islam and Islam, between "Islamicists" and moderate Muslims?

The only Muslims of whom I'm aware who explicitly reject offensive jihad against, and oppression of, non-Muslims are the Ahmadiyya (persecuted by the devout) and Muslims Against Sharia.

While Mr. Jasser's piece rightly distinguishes between peaceful, apolitical Muslims and terrorists and their supporters, he offers no reliable method of distinguishing between those among his coreligionists who reject permanently the subjugation of and warfare against non-Muslims and those who will do as their god and prophet commanded and practiced.

Even worse, he offers up the false distinction between "radical" Islam and Islam, as if there's an original, peaceful version of the Great World Religion Hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists.

(On a side note, I wish that the President had been making a sly jab with that line; considering that he's defiled the White House with his iftar dinners and his female associates with hijabs, it seems the joke's on us).

There is no conflict between "Islamism" and Islam. To claim one is suicidally-ignorant or maliciously-deceitful. But I do agree with his last line. It is time to discern where Muslims in America stand.

Unfortunately, since our leadership appears clueless about jihad (or in collusion with its agents), time is not on our side.
John Welter, Chief of the anaheim Police Department recently said this to Washington Post reporter, Karen De Young:
"Most people are very ignorant of what the Muslim faith is about, including me," Welter said. "I've got a book on Muslims for dummies; I can't be an expert on all the religions and cults and cultures in the world. But what I can do is be an expert in behavior that terrorists engage in prior to an attack."
This type of naiveté illustrates the basic problem in our current approach to engagement of the Muslim community. Our current national security problem with terrorism is not about finding behavior. That is only the most basic part of law enforcement. At the core of our national counterterrorism strategy should be a solid understanding of the ideologies and state of mind which precedes the radicalization and the motivation of terrorist behaviors.

Our security agencies understood the ideology of communism as we protected our nation during the Cold War. We should do so with even more sophistication and clarity now when it comes to the relationship of political Islam (Islamism) to militant Islamism and how they both differ from the spiritual path of Islam. The longer we avoid the centrality of political Islam in this equation, the longer it is going to take to win the war of ideas and preserve our security.

It is time for a national education and discussion on the conflict between Islamism and Islam. It is time to learn where national Muslim organizations and more importantly where the greater American Muslim population finds itself in that conflict.

Wishes of Happiness and Prosperity

The Apostle Paul wrote:
"what can be known about God is plain . . . to them, because God has shown it . . . 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" (Romans 1).
"Yeha Noha"

Here's some information about the song:







The words above are lyrics to the international hit Yeha-Noha (Wishes Of Happiness And Prosperity). This chant is part of the Enemy Way Chant or called in the Navajo language Ndaa'. It is a healing song sung to cleanse and heal Navajos, often warriors who have come in contact with ghosts. Navajo veterans of the United States Armed Forces use this ceremony to purify themselves after returning from the service. The title which is appropriate, as mentioned is sung to cleanse and heal warriors, now often a family or loved one and to simply wish them happiness and prosperity.

The title itself is interesting. The 'h' in Yeha is actually pronounced with an 'n' so instead of saying Yeha-Noha, it is pronounced as if saying "Yena-Noha."

This song is only supposed to be sung by a medicine man of the Navajo Nation. Kee Chee Jake is a singer of traditional Navajo songs and his voice is also heard on track 2 of Sacred Spirit with the song: Tor-Cheney-Nahana (Winter Ceremony). His vocals is featured again in "Sacred Spirit II, More Chants And Dances Of The Native Americans", on track 6: Yane-Heja-Hee. Yane-Heja-Hee is also another winter ceremony song. Other Kee Chee Jake vocals are heard on "Navajo Songs From Canyon De Chelly," and "Brule One Nation: A Tribal Gathering Of Voices."

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

A Calvinist by any other name would offer heresy as rank

Some observations from a someone defending a god which "intends/determines/predestines" people for Hell:
At some point your "stand for the truth" stops being a stand for the truth and mere abrasiveness.

When you get to that point, your "stand" gets lost in the noise of your unkindness, and no one will hear your version of "the truth". I only point that out so that you can perhaps express your opinion in a way that doesn't turn people off before hearing it.
That is an important consideration, one that I keep in mind always. I do not want to offend anyone unnecessarily.

At the same time, Truth is abrasive.

What, specifically, did I write that was unkind? What did I write that was untrue? If Calvin's heresies preach a false christ, should not that be exposed and condemned? Will equivocations, euphemisms, or silence save anyone from error, especially someone entrenched in it? Does not calling a spade a "spade," force us to deal squarely with the issue?

With what language would you address genocide, pedophilia, rape, or slavery? Are those "alternative points-of-view," or vile abominations, offenses to God and Nature? How much more that which destroys men's souls?

What pejoratives would you use for Someone who, when pointing out stubborn, hellish heresy, called its proponents "children of the devil," "white-washed tombs," and "vipers"? With what language would you denounce someone wishing that those preaching observance of the Mosaic Law as necessary for salvation "would go the whole way and emasculate themselves"?

Have I written anything like that of you? Have I spoken of you in terms you use below?
If God knows something, it is certain. It cannot not happen. If He knows that "Tom" will reject Christ for his entire life, he will. So, if God knows something, it is already determined to happen. Nothing can change it. That doesn't require "cause and effect". Still, it is certain to happen. So when you admit that God knows who will be saved and who will not be saved, both are certain. Therefore, it is determined. Look, if God determines (predestines) who will be saved as you admit, then those who are not in that predestination are certain not to be saved ... and that is "double predestination". (Please note that it is not symmetrical. Salvation takes effort on God's part. Damnation does not.)
There again, you're making God's knowledge into His responsibility. You're going from "something must happen because God knows it will happen" to "God causes it to happen." That is not Biblical.

According to your logic, God knew that Mohammed was going to start raping little Aisha when she was nine, so He "determined (predestined)" that, right?

What does God say? He says to believers that He predestined believers to eternal life. What does He say about unbelievers here? Nothing.

You're assuming, using human logic, something God does not say. In fact, He says the opposite of what you're claiming: "The Lord is . . . patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

Using your logic, since God wishes it, no one will perish, correct?
Next, I need to point out a serious difference of opinion between you and me. "Does not YHWH intend Life for all people? Did not Christ die for and justify all people?" These are rhetorical questions from you that assume a "Yes" answer from me ... but I don't agree with them.
You don't agree with what God says.
Here's why. If God intended Life for all people, then all people would have Life. God always does what He intends (Psa. 135:6, etc.).
God created a perfect world. God gave His perfect law. Who ruined that?

Even after our wickedness, He became flesh and offered Himself up as the perfect sacrifice for all so that all might live.

God has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ's body on the cross. Nothing more needs to be done. "It is finished."

Regarding human evil, you have to say that since it happens, God intends/determines/predestines it all, for nothing happens against His will, right?

But what does God say? Sin, death, and Hell are our doing. God doesn't force people to love Him:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not" (Matthew 23:37)!
Your theology makes the Word of God false, the death of Christ meaningless, and God Himself a liar.
If He does not, then He is not sovereign. Does God desire Life for all? Sure, but that isn't the same as "intend". That isn't the same as "His will". (And you are seriously misreading 2 Peter 3:9.) We know this, for example, because on one hand we have the certainty that God takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Eze. 33:11), but we also know that He certainly does damn them. That is, He has a desire to save them, but His will is to damn them.
That's a bit incoherent.

Using your logic, the god who forces people to believe in Him and causes them to commit the most heinous atrocities desires to save people but can't do it? Won't do it?

Is Calvin's god insane or just impotent?
The second question is "Did not Christ ... justify all people?" No, He did not. I know you would like to say that He did, but doing so will simply make God unjust. The best you can say is that He potentially justified all people, not actually. If you argue that He actually justified all people and then you agree that some people go to Hell, you have an unjust God who has received proper payment for sin and still exacts further payment for sin. That is, you have a God who damns justified people. That is not just, and that is not God.
Or, you could say only and all of what God says:
"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3)"

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (Romans 5).

"in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them . . ." (2 Corinthians).

"if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment . . ." (Hebrews 10).
Christ has reconciled and justified all. Those who reject His sacrifice for sins are on their own.
You are quite certain that there is no statement that God predestines who will not be saved. You are not satisfied with the undeniable fact that choosing who will be saved is also a choice of who will not.
So, you can't find any statement from God saying that He predestines people to Hell.

You're using fallible human logic which contradicts God. He does not say that He predestines people to Hell; He comforts Christians by assuring us that He predestined us to eternal life.

Here's an example of your error: In 1 John 4, God says to Christians that He, "sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Using your logic, that means that since Christ was the propitiation for our (believers) sins, He was not the propitiation for unbelievers' sins too, right?

But what does God say? "He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).
(Think about it like this for a moment. You arrive on a scene of a boat that capsized. Five people are in the water, drowning. You jump in to save them. You can only save so many before some of them drown. You choose, by whatever means you choose, to save as many as you can. It is unavoidable that by choosing to save some, the ones you didn't save were also chosen not to be saved.)
Your "logic" makes Christ a liar.

To make your analogy consistent with what God has revealed in His Word, He arrives on the scene to save everyone from drowning, but some say, "No, thanks, the water's fine. And who are you to say I need saving in the first place?"
Even when I hand you the Bible and point at Jude 1:4, you close your eyes and say, "Nope! That Scripture isn't in there!" You argue, "It doesn't say 'created by God for condemnation'." That doesn't solve your problem. It says they were already marked for condemnation before time.
First, I don't say it isn't there, I actually read it.

Second, as I noted in an earlier post, various translations (many done by Calvinists, and they've got no agenda, right?) render it as the condemnation being written beforehand.

That is not the same as God creating people for Hell (or denying salvation to many).
No one argues that God creates people for the sole purpose of condemnation. He creates people for His glory. Some of them display His glory in His salvation. Some of them display His glory in His power and wrath. None of them are made "for condemnation". But there are unavoidably some who were "marked out before time for this condemnation".
Following is the rest of Jude, beginning at verse 5. Note the reasons God gives for their condemnation. It was not His predetermining but their sin.

Note also that the condemnation for such people was set by God beforehand (prophesied by Enoch), not that God had created them for Hell:
". . . Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe . . . And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day . . . just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire . . .

"Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.

"these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively . . . they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.

"These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.

"It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

"These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.

"But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."

"It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit . . . ."
My guest's comments, continued:
Look, it is your belief that I don't read my Bible.
I've never said that.

I've encouraged you to say only and all of what God says.
Fine. You can remain in your ignorance.
Personal attacks are almost always a sign that one realizes they've got nothing on which to stand.
It is your belief that I take my beliefs from a guy named Calvin, one whom I've never met or read.
I pointed out the last time you wrote this that you're defending the same ideas.

If you're not defending Calvin, why are you offended?
I don't know your god either.
This one is a strange breed. He apparently has the capability to save all but chooses not to save all while choosing to save all but won't actually ... I don't know ... very strange.
Your confusion would end if you would just say what God says: Christ died for all, paid for all our sins, reconciled us all to His Father, and justified all men, but many reject that payment and so must pay out of their own pocket.
Maybe it's that in His sovereignty He is subservient to His creation -- they decide whether or not He will save them. He does all that He chooses to do and wills that all be saved but doesn't ... do ... that. Hmmm? He wills to pay for all sin at the cross and actually accomplishes this task but refuses to accept the payment His Son made on their behalf and damns some anyway.
No, they reject His payment for their sin. They damn themselves.

The facade crumbles. Do you realize you're mocking the Living God?
What??!! He knows who will come to Him and who will not and does nothing at all to change the list of who will not because He is either unable or unwilling while being both able and willing. So whose God is more capricious? Whose God is more malicious?
You call the death of Christ, "nothing." Vile.

The malice here is obvious, and it's coming from you.
I read my Bible and see an omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign Lord who always accomplishes what He intends.
Then you should say what He says.
Feel free to hate Calvin for whatever reasons you choose.
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
But please, please, stop insulting the God that I love, the God that I find in the pages of my Bible, the God you blaspheme intentionally. If you cannot discuss the God of the Bible that I know with some respect, charity, and courtesy -- you know ... like the Bible commands (1 Peter 3:15), then I will have to stop giving you access to comment on my blog (you know ... like the Bible commands - 2 Thess. 3:14).)
Your god intends/determines/predestines people for Hell. It is impossible to blaspheme such a god, especially by telling the truth.