Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Islamic propaganda on Blu-ray and in 3D

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)."


Thursday, December 01, 2011

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

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.

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Islam or "Islamism" the difference between Liberty and death

"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


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.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

A Resolution regarding Islam


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,

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

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

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.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

In memoriam, September 11, 2001 a.D.

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.

Saturday, August 06, 2011

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

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

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

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

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."

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

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"?

Monday, August 01, 2011

Statists in both parties selling out the American people

"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

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.

Obama the grinch that tried to steal Social Security

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."

Sunday, July 24, 2011

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

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.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Pakistani Muslim buying politicians from both sides of the aisle

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."

Saturday, July 16, 2011

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

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

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.

Friday, July 15, 2011

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

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

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."

Thursday, July 14, 2011

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

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

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%.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

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

"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

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

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.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Impossible Islamophobia

. . . 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.

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

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

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.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

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?"

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.*

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.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

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

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).

Sunday, March 13, 2011

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

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.

Monday, March 07, 2011

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

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"

Saturday, March 05, 2011

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

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).

Sunday, February 27, 2011

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

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.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

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

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?

Monday, February 21, 2011

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

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.