An answer for The Morning Answer

Good afternoon, Brian, Ben, and Elisha,

Recently you considered the question of whether or not Muslim terrorists represent Islam. In light of the many incitements to anti-Semitism, genocide, rape, and slavery found throughout Islam's foundational texts -- Qur'an, ahadith, and sira -- and the centuries of obedience to those mandates, it is clear that though there may be moderate Muslims, Islam itself is not moderate.

Islam's great exegete Ibn Kathir explains in his authoritative tafsir that even "disbelief" is considered "waging war" against Allah, a crime punishable by dismemberment and crucifixion (Qur'an 5:33).

Of course, there are those who self-identify as Muslim who do not support the harming of non-Muslims, but the vast majority of the faithful -- even in the West -- support the goals of the jihadists, even if they are unwilling to engage in violence themselves.

All major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shiite (nearly all of official Islam), uphold the commands to war against all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. In fact, Ahmadiyya Muslims -- who reject offensive warfare against non-Muslims -- are persecuted as apostates by their coreligionists, even in "modern" and "moderate" Islamic states like Indonesia.

This is because Islam's "Ideal Man" Muhammad -- its "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please Allah -- preached and practiced offensive warfare to make the world Islam. He commanded:

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And 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 8:38-39).

Muhammad's command and example have inspired his followers to war against the non-Muslim world -- as knowledge, zeal, and resources have allowed -- for nearly one and one-half millennia.

This is why Islam conquered pagan Arabia. This is why it exploded (pun intended) out of Arabia after Muhammad's too-late demise and swept through the Holy Land, North Africa, western and eastern Europe, Persia, greater India, western China, and southeast Asia. This is why the Rome of the East, Constantinople, and the greatest church in Christendom, the Hagia Sofia, were conquered, desecrated, and Islamized.

This is why Maimonides observed that no one was as much a scourge to Jews as were Muslims (so much for the "Golden Age of Islam"). This is why Queen Isabella warred to complete the liberation of her nation from eight hundred years of Islamic rule (a feat accomplished very early in the same year she funded a little trip by an Italian navigator named Columbus. Not coincidentally, Islam's hatred of Christians is one reason she was willing to pay for the opening of a western ocean route to the rest of Asia.)

This is why the first Crusade was called in defense of eastern Christianity, under attack for centuries by the spiritual ancestors of ISIL, Al Qaeda, the rest of the Islamic alphabet.

(And from where do you think that at least nominally Christian rulers got the idea to use the force of government in matters of conscience? How might centuries of "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57) and "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) have warped those languishing under Islamic oppression?)

This is why Vlad Dracula -- yes, Dracula ("Dracul" meaning "Dragon"; Vlad's father was a member of the Order of the Dragon, a group founded to defend Christianity from Islam) -- fought to repel the Ottoman Empire's invasion of the Balkans. This is why John Smith -- yes, Pocahontas' John Smith -- warred for Europe against Islam before arriving in the New World; his successes there earning him a family crest depicting the heads of the three Muslims he defeated in one-on-one combat.

This is why Thomas Jefferson and John Adams reported to Congress the Libyan ambassador's admission that the reason the Barbary States warred against nascent America was not because of imperialism, racism, or George W. Bush but because we were unbelievers who refused to submit to Muhammad and so all that we had and were belonged to Islam. This is why John Quincy Adams forcefully and eloquently contrasted Christianity and Islam as the difference between Heaven and hell. And this is why Winston Churchill observed that the world would never experience the end of slavery as long as anyone held Muhammad to be the prophet of a deity.

This is the reason for the Armenian Genocide. This is why it was not Hitler's pope but Hitler's mufti -- the grand mufti of Jerusalem -- who raised volunteers for a special Muslim SS division in the Balkans, advised Hitler on his handling of the Jews, and exhorted Nazis manning the concentration camps to do their "work" there diligently.

This is why 9/11, 7/7, and 3/11 were carried out by Muslims in Islam's name. This is why Christian schoolgirls are kidnapped, raped, enslaved, and beheaded in places as divergent as Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, and the UK.  This is why modern Israel was attacked repeatedly by its Muslim neighbors as soon as it was founded and why it  -- and Jews in general -- will never experience peace with the Islamic world.

No one can defeat an enemy they're afraid to name. The non-Muslim world needs the truth to be told about its ancient and existential enemy.

[...]

The racist party hates Reagan

Yes, there is little to distinguish many of the two parties' leaders, but the principles those politicians are supposed to represent couldn't be more diametric.

A response to this with credit to this:

A greater percentage of Congressional Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act.

You ought to ask the reasons for Reagan's positions, but you won't, since facts are anathema to you.

Blacks benefited from Reagan's economic policies more than Whites (color-based identifiers are revolting, but since you define people by the melanin-content of their skin cells, so be it).

Pat Buchanan (who's got his own issues with jihad and Israel) invented the term "Southern strategy"; what did he say about the "change" in Republicanism?

"We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense, and leave it to the ‘party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

If Southerners wanted to stay with the racist party, they'd have stayed Democrat. They went to the Republican Party because of the freedom issues Buchanan noted.

And right after Reagan's "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- where Democrat Michael Dukakis spoke eight years later -- he went to New York to speak before the Urban League.

Reagan opposed "affirmative action" -- racial quotas -- just like JFK, Bayard Rustin, and the Urban League board of directors. He hired Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell. And Reagan signed Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday into a national holiday and approved a 25-year extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Why do you hate "states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense"? Why do you hate America and its citizens of every hue?

Democrats depend on the obedience -- and ignorance -- of "minority" voters in fastening their chains on them.

You're either too gullible to realize it or too complicit to admit it.

Anything else is self-deception and a denial of the Word of God

God is holy and punishes sin, but He is not some vengeful judge standing far above us eager to condemn and destroy.

Instead, He is the One Who became flesh, died for the sins of the world, rose again, and stands alongside us now in our sufferings, struggles, burdens, temptations, and fears. He is not the "friend" that so many imagine Him to be -- as if He's some kind of semi-divine coffee buddy. The Son of God is our gracious Lord (and Brother) Who bears our weaknesses in Himself.

Christians often misinterpret God's Law and Gospel to their own great harm, denying themselves the comfort for which Christ paid with own blood. Following are some of those recent misunderstandings.

I. Who's the buyer?

In the parables of the Treasure in the Field and the Pearl of Great Price, who is the actor? Christ or man?

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it" (Matthew 13:44-46 ESV).

It is tempting to think that we are the one who finds, sells, and buys. (So much of what passes for modern "evangelicalism" comes down to this error.) But that would require us sinful, selfish, sick souls to be a whole lot stronger, mature, and holy than we really are. Than Scripture shows us to be. We're dead in our trespasses and sins, and "every intention of the thoughts of [our] heart[s are] only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5 ESV).

Christ Himself tells us over and over again that it is God Who seeks and saves the lost. What a comfort it is to know that even though we've earned His wrath, God seeks desperately for us wretched sinners not to destroy us, but to save us!

II. Choosing life?

What about Moses' command to "Choose life"? Christians turn this into a slogan, as if they somehow actually do it. Here's what Moses wrote (emphases added):

If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them" (Deuteronomy 30:16-20 ESV).

Did Israel keep God's commands and thereby "choose life"? No, they violated them and so chose death. And what was God's answer to His people's wickedness? He became flesh and died for the sins of the world.

III. Fear whom?

When Christ commanded His people, "do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28 ESV), to whom was He referring?

Not the devil, for where does God ever say to fear the enemy? But He does say over and over and over again to fear Him:

"Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel! I am the one who helps you, declares the LORD; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel" (Isaiah 41:14 ESV).

And,

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight" (Proverbs 9:10 ESV).

(Besides that, the devil does not rule in hell. He and his fellow fallen are "cast [...] into hell and committed [...] to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment" (2 Peter 2:4 ESV). They're on short leashes until their final, eternal punishment where they "will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night [...]" (Revelation 14:10-11 ESV).

Don't fear that.

IV. Our utmost?

What about the popular book, "My Utmost for His Highness"? The idea is not a Christian, since God calls our good deeds "filthy rags" (and that term is itself a heavy-duty euphemism).

We have nothing to offer God. Our "utmost" is worthless. We're beggars. Christ Himself told His Apostles -- the Apostles -- that, "So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty'" (Luke 17:10 ESV).

And I've never yet met anyone who's done "everything."

V. A final note

In judging a sermon -- or any other "Christian" message -- ask yourself: Who is the actor, God or man? On whom is the focus, us or Him? Is the speaker's interpretation consistent with what Scripture actually says? It is Gospel?

In other words, is the message essentially, "Christ for us," or is it something else? When the "greatest man born of women," John the Baptizer called the people of God to repentance, to whom did he point? Did he cry out, "Behold yourselves, contributors to your own salvation! Do your utmost!" or was his message, "Behold! The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world!"?

And did the Apostle Paul proclaim, "you have been saved through faith; you're on your own for the rest"?

It is human nature to want to play a part in our own salvation, even when we say we don't. Man either turns Gospel into Law, waters-down the Law, or denies his sin, all of which rob the believer of the comfort for which the Son of God paid so great a price.

Christ is Life, and He showed us the way:

"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 18:10-14 ESV).

The only time we should focus on ourselves is when we use the Law to evaluate our own thoughts, words, and deeds, an exercise which shows us only our sin and our need for the Savior. 

Anything else is self-deception and a denial of the Word of God.

Prelude to sacrifice or Sacrament?

One of the truly divine aspects of traditional, orthodox Lutheran liturgy -- and therefore, Biblical, Apostolic worship -- is the proper understanding of what actually occurs during a church service. So many Christians of various stripes look at the service as something we do (sacrifice), but that is completely inconsistent with -- and contrary to -- the Word of God.

Rather, worship is Christ's service to us (sacrament).

I. The Divine Service

Church is not a fitness club where we struggle and strive to improve. We're miserable sinners. What can a dead man do to make himself alive again? What can beggars do before a holy God that He would want it highlighted during His worship?

A better analogy is that church is a hospital in which the Great Physician Himself tends to our sin and sickness. That is what the Divine Service is. Christ comes to us sinners with His mercy through His Word (read, sung, recited, and preached), His "Washing of Rebirth and Renewal" (Baptism), and the feeding of God's people with His own Body and Blood (Communion).

Because we're such wicked sinners, because we're so given to self-aggrandizement, because we so easily lie to ourselves, each other, and God, every word, act, and symbol in worship has special import. So, we must ask ourselves: Does a particular element of the Service focus on Christ, His sacrifice for the life of the world, and His ongoing, unfathomable mercy (and our utter depravity and helplessness, as necessary), or does it focus on what we do to, for, or toward God?

In other words, is it Christ-centered, Christ-on-the-periphery, and Christ in-between, or does it focus on man? Who acts and who receives?

II. The Sacraments

And there's a categorical difference in the Divine Service between a purely-symbolic act and an actual practical function that may or may not have symbolic meaning.

For example, when the offering is brought forward, there is a lot of symbolism. The congregation offers its "firstfruits" for God's work, expresses gratitude for His blessings, and offers itself symbolically to God. But there is also the practical matter of the church needing money to carry on its work.

But what of bringing the elements of the Lord's Supper to the altar during the Offertory?

Thinking it was just a bit of "high church," it was surprising to hear last night that the bringing forward of the bread and wine (with the offering and prayer requests -- completely appropriate, by the way; God invites us graciously to pray on all occasions) during our service is a presentation of our firstfruits, an offering to God.

That's a problem because in the Lord's Supper, the Son of God gives of Himself freely to all. He does the work. We have nothing to contribute to it. Suggesting otherwise resembles strongly the Roman Catholic (mis)understanding of Communion as (in part) our sacrifice.

Considering the less-than-charitable (reductio ad absurdum is not very nice!) and unsatisfactory explanation offered for this practice, I began doing some research. It turns out that out of several pages of search results, all but one or two were links to Roman Catholic sites.

Now, just because something is Roman doesn't mean that it's wrong. But the Church of Rome's understanding of Communion as something in which we play a part (our "sacrifice") is inconsistent with the Gospel. (Don't worry; "evangelicals" deny God's grace also, but they do it by removing Christ and His promises from Communion entirely.)

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states in part (emphases mine throughout):

God has first blessed us with the gift of creation. Humans take those gifts given, wheat and grapes, and, using our creativity, make bread and wine. Then, we bring those gifts we have received and labored over to present them at the Altar / Table that they might be transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Finally, we receive them back in communion. The procession of the gifts says, in essence, “Behold the gifts God has given us!” The priest says the proper prayers aloud [...] the only prayer that is usually audible at this part of the Mass is the invitation of the presider, “Pray my brothers and sisters…” followed by response of the faithful, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…" The rite closes with the Prayer over the Offerings.

So, what is the Lutheran understanding of bringing forward the Bread and Wine? According to this article, the bread and wine are "your own [God's] gifts," an interpretation consistent with the Lord's Supper as sacrament, not sacrifice:

Remembering, therefore, his salutary command, his life-giving Passion and death, his glorious resurrection and ascension, and his promise to come again, we give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, not as we ought, but as we are able; and we implore you mercifully to accept our praise and thanksgiving, and, with your Word and Holy Spirit, to bless us, your servants, and these your own gifts of bread and wine; that we and all who share in the + body and blood of your Son may be filled with heavenly peace and joy, and receiving the forgiveness of sin, may be + sanctified in soul and body, and have our portion with all your saints.

But is that definitive? It is Wikipedia, after all. (Yes, I know.) The official Lutheran (LCMS) explanation of the Liturgy clarifies:

There is, however, an offering that we do make, both now in our worship and one day in heaven itself. It is the sacrifice of thanksgiving as we call on the name of the Lord (Ps. 116:17). In the Apology to the Augsburg Confession (Article 24), this eucharistic sacrifice is carefully distinguished from the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. The sacrifice for sins belongs to him alone. Every time we try to grab that honor for ourselves, we come up short--very short. But when we recognize our rightful place--that we are on the receiving end of God's merciful goodness--then the sacrifice of thanksgiving cannot help but pour forth from our lips as we give our thanks to the One who gave everything for us.

The giving of our firstfruits, whether it is money or possessions, time or talents, is also a part of this sacrifice of thanksgiving. Our mouths cannot remain separated from the rest of our bodies. If the thanksgiving is flowing from our lips, then it will also find expression in the giving of our very selves for the sake of Christ and the neighbor.

So, we do give something to God at this time: Our thanks in the form of our words and our "firstfruits" -- "money or possessions, time or talents." No mention of bread or wine. (Unlike today, the first Christians had to bring bread and wine to worship for the Lord's Supper, or there wouldn't have been any for Communion.)

What, if anything, did Luther have to say on the subject?

Communion has been called, "Holy food for holy people." Because Christ declares us holy, we are. But we are also sinners prone to self-deception. As long as we're on this side of Heaven, it might be better to refer to The Lord's Supper as "Holy food for wicked people."

Perhaps then pastors, Catholics, and Evangelicals will stop thinking of themselves as meritorious enough on their own to either contribute to the Lord's Supper or deny its power.

Not everyone in Silicon Valley's having a cold one with Barack "Jim Jones" Obama

What good is all the processing power in the world if you don't have any sense?

When Silicon Valley -- and Hollywood and other multibillionaires -- fund the destruction of the Republic, one small voice might not be much to get excited over.

But if dissent against Dear Leader crops up in even liberal strongholds, then perhaps there is hope for the nation.

It's good to see that not everyone in Silicon Valley's having a cold one with Barack "Jim Jones" Obama, from here and here.

Microsoft are the creators of the Blue Screen of Death, but we ought to be able to expect basic keyboard functionality from their operating systems, shouldn't we? Modifier keys sticking in Windows 8 (and other maladies)

As a long-time user of Microsoft operating systems, I've done my fair share of troubleshooting. But a problem cropped up early last year in Windows 8 that's been impossible to solve (though it was quiet for much of 2013). Searches show that it's been plaguing users running other versions of Windows as far back as 2006. Even the new Surface tablets are not immune.

Without warning or any discernable trigger, one or more modifier keys stick virtually. They're not sticking physically; the keyboard is clean and the keys work fine normally. (And yes, Sticky Keys are disabled.)

Often only restarting Explorer, singing out, or restarting will correct the issue.

(I've also experienced certain keys not working -- usually C, V, and H -- unless Shift is held down. Normally when this occurs, they'll work in some programs (like Notepad) but not in others (Firefox, Chrome, or the Metro Start screen).)

I've tried a variety of suggestions. Nothing's worked, not even a Repair Install for the tyrannical and broken Update 1. And Microsoft's support is worthless. Last night, one tech never appeared before transferring me to someone else. That tech seemed unable or unwilling to address the issue. And when I finally found someone competent, the Send button in the chat window stopped working, so I couldn't communicate with him.

Microsoft are the creators of the Blue Screen of Death, but we ought to be able to expect basic keyboard functionality in their operating systems, shouldn't we?

(Perhaps someone can let Satya Nadella know so that he can put an engineer or two on fixing this. And the fact that Windows Updates sometimes refuse to install if you've modified your Start Menu folders. Yes, the Start Menu that doesn't officially exist in Windows 8.)

Below is a complete listing of every workaround I've attempted (with observations; failures are crossed out) for keys sticking virtually in Windows 8 and 8.1 over the last one and one-half years:

Clean install of Windows 8.1: System ran cleanly for a week. Installed Java (for LibreOffice) and PowerDVD, played some of a movie file, quit, and the Windows key locked (though it wasn't visible on either touch keyboard). Right Windows key?

Coming out of sleep, Windows key was stuck. Opened G700 Logitech Gaming Software to see if key assignments had disappeared again. Started recording a MultiKey Macro and found that the right Windows key was stuck. This keyboard has no right Windows key.

After a few Lock Screens, the right Windows key released.

Then, C, V, and H stopped working in Chrome without the Shift key, and unable to search in Start screen.

Someone suggested that Chrome waiting to install an update was the problem, but this install was up-to-date.

Checked Windows Update; several are waiting to be installed.

(Get keyboard with right Windows key?)

Used KeyTweak to remap RWin to RCtrl. Windows also updated.

So far, so good ....

Uninstalled iTunes, Bonjour, Apple Software ....

Uninstalled Unity Web Player ....

Remove SetPoint, use X-Mouse

Disabled T650's SetPoint Zoom in and out

Press the right Windows key (None on this keyboard, so I can't try it.)

The malfunctions seem to occur often with Windows and Flash updates and/or YouTube videos (whether Firefox or Chrome).

Disable Microsoft Input Configuration Device

Keep keyboard in front of receiver (not blocked by television

Disable "Turn on Toggle Keys" and "Turn on Toggle Keys by holding down the NUM LOCK key for 5 seconds."

Unplug USB mouse (Event Viewer reporting angle errors)

Remove all keyboards from Device Manager, reboot

Pressing Ctrl and +

Press any Function key

Uninstall Logitech drivers and software; use X-Mouse

End jusched.exe in Task Manager

Moved DiNovo Edge USB receiver from USB hub to motherboard USB port

Removed T650 USB receiver

Disabled Touch Keyboard and Handwriting Panel Service

Killed Origin

Tapped Shift and Alt

Update of English Input Personalization Dictionary causing sticking?

Don't use Windows Magnifier

Uninstalled Classic Shell, ModernMix, and SkyShellEx.

Okay, so that didn't work. Alarms is gone, and still the keys locked. It was after a long time, and I got a low memory warning. Chrome was running along with iTunes, Origin, and Magnifier.

Pressing keys on physical and virtual keyboards -- and switching virtual keyboards -- seems to have worked ... temporarily.

PowerDVD, USB device, Logitech or Touch processes

Killing BZTRANSMIT64.EXE or BONJOUR released Win key. (Then it reappeared stuck in Touch Keyboard -- but not physically -- until switching to another Touch Keyboard)

Killing Bonjour, some Logitech processes, and turning the keyboard on and off made a difference (this time).

A pointer device did not report a valid unit of angular measurement?

A pointer device has no information about the monitor it is attached to?

A multi-touch device reported inconsistent contact information?

USB issue failing to load drivers?

VLC? Windows Update? Bztransmit64.exe? (overloaded system?)

Disable Intel xHCI mode (?) Enabled USB Legacy Support. Disabling Fast Boot in BIOS not an option with current motherboard; perhaps powering off computer completely (in order to access BIOS; did it clear a conflict Windows 8.1 was saving from restart to restart?) and/or enabling USB Legacy Support might have solved (?) the problem.

Disabled Sleep

Removed unknown from Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Language\Language options\Input Method

Uninstalled VirtualBox

Tap Win (Ctrl, Shift, Alt, hardware and virtual) several times

Detached G700 and T650 TouchPad

Removed Logitech extensions from Firefox, Chrome, and IE. Both browsers have been running for hours. The computer's entered and exited sleep several times.

Uninstalled Zune, iMon

After a Windows Update, no problems for a couple of days. (2/17/13)

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/948889

Uninstalled WizMouse

Uninstalled Firefox

Uninstalled and removed all traces of Logitech software (except Harmony); old versions conflicting? IE and Firefox extensions conflicting?

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/2678-63-ctrl-stuck-because-mouse-buttons-assignments

Twice keys stuck when removing DiNovo from base.

Desktop icons starting to stick; using On-screen Keyboard to press NumLock released them. Great!

Signed-in to LastPass?

Press Shift and type with On-Screen keyboard?

NumLock on in Accessibility On-Screen Keyboard?

Update Classic Shell?

Remove extra keyboards from Device Manager?

Device Manager, Human Interface Devices, disable Microsoft Input Configuration Device?

Hold F12 and Numlock (Numlock not present on DiNovo but is enabled on On-screen keyboard)?

Uninstall BetterDesktopTool? Dexpot?

Hold both Ctrl keys for five seconds?

Hold Ctrl + Shift for 15 seconds to release modifier key lock?

Press Fn and Ctrl keys?

Press Ctrl and Alt keys?

Hold both shift keys and F7 together for several seconds?

Control Panel, Language, Advanced Settings, Change Language Bar hot keys, Advanced Key Settings?

Press function key (e.g., F2), then Ctrl?

Shut down, remove AC power, hold power button for 30 seconds?

Remove tweak programs?

Hold both control keys at same time to reset keyboard BIOS?

Stop Human Interface Device Access service (hidserv)?

Enabled Microsoft Keyboard Filter (Services)

Despite "stockpiles" of Saddam's WMD in the hands of jihadists, the Left still blame Bush

The "irrational" Left is at it again, trying to provide cover for Obama's malfeasance by blaming his predecessor:

McCain is right; it could have been avoided. If, in the aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush had treated the arguments of Feith, McCain, and other advocates of the Iraq War with the disdain they deserved, we (and the Iraqis) wouldn’t be where we are today.

Iraq is imploding because Sunni and Shiite have warred against each other for more than a thousand years. This is what Islam does.

So, yes. Put the blame where it belongs. Some of it on a president who didn't know and didn't learn but had to do something in light of 9/11. (And he was right about Saddam's "stockpiles.") Pile a more generous helping on his successor who, being the "smartest president ever" and a(n allegedly) former Muslim, must have known what would occur but abandoned anyway gains made in Iraq at unfathomable cost in blood (and treasure).

But the bulk of the responsibility for the current "mess" in Iraq goes to the ideology that motivates so much death and destruction: Islam.

If only Muhammad's murderous misogyny were limited to shaking hands

It won't get published there -- we wouldn't want any moral clarity on an Islamic site; Muslims there might start thinking for themselves, maybe even listening to their consciences -- but here are my comments left in response to whether or not it is permissible for a Muslim man to shake a woman's hand:

Respect of women and their rights to their own body and whether or not they allow men to touch them is at the very core of this answer. Keep in mind, Allah is the one who knows best what he has created and what the needs and limits are for each of us. Shaking hands (and touching) members of the opposite sex when [not] closely related, is not permissable for Muslims according to the teachings of Islam.

Muhammad hated women (scroll down a bit here), which is why he preached and practiced polygyny, child sex slavery ('Aisha, the Mother of the Believers. And don't try to lie: she was only a poor, prepubescent nine-year-old when he started raping her as his favorite "wife"), sex slavery, rape, murder, wife-beating, and oppressive, discriminatory laws making women (and little girls) into chattel.

And don't try to justify his murderous misogyny by claiming it was done out of "respect" or "Allah knows best."

There's no one on Earth who doesn't know that Muhammad's laws regarding women are wrong for him.

What it really means to be a Democrat

Some new website's supposed to help you find out the best place to live based on your ideology.

I couldn't help noticing the bias in some of the categories, and -- being the generous person that I am -- I whipped up a few explanations to help readers understand just what they're voting for.

Of course, Republicans today are often just as bad. They're little more than Democrats-in-Conservatives'-clothing and therefore utterly redundant and useless.

(And no, this is not a blanket condemnation of all Democrats; John F. Kennedy, for example, lowered taxes, believed in a strong military, and opposed Communism.

You know, what Obama would call a "right-wing extremist.")

Originally from here [edited]:

What the categories really mean:

A Democrat: You prefer the party of slavery, Segregation, the KKK, and institutionalized racial division, animosity, exploitation, and dependence. (And now Islamophilia.)

Pro-choice: You support a woman's right to murder her unborn baby while he or she is still growing inside her.

Pro-Environment: You support politicians manipulating, taxing, and regulating free peoples based on junk "science" and outright fraud. And you don't realize that climate change has been occurring since long before SUVs or George Bush ever arrived on the scene. (Medieval Warming Period, anyone?)

Pro-Gun Control: You want to be helpless against both criminals and tyrants, a policy which history has proven always works out well. (Unless you're a celebrity or politician, in which case, you've got bodyguards -- or the U.S. military -- armed to the teeth to protect you and yours. Why do you think that your children are more valuable than ours, again?)

Pro-Tax: You're "pro-tax" only as long as others are paying the taxes, not you. Like Bill and Hillary Clinton, you take advantage of all sorts of loopholes to get out of paying your "fair share." (And don't mention charity: Neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden gave to others nearly as much as a Conservative family of five on one teachers' salary ... until they ran for and won the White House.)

It's "Joseph, husband of Mary," not "Mary, wife of Joseph," or What's in a surname? Nothing we'd recognize, at least until the Middle Ages

A pastor asked recently how Luke, the author of his eponymous Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, could have come up with such personal details of the events surrounding Christ's birth in his Christmas account, since he wasn't there. The answer, of course, is that he most likely interviewed Jesus' mother Mary. The pastor then asked for Mary's last name.

Knowing that people in those days didn't have last names, one participant answered "Theotokos" ("Mother of God"), because that title identifies Jesus' mother uniquely among every Mary, Miriam, Maryam, or Maria in human history.

The pastor's response? "That's a title, not a last name." His answer was that Mary's last name is "wife of Joseph."

Well, "wife of Joseph" is a title, too. And it doesn't appear in the New Testament. (Last names didn't exist until the Middle Ages.)

People did have appellations that indicated familial, occupational, or locational associations. John the Baptizer, Jesus of Nazareth, Leonardo da Vinci. In Matthew 1:16, Joseph -- Jesus' stepfather -- is referred to "Joseph the husband of Mary."

So, according to the pastor's logic, that would make Joseph's last name "the husband of Mary."

How do the Biblical texts actually refer to Mary, the mother of Jesus? The name "Mary" turns up fifty-four times in the ESV New Testament; only nineteen times does it refer to Jesus' mother. Here are a few examples:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18).

"And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh" (Matthew 2:11).

"to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child" (Luke 2:5).

"And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, 'Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed [...]'" (Luke 2:34).

And just "Mary" in a number of verses (e.g., Matthew 1:16, Mark 6:3, Luke 1:27, Acts 1:14). Interestingly, the Apostle John never refers to his adopted mom Mary by name (he uses "His mother" in John 19:25).

Adding context to Scripture can help us relate personally to the people, places, and events from so long ago, but it needs to be done truthfully. And a pastor should be the last one to err or worse, fabricate.

Loreena McKennitt's buying what they're selling in Marrakesh Night Market

A foreign culture, moonlight, exotic foods, mystery, a general excitement in a crowded market ... what's not to like?

How about genocidal anti-Semitism? Universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to convert? Sacralized gender oppression, including rape, wife-beating, polygyny, and worse-than-second-class-status?

I'm sure Ms. McKennitt is unaware of what she's been sold. (Imagine the buyer's remorse when she finally unwraps that package!)

A response to the artist's musings here:

"women are veiled to a great degree ... I am stuck by the sense of intrigue the environment creates; as much is concealed as is revealed ... "

I love Loreena McKennitt, but she is totally out of her element here. These musings indicate a Westerner on vacation romanticizing the "other," a naive stranger delighted in her "tolerance" and "openness" but substituting her imagination for the reality of where she is.

A love of exploration, other cultures, and human creativity is wonderful, but all of those -- love, exploration, culture, creativity -- are diametric to Islam.

In other words, there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. And that's why a veil -- which might be mysterious on Ingrid Bergman or Audrey Hepburn -- is, on the devout, merely a symbol of Muhammad's violent misogyny and genocidal intolerance.

A culture's being infected with "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) -- and assorted other crimes against humanity -- disqualifies it from being exotically-romantic, doesn't it?

"Jihad will continue until America is no more"

Who would make such a racist, bigoted, and hateful comment? Who's the colossal Islamophobe? Rush? Hannity? Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer? Nope.

Rush and Sean are still afraid of the "j" word (although Sean will use the word with an "-ist" at the end). And Geller and Spencer will one day be hailed as guardians of Western Civilization (if it survives).

No, that's the head of Islam in Iran. Perhaps our (allegedly) former-Muslim-in-Chief can explain to Khamenei how he misunderstands The-Religion-of-Peace-Say-Otherwise-and-I'll-Cut-Your-Head-Off and how he's "hijacking a great world religion." (If only Bush 43 had been making a veiled admission of Islam's guilt with that now-clearly unintentional pun!)

Whether it's Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, or Iran, Sunni or Shia, USC or UCLA's MSA, the goals are the same.

Anyway, here's more evidence that the "smartest president ever" who grew up Muslim and his lapdogs in the media are really only facilitating the end of civilization, a process they accelerate by allowing a nuclear Iran

In response to a question by a parliamentarian on how long this battle will continue, Khamenei said,“Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist. … This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. … This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and need for great strides.”

The only things "transparent" about liberals are their utter, craven dishonesty and homicidal malfeasance

So, Democrats are calling Obama "detached," "flat-footed," and "incompetent."

That makes them racist, right?

And now that the government's utter, fatal failures in caring for our national heroes are being exposed, the VA is going to "allow" more veterans to go to private medical facilities for help.

How magnanimous! How wise!

These are the people to whom the greedy, closet racists, and the apathetic have entrusted our medical care?

Way to go, America. You elected a "detached and flat-footed incompetent" to take away our health care -- not to mention our right to determine how best to spend our own resources -- from private industry only to return to it when they start killing us.

Well done!

Obvious truths?

Yes, if you're willing to read honestly.

Two replies, one offered to a Roman Catholic who is afraid to deal with the Word of God as the Word of God, and the other to an atheist who is either so uninformed or so perverse as to try to undermine the faith of the weak.

From here (pending moderation):

To Rose:

Facts are facts.

If the history -- even in the Old Testament -- isn't true, then you can't trust Christ, Who said that it is.

You're not only "not Sola Scriptura" -- by the way, neither are Southern Baptists, even though they [might] think they are -- you're not any Scriptura.

You need to rethink that.

To Hiker:

With regard to your so-called "contradictions":

1) The Creation accounts (not "stories") do not conflict; they focus on the event from two different perspectives.

Both accounts were written by the same author, Moses, who was educated in all the wisdom of the ancient world. Don't you think that he would have noticed that he was "contradicting" himself? And the people of ancient Israel, to whom this subject matter was Life-and-Death and who preserved Moses' writings as the very words of God -- don't you think someone (everyone!) would have noticed? "Hey, wait a minute, Moses ...."

2) "Two different flood stories"? Genesis is still written by Moses.

3) The fact that you have to ask where was Jesus born and where His parents lived indicates that you're either intellectually-lazy or cravenly-dishonest, since the answer is available to anyone who can read. [The tone of this line bothers me, but taken in context, it seems necessary, since Hiker is not asking honestly; he's trying to destroy Rose's faith.]

Christ was born in Bethlehem, in a manger. When the Magi (number unstated) find Him, it's close to two years later, which we know from the historical record: Herod ordered the slaughter of all male babies two-years-old and younger based on the time of Christ's birth he learned from the wise men:

"Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men" (Matthew 2:16).)

4) As for Bethlehem or Nazareth? No one's ever moved from one city to another, have they?

"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David [...]" (Luke 2:4). 

"And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth [...]" (Luke 2:39). 

5) Archaeology has uncovered another reign as governor/proconsul for someone named Quirinius, because, you know, no one's ever been named the same as someone else or served in an office twice.

[Luke calls Pontius Pilate "governor of Judea" in Luke 3, even though Pilate was "procurator"; Luke used the word to mean "one who governs" and not necessarily as a title. Luke also notes that the Luke 2 census was the "first" while Quirinius was governor; he notes a later census under Quirinius in Acts 5. Finally, Vardaman notes microletters on the Lapis Venetus also placing Quirinius as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia c. 12/11 B.C.]

Your objections are simplistic, dishonest, and stale. You're neither reading nor thinking for yourself, or you're hoping only to undermine the faith of others.

Perhaps, Hiker, it's time for you to reexamine your religion. And your motives.

Palin nails Domestic and Foreign Policy in one paragraph

Of course, this is an improper use of "baptism."

But her pointing out the utter hypocrisy of the murderous and craven Left and a proper response to those who would enslave or slaughter innocents merely for rejecting their "invitation" to convert to their genocidal ideology is moral and brilliant.

From here:

I do have to apologize for that. I am sorry. Not all intolerant, anti-freedom, leftist liberals are hypocrites. I'm kidding, yes they are. And they are not right. The policies that poke our allies in the eye and coddle adversaries instead of putting the fear of God in our enemies. Come on! Enemies who would utterly annihilate America. They obviously have information on plots to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them, can’t make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.

If you want to justify evil, just call someone a name, demonize them, and destroy their career

It's simple, really. Even if you treat others decently in your place of employment, for more than a decade, in an organization you helped found, don't express an opinion that the tyrannous Left doesn't like. Or else.

I guess "tolerance" extends only to your own peculiar predilections. Forget God. Forget Nature. Forget millennia of moral absolutes.

Well, time to find a new browser (until the next witch hunt).

Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO:

"Believing a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely hateful and that makes people uncomfortable."

Sin is not "love." And lust does not create a Constitutional right.

Refusing to legitimize an unnatural and perverse act by calling it "marriage" is not bigotry; refusing to redefine one of society's fundamental institutions is not "hateful" (but demonizing those who defend it is).

No one I know wants to deny anyone their license to play house with the consenting adult(s) of their choosing.

Not all adults have the right to marry. Would you abolish all barriers to it? Would you redefine the word into absurdity?

What about sodomy makes it sacrosanct to you? It's a behavior; as such, it is subject to moral judgment. Where do you draw the line? Incest? Polygyny? Zoophilia? Pedophilia? A young adult male and his browser? Why can't they all get "married"? What gives you the right to deny them their equality? Who are you to forbid their happiness? Why are you so hateful?

You don't have any problem making moral judgments against those whose morality you despise. That makes you a bigot, doesn't it?

This isn't about equal rights. This isn't about "letting people live like others."

This is about using the force of government -- and now, the marketplace -- to coerce the endorsement of that which is immoral and unnatural. This is about demonizing those whose positions you dislike.

And that doesn't even depend on religious doctrine -- though Christ's endorsement of one man, one woman, for life with the glorious possibility of children should be enough.

Nowhere in Nature does any species engage in exclusively-homosexual relationships. Even the Darwinist knows that exclusively-homosexual relationships mean the end of the species. And it's a violation of design; even a simple man knows that the relevant organs are made for ... other purposes.

And you won't let Eich "live his life like others."

Fascist. Hypocrite.

Why can't all deranged fatwas be limited to space travel?

If only Islam's perverse rulings were confined to other planets. This world would be a much better place.

But people like green_planet and Okay_a_Username won't allow it. Whether because of actual devotion to the genocidal pedophile Muhammad or just plain hatred of Christianity (everyone knows that Islam is its mortal enemy), the effect is the same: jihad advances and the only real defense against it is undermined.

As for the ruling itself? "religious leaders argue that making the trip would be tantamount to committing suicide, which all religions tend to frown upon."

Religions, yes. But Islam? It forbids suicide unless you're able to murder or maim non-Muslims in the process. Then you get paradise (Qur'an 9:111). (What a deal!)

Below are replies to the propaganda so popular with devout Muslims and their suicidally-nescient Useful Idiots, this time at Crave:

@green_planet

You're quite a liar, aren't you?

Yours is the standard Islamic apologist/Useful Idiot tu quoque: "Okay, Islam is bad, but Christianity is too."

First, thanks for admitting that Islam kills.

Second, yes, it is true that Christians commit evil often, but it is not true that the religions "teach the same crap." Neither is it true that Islam is only "accused" of the same teachings.

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

On the other hand, Muhammad preached and practiced genocide, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, polygyny, wife-beating, theft, arson, deceit, sedition, treason, and blasphemy, warning his followers, "Allah made me do it, and you will too, or else!"

No, there is no comparison.

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

@Okay_a_Username
That is not only historically-illiterate, it is perverse.

Islam has been raping, enslaving, and slaughtering non-Muslims (and those they consider not-Muslim-enough) for nearly one and one-half millennia as knowledge, zeal, and resources allow, including 9/11 and twenty-two thousand jihad attacks since.

They do so because Muhammad preached and practiced it.

Hitler hated Christianity but admired Islam. He allied with Muslims to slaughter Jews, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who exhorted Nazis in the concentration camps to do their "work" diligently.

As for Yugoslavia, even if atrocities were committed against Muslims, it was in defense against jihad and because of similar atrocities committed against them, a fact of which you are conveniently ignorant (or worse, you choose to omit).

There's only one group of people on Earth detonating their shoes, underwear, intestines, and breasts in efforts to murder and maim "unbelievers."

"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 [...] if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me [...]'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

You have to "blame the religion."

And here are a few more comments on that article from other misunderstanderers of Islam and ... some pithy replies:

ascpgh Feb 22, 2014
How about strapping a belt bomb on and going to a local market to set it off? How about taking control of an airliner and deliberately crashing it into buildings?

Going to Mars is suicide and they are "against" that? If so centrally powerful and unified voice of Islam, why have they waited this long to address suicide as being on the bad list of weekend activities for Muslims?

dixiedog1944 Feb 22, 2014
@ascpgh Hey, you gotta' blow some people up to make suicide worth it. They would probably starve to death before a U.S. mission arrived and they could attack. Simple economics.

SantiagoMatamoros Feb 22, 2014
@dixiedog1944 @ascpgh

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?" (Qur'an 9:111).

Ed9065 Feb 22, 2014
@SantiagoMatamoros @dixiedog1944 @ascpgh Yeah, extremists tend to like twisting the Qur'an/bible/Torah/whatever to what they want you to do.

SantiagoMatamoros Mar 5, 2014
@Ed9065

How much does "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) have to be twisted in order to get the faithful to ... you know ... kill pagans wherever they find them?

keizer790 Feb 23, 2014
Extremist groups are not the normal, average folks of them! Generalizing is never a good idea

SantiagoMatamoros Mar 5, 2014
@keizer790

Who's "generalizing"?

Muhammad is the one who commanded his followers to "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Blame him.

Ninaj1990 Feb 23, 2014
@ascpgh An ingnorant comment.... the terrorists don't know a thing about the religion they claim to follow.... and before making comments like this educate yourself a little.

SantiagoMatamoros Mar 5, 2014
@Ninaj1990

The genocidal pedophile Muhammad boasted, "I have been made victorious with terror ..." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

It sounds like the "terrorists" know a whole lot more about your religion than you do.

Or, perhaps, they're just more honest.

An alternative to the anti-American in the White House

He talks a good game.

Just when you thought "man-to-man" was a basketball reference

Speaking of March Madness, I went to a basketball game -- actually, it was a fan-site post on UCLA's recent victory in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament -- and a kerfuffle over orientation broke out.

I offered a sympathetic (and gentle) affirmation of Truth and for my efforts received the obligatory, unthinking, and knee-jerk accusation of bigotry.

What, exactly, puts a literally-deviant (and immoral) act beyond reproach? How does a lust constitute a moral good?

Here's my reply to someone who prefers demonizing over debate:

How is recognizing that I'm no better than anyone else a "mask"? And how does argumentum ad hominem prove the rectitude of your position?

As for "prejudice"? That's not only absurd, it's intellectual suicide:

-Every act is subject to moral judgment; in fact, you just made one. Doesn't that make you "prejudiced"?

-Why is it that you can make moral judgments and I can't? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

-Is there any act or "relationship" of which you would not approve? If so, then why would you deny anyone their happiness? Doesn't that make you a bigot?

-What makes your "truth" more valid than mine? If there exists no absolute, objective standard of right and wrong, then you are completely unable to condemn anyone else's perspective, because what's true for them is just as "true" as what's true for you.

But an absolute, objective morality exists. Christ endorsed one man and one woman for life.

Our sinfulness does not negate that.

Update: samollie followed up with:

I never judged you. I stated a fact, not anyone's version of truth. I respect the fact that you believe nobody believes to be mistreated, yet you are still judging another because of your faith. That is prejudice, automatically handing down judgment no matter what. We'll leave it at that and agree to disagree.

To which I replied:

You did judge me; "prejudice" is a moral evaluation.

(And since you don't know me, that would make you ... prejudiced.)

The word means "judging before knowing"; since I'm judging no one but merely affirming an objective moral truth regarding a behavior, your use of "prejudice" is inapt (at best; at worst it's a craven attempt to demonize me and quash criticism of something you consider sacrosanct).

Rather than engage in ad hominem attacks, why don't you prove the rectitude of your position?

A fictional president introducing a fictional explanation of origins

From here:

A fictional president introducing a fictional explanation of origins?

Brilliant.

The foundation of Science is observation and experimentation. No one has ever observed Life arise apart from Life and Life's programs. No one has ever witnessed program arise by accident from nothing. No one has ever shown that cells form magically from the muck by only random, natural processes. And no one can answer the question: When the first human being arose, with whom did he or she reproduce?

Darwinists take one fact -- that random, minor genetic mutations occur -- and from it leap nonsensically to the conclusion that from a first accidental cell all Life -- including us -- arose.

Besides the fact that genetic mutations are typically either neutral, harmful, or deadly to an organism, no one's ever seen a mutation result in newer, more complex program, structure, or function.

Neither do living things evolve into significantly-different forms; Life is stable, even over the Darwinists' "millions" of years. After almost 400 million years, the coelacanth is a coelacanth. After several million years, the ancient camel's DNA matches the modern camel's. Geckos and frogs on a hidden plateau in Australia undisturbed for millions of years are still only geckos and frogs. Darwin's finches were still ... finches. And after tens of thousands of generations, Lenski's E. coli evolved into ... E. coli with an eating disorder. (They're still bacteria.)

To believe Darwin's creation myth, not only must you believe that for which no evidence exists, but you have to deny what you know is empirically-true. You have to violate Science's fundamental tenets.

Darwin's creation myth is atheistic naturalism conducting its own Inquisition. It's Gaia in a lab coat.

It isn't Science; it's science fiction.

Calling Conservative Republican a "conservative Republican" is like calling the genocidal pedophile Muhammad a "prophet"

One of the more rabid examples of the psychosis necessary to defend the murderous child-rapist Muhammad.

From here:

More absurd ad hominem?

For the benefit of anyone else who might come across this, I use translations by Muslims, for Muslims, and I provide specific citations so that everyone can determine for themselves who is telling the truth and who is defending the genocidal pedophile Muhammad.

Speaking of the inaptly-named "conservative republican," we're waiting still for him to explain why he defends "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) and "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said: or Six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old" (Abu Dawud Book 11, Hadith 2116).

Don't hold your breath, folks, Con has demonstrated a pathological aversion to facts.

Degenerate Leftists make Republican promoting bad theology look like Philipp Melanchthon

The theology of the candidate mentioned in the article is abysmal -- homosexuality, along with every other sin, comes from the heart -- but those opposing her in defense of perversion and tyranny are even worse.

Offered in response to one of the deranged Left's foot-soldiers, here:

How absurd.

It is the Democratic Party which is the major political bastion of racism (and sexism) in the United States. That's why any "minorities" -- but especially Blacks, because of their near total compliance with your party's electoral dictates -- are eviscerated if they think for themselves and do anything but what their masters on the Left demand of them.

The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act (a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported it), and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

But the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, Segregation, the KKK (its terrorist wing), and institutionalized racial division, demagoguery, and exploitation.

Here's a blunt obliteration of the absurd manipulation by which so many of your elected representatives have risen to and maintained power:

"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

--Booker T. Washington.

An argument for the PC as the ultimate gaming system

The first time your favorite console manufacturer comes out with a newer and more powerful system and all the games you already own don't run on it, you realize the value of the PC.

Besides the flexibility to upgrade hardware for better performance and more features, older -- and just plain old -- games still run just as well as (or better than) when they were new.

And the experience isn't limited to the office/study; connect the PC to a 65" plasma and an AV receiver with 5.1 surround sound, put the hardware into an HTPC-format case, and add a wireless mouse and keyboard, a couple of Logitech Cordless Rumblepad 2s, and a 22" touchscreen monitor on the side, and you've got an unrivaled gaming experience.

Besides everything else the PC can do. Which is everything.

And here's one last argument for the PC:

Can your console do this?

It really just does everything.

World hijab day?

Wonderful.

So, when's World Swastika Day?

Islamic barbarism isn't an aberration, it's devotion

Bomb threats around the world over a movie? Must be Islam.

I wouldn't use "wacky" to describe jihadists. "Obedient" is more accurate.

From here:

I remember being in the theater with my brother to see THE SENTINEL when we first saw the trailer for what is now call, THE MESSAGE. Originally it was entitled, MUHAMMAD: MESSENGER OF GOD. We were excited only because it looked so grand and epic - also because my brother was history major. (He was offered to teach and Hunter University and later offered a position with the Federal Government to work in foreign American embassies) We never did get to see since it was taken out of the theaters due to bomb threats in other parts of the world and especially when a NY theater was taken hostage by savage Muslims (big surprise!) because the film contained "the prophet's" name and were against his story being told in the film - yet the producer/director was Muslim. Anyway. That was 1977 and not much has changed - and I bet most thought the attack on the Twin Towers was the first terrorist attack on America, let alone NY. NOT. These people have always been wacky my brother always stated.

Ironically, the story of Muhammad is exponentially more frightening than any fictional mass-murdering psychopath's: according to Islam's own "sacred" texts, Muhammad preached and practiced genocide, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, theft, vandalism, sedition, treason, and blasphemy and warned his followers, "Allah made me do it, and you will, too, or else!"

And Islam's "influence" on America goes back long before the 1970s. The only reason 9/11 (or even the '93 WTC attack) was a surprise to most of us is because we'd been shielded by two oceans from what the rest of the world has endured for the last one and one-half millennia.

In fact, Muhammad's doctrines have been harming Americans since the Republic's founding: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with an ambassador of the Barbary States (the Marines' Hymn, "to the shores of Tripoli ...") to find out why they were capturing our ships and murdering and enslaving our sailors. The reason, they were told, was that they were unbelievers and so all they had belonged to Islam.

And John Smith of Pocahontas fame? Before he came to the New World, he made a name for himself defending the West against jihad.

And if you want to go back to before America was a gleam in England's eye, Queen Isabella of Spain agreed to pay for Columbus' "shortcut" to Asia -- a detour around Islamic lands and all that that entailed -- after she defeated the last of Andalusia's (Al-Andalus') Muslim overlords, completing Spain's eight-hundred-year War of Liberation from Islam, the Reconquista.