Archive

Archive for the ‘religion’ Category

Activist Judges Are Traitors; Allow Sharia Law, Radical Islam, To Override American Law

January 11, 2012 2 comments

Although there is nothing within our Constitution which supports any American judge’s right or prerogative to look elsewhere when deciding a case before them, outside the Constitution, and outside the United States of America, liberal, activist judges have been getting away with it for decades.  Now comes word an activist appeals court in Denver has invented a way for radical Islamic Sharia Law to seep its slimy way into America.

The Denver court came to this heinous decision after the anti-American group CAIR (Center for American Islamic Relations) filed suit against Oklahoma.  Seventy percent of its people had previously passed a state constitutional ban on Oklahoma judges using international law, including Islamic law, when deciding cases.  CAIR saw an opportunity to further weaken American law and force Islamic Sharia law on all Americans and took it.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

Said Awad:

This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact.”

The amendment read, in part: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

There cannot be two sets of laws for Americans.  There cannot be one set of laws for Muslim Americans, and another set of laws for the rest of Americans.  We all live under the U.S. Constitution, not the laws of another nation, and certainly not a dangerous, barbaric, inhumane, evil and deeply zealous and radicalized religious doctrine which has no basis in either American law or reality itself.  If this decision is allowed to stand (and it will be appealed) it will set a very dangerous legal precedent in America which will topple our Constitution and make it obsolete.  If Muslims can have their own set of laws, in place of the Constitution, it is inevitable, then, other groups will petition to have their own set of laws as well.

How in the hell can a nation function with multiple sets of laws, when judges are able to look beyond our Constitution and pick and choose from established laws set in other countries?  If that is allowed to happen, what will prevent judges from simply deciding cases based on their own personal opinions, beliefs and biases?  What happens when a judge must decide a case on a particular day he/she woke up on the wrong side of the bed?  Judges are supposed to be impartial.  Judges are supposed to look no further than what law has been established in America by American lawmakers, and by the American people.  The U.S. Constitution is supposed to be the final authority, not the constitution of Iran, Cuba, China or the United Nations or anywhere else.

Imagine if a judge in Iran, Syria or some other nation where Islamic Sharia law is LAW, and said, “Well, this American law is better than the law we have here.”  He’d be stoned to death.

And yet, there is an audacity, and a disturbing arrogance among a growing population of Muslim Americans who desire to be governed by Islamic Sharia law, rather than American law.  Who the hell do these people think they are?  And why are more of us not as outraged over their actions which, if successful, will destroy the fabric of our Constitution which is already being attacked and ripped apart by liberals, leftists and socialists in America.  If Sharia law is allowed to be established in America, every evil tame committed in the name of Sharia law elsewhere in the world will be committed here.

There will be the stoning of women and girls who are accused, falsely, of infidelity, adultery, sexual inadequacy, or any other excuse male Muslims have in getting rid of them.  If you are gay, and you thought Christianity was your enemy, just wait until Sharia law gets through with you.  If you are a Muslim who wants to convert to Christianity, under Sharia law you will murdered as well.  And what happens when these Muslims start killing Christians and Jews living around them?  What happens to these Muslims who, although they commit murder under American law, under Sharia law they are fully protected?  If Sharia law is allowed to co-exist with what is left of our Constitution, our Constitution will not be there to protect anyone living under Sharia law, or outside it.

Look at it this way.  Sharia law is guided by the Qur’an and what Islamic Imams interpret from their Holy book.  Now, suppose Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed tried to get a law passed which would allow for American law to be guided by the laws of the Old Testament in the Christian Bible.  We don’t have to imagine the outcry which would result.  And yet, the same useless looney tunes on the left which hate Christianity with a passion, enough to make Satan jealous, are silent on Sharia law.

Awad argued that the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death.

This is absolute B.S.  Unless he wants his wife and daughters buried alive with him, or for some other malevolent or violent outcome to befall his family, American law is not going to interfere with his life or the execution of his will.

Muslims who immigrate to America, and become American citizens, like every other immigrant, have an obligation to embrace all things American, including American law.  But when they start coming here and demanding we embrace their nation’s laws, especially if those laws are barbaric and inhumane, they can go to hell.

Ladies and gentleman – we have a war on our hands.  What is going on in America with regards to the weakening of our laws is real, it is dangerous and it is treasonous.  It is not something to take lightly.  Activist judges who use their power to establish law outside of our Constitution, from laws established elsewhere in the world are traitors.  CAIR, the ACLU and all the leftists and liberals in America want us to do nothing about this.  Because doing nothing allows them to move forward, freely, unhindered with their anti-American agenda.

When they succeed you will not have freedom of anything any longer because the Constitution, our Constitution, which guaranteed freedom, liberty and independence will no longer exist.  Sharia law will have taken its place, or some other legal precept.

And if you try to stop it only after it takes hold, under Sharia law, right here in America they will kill you, the same as they do now in every other part of the Muslim world where Sharia law is the LAW.

There is yet time to stop CAIR and other anti-American groups from destroying America.  But only if we do something.

Will we – do something?

Jesus Will Be Voting For Mitt Romney, Part 1

January 5, 2012 Leave a comment

UPDATEJeb Bush likely to vote for Mitt Romney also.

Liberals hate Christianity, don’t believe in Christianity and go out of their way to separate themselves and America from Christianity as distantly as possible under the false and mislabeled pretext of separation of church and state.  Yet, liberals will never miss the chance to pull Jesus over to their side and into their cause.  Liberals, who, remember, mock Christianity and most of whom don’t even believe Jesus actually existed, nonetheless will use him as their poster child, set him upon their leftist pedestal and mold him into an image of their very own savior; a man whose spiritual presence they vehemently renounce, whose existence they adamantly reject and whose mind they desperately covet for their own, all the while they spit on him.  Liberal Christians are an oxymoron and are in actuality counterfeit Christians as is evident by their own positions.

Jesus would have been just as abhorred with the cold and calculated corruption of liberalism we see in America today as he was with the cold and calculated corruption of the money changers he dealt with personally, nearly 2000 years ago.  If Jesus returned now, he would make liberals uncomfortably aware of just how conservative he was then, and remains to this day.  If Jesus returned now, and came to America, would liberals welcome him as they do all illegal immigrants and fight for his right to remain, or would they demand he be deported back to Heaven ASAP?  Would liberals allow him to vote?  Would the ACLU fight to allow him to vote just as they fight to allow illegal aliens to vote?

Jesus, in his time, was vocal about the plight of the poor and of poverty.  But where in his teachings did Jesus ever advocate for higher taxation on the rich, and all citizens, bigger government and more government control of the populace as a means to curb and eliminate poverty?

Liberals, having no conscience, would take conservatives to task for what they see as an indefensible response to poverty in America, as if conservatives have no respect, no pity for the poor.  These liberal parasites have taken the “what would Jesus do” question to new lows in their quest to impose socialism on Americans.

Advocating for the poor and ensuring the poor are treated with respect and dignity is not liberalism, it is in fact conservatism.  What is liberalism is the anti-Jesus response to poverty liberals promote in the name of Jesus.  That is, to have our money confiscated by government which, in turn, would dispense those funds, as it saw fit, into government-run programs that provide food, clothing and shelter to the poor.

What is the conservative response liberals so oppose?  To care for the poor through non-profit, and often religious, charities funded through private donations and unpaid volunteers.  (something similar to “it takes a village” but without the stain of socialism).  It is because liberals cannot control charities they fear and scorn them and look to eliminate them.  It is a government-run monopoly liberals seek, although they pretend to “oppose” monopolies.  Should government have a monopoly on poverty, a hold on the poor in America – which is an anti-Jesus concept – what this creates is a sizable and intimidating voting block ensuring liberals keep power indefinitely.  This is what liberals are really after, not ending poverty in America.  Liberals need poverty, vast swaths of poverty stretching across America.  In other words, the fewer people there are in poverty, the harder it is to control people.

Liberals also insist Jesus would be an OWS supporter.  This is of course complete and absolute nonsense.  Those who engaged in protesting Wall Street and elsewhere throughout America were, and are, themselves as lazy and idle, shiftless and mindless, and worthless to society, as one can be.  The type of counterproductive, anti-societal, anti-work ethic lifestyle the average OWS protester lives is a destroyer of community not a builder of cities.  They protested for more government control and power over people solely on the basis that they, the OWS protesters, are so little enthused with work, so little driven to be productive citizens, they want, and therefore need, to be taken care of by government because they don’t want the responsibility of taking care of themselves – that is too much work!  So, tax the rich, give the money to government to create support programs which funnel money, food, clothing, housing, education grants, etc. to people who have no intention of ever being, of ever doing, anything.  Capitalism forces people to either work for a living or descend into poverty.  Socialism forces everyone into poverty and government dependence.

Why would Jesus oppose capitalism when it is capitalism, and only capitalism, which drives an economy?  How else is money created but through the engine of capitalism and the marketplace which, the freer it is, the faster the money flows, the more money that flows and the more money that flows directly into the hands of the workers?  Stifle capitalism, set up road blocks in the form of crippling and excessive taxation and regulation on businesses and business owners and what happens?  The economy recedes.  Businesses fail and go out of business.  People lose their jobs.  Less money is created.  Less money flows from one hand to another.  Peoples savings diminish and they fall, if not into poverty, then closer to it.

Barack Obama’s ideals, his values and morals – deeply rooted in socialism, epitomizes everything Jesus fought to overturn.  How could anyone expect Jesus would want Obama to be reelected?  or anyone like Obama?  Should Mitt Romney be the Republican nominee, Jesus will be casting his vote for him.

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 7: Her Christian Deconstructionism Is Poorly Rooted

January 3, 2012 Leave a comment

While Michelle Goldberg sympathizes with Muslim terrorists, Christianity scares the hell out her.  So much so, she has taken to inventing an hysteria surrounding Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Christian Reconstructionism and Christian theocracy, and weaving them all into a single lustful tale of unimaginable things yet to come.  Fear for your lives, so conjures Michelle.

Goldberg is terrified of both Presidential contenders, but Ron Paul more so, as Bachmann’s campaign begins its sunset and her supporters scramble to Paul.  She begins with Michele Bachmann whom she states “frequently warns of the threat of a global caliphate”.   Such unrepentant negativity toward Bachmann, despite the fact that it is Goldberg herself who never misses an opportunity in her articles to “frequently warn” us all of a Christian theocracy coming to America, including her current one.  Bachmann is also critical of Ron Paul, but not for being too Christian, rather for being too soft on foreign policy; in particular, Paul’s anti-war stance and his opposition to any notions of conflict with Iran which Paul states is “American overreaction”.  In one sentence Goldberg quotes from Bachmann her response to Paul saying:

I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul.”

In her very next sentence, however, (which is humanly possible for one with good lungs to read in the same breath) Goldberg strays wildly, unevenly, into a rambling non sequitur, strangely writing:

Bachmann built her career crusading against gay marriage, while Paul voted against a 2006 constitutional amendment limiting marriage to partners of the opposite sex. These are extremely different candidates.

Thus, Michelle Goldberg quantifies Bachmann’s reaction to Paul’s “dangerous answer to American security” by attributing to her what Goldberg emphasizes is Bachmann’s “crusading against gay marriage”.  How in the hell can Goldberg go from writing about foreign policy in one sentence to writing about gay marriage in the very next, virtually in the same breath?  What correlation is there between the two?  Iran wants nuclear arms, and may already have developed one.  Gays and lesbians want the right to get married.  Which is more of a contentious, an explosive, issue?  Unless, of course, Goldberg is eluding to both issues, once they become a reality, having the potential of reigning in Armageddon and the end of the world.  Except, nuclear war can bring about the end of the world, and while gay marriage won’t bring about the end of Christian fundamentalism, it may soften its influence.

In Goldberg’s radical feminist mind, perhaps what she is really saying about Bachmann is “I [Michelle Goldberg] have never known a more dangerous person with insecurities towards homosexuality than I have known in Michele Bachmann”.  In other words, Goldberg is insinuating that as “Bachmann has built a career crusading against gay marriage”, Ron Paul has “built a career” crusading against “American overreaction”, particularly in the Middle East.  Ron Paul is less of a Christian apologist, even less of a Christian, than is Michele Bachmann, and therefore less of a perceived threat to Goldberg.  Paul even supports defunding foreign aid to Israel.  But the supporters of Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann, whom Goldberg describes as Christian Reconstructionists and premillennial dispensationalists, are:

one of the strangest coalitions in American political history, bringing together libertarian hipsters with those who want to subject the sexually impure to Taliban-style public stonings. (Stoning is Reconstructionists’ preferred method of execution because it is both biblical and fiscally responsible, rocks being, in North’s words, “cheap, plentiful, and convenient.”)

Goldberg loathes and despises Christianity, for one, because (and never mind the fact some millions of Christians support gay marriage) Christianity, and a sizable bulk of Christians remain opposed to gay marriage.  Well, so does Islam, which is also opposed to homosexuality itself, and under Sharia law puts to death anyone caught engaged in homosexual activity, however slight.  But it is Christianity, not Islam, which deeply affects Goldberg.

American law does not put to death anyone for being homosexual.  But if Sharia law was ever granted legal status in America, it is possible that an American Muslim, having been “outed” could be executed – probably stoned – in America for being gay.  It is also possible, under Sharia law, for a woman or girl accused of infidelity, even falsely, to be put to death.  Have you heard of Soraya Manutchehri?  But because Islam Hates Christianity, Goldberg tolerates Islam.

Goldberg has wrapped herself in heavy layers of, if you will, anti-Christian swaddling.  Or would you prefer the chain of anti-Christianity she wears in life?  Forged link by link of her own free will to include homosexuality, abortion, women’s rights, birth control for very young minors, gender equality and equal rights, illegal immigration and affirmative action.  All of which Goldberg uses to denounce Christianity.  Aside from abortion, which Christianity, and most Christians oppose, Goldberg has created tons of extra hate for a religion which cannot harm or even touch her under the American Constitution.  No wonder why she comes to Ron Paul’s defense over the criticism of Michele Bachmann, a staunchly conservative Christian, although Goldberg would never support Ron Paul in anything other than when he seems to distance himself from Christian values and influence.

Some words of comfort by Ron Paul which Michelle Goldberg hearkens to:

My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain.”

Says Goldberg:

Paul doesn’t demagogue about a putative war on Christianity being waged by the Obama administration.

This is really the kind of Christian Goldberg admires – someone who keeps their faith to themselves, does not hold their religion and their religious values over another person’s head and can accept someone’s religious faith or non belief, their activism, religious or political, without ever interfering.  Imagine telling Goldberg to shut the hell up and mind her own damn business, and to keep her opinions to herself.  She would go ballistic, batty as a feminist and fly into a furious witch-like rage.  But this is exactly what she demands of Christians.

There is indeed a “putative war” being waged by the Obama administration.  A war against Americanism itself, which is, like it or not, deeply rooted in Christianity.  The values and morals of conservatism, whether religious or secular, are being eroded and toppled by lawmakers and overruled by judges who deem them to be unconstitutional.

Goldberg freely expresses her hatred of Christianity because at one time in its history, long before the advent of America, it was violent and used violence very forcibly to hold on to its power and because she sees in today’s Christianity, among some several millions of Christians, that same zeal.  But never mind that Islam is that way now, and has been for hundreds of years.  The Islam of today, Goldberg empathizes and sympathizes with, while the Christianity of old, which cannot legally, constitutionally, function in America, she condemns.  Goldberg worries a right wing President in the White House will usher in a new Christian Theocracy, but has no problem with the increase of Muslims in America and their push for Sharia law.

However, Goldberg is not so enraptured with Ron Paul that she would get in bed with him.  She notes:

Nevertheless, Paul’s support among the country’s most committed theocrats is deep and longstanding, something that’s poorly understood among those who simply see him as a libertarian.

But so long as Paul hammers Bachmann on matters of religion, Goldberg will remain “friendly” towards him.  And yet when interest and support in Bachmann’s campaign wanes, when those same Christians flock to Paul, Goldberg will quickly abandon her “friendliness” with Paul and excoriate and scourge him as she does Michele Bachmann and all Christians.  Ron Paul, to Goldberg, is nothing more than useful tool, the same as with her infatuation with Islam – she uses both Paul and Islam to tweak and ridicule Christianity, never mind how dangerous are the radical elements within Islam she defends.  Goldberg is a liberal, probably socialist, and like all in her camp they are under the false impression that if they can conquer Christianity, they can also conquer Islam and install socialism as the global model.  But first they must conquer Christianity.  They need like-minded politicians in congress and in the White House to assist them with passing a liberal and socialist agenda.  A Republican win thwarts their efforts to push Christian influence aside.  Hence, Goldberg’s constant attacks on Republicans, conservatives, the religious right and all of Christianity.

Michelle writes:

Should Paul win the Iowa caucuses, it will actually be a triumph for a fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right.

If it is a “fringe” now, it will remain a “fringe” even with an Iowa win for Paul.  Even if Paul somehow wins the nomination and the Presidency.  What likelihood is there that several millions of people in a “fringe” swell into a hundred million converts in time for the 2012 election?

Michelle continues on for paragraphs – and paragraphs – in a schizophrenic and Christi-phobia rant beginning with:

To understand Paul’s religious-right support, it’s necessary to wade a bit into the theological weeds. Most American evangelicals are premillennial dispensationalists. They believe that God has a special plan for the nation of Israel, which will play a key role in the end of days and the return of Christ.

Thankfully, it is not necessary “to wade” any further into Goldberg’s anti-”theological weeds”.  Her intent is clear and self evident, though her writing is incoherent, muddled and mired in an unrealistic fear of Christianity and exposes a nonsensical, deep-seeded loathing of Christians, Christian values and morals for very wrong and selfish reasons.

Goldberg actually helps Christianity, and thus conservatism, with her unfounded ignorance of it.  The more people of little or no faith see Goldberg and others acting irrationally for their liberal cause, the more apparent it becomes just how unstable, unreliable, unrealistic liberalism is.  The more Christians and conservatives see how intentional her misrepresentations of Christianity are, the stronger their resolve, and their agenda, becomes, and the more people abandon liberalism and liberalism’s empty promises for, if not Christianity, then most certainly secular conservatism.

Would Michelle Goldberg ever comprehend how greatly her insatiable Christi-phobia only weakens the cause of liberalism, or is that over her head?

2012: War With Islam Is Upon Us, Whether We Wish It Or Not…

January 1, 2012 1 comment

It is Islam we are dealing with, we will be dealing with.  But it is not that element of Islam we see portrayed on American television we are at war with, and we must not be fooled by anti-American propagandists into believing it is.  It is that tyrannical Middle East faction of Islam, that denizen of religious usurpers which vows never to recognize Israel; that stronghold of barbarism, of outdated, antiquated ideology which, now back in power in Egypt, and rising, seeks to break the 1979 peace accord it once shared with Israel; that oppressive, cult-like wing of extremism which long ago severed its ties with reality, human decency and peace, which now has its will bent and obsessed with conquering the world on the proposition that all humans must either submit themselves to Allah, or the sword.

What good can come from the West tolerating such insurmountable hate and in-hospitality committed under the cloak of false teachings?  What good can come to Islam itself, for not pushing back against such potent, deeply disturbed rhetoric?  What greatness, what quality, is there in a religion which allows itself to be broadcast the world over as humbling itself before terrorism in the name of its God?

There is nothing peaceful about radical Islam.  Even when they win, they must yet instill terror within their own camps, their own conquered territories, their own people.  There is but one law for them.  No bill of rights, no freedom, no rights whatsoever under this Islam; certainly not under Sharia law – the same Sharia law proposed by Muslims in America, to replace, to override, America law.  The same Sharia law which looks the other way when honor-murder is committed.   To say that radical Islam is coming to America is an understatement.  It is already here.  Homegrown (Muslim) terrorism, is in America.

We in the West, those of us who refuse to acknowledge the truth of their intentions, find safety and security in denial.  We in the West, those of us who believe their thirst for revenge is perpetuated by an unwanted Western advance into their lands, find comfort in believing their terrorism is our fault.  We in the West, those of us who have been steadfast against the War on Terror, American aggression against an evil enemy that slaughtered 3000 of us in a single day, on our own soil, find solace and peace by deluding ourselves that all we have to do to stop the violence, the murder, the terrorism is…leave, abandon the Middle East altogether, oh – and one other thing – we must break all bonds of fellowship with Israel.

America has left Iraq.  Homicide bombings there continue.  Why is there not peace, now that the “infidel” has left?  Why do radical Islamists continue their slaughter of fellow Muslims?  The reason is simple.  Radical Islam, and those terrorist organizations fighting and murdering under the banner of Islam – the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO, and all the others – has ever had but one ambition.  Absolute power.  Iraq was becoming Westernized, however slightly, but nonetheless a threat, and therefore an obstacle, to their, radical Islam’s, influence.  There can be no bonds, no connections, no friendship with America among any Muslims, not in the eyes of radical Islam.  That is the reason for the thousands upon thousands of murders of Muslims by Muslims (radial Muslims) throughout America’s stay in Iraq.  That is the reason for why the murder of Muslims by Muslims (radical Muslims) goes on, after America has left.  It is to wipe out all those Muslims who might have been influenced (set free) by American ideals, who might have a harder time being influenced (corrupted) by radical Islam.  Where does their courage  now go when they know their allies grow thin?

300 to 400 million strong is quite an intimidating radical Islamic force to reckon with.  Yet three times that many Muslims oppose their brethren in their terrorist death march.  These opposition numbers, however great, are meaningless and inconsequential, and have little to no impact when, and so long as, that opposition is screamed in utter silence.  Fear of brutal and very bloody retribution holds their tongues back, even when they continue to be slaughtered by their brethren in their religion’s name.  America no longer holds a protective hand over Iraq.  Who will stop the radical Muslims from dominating the country anew?  Who will protect those Muslims who wanted real peace, real change, real hope from being slaughtered by others who do no share in their vision of a new Iraq, who do not share in anything but their own lust for power – and they do not share even that.

Those hundreds of millions of Muslims in hiding, and hiding their true desires of a peaceful Islam deep within the recesses of their own minds, can still regain their honor.  These Muslims must take their ideas of a peaceful Islam out of the protective shell within their conscience and reveal to the world that Islam is indeed, and can be, a religion of peace rather than terror.  They must have the courage to forgo the fear of deadly reprisal that awaits them.  They are being slaughtered anyway.  They will be slaughtered regardless, even in their silence.  Without this courage, they will cease to exist, as radical Islam overtakes them, and they will have forever doomed a religion, Islam, which could have known peace but instead chose violence and terror.  Those Muslims that had an opportunity to come to the aid of Islam will hence become Islam’s bane.

Radical Muslims hate the West for our friendship with Israel.  Would they admire us any more if we broke that alliance?  If we submitted to their insanity?  To do so would be America’s bane.

What good ever comes from submission?  Whether that submission is to a terrorist group, or submitting to one’s own fear of that terrorist group and what they might do to you.  The Taliban once ruled Afghanistan.  What good ever came of that for its people?  The Taliban is regaining its power there.  What then?  Will the same history in Afghanistan repeat itself in Iraq?

When we had an opportunity to thwart the progress of radical Islam, and Muslim terrorists, and put a stop to their demonic agenda of enslaving the whole human race under the religion of submission, we instead gave into weak political pressure, cowardice from the left, and pulled out.  With America’s presence in the region diminishing, the radical Muslims are regrouping, retraining, regaining strength and determination, and returning.

If we allow them to take back what we set free – with the blood and lives of thousands of soldiers from America and Europe – that will be the world’s bane.

Have A Very [Censored] And A Happy New Year!

December 20, 2011 4 comments

The Right says there is a systematic, ongoing deliberate “War on Christmas”.  The Left says it ain’t so.  Who’s telling the truth?  You decide.

The left, as with Skye Jethani, scoffs at the idea that there is a “War on Christmas”.

Since 2005, Fox News has deployed its minions to wage their war on the “War on Christmas,” and the American Family Association has pushed for a boycott of stores for not using the words “Merry Christmas” in their seasonal marketing. Like many public institutions, some retailers opt to use the inclusive phrase “Happy Holidays” which these groups interpret as a slam to Jesus Christ- the real “reason for the season.”

On the other hand:

Congress is now banned from using the phrase “Merry Christmas” in their mailings.  The controversy?  These congressional mailings, “franking” they call it, is paid for by you, the tax payer.  You might be offended if congress spends your tax dollars wishing you or anyone else a “Merry Christmas”.  Never mind that congress uses this mailing privilege for virtually all its postal needs, including their own campaigns, elections and reelections, despite the fact they are not supposed to.  Untold millions of dollars you pay for so that congress can reelect itself and remain in power.  What the hell is more offensive, more politically incorrect – politically immoral?  A warm and invigorating two-word phrase, or having congress “frank” us with our own tax dollars?  Is the intentional removal of  Merry Christmas a “war on Christmas” or not?  You decide.

The Left sneers at the right for its concern of a “War on Christmas”.

Christmas only gained acceptance among a majority of Protestant Christians when it gained wide acceptance by the American public in general. And that can be attributed to the rise of Santa Claus in the secular pantheon.

On the other hand:

When Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker, had the audacity to revert back to the “old name” for the tree his state brings out every year at this time, atheists and liberals had a fit (and liberal Jews had a conniption).  The tree, which had been called a “Holiday Tree” for the past 25 years, Scott Walker now re-Christianed of all things a “Christmas tree”, which it had been called for decades prior to its bland, sterile, uninviting, “inoffensive” renaming as a “Holiday Tree”.  Is the premeditated replacing of “Holiday” with “Christmas” a win in the right’s corner or not?  or does this move by Walker only escalate the “War on Christmas”, which doesn’t actually exist?  You decide.

The Left derides the right for its fear the left is stealing Christmas.

Sermons about the pagan origins of Christmas or the danger of rampant materialism in Christ’s name are unlikely to be heard today. In recent years the dominant message heard from the Christian community during the holiday season has been precisely the opposite. Today, it seems many Christians are offended when unchecked materialism in December is not explicitly associated with Christ. The irony.

On the other hand:

After a nativity scene in Athens, TX was erected, atheists from the Freedom from Religion Foundation were livid enough to demand it be removed.  Thousands of nativity supporters came out to defend the yearly display.  Although a banner was initially displayed by an unknown atheist which read:

At this season of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail.’

‘There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth & superstition that hardens hearts & enslaves minds.”

It has since been taken down because the proper claims to display the banner were not made.  Liberal atheists are ones to talk about “hardened hearts” and enslaving minds”.   How much more “harder” does one make their own heart, how much more does one “enslave” their own mind when they close and seal both with such an outward and blatant compulsion, allowing themselves to be thrown into a Scrooge-like frenzy of hysterics over a simple nativity scene?  Is this the best argument atheists can make to “let reason prevail”?  And, will this lead to another battle, another skirmish in the ongoing, nonexistent “War on Christmas” or not?  You decide.

The Left chides the right for its stance on saying “Merry Christmas”, rather than “Happy Holidays”.  And when the Right does use the phrase, “Happy Holidays”, the Left chides the right again.  The Left mocks the right for contending there is a “War On Christmas”, yet try to sing Christmas carols in public schools and see what happens.

Skye Jethani says about the Puritans:

Many of us forget that Christmas itself is a holiday of dubious origin. For example, the Puritans were stridently opposed to the celebration of Christmas. They could find no biblical support for the holiday, and they believed (correctly) that it was originally a pagan festival now masquerading as Christian one.

So atheists and liberals are the “New Puritans”?  Neither atheists or liberals “find support for the holiday”, and they both believe “it was originally a pagan festival”.  Like the Puritans, atheists and liberals would have all mention of Christmas, and celebrating Christmas, banned.  Atheists and liberals despise Puritans and the Puritan way of life; they ridicule and rip to shreds the Puritans for their “backward”, their strict adherence to biblical literalism, religious standards and values – and for killing 19 people wrongly accused for witchcraft in 1692.  But to prop up their anti-Christmas agenda, they would use Puritans to their advantage.  They would invoke the spirit of Puritanism in their political ploy to water down, and drowned out Christmas.  Would the real Puritans have approved of this?

The Left adamantly denies there is a “War on Christmas”.

Sadly, the “War on Christmas” and “Christmas Under Siege” campaigns pushed by some conservative Christians says more about the church’s captivity to consumerism than its commitment to the love of Christ and their neighbors.

On the other hand, every year we hear of one instance after another where Christmas is being attacked, chipped away and banned by those people who are offended, intimidated, or belittled by it.  People who would have Christmas celebrated in private, if at all.  For what and to what end?  To be more like the Puritans?  Is this what atheists and liberals are fighting for?  Is this what the “War on Christmas” is all about for atheists and liberals?  Reclaiming Puritanism?  Or is there something more provocative being conducted by those people who would see “Merry Christmas” replaced by Happy Holidays”?  You decide.

Because right now you have the right to decide whether saying Merry Christmas” is innocent or deeply disturbing, before a small minority of people make that decision for you.

Do you want that?  Or do you want a “war” to retain your rights?

Would Muhammad Tell Muslims To “Take It Down A Notch”?

December 18, 2011 1 comment

The “not ready for prime time” (and haven’t been since the early 1990′s) crew over at Saturday Night Live must have had a “What would Jesus do” moment over the weekend, which culminated in yet another irreverent, contemptible, anti-Christian skit.  SNL, like all liberal outlets, is very comfortable, very relaxed, in ridiculing Christianity.  However, would they ever have put on a skit where Muhammad appeared to Osama Bin Laden and told him to “take it down a notch”?  Would SNL ever do a skit that introduces Muhammad to any radical Muslim terrorist person or group and tell them to “take it down a notch”?

Would SNL, or any liberal media outlet be so bold, so brazen, so courageous?  What do we know Muslims would do, if ever that happened?  Here is your irony liberals, including SNL, either don’t see or just don’t seem to care about!

In a clear effort to belittle both Christianity and Denver Broncos quarterback, Tim Tebow, and his “victory prayer”, a routine he has engaged in numerous times this football season, which has put him in an extremely unfavorable light with liberals, SNL has brought Jesus Christ in to have a talk with Tim about his “religious antics” on the football field, urging him to “take it down a notch”, for the sake of all liberals, and liberal Christians, who are at odds with religion (Christianity) on the football field.

Of course the real motivation in this skit, its “point”, has more to do with the left’s irritation it has with such an open expression of Christian devotion, right there for all the public to see and to bear witness.  Such an act of indignation, of rudeness, so hostile to a liberal’s mind, it becomes inconceivable to them, causes great stress, a profound and throbbing headache, perhaps; chills, numbness, shortness of breath, and the like.  Never mind that the many millions of Christian who watch football are not at all irked by Tim’s display and even find it to be reassuring, a blessing, as it were.  Neither would any rationalist, of any philosophical belief, feel overwhelmed by Tim’s actions.

But – would SNL ever perform a similar skit, with a bit of a tweak, replacing Jesus with Muhammad, and replacing Tim Tebow with, say a Muslim homicide bomber who is just about to blow himself up, along with a group of school children?  Would SNL ever have the gall, the guts, to chide, even briefly, the Islamic faith, that part of it which has corrupted its host as a cancer which invades the body?

Christianity is easy to mock because there are no real Christian terrorists in the world; no Christian homicide bombers; no Christian Taliban; no Christian Hamas; no Christian PLO; no Christian Brotherhood – no Christians out committing murder, violence and mayhem in the name of Christianity.  Certainly not to the fanatical degree and extent Muslims do.  In other words Christians do not overreact when they are made fun of.  There is no retribution, no “hell to pay” when Christians are portrayed negatively.  SNL hides behind its “first amendments rights”.  But this ensemble knows that if it ever did put on a “What would Muhammad do” skit, radical, demonic Muslim terrorists would not shrink away, slink around or shriek effeminately and run away from, our constitutional right to freedom of speech.  SNL knows these Muslims would react.  And they know how they would react.

Liberals, as those who make up the cast of SNL, despise religion, even Islam.  They won’t admit it, but we all know it.  And yet, how dangerous is the world now, and since 9-11, because of Islam, because less than a quarter of its entire body of believers has perverted this religion, bent it, distorted it, twisted and tangled it into something ungodly, unholy, unworldly and unworthy of anyone’s respect?  For too long this minority of Muslim religious fanatics has held hostage a people who fear to rise up and reclaim Islam for their own, in the name of peace rather than in submission.

Liberals fear these Nazi-like radicals as well.  Which is why out of “respect” for Islam they do not mock Muslims in the same viscous, horrible, degrading, judgmental manner they do with regards to Christianity and Christians.  In other words, they are cowards!

What real “danger” does Christianity pose to the world, to the people of the world?  Neither Christianity, nor its followers, is any longer living in the past, or in an age long since passed.  Despite the attempts of some Christians who might want us to return to a time no longer compatible with today’s rationality and sensibility, and knowledge – a world under the influence of a James Ussher or Cotton Mather for example.  This type of strict Christianity is no longer prevalent.  It wasn’t all that prevalent then.  Why does one suppose there are so many different and varied Christian sects in America and around the world?  What other reason for such schism could there have been except fundamental disagreement?  Would Muslims ever do more than think to break away from overbearing and tyrannical leaders within their own faith?  And what would be the results from that?

We have much more to fear from Islam, and from the radically supercharged illusion of Islam its minority of crazy, whacked out followers want the world to submit to by force and upon pain and penalty of death.  For that, liberals, including the cast of SNL, keeps their mouths shout with anything to do with Islam; anything that might offend, insult, disrespect, be misconstrued or taken the wrong way, or be perceived to be a threat to Islam.  It is not for political correctness, or out of respect, but rather from a deep, an abiding sense of sheer terror.

This is exactly how liberals remember Christianity from centuries ago.  This is Islam today!  Will this be Islam tomorrow?  Or will “cooler heads” prevail?

“Fear Of A Muslim Planet” Grounded In Reality

December 15, 2011 2 comments

A woman raped in America is clearly guilty of having disgraced her family and her community.  American law ought to compel her to either be imprisoned or forced to marry her rapist – or commit suicide for the honor of her family which she has humiliated and devastated by being raped.  What’s wrong with that?

According to Rachel Newcomb, nothing.  She is another American woman, and feminist, defending the TLC program “All American Muslim” by insisting that those of us who see the transparent agenda, and propaganda, being employed by showcasing peaceful, loving Muslim American families is an all out attempt by the producers to mock conservatives, to portray us as bigots and anti-Muslim.

Her article, “Fear of A Muslim Planet”, is another anti-conservative hit piece, designed to make it sound as though conservatives are over hysterical, over the top and overwrought with Islamophobia.  However, challenge Rachel on what she would think about an “All American Christian” program and pin her down on her “fear of a Christian planet” and see how hysterical she would become.

Rachel writes:

Feeling isolated and overwhelmed with her caretaking duties, a new mom struggles with post-partum depression. Another couple wrestles with the painful decision to give up a beloved pet when the wife’s allergies become too severe. A woman in a third family experiences work-family conflicts when she is unable to pick up her kids from their first day at school.  An ordinary episode in just another voyeuristic reality television show, right?

Wrong. It’s propaganda, the same as Hitler and the Nazis used; the same as Stalin and Communist Russia used; the same as Kim Il Jong and Communist North Korea uses; the same as Communist China, under Hu Jintao uses, Cuba under Castro uses, and Venezuela under Hugo “El Diablo” Chavez uses.

In Saudi Arabia, under Muslim Sharia Law, a woman was just beheaded for practicing witchcraft.  In 1692, over 300 years ago, 19 people were executed for falsely being accused of being witches.  The American left is still pissed off over that, and often uses this one, isolated incident as an example as to why Christianity is evil, untrustworthy and unacceptable.  The same liberal feminist hypocrites, like Rachel Newcomb, and like Michelle Goldberg, who despise Christianity, and the Christian Bible for it’s “anti-woman” stance, for its “homophobia”, for its “anti-science” and “mythology” that they, and all liberals and feminists, complain has kept women as second class citizens and subservient to men for centuries.

But they love Islam.  And they defend “All American Muslim” as a fair and accurate portrayal of Islam, knowing the irony that, if you go to the Middle East, or anywhere in the world where Islam has a firm and absolute control over the people, “All American Muslim” would be banned from viewing.  And where women are banned from doing most of the things they take for granted doing in America.  Rachel would be beheaded under Sharia Law in any Muslim country for being a feminist.

Rachel says:

The problem is not that groups like Florida Family Association [which lobbied Lowe's to have its advertising removed from "All American Muslim"] want us to be alert to the signs of jihad,but that most Americans have no idea what the signs of jihad might look like. With a basic ignorance of the everyday lives of Muslims, Americans are more likely to view all symbols of Muslim life with fear, suspicion, and hatred.

This is nonsense which needs to be put it in the correct context.  It is not “most Americans” who are “ignorant” of what “the signs of Jihad might look like”.   It is most American liberals.  Most American liberals are simply ignorant.  Ever watch Sean Hannity’s “Man On the Street”, where he asks people easy questions?  Liberals have the hardest time coming up with the correct answer.  Look at any television program with a liberal slant – especially any on the CW.  Rich, stuck-up high school liberals living in their own bubble.  The real world is completely foreign to them.  90210, Gossip Girl, America’s Next Top Model, One Tree Hill, even Supernatural and The Vampire Diaries, to name but just a few.  Liberals watch these types of programs because this is the real world to them, this is where they are most comfortable.  Liberals are the ones grounded in fantasy.

Conservative, on the other hand, are grounded in reality.   This is why we support the War On Terror; why we supported going into Iraq and Afghanistan; why we support detaining terrorists at Gitmo; why we support techniques like water boarding to obtain valuable information, and why we are not at all happy withdrawing troops from these areas.  We know the dire consequences that will result when we leave; we know who will come in and fill that void.

It is also why we are highly suspicious of pro-Muslim programs that are intentionally slanted and skewed to show Islam in more of a positive light than is realistically known about Muslims.  Indeed, in America, this might be how most Muslim families actually live.  But that is a reflection of the greatness of America – the same America leftists like Rachel despise and hate, and want to see destroyed – not Islam and not being Muslim.

Muslims in the Middle East, or anywhere Sharia Law holds sway, are not living the types of lives in “All American Muslim”.  They are leading the types of lives that inspire, encourage and give birth to homicide bombers, to antisemitism and anti-American, anti-western values.  Muslims in the rest of the world are living in strict accordance to the Koran, which is anti-woman, homophobic, and anti-Semitic.  And it is also anti freedom.

Summing up America’s “problem” with Muslims, Rachel concludes:

If the example of history has been any indication (think Japanese internment campus in the United States during World War II), demonizing an entire population in our midst can only foster further hatred and misunderstanding.

But try incorporating Christianity anywhere in the American public square and watch liberal, anti-Christian hypocrites like Rachel Newcomb scream and wail a different tune.  Rachel defends Islam for the same reason Michelle Goldberg does, and all liberals and feminists do – because Islam is anti-Christian.  That’s it.

It is Rachel who would have all Christians practice their faith “interned” in the privacy of their own homes, away from the public.  It is Rachel who “demonizes” Christianity, and “an entire population [of Christians in America] in our midst”.  It is Rachel who “fosters further hatred and misunderstanding” of Christianity.

Think not?  Challenge her on whether she supports more Christianity in America, or less.  Challenge Rachel on what her position is with regards to more exposure, more tolerance, more influence, more freedom of the Christian religion in America.  Challenge Rachel to be more pro-Christian.  What does anyone think the results of that would be?

Discrimination Is Both American And Constitutional (And We Ought To Appreciate It)

November 18, 2011 1 comment

So a woman walks into a local bakery, turns to the owner and casually says, “Can you bake a cake for my wedding?  Oh by the way, it’s a lesbian wedding.  I’m gay.”  The owner takes a deep breath and she replies, “I’m sorry, I can’t make that kind of cake.  I’m Christian.”

This is not a joke.  There is no punchline and nobody is laughing.  Not the lesbian couple who wanted the cake made, nor the owner of the Des Moines, Iowa bakery who declined to make the cake and is now threatened with a possible lawsuit.

The two lesbians, Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers claim they were shocked when owner, Victoria Childress, told them she could not, in good faith, and because of her Christian faith, prepare such a wedding cake as was being asked of her.  Said Childress:

I didn’t do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner.  It is my right, and it’s not to discriminate against them.  It’s not so much to do with them, as it’s to do with me, and my walk with God and what I will answer (to) him for.”

What is most troubling about this is not what you might expect.  It isn’t the fact that a lesbian couple was denied service by a Christian business owner.  Nor is it the fact that this lesbian couple would contemplate filing a lawsuit for discrimination.  That is to be expected, in this day and age in our country.  What is most troubling about this is if this lesbian couple does file a lawsuit, it is tremendously probable, virtually 100% likely, they will win.  In other words, a win for this lesbian couple would compel and force, by law, every single business owner – at least in Iowa (for the time being) – to check their own personal beliefs and convictions at the door of their own business.  This is extremely unsettling.  It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.

Business owners in America have, and must retain, a right to discriminate, to refuse service to whomever they choose.  Whether we agree with that premise or not, as private business owners, it must be their right to make whatever moral decisions for their business as they see fit, rather than the right of government to make legal decisions in substitution of those moral and private decisions.  And whatever decisions a private business owner ultimately makes will, and ought to reflect, and to take into consideration, the community around them.  In other words, how will the community – the people they would hope to do business with, and make a profit from, react?  If the community itself rejects a business owner’s moral decision to not do business with a lesbian couple because that business owner opposes homosexuality on religious grounds, then let the community be the deciding factor, not government, not the law – and not by adding another dubious law to the books.

The lesbian couple added a statement to a lesbian web site stating:

Awareness of equality was our only goal in bringing this to light, it is not about cake or someone’s right to refuse service to a customer.”

“Equality”.  Sounds grand, doesn’t it?  But in that quest for “equality” someone always loses, don’t they?  In other words, the lesbian couple, in their pursuit of “equality” might win.  Should this happen, the business owner, Victoria Childress loses, doesn’t she?  And what does she lose?  She loses her right as a private business owner to make her own decisions about her own business.

Put aside, for a moment, America’s long history of discrimination against blacks, Jews, the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians, the Japanese and just about every group and class of people that ever existed.  This is a separate issue.  This is a case of whether or not a private business owner has the right to refuse business to someone, anyone, for any reason, in their own business.  And it is a case of just how much (more) power we are willing to grant government, and how much (more) freedom we the people are willing to relinquish in our endless endeavor for “equality”.  But as we ought to know, by now, the more we push for “equality” the more we push, and squeeze out, personal freedom.

It has never been the role of government to interfere with private business or with whom private business conducts its business.  One hundred years of segregation against blacks changed that.  The government stepped in and ended Jim Crow and segregation.  In doing so, our government unwittingly, perhaps, opened up a legal Pandora’s box.  It paved the way for legally forcing an end to any type of discrimination, both in the public square and private, thus forcing private businesses owners, upon penalty of a hefty fine, losing their business license and their right to own and operate a business to acquiesce to their clientele, whomever that clientele might be.

So – a woman walks into a local bakery, turns to the owner and casually says, “Can you bake a cake for my wedding?  Oh by the way, it’s a lesbian wedding.  I’m gay.”  The owner takes a deep breath and she replies, “I’m sorry, I can’t make that kind of cake.  I’m Christian.”

Was this an innocent encounter, or was there something more going on?  In other words, why did these lesbians go into this particular bakery?  Did they know ahead of time the owner was a Christian who would ultimately turn their request down because of her religious convictions?  Was this a set up?  And why can’t these lesbians simply accept the fact that this particular business owner is a Christian and go find another bakery to make their cake?  If these lesbians want to be accepted for who they are, why can’t they accept this Christian business owner for who she is?

Whatever this was, an innocent mistake or a devious trap, it has become something deeper and more provocative.  With a potential lawsuit, win or lose, either scenario will be challenged, ultimately winding up in the Supreme court; nine justices who will have to decide whether or not all business owners in America have the right to choose to do business with whom they want, and decline to do business with those they don’t.  The Supreme court will have to decide if in the name of “equality”, in our plight to end discrimination everywhere in America it exists, it is right, it is legal, it is Constitutional to hold business owners as “unequal” and thus lawful to discriminate against them.  All in the name of “equality”.

Is that the kind of  “equality” we ought to accept and to appreciate?

“American Atheists” Ad Campaign Good For Local Economy, Bad For American Atheists Everywhere

November 17, 2011 1 comment

“American Atheists” is out with a new ad and billboards campaign promoting the idea that God is a myth by comparing God and Jesus with Santa Claus and old Greek and Roman Gods and Satan.  The moral?  That we know Santa is a myth, and that we know the Greek and Roman Gods are a myth (and if they are real they have been very patiently, very mysteriously silent for over two thousand years) we therefore must know that God and Jesus are myths.  Not necessarily so.

The only “effective” result this campaign will attain is to provide extra revenue to the local economies where these ads and billboards will be placed.  Campaigns this irrational, this impractical, never capture the minds of anyone, certainly not the devout, and not even those in doubt.  In other words, what American Atheists is doing is akin to and no different from what the religious have done in their campaigns to promote and persuade nonbelievers.  Campaigns like “When in doubt be devout” and campaigns that invoke and espouse Pascal’s wager.  Campaigns that inspire no one and inspire nothing.  Atheists sneer them.  Why wouldn’t Christians sneer these?

Rationality is the heart of secularism and free-thought.  When atheists act irrationality they break that heart of secularism and of free-thought.  Reason is our defense.  When atheists act unreasonably, their actions are indefensible.  Responsibility is key to promoting rationality and reason from a secular point of view.  When atheists act irresponsibly to promote their point of view they discard that key, lock out reason and rationality and throw away our opportunities for promoting and debating with believers in a rational, reasonable and responsible manner.

Debating the existence of God has always been a complete and absolute waste of time.  We have nothing in science, or in nature, that demonstrates a clear existence of the supernatural; nothing with which to test for.  We don’t no where to even begin to look for clues to the existence of the supernatural – from a scientific approach.  Humans have searched for proof for thousands of years and while we have filled our minds with all sorts of possibilities and “answers”, we have thus far come up empty handed.  The same holds true with attempting to disprove the existence of God and of the supernatural.

No one can either prove or disprove the existence of God or the supernatural.  What is proof, and historical fact, is what the power that the belief in God has been able to do for humanity in the past two thousand years.  A power unmatched and unequaled with regards to other beliefs in other Gods and Goddesses, such as American Atheists uses to demonstrate as “myth”.  It is the power of this belief that holds strong over the world’s believers, and why it won’t be weakened any time soon.  Certainly it will not be weakened by childish and nonsensical billboards.

So – a tug of war yet exists.  When believers act irrationally, they loom ever closer to falling into the proverbial pit.  Likewise, when atheists act irrationally, they lose hold of the rope and loom closer to falling into that pit themselves.  Who ultimately “wins” will be determined by which side has the stamina, courage and strength to be and remain rational.  right now, despite the weight of science behind it, believers are holding on to more of the rope.  Atheists behaving badly, such as American Atheists, only strengthens the other side.

The real debate lies not in the “what if” aspect but the “why” aspect.  In other words, can we be just as rational, just as moral without believing? And if so, if rationality and morality comes from the mind itself, and not supernatural belief, why do we need the belief in the supernatural to be the cornerstone of rationality, reason, morality, logic, etc.?  And what happens when we use the rationality and the power of our minds more than we use the rationality and power of belief?  If secularists can prove they can be just as rational and moral as believers, then we will gain the upper hand, we will control more of the “rope”.

American Atheists, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the ACLU and all the other groups out there campaigning against religion – Christianity in particular – are hurting themselves, all of us that are passionate about reason and logic, rationality and morality.  Forcing religion to be removed from the public square because it is “offensive” to some, or violates a non existent clause in the Constitution, mocking religion as myth, treating religion, and believers, as childish and as children is doing nothing to promote secularism.  Rather it is causing more of us who are secular and rational to be pushed ever closer to falling into that pit.

And if American Atheists and the others keep on acting irrationally and being unreasonable; if they continue to assault believers, mock them pointlessly, treat them with the same childish scorn and derision they so long ago belittled us with, those of us that are rational secularists will use our skills of reason and logic and let go of the rope  – and watch you fall into the pit.

Muslims: “Demonic” Or Demented? (Or Both?)

November 6, 2011 Leave a comment

It’s very dangerous and uncertain times for Muslims in America, or at least in Detroit, (Muslim Country) Michigan, where the sirens have already blasted the call and sounded the alarm of imminent threat.  If you are Muslim – get out of Detroit now!  Get out before it is too late.  Leave your wealth behind; your possessions, sacrifice your children, if you have to – but save yourselves!  They are coming.  They bring with them unspeakable, unimaginable and frightening truths and revelations the likes of which are not for Muslim ears to listen to.  Do cover your ears should they speak in your presence.  Their message will be as poison to you, any Muslim.  And yet, for all their cunning, they bring with them not one stick of dynamite, not one exploding apparatus, not one detonating device.  What possible wizardry could they be up to?  What foolishness is bringing them to Detroit, Michigan, armed not with guns, grenades and other such weaponry?  For those Muslims left behind, trapped inside the walls of Detroit, Michigan with them, suicide might be the best and only option.  (Muslims, by their law, each have a homemade suicide kit in their household, don’t they?)

The distress signal, which was prompted by the quick thinking action of one Dawud Walid, Executive Director for CAIR’s Michigan chapter, which stands for The Council on American-Islamic Relations, (although the AI in reality, as well as CAIR itself, stands for Anti Israel) was as dire a warning as CAIR has ever transmitted.  It took real courage and heroics.  There must be some type of Islamic medal of honor that Walid could receive for his bravery.  

They are planning a prayer event this Friday at Ford Field, where the Detroit Lions play football.  Such a gathering, where many thousands are expected to attend, is clearly cause for panic and trampling over one another.  Prayer?  What is that code for?  At least when a Muslim goes in to a marketplace or school strapped with explosives, shouting “Allahu Akbar” we don’t have to second guess their motives.

Said Walid:

Given the theology of the participants and that they view Muslims as demonic, we should be prepared that some participants may come to the mosques to harass or provoke worshipers.”

“Harass”?  “Provoke”?  Halloween is over.  Who is this Muslim looney toon trying to kid?  Afraid they might overhear some plot to blow up another piece of America?  Fearful they might get wind of another deal to provide funds for another terrorist attack somewhere in the world?  Does Walid really believe they would go to a mosque to “harass” and “provoke” the “good” Muslim worshipers who only want peace and harmony, and Islamic world domination, into doing something their brothers and sisters in the Middle East, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria, and the rest of the Muslim occupied world are doing right now?

Walid went even further, indeed above and beyond the call of Islamic duty, delving deeper into the mystery, the substance, the minds of them, the real motivations of they that would dare invade Muslim controlled Detroit, when he:

Advised area mosques and schools to make sure all entrances are secure during the time of the event, and said they should call police if they see “suspicious persons congregate on mosque property.”

“Suspicious”.  Well, to a Muslim, anyone not wired to the hilt with explosives and shouting “Allahu Akbar” must be “suspicious”.  Anyone not wearing explosives, shouting “Allahu Akbar” is obviously not a Muslim to begin with.  And what would anyone not wearing explosives and shouting “Allahu Akbar” be doing near a mosque or school anyway?

But Walid was not finished being “concerned”.  With a kind of trepidation and trembling in his speech, and a shaking all over his body, said he:

Some of the event participants could try to provoke mosque attendees in some way.”

Very spooky indeed.  “In some way”.  That certainly leaves open the myriad of endless possibilities.  But why such a heightened response?

In these types of circumstances we have to be more security-minded,” Walid said.

It’s just not like in the wonderful, sane and rational and happy Muslim world where you are either a Muslim or they hang you or cut off your head.  Time will tell.  Muslims want Sharia law here in America, and our liberal courts are only too happy to oblige.

Dawud Walid deserves a hearty round of applause for bringing this event, and them, to our attention.  When no one else in Detroit, Michigan dared lift a finger or raise a voice; when no one else in Detroit, Michigan thought enough to be concerned; when no one else in Detroit, Michigan saw with their own eyes the oncoming storm headed their way; when no one else in Detroit, Michigan cared that they were coming to Detroit – only one man, one Muslim man, in all of Michigan – a Super Man – used his courage, his strength, his speed, his position as Executive Director of CAIR’s Michigan chapter, and not to mention his hatred of them, to let all of Detroit, Michigan know they are indeed coming.

What would America do, what would America be, without more men, more Muslim Supermen, like Dawud Walid to protect us from them?

How Atheists And Muslims Have Lost Their Minds

October 30, 2011 2 comments

What really happens when “children” run the world?

Children learn early on in life whether or not throwing temper tantrums and hissy fits will gain them what it is they want.  Parents will either give in, or stand firm.

What ultimately becomes of the children whose parents give in, when they themselves grow into adulthood?  What ultimately does the future hold for humanity, for society and human beings when irrationality and dangerous minds have gained control over reason and logic and are allowed to run rampant and unchecked and unchallenged?  What happens the more we give in to the temper tantrums and hissy fits, in whatever form, thrown by adults with much more dangerous agendas than wanting something of a more insignificant value such as a cookie or a toy?

We are seeing those results right now.  And while children who do throw temper tantrums and hissy fits, and do get their way time and time again, because their parents have not stood firm when they should have, do not necessarily grow up to be atheists or Muslim -

When atheists resort to throwing feces, real or fake, at a representational image of Jesus Christ, they have lost all credibility in their cause.  (Their cause, in part, being to show how silly Christianity is and how silly, how “dangerous”, Christians are to everybody for believing in it.)  Having denounced reason and logic (a cornerstone of free-thought) atheists rightly deserve to be mocked and excoriated for their own fanatical behavior.  Monkeys throw feces.  When atheists throw feces at religious images for whatever irrational reason or intent, when they feel compelled to immerse or submerge a religious image in a jar of urine, calling it art, they devolve back into the monkeys from whence they came.  They are certainly no better, no smarter, no more intellectually adept than a monkey.

When Muslims resort to offering rewards for the capture of an Israeli soldier, for the purpose of using it as leverage to gain the release of more Palestinian prisoners, they too have shown, and continue to show, a lack of credibility and how worthless their cause is.  (Their cause, in large part, to show that Islam is the one true religion, the religion of “peace”, that Allah is “greatest” and anyone who rejects that are “infidels” and need to be killed.)  Muslims, having themselves denounced reason and logic, (which has not been a cornerstone of their religion for nearly a thousand years) and embraced violence and murder, also deserve to be mocked and excoriated for their own fanatical behavior.

When Christians act in irrational and dangerous ways, atheists lose no time in mocking and excoriating them.  Whether it is Pat Robertson saying something stupid, or the Westboro Baptist Church crashing funerals, and going all the way back to the Inquisition (which is used heavily in the debate against religion, and Christianity in particular) there is no shortage of documentation showing the temper tantrums and hissy fits Christians throw.

The difference being, Christians, by in large, have grown up and become the parents they need to be.  Whether atheist, Muslim or Christian, only a small minority of people within each group is causing problems for the whole.  Of the three, only Christians have the courage and the tenacity to scold, condemn and rebuke the “Pat Robertsons” within their religious fold – and they do it very openly.

Where are the voices in the atheist community to parent those atheists who feel they need to throw temper tantrums?  Where are the voices in the Muslim community to parent those Muslims who feel they need to throw temper tantrums?  (Obviously the “temper tantrums” thrown by atheists are more on par, clownish, with those thrown by the Westboro Baptist Church and not on the level as those thrown by Muslims.  However, their goals are the same.  Both atheists and Muslims want attention and they want to get their way.)

If both atheists and Muslims have a desire to be taken seriously, how does what they are doing justify our respect?  In other words, what does it mean if we actually do take seriously the atheist that throws feces at, or otherwise defaces, a religious image; if we actually do take seriously the Muslim who engages in terrorism, homicide bombings, and offering rewards for the capture of Israeli soldiers for the purpose of negotiating a trade off?  And what happens if we actually gave in to the Westboro Baptist Church?

It means we legitimize unprovoked violence and irrational behavior – temper tantrums.  It means we live in a world devoid of laws and rules, and respect.   If we allow people to do whatever they want and get away with it, unchallenged, because we either fear the retaliation or have no stomach to endure the hissy fits, it means we allow the yellers, the screamers, the whiners and complainers, the ones who flail their arms and legs about, as children do, whether they throw feces or grenades, to be in charge of the world and dictate to the rest of us – who do act with restraint, as parents and adults – how the world will operate.

How long can the world survive when “children” run and “operate” it on feces and grenades?

Of Public Schools: Sexual Beastiality – In; Kids For Christ – Out!

October 27, 2011 7 comments

Here is another reason why parents ought to immediately remove their children from public school and either enroll them in private school or home school them.  (As if teaching political correctness, multiculturalism, an anti-American worldview, a distorted history of America and a very graphic, sexually explicit Sex Ed. course was not reason enough.)

The Owasso School District in Oklahoma is being sued for not allowing one of its student groups, Kids For Christ, to promote its after school activities.  The position of the school district is that the “Church-State” separation is being conflicted; that because this is a religious group, it cannot advertise to the rest of the student body when and where it will meet after school in the same way other, non-religious groups can.   In other words, if the group was “Kids for Gay Rights” or “Kids for Abortion Rights” the school district would have left them alone.  According to the district, (which has its facts wrong when it comes to the law) whether the kids announce a meeting over the school’s PA system, or provide students with leaflets that have written information pertaining to their meeting, constitutes a “violation” of the so called “separation of church and state”.

Ladies and gentlemen – there is nothing in our Constitution that prohibits religion in public schools.  That is an ACLU lie.  What is prohibited is public schools, which are government institutions, from promoting one form of religion over another on their own, independent of community input.  Public schools belong to the communities in which they reside.  As such, the people in these communities do have the right to make their voices heard.  And communities do have a right, if it is in fact a majority of that community, to incorporate religion within their own public schools, whether that means opening the class day with a prayer, displaying the Ten Commandments on a wall, and forming after school religious study clubs – and informing the student body of those meetings.

These kids have just as much right to have a religious after school program for themselves as kids would have a right to meet for drama, arts, sports or anything else.  Religion does not take a back seat, does not need to take a back seat, because the ACLU says so.  Law groups like the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which is the law firm representing these children in their suit against the district, are making certain the Owasso School District and the ACLU knows that.

Even the delinquents over at the Daily Kos need to be reminded of that.  They will mock Christianity, because they know their heads won’t be cut off for doing so.  In their dismal attempt at “gotcha” journalism, they use Islam, and a Muslim after school group as a bases to show what supposed hypocrites Christians are.  Their attempt fails because, aside from a small number of extreme and radical Christians, the vast majority of the Christian community would not object to a Muslim group meeting after school.

Are “Kids for Christ” meeting after school for nefarious and sinister purposes?  Are they meeting to plot the overthrow of America, to blow up a building, to discuss the assassination of a political or religious leader?  Or – are they just meeting after school to study the Bible and worship?  If that is all they are doing, that may make some uncomfortable, but there is nothing unconstitutional about it.  And if that is all a Muslim group is doing, worshiping, that is neither unconstitutional nor ought it to make anyone uncomfortable.

The ACLU will of course beg to differ.  They too have their facts concerning the law wrong.

When communities all across America begin to take a stand for their schools, for their children who attend these schools, and demand that their schools represent them, reflect them and not the ACLU, not the lies of the ACLU and other anti-religion (Christianity) organizations; when communities begin to demand their schools teach their children according to their wishes and desires, and not those of the ACLU, or any other liberally bent group with an ulterior motive to indoctrinate our children with falsities, inaccuracies, lies about America and our history, lies about morality, etc.; when communities effectively take back their schools from people and organizations that would seek to intentionally harm their children, and all children, with liberal propaganda – we will then see a transformation occur within the public school system itself that will create a real atmosphere for learning.

However – so long as the ACLU is allowed to win its legal fights, because of community apathy and arrogant judges who continually disregard law and our Constitution; so long as the liberal agenda remains inculcated and entrenched within our public schools, fastened to our children’s education by erroneous laws intentionally distorted by devious people – the decline of American education will continue, and not only will our children suffer all the more for it, we as a society will suffer as well.

The children are our future, and they always will be.  If we continue to allow their education to be intentionally screwed up and infected with a liberal, anti-America agenda, they will grow up to believe that way.

And once a majority of our youth have grown up into adulthood to believe what lies about America liberalism teaches, and that the ACLU fights in court to remain stapled to public education, the value system of our founding fathers, the morality and ethics they incorporated into the creation of this country; the same strict attention to that morality and ethics that has successfully taught generations of Americans, in public schools, the correct history of our country, the meaning of freedom, liberty, justice, etc.; that same morality and ethics which is the reason, directly, for America today being the greatest nation on Earth and why everyone in the world is so envious of us – once we lose that, we lose America.  And that is the real driving force of, and behind, liberalism.

The removal of religion from public schools, and forbidding religious groups like “Kids for Christ”, is but one of the ways liberals have found works in aiding to subvert and convert our children.  (The addition of political correctness, multiculturalism, a distorted history of America as the bad guy, etc., all work to cement that liberal imprint on our children’s minds.)

We who love America need to be motivated – to find the courage – to stop them.

Or is it already too late?

Calling The Pope A Nazi Is Heroic? Calling Obama A Failed President Is Racist?

October 20, 2011 Leave a comment

When Susan Sarandon called Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi what exactly was she hoping to gain by the remark?  Does she really believe the Pope is a Nazi or was she just having a bad a day and needed to vent?  Does Susan even know what a Nazi is?  That is a fair question to ask of a liberal, any liberal, such as Susan who, on the one hand supports abortion on demand, but on the other hand, opposes the death penalty as much as the Pope she called a Nazi.  (She starred in “Dead Man Walking”, in 1995, a movie with anti-death penalty themes.)  And liberals have a strong tendency to simply throw around words to see where they stick.  The problem here, of course, is that there is nowhere for “Nazi” to stick when referring to Pope Benedict XVI.

Perhaps she was referring to the Pope’s earlier, albeit brief, ties to Nazism when, in his youth, and when he was known by his German name Joseph Ratzinger, he was forced to join Hitler’s Youth, as were all young Germans at the time.  But the war ended, Nazism failed, and Joseph, who never embraced Nazism to begin with, grew up to be a strong Catholic and eventually Pope, after the death of Pope John Paul II.

One is hard pressed to find a liberal who has the courage to openly show respect for such a man as Pope Benedict XVI.  Why did Susan Sarandon really call the Pope a Nazi?  More than likely it is because she is a deeply convicted liberal and he is a deeply religious conservative who opposes abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage, socialism and the socialist agenda which seeks to uproot and overthrow religion and religious institutions.  When do you ever see, or hear of, a conservative calling a liberal a Nazi?  (Maybe Rush Limbaugh when he refers to feminists as femi-Nazis.  And it might do well to examine the term more in-depth and find out how much truth there is to it.)

Liberals, hypocrites as they are, have no problem with throwing around such words as ‘Nazi” when it comes to conservatives, and in particular religious conservatives; and left wing extremist pro abortion groups like NOW, have no problem calling pro-life activists terrorists.  But when conservatives use words like “I hope Obama fails”, Obama is a failure, Obama, the first black U.S. President, is the worst President in U.S. history – we are labeled racists, despite the fact that when we use words, we can usually back them up; and despite the fact that liberals called George W. Bush, his father and former President George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan much, much worse during their Presidencies.

And yet, Obama has failed to produce the millions of jobs he promised he would.  Obama has failed to turn our economy around as he promised he would.  Obama has failed to cut taxes on the middle class as he promised he would.  And Obama has failed to end partisanship in politics and in America with regards to race as he promised he would.  Race relations in America are worse now than they were before Obama took office – and that is the direct fault of black liberals in congress and all over America.  The racism we are seeing now in America is coming most directly from liberal blacks, not conservative whites.

Barack Obama is a failed President.  (And this is mostly a good thing for America and all Americans.)

Why?

Because the way in which Obama wanted jobs to be created in America would have cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and would only have created government, public sector jobs and expanded government itself.  In other words, the only jobs Obama is concerned with creating are those that grow the size and scope of government, but which do not expand the size and scope of the economy.  The more we grow government, the more government jobs we create, the more it costs all taxpayers.  However, creating jobs in the private sector not only costs taxpayers nothing, it not only aides the economy and economic growth, it also generates new tax revenue.  To create a government, public sector job, you must pay someone with the money collected through taxes.  To create a private sector job, a business owner must pay someone out of their own pocket.

Certainly we, as conservatives, hope Obama fails to achieve his ultimate goal of bigger government, higher taxes and less freedom and liberty for all Americans.  Certainly we, as conservatives, know how much better off America, Americanism and all freedom loving Americans will be should Obama fail to achieve these goals.  Certainly we, as conservatives, know that by hoping Obama fails in his goals, we are not applying racism behind our motives.  If Obama were white, and he, as a white President, had the same agenda, we would hope for his failure just as aggressively.

So no, Pope Benedict XVI is no more a Nazi than conservatives are racists.  And liberals, like Susan Sarandon and Barack Obama, are no more saints, heroes or anybody to look up to and admire than was Hitler.

Israel (Jewish) = Pro-Life; Palestinians (Muslim) = Pro-Death

October 17, 2011 1 comment

Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier, is soon (it is presumed) set to be released from captivity, where he has remained as a prisoner, and a hostage, for nearly 5 and one half years.  He was not a criminal at the time of capture, nor had he committed any such crimes, unless you consider it a crime to be Jewish, as most Palestinians do.  Certainly all members of the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations do.

But there is a catch.  In order for Gilad to be freed, Hamas has demanded Israel release over one thousand Palestinian prisoners in its custody.  Why are these Palestinians in Israeli prisons?  Because unlike Gilad, these prisoners were, and still remain hard to the core, savage, bloodthirsty terrorists.  It is presumed, without question, once this exchange occurs, the terrorists will not hang up their guns and live out their remaining lives in peace and piety.  Rather, they will go back to what they do best, what they have been programmed to do – kill Jews.

It is telling just how much value Jewish Israel puts on human life (and is willing to put on human life) and how so little value the Muslim Palestinians do not, when Israel is prepared to have Gilad, one soul, returned at a cost of freeing over one thousand soulless, murderous, Muslim terrorists back into the hands of Hamas and the PLO.  Why is it impossible for Palestinians to recognize that the prisoners Israel has in its custody are hardened terrorists whose only mission in life concerns the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of all Jews?  Unless there is unanimous consensus among all Palestinians that Israel and all Jews must “disappear”.  Is this how “peaceful Muslims” desire to be known?

And after the exchange?  Does anyone expect to see peace and harmony between Israel and the Palestinians?  Does anyone really believe Hamas, the PLO or Hezbollah will end their bloody feud, accept the Israelis and find a way to live with and among one another?  All this going on at the same time they are still calling for a Palestinian state, and when their desire to wipe Israel and all Jews off the face of the Earth is as strong as ever!

Most Israelis support the exchange, according to a just published poll.  What does that tell you about the moral strength and moral character of the average Jewish Israeli?  Would the Palestinians ever even considered a one on one exchange for Gilad?  What does that tell you about the moral weakness and immoral character of the average Muslim Palestinian?

One prisoner set to be released in exchange for Gilad is:

Ahlam Tamimi, a woman who drove a suicide bomber to a crowded Jerusalem pizzeria in 2001.  He killed 15 people, including seven children and teenagers.

Can you imagine if someone had aided and abetting a Jewish suicide bomber into a Palestinian place of business, and had killed a number of Palestinians?  First of all, that doesn’t happen.  Secondly, if it had, or ever does, and Hamas or the PLO had captured the accomplice, would they even live long enough to be part of a prisoner exchange?  Would the Palestinians ever consider exchanging such a person for one of their own homemade terrorists?

While Hamas is preparing a “heroes” welcome for hundreds of these Palestinian terrorists, many of the parents and relatives of Israelis murdered by these same terrorists are petitioning the Israeli court to reject the deal, knowing that, from previous experience, it will lead to the further murdering of more Jews.  They are not holding out much hope, considering the majority support among Israelis for the deal going forward.

What will be interesting, in the coming months, and next year or two, is how the Palestinians conduct themselves with regards to committing acts of terrorism against Israelis.  The reason?  Palestinians want statehood, are demanding statehood, are demanding they be recognized as a legitimate state and are demanding to be recognized by the U.N. and the rest of the world.  But if Hamas, the PLO and Hezbollah, if their own people, cannot restrain themselves, if they pursue more acts of terrorism against Israelis, if they continue to murder Israelis, will the U.N. really have the audacity to grant statehood status to a people who, although they have a brain, don’t know how to use it?

Assuming that Palestinian terrorists can restrain themselves until their statehood is recognized (and if and when such a Palestinian statehood is accepted, it will only come from land divvied up from Arab countries, not Israel) will cooler Palestinian heads prevail, or will all that hate and antisemitism that has built up all this time, brewing, boiling, bubbling over explode into full scale terrorism once again?

Even now, before statehood, before the prisoner exchange, Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel, refuse to accept Israel, refuse to let Israel live in peace.  Why would anyone postulate an immaculate change in attitude after the exchange and after statehood?

It will be up to the young Palestinians to decide for themselves how they want their culture, their identity to move forward into the future.  You just can’t teach old Palestinians new tricks.  And you can’t teach a hardened, pro-death Palestinian Muslim terrorist to “love thy neighbor” if that neighbor happens to be a Jew.

History, sadly, is very clear on this.

How Can Islam Be The Religion Of Peace It Claims To Be? (And How Can We Respect It With A Straight Face?)

October 12, 2011 Leave a comment

In Saudi Arabia, a Colombian soccer player, Juan Pablo Pino was detained by “moral” police, after he was seen with an exposed tattoo of Jesus on his arm.  The country maintains its law under Sharia, which does not allow for religious tattoos, among other things, to be exposed in public.  Upon his release, Pino is said to have apologized for the mishap.  If he hadn’t, would he have been released?

And, in an on going story which has the world gripped, Iran is set to execute by hanging a Muslim turned Christian pastor. And if it had not been from all the pressure, all the condemnation, worldwide, the execution would have already taken place.

Two current stories, among the countless millions which illustrate the destructive, anti-human worldview that is Islam.

A man cannot wear a religious tattoo without being accosted by “moral” police.  Any Muslim that dares convert to Christianity, and is found out, is executed.  Arab Muslims from Hamas to the PLO, in Egypt, Iran, Syria and all over the Middle east routinely, religiously, call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of every last Jew.  And Muslim women can’t do anything for fear of being lashed or stoned to death in so called “honor” killings.  And that includes reporting being raped, because if she does that, her father and brothers will kill her for having “dishonored” the family, and that is protected under Sharia law.  And Muslims are just arrogant enough to have the audacity not to understand why we criticize them and their religion.

Ladies and gentlemen, Islam is not a respecter of peace.  Islam is not about peace.  Islam is not defined as peace.  Islam is not defined by peace.  If you are a Muslim today, you are either the blood thirsty Muslim terrorist who uses Islam and the name of Allah in vane to justify your madness, or you are the cowardly Muslim who will not stand up for your religion and defend it (that part of Islam that once was peaceful and enlightened) and take it back from the blood thirsty Muslim terrorists that have hijacked it.  Which one are you?

And before you take offense, which you don’t deserve, and start talking about all of Christianity’s faults throughout the centuries just remember – Christianity ironed out most of those faults through all its many schisms, religious wars, etc., where millions of people, mostly innocent, died during this period of struggle.  Today, Christianity is vastly different than it was even three hundred years ago.  It is less blood thirsty and less hell bent on damnation and more focused on saving souls, whereas Islam is more focused on killing souls.

Nothing coming out of Islam today remotely suggests there is any intent by Muslims to be more caring, more giving, more tolerant people.   By their law non Muslims are the infidel and it is justified to kill them.  That’s Sharia law.  The only law they know.

There has been talk of allowing Sharia Law here in America, to accommodate the many Muslims who have immigrated here.  Why they came here, to what is essentially a Christian nation, would be baffling except for the fact that it is here in America where a Muslim, where anyone of any religion, can most freely practice their faith (within reason).  It’s ironic.  In fact, Muslims can practice their faith here in America more freely, and without being harassed, than they could back in their own country.  We don’t have a “moral” police that can arrest anyone for the slightest of religious infractions.  It would be unconstitutional.

Allowing Sharia law here in America would be a bad idea, not just because it violates the constitution, which is does.  But by its very nature, Sharia law would allow for Muslims to be tried and sentenced under separate laws and a different due process than the rest of Americans.  That’s not what our founding fathers intended.  Sharia law, just as it does in the rest of the Muslim world, would also allow for the lashing, stoning and killing of women and girls in their so called “honor” killings.  Sharia law, just as in the rest of the Muslim world, would allow for the executions of Muslims turned Christians.  Right here in America.  And the same damned liberals who despise and decry our own death penalty would support the death penalty under Sharia law, because these same damned liberals who so despise Christianity welcome anything that is counter to Christianity, i.e., Islam.

And what of women’s rights groups like the National Organization of Women?  They are silent right now on everything going on in the Muslim world concerning the violence against Muslim women and girls.  Why?  Out of some fear they would be disrespecting the religion?  No.  Because NOW so hates Christianity, it is willing to bite its tongue when Islam, which also despises Christianity as much as liberals, behaves badly towards its women and girls.  Bring Sharia law here to America, install it, use it in place of American law, to subvert American law, to intimidate and spread fear, to counter Christianity – liberals will look the other way, regardless of the inhumanity it commits against Muslim Americans in the name of Islam and of Allah.  One has to wonder what Sharia law has to say about abortion, and how that would play into NOW’s attitude toward Sharia law.

With all the violence being committed in the name of Islam, and it is true that the vast majority of today’s terrorists are Muslim, is it even possible Islam itself can be saved?  And if so, where are the so called “peaceful” Muslims?  What is the point of retaining ones religion if that religion no longer reflects or behaves in the manner in which it was founded?  What is the point of staying in a religion that has evolved itself more into a satanic cult, than a religion of peace?  Why not just convert to Christianity?  Is there anything within Islam even worth redeeming at this point?

In Arabic, Islam means submission, not peace.  And it is submission for which one part of its followers, (about 300 million out of nearly 1.3 billion Muslims) Islam is concerned.  But if Islam is ever going to be that religion of peace that the other part (the one billion Muslims) claims it really is, than the one billion need to stand up and be counted; they need to take a stand for the Islam that is of peace, (if that “peace” still exists, or ever existed) and remove that Islam which is of death and destruction.  If they (the one billion Muslims) don’t find the courage to do that, then it will happen progressively, and more violently, by western powers in their/our on going War On Terror.  And the longer the “peaceful” Muslims” continue to sit and be silent, the harder it will be for anyone to look at Islam with a straight face and seriously consider anything remotely peaceful about it.

And by the time the West is through waging its War On Terror, which will continue for years to come – will there even be anything left of Islam, within Islam, to salvage?  Anything worth remembering?  Or will Islam be remembered mostly for its violence and its murderous rage and tendencies; its “honor” killings and beheadings; its terrorism and homicide bombers?  And will that be how the history of Islam is taught to subsequent generations?

Is that really what Muslims want for their religion?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.