Saturday, August 28, 2010

Hate crimes against Muslims

According to the Sacramento Bee,

Hate crimes directed against Muslims remain relatively rare, notwithstanding the notoriety gained by incidents such as recent vandalism at the Madera Islamic Center.

Jews, lesbians, gay men and Caucasians, among others, are all more frequently the target of hate crimes, FBI records show.

See Atlas Shrugs for the story.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Obama spending $6 million to restore Islamic sites

While the ACLU has been busy ensuring that every vestige of Christianity has been removed from the public square in America, and millions of Americans are out of work, and while the Democrats drive the country toward bankruptcy:
This year, the Obama administration will spend nearly $6 million to restore 63 historic and cultural sites, including mosques and minarets, in 55 nations, according to State Department documents.
This has been going on since the Bush administration! What happened to separation of church and state?!

raqi bishop says U.S. betrayed country, Christians suffer most

"The situation is worse for everyone, but especially for us Christians. The withdrawal of the United States is a disastrous flight from responsibility, which will multiply the atrocities and increase the instability even more."

Is this what our troops died for? Read the story at ADF.



Sunday, August 22, 2010

More regulation of colleges in Texas

Moments ago on Fox and Friends, a Texas State Representative was explaining a new Texas bill which would require all professors at public colleges and universities in Texas to post their syllabi online.

I'm not in Texas and I don't teach at a public university so this would not apply to me, but while posting syllabi online may be a good idea, it is just one more example of ever-increasing government regulation and control (and by the way, the more government regulation, the more it costs to monitor/administer these regulations which means tuition goes up even higher).

The representative advocating this bill on Fox and Friends this morning was a Republican, which just goes to show that some Republicans can be just as clueless as Democrats.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

A racist assault

I found out tonight that a black man I know was working in a grocery store today when he asked a customer if he could help him. The customer actually spit on my black friend and called him a "bastard nigger."

This absolutely infuriates me! I'm not a fan of hate crimes laws but I must admit that I wish an undercover cop had been there to arrest that ignorant, racist thug, charge him with assault and tack a hate crimes charge on top of it. Vicious animals like that should not be allowed to walk around free.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Immigration in perspective

This is an e-mail which has gone viral. It certainly puts things in perspective (is there any country anywhere in the world that does all this for illegals?):

Dear Mr. President:

I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and
I would like to ask you to assist me.

We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico , and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.

We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.

I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy,
President Calderon, that I'm on my way over?

Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:

1. Free medical care for my entire family.

2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.

3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.

4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.

5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.

6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.

7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.

8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.

9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico but I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.

10. In case one of the
Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.

11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U. S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.

12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.

13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.

14. I want to receive
free food stamps.

15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.

16. I'll need
Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.

17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.

18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the
Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.

I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

Thank you so much for your kind help.

You're the man!!!

Larry Nolen Lt. (SS) USN Ret.

President

Lone Star Quality Services Inc.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Christianity and the Left

Although there are Christians who--for reasons passing understanding--align themselves with the Left, there can be little doubt that the Left as a whole is, at its core, a fundamentally anti-Christian movement. Generally speaking:

The Left denies the core, fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Among the core teachings of Christianity are that in Jesus of Nazareth, God became human, lived a sinless life, died an atoning sacrifice for sin and bodily rose again. While there are a few on the Left who may still believe these doctrines—just as there are many on the political right who deny them—the vast majority of those who deny these doctrines are on the Left.

The Left often seems willing to support any religion other than Christianity which they ridicule and vilify. To many on the Left, when someone wanted to use public tax dollars to paint a picture of a Christ-figure dipped in urine, that was Constitutional free speech at work. If someone did the same with an image of Muhammad, that would be hate speech worthy of prosecution.

If a Christian teacher wants to keep her Bible on her desk, the Left protests that this is a violation of the separation of church and state; but if a public college wants to spend tax money for Muslim foot washing facilities, the Left is mute.

The Left successfully works to strike down the placing of memorial crosses on public land (or the Ten Commandments in courthouses, or Nativity scenes in town squares, etc), but is silent as the Leftist Obama administration pays $16,000 in tax dollars to send a Muslim Imam to Saudi Arabia to promote American-Muslim and Saudi Arabian Muslim relations!

The Left denies the biblical teaching that people are sinners in need of repentance (Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 1:1-3:21) and believes instead that people are basically good. To those on the Left, the problem is not that people are sinners, the problem is a bad environment or bad parenting, or poverty or even religion--anything but sin! In fact, since people are basically good, bad behavior must always be the fault of someone or something else (which has created a whole "industry" of victimization).

This belief in the fundamental goodness of people is at the heart of many of the Left’s social programs. The Left reasons, if we could just educate people, they would be good (one need only think of highly educated criminals to see how this philosophy has worked out).

If we could just give them an income and good housing, they would be good (one need only think of the word “projects” to see how that philosophy has worked out).

In foreign policy, the problem is never that our enemy is bad and the problem is never the enemy’s flawed ideology or religion. The problem probably lies with us so if we just tried to understand our enemies and negotiate with them we could always come to an understanding, since all people are basically good (So after 10 years of negotiating with Saddam Hussein, many on the Left still wanted to continue negotiating while Saddam Hussein continued torturing, starving, murdering and robbing his own people).

The Left supports extreme cultural relativism. Churches that do not allow women to be priests or pastors are denounced by the Left but Muslims--none of whom allow women to be Imam's--are excused.

In fact, the Left will not even condemn those Muslim leaders that refuse allow women to drive or go to school. Nor will they condemn individual Muslims who beat their wives or commit honor killings (who are we to judge their culture, says the Left).

Similarly, the Left endlessly condemns America for imperialism (in taking Indian lands) and for slavery, but they refuse to condemn Muslim nations whose history of imperialism is among worst in human history and who enslaved far more people than America ever did.

The Left supports extreme moral relativism. Almost any sexual perversion is excused on the basis of, “who are you to judge?” So while global warming and harming the environment are modern sins created by the Left, biblical sins like sex with people of the same sex, sex with multiple partners, violent sex, and even sex with animals are behaviors seen as alternative (and valid) lifestyles.

The Left supports the murder of unborn children. Forget the religious/philosophical arguments about when a fetus becomes a person. Biologically a woman’s fetus is a living human being. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. Some on the Left (e.g. Barack Obama) are so vile that they even support the partial delivery of this little human being while they scramble its brains! Some even want to force you to support this abomination with your tax dollars!

Of course not all on the Left agree with all of these positions, but is it beyond reasonable debate that these positions characterize those on the Left. They do not characterize those on the right.

Sometimes Christians have to hold their nose, so to speak, to support a candidate on the right. Sometimes the only available options are so bad, we may just refuse to support either side. But it in most cases, it is really beyond my understanding how born again, Evangelical Christians can support the Left in good conscience.

16,000 tax dollars to send Imam to Saudi Arabia

According to the Boston Herald,
American taxpayers will pay the imam behind plans for a mosque near the Manhattan site of the Sept. 11 attacks $3,000 in fees for a three-nation outreach trip to the Middle East that will cost roughly $16,000, the State Department said Wednesday.
This, at the same time that the 10th circuit court of appeals ruled that the crosses placed on public land by a non-profit group in memory of Utah's fallen Highway Patrol members, is unconstitutional.

Can someone explain to me why it is unconstitutional to put up some memorial crosses at private expense (even if it is on public land) but it is not unconstitutional for the federal government to spend $16,000 of the tax payers' money to send a Muslim Imam to Saudi Arabia to promote American Islam?

I know one for sure: If the federal government had spent $16,000 to send someone like Franklin Graham to Saudi Arabia to promote Christianity, every Left wing politician, media source and atheist group in the country would be screaming "Unconstitutional!"

Friday, August 13, 2010

Matthews on the "Rise of the New Right"

I just watched a Chris Matthews special on MSNBC about the "Rise of the New Right" in America. As one might expect, it was, in my humble opinion, an all out fear-mongering smear job.

If the only thing someone knew about "the new right" came from this show, they would, no doubt conclude that it consists of a dangerous mix of assorted crazies including hate-filled militias, birthers, racists and revolutionaries who need only a small spark to ignite the entire movement into mass violence.

Matthews ended the show by noting that this was the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and that it would be well to consider what happens when things get too explosive.

The way the clips were selected and edited together, mixing the TEA party with militias, truthers, and paranoid conspiracy theorists, produced a result that left an impression that was truly dishonest and absolutely despicable.

If Matthews ever lost his job at MSNBC, I'm sure those in charge of Communist propaganda in China would be happy to hire a man of his caliber.

Time to play, "Real or Fake"


The economic impact of Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality "is a principle...that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed"

Sounds good. Who could possibly be against this, right?

New York Law School's Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute released a study on the effects of Net Neutrality:
The paper claims that wireless and wireline broadband could suffer huge investment losses as a consequence of the rules. A ten percent drop in investment could rob the United States of 502,000 jobs with a $62 billion impact on its Gross Domestic Product. Three times that decline could punish the economy with a loss of 604,000 jobs and $80 billion in GDP loss.
Is this really what we need at a time when so many people are unemployed? New claims for unemployment jumped to 484,000 last week!

You'd never guess that a bill entitled "Net Neutrality" is actually a bill to allow the government to further regulate and control the internet--and that is just the point. If it were called the "Greater Internet Regulation by Government Bill" not even Democrats would vote for it.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Students Silenced for Singing Anthem at Lincoln Memorial | NBC Washington

Are we still living in America?

Students Silenced for Singing Anthem at Lincoln Memorial | NBC Washington

Obama on Ramadan

Recently Barack Obama told a group of Muslims: "Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the US, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America."

Well, he's right about Islam being part of America. One of the very first military conflicts facing our new nation was the Barbary Wars which came about when Muslim nations in North Africa were capturing our ships, enslaving and torturing our citizens, and extorting what amounted to protection money from the U.S.

And the racial equality part: Obama didn't mention that Muslims have always owned black slaves starting with the time of Muhammad when one of Muhammad's closest associates (and later successor) Abu Bakr sold his black slave to rescue a Muslim.



As California goes, so goes the nation

In "The Golden State's War on itself," John Kotkin explains how it was California's own political policies that have brought the state to the brink of bankruptcy.

What the California politicians have done to California, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate are doing to America. People are fleeing California by the hundreds-of-thousands. Where will we go when the Democrats and RINO's destroy America?

Please take the time to read Kotkin's outstanding article. Until then, here are a few excerpts (hat tip, Kevin I):

At the same time, green promoters underestimate the impact of California’s draconian environmental rules on the economy as a whole. Take the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, which will force any new development to meet standards for being “carbon-neutral.” It requires the state to reduce its carbon-emissions levels by 30 percent between 1990 and 2020, virtually assuring that California’s energy costs, already among the nation’s highest, will climb still higher. Aided by the nominally Republican governor, the legislation seems certain to slow any future recovery in the suffering housing, industrial, and warehousing sectors and to make California less competitive with other states. Costs of the act to small businesses alone, according to a report by California State University professors Sanjay Varshney and Dennis Tootelian, will likely cut gross state product by $182 billion over the next decade and cost some 1.1 million jobs.

It’s sad to consider the greens such an impediment to social and economic health. Historically, California did an enviable job in traditional approaches to conservation—protecting its coastline, preserving water and air resources, and turning large tracts of land into state parks. But much like the public-sector unions, California’s environmental movement has become so powerful that it feels free to push its agenda without regard for collateral damage done to the state’s economy and people. With productive industry in decline and the business community in disarray, even the harshest regulatory policies often meet little resistance in Sacramento.

In the Central Valley, for instance, regulations designed to save certain fish species have required 450,000 acres to go fallow. Unemployment is at 17 percent across the Valley; in some towns, like Mendota, it’s higher than 40 percent.

***

The regulatory restraints, high taxes, and onerous rules enacted by the new progressives lead to high housing prices, making much of California too expensive for middle- and working-class employees and encouraging their employers to move elsewhere.

Silicon Valley, for instance—despite the celebrated success of Google and Apple—has 130,000 fewer jobs now than it had a decade ago, with office vacancy above 20 percent. In Los Angeles, garment factories and aerospace companies alike are shutting down. Toyota has abandoned its Fremont plant. California lost nearly 400,000 manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2007, according to a report by the Milken Institute—even as industrial employment grew in Texas and Arizona.

***

In short, the economy created by the new progressives can pay off only those at the peak of the employment pyramid—top researchers, CEOs, entertainment honchos, highly skilled engineers and programmers. As a result, California suffers from an increasingly bifurcated social structure. Between 1993 and 2007, the share of the state’s income that went to the top 1 percent of earners more than doubled, to one-quarter—the eighth-largest share in the country.

For these lucky earners, a low-growth or negative-growth economy works just fine, so long as stock prices rise. For their public-employee allies, the same is true, so long as pensions remain inviolate. Global-warming legislation may drive down employment in warehouses and factories, but if it’s couched in rhetoric about saving the planet, these elites can even feel good about it.

***

California now ranks second to New York—and just ahead of New Jersey—in the number of moving vans leaving the state. Between 2004 and 2007, 500,000 more Americans left California than arrived; in 2008, the net outflow reached 135,000,

The race card is maxed out

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Race Card Is Maxed Out
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

How can Hispanic people be Republicans?

Today Harry Reid told a group that he didn't know how any Hispanic person could be Republican.

What exactly is he saying? Is Reid suggesting that all people of Hispanic descent have cookie-cutter political positions and are incapable of independent thinking?

Or is he suggesting that all Hispanic people either support illegal immigration (or should support illegal immigration), and that this one consideration outweighs (or should outweigh) all other political considerations put together?

Sadly, I doubt that Harry Reid and most of his colleagues on the Left even have a clue about how racist his comment really was.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Understanding Fundamentalism

Any discussion of fundamentalism runs head long into the problem of definition. For example, if we were to define fundamentalists as “those who are willing to use force to establish the sovereignty of their religion, then there are virtually no Christian fundamentalists today, though there are millions of Muslim fundamentalists who might fit that description. For example, President George W. Bush, misguidedly wanted to establish Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he most certainly was not out to establish Christianity as the supreme religion.


Failure to define terms allows Hollywood elites like Rosie O’Donnell, for example, to make ridiculous statements equating Christian and Muslim “radicals,” i.e. fundamentalists. As far as I know, she didn’t define what she meant, but my guess is that if she and many others who share her view, were pressed for a definition they might define Christian fundamentalists as any Christian who doesn’t go along with the politically correct ideology of most mainline churches, e.g. acceptance of abortion, support for homosexuality and gay marriage, tolerance and even acceptance of all other religions, etc.


While this may or may not describe Christian fundamentalists, it is not a historically accurate definition. In its broad sense, the essence of religious fundamentalism is absolute devotion to one’s religious founder and the desire to interpret one’s sacred books as they were originally intended to be understood.


Fundamentalism, as discussed in this chapter, deals only with this broad sense of the term. There is also a more narrow sense in which Christian fundamentalism, in particular, began to be characterized by narrow sectarianism and doctrinal disputes over such issues as the meaning of end-time prophecies and personal application issues such as drinking, card playing and attending movies. In this narrow sense, Christian fundamentalists had an unfortunate tendency to be intolerant, petty, and self-righteous as they focused on more and more hairsplitting doctrinal differences.


This chapter is not concerned with this narrow sectarianism but deals only with the broad historical sense of the term “fundamentalist” which would include most of the Christians who call themselves “Evangelicals” as well as fundamentalist Muslims regardless of whether they are Sunni, Shiite, etc.


Christian fundamentalism


The origin of the word “fundamentalist,” dates to the publication of a set of essays in 1909 entitled, The Fundamentals. These essays defended what the fundamentalists, as they came to be known, believed to be core, non-negotiable elements of the Christian faith. The “fundamentalists” were responding to those known at the time as “modernists” (i.e. progressives) who denied these doctrines and tended to deny the fundamentalists’ “literal” interpretation of the Bible.


These modernists (like many progressive biblical scholars today) were almost all white, male, Eurocentric, academic elites who found many of the stories in the Bible contrary to their “modern” (19th and 20th century) politically correct sensibilities. As a result, they tended to re-interpret such stories as allegories or metaphors.


By contrast, “fundamentalists” argued for a “literal interpretation” of the Bible. The phrase “literal interpretation” was rather unfortunate, however, because it left the impression that fundamentalists denied all symbolism or figures of speech in the Bible. That perception is factually in error. Christian fundamentalists fully acknowledge the presence of figures of speech, symbols and parables in the Bible. The phrase “literal interpretation” was only used in contrast to the more wildly allegorical interpretation used by the Modernists.


By “literal” interpretation, the “Fundamentalists” believed that the Bible should be interpreted by attempting to determine what the original authors of the biblical writings were trying to communicate to their original readers. This is done by interpreting these biblical writings just like any other ancient documents, i.e. by taking such matters into consideration as genre, grammar, figures of speech and historical background.


An example of literal interpretation from the Old Testament could be regarding the commands to drive out the Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, etc. from the Promised Land.


“When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites, and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out” (Exodus 23:23).


And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you. (Exodus 23:28).


“Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. (Exodus 34:11).


“When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than yourselves, (Deuteronomy 7:1).


“but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, (Deuteronomy 20:17).

As repugnant as these commands may be to modern Western sensibilities, Christian fundamentalists would refuse to interpret such stories as if they were allegories or symbolic narratives. Fundamentalists would insist, rather, that these commands, understood literally, were directed to specific people (Hebrews) at a specific time, under specific circumstances and were never intended as universal commands to kill all the infidels wherever you find them. Christian fundamentalists who follow in the intellectual tradition of 1909 Fundamentals, therefore, have never promoted violence in an attempt to coerce people into submission to Christianity.


On the contrary, based on the commands of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament, fundamentalist Christians believe they have a mandate to “go into all the world and preach the Gospel,” that is, to tell people that all have sinned against God and stand condemned before him, but that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ to die an atoning sacrifice for the sin of all who turn to him in repentance and faith.


Following Jesus’ teachings the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christian fundamentalists oppose vengeance and personal violence. In other words, while they support the lawful use of violence by police when necessary (Romans 13:4-5), and while many (though not all) may support the just use of military force (Hebrews 11:32-34), they do not believe in violently taking the law into their own hands, and those who consistently follow Jesus do not use force to retaliate for wrongs done against them (Matthew 5:39, cf. Romans 12:19; Hebrews10:30).


Opponents of Christian fundamentalism would point out the examples of Christian violence—like the crusades, the inquisition, the IRA, and those who commit violent acts against abortion workers and abortion clinics. Most Fundamentalists would say that those who commit such violent acts were certainly not following Jesus and, with the possible exception of some perpetrators of abortion clinic violence, they were not true Christians at all—at least not in the historical fundamentalist sense described above as found in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, i.e. those who have truly recognized and repented of their sin, turning to Jesus Christ in loving devotion (faith).


While some of those who perpetrate abortion clinic violence may be Christian fundamentalists, they are universally condemned by the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christian fundamentalists and represent only a very tiny fraction of the whole.


To illustrate this point, it could be noted that most people would insist that Muslim fundamentalists comprise only a small fraction of the total number of Muslims. Yet this small fraction have killed literally millions of people since 1993. By contrast, the National Abortion Federation provides a list of all those murdered for their involvement in the abortion industry since 1993 along with the names of the murderers. There are exactly five murderers: James Koop, Eric Randolph, John Salvi, Paul Hill, and Michael Griffin. Together they killed exactly 8 people since 1993. Muslim fundamentalists kill millions.


The five murderers assumed to be Christian fundamentalists, kill exactly eight people. Yet Christian fundamentalists have been compared with Muslim fundamentalists! The only possible explanations for this is either remarkable ignorance or anti-Christian bigotry and hate.


Unfortunately, it is this tiny fraction of abortion killers that get all the press—after all, it is news when some hateful individual claiming to be Christian kills an abortion doctor or a gay person. It is not news that hundreds-of-thousands of fundamentalist Christians went to church that week to worship and to give generously of their time and money to serve others. Nor is it news that the vast majority of Christian fundamentalists see such violence as a direct violation of James 1:20, “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”


While Christian fundamentalists are often attacked for their political activism (i.e. exercising their Constitutional rights), for every fundamentalist who is politically active there must be a hundred, if not a thousand, who believe that their primary task is to bring glory to God or to preach the gospel.


Contrary to some impressions, the fact is that it is a real challenge to get most fundamentalists to do anything political beyond voting. Christian fundamentalists—in the broad sense of the term--are such a huge group that if even half of them became politically unified and serious about political action, the result would be political earthquake.


There is little chance of that happening, however. Several years ago when an artist used public funding to depict a crucified Jesus dipped in urine, most fundamentalists were mute. If the spending of tax dollars to portray a crucified Jesus in urine didn’t motivate fundamentalists, nothing will (it is not hard to imagine what would happen if an artist publicly displayed a picture of Muhammad Qur’an dipped in urine)!


The vast majority of Christian fundamentalists, however, believe they are following Jesus when they quietly pray, worship, engage in outreach programs and give lots and lots of money to their churches and various charitable causes.


Muslim fundamentalism


Just as Christian fundamentalists point to the Bible, Muslim fundamentalists point to the Qur’an:


“…But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith” (Sura 2:191).


“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression” (Sura 2:193).


“Soon shall We cast terror Into the hearts of the Unbelievers (Sura 3:151).


“I will instill terror Into the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks And smite all their Finger-tips off them. This because they contended Against God and His Apostle: If any contend against God And His Apostle, God Is strict in punishment” (Sura

8:12-13).


“Against them [Unbelievers] make ready Your strength to the utmost of your power, including Steeds of war, to strike terror Into (the hearts of) the enemies Of God and your enemies…” (Sura 8:60).


“Apostle! [i.e. Muhammad] rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are Twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will Vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, They will vanquish a thousand Of the Unbelievers: for these Are a people without understanding” (Sura 8:65)


“But when the forbidden months Are past, then fight and slay The Pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, And lie in wait for them…” (Sura 9:5).


“Fight those who believe not In God nor the Last Day…” (Sura 9:29)


“O Prophet! [Muhammad] strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites And be firm against them. Their abode is Hell…” (Sura 9:73).


“O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about…” (Sura 9:123).


“And for those who reject Faith And deny Our signs, There will be a humiliating

Punishment” (Sura 22:57).


“Those who annoy God and His Apostle—God has cursed them In this world and In the Hereafter, And has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment” (Sura 33:57)


“Truly if the Hypocrites, And those in whose hearts Is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, Desist not…They shall have a curse On them: wherever they Are found, they shall be Seized and slain (without mercy)” (Sura 33:61).


“Therefore, when ye meet The Unbelievers (in fight), Smite at their necks…” (Sura 47:4).


While both moderates and fundamentalists in Islam take seriously Muhammad’s claim to be the last and greatest prophet, and believe that the Qur’an was revealed by God, Muslim moderates are not entirely comfortable with all the commands to violence in the Qur’an or ahadith. Muslim moderates, therefore, tend to emphasize the parts of the Qur’an about compassion, mercy and peace. They may argue that Muhammad was just fighting defensive battles and that everyone has the right to defend themselves…and indeed, some of the passages cited above do appear in defensive contexts.


Some moderates may dismiss the commands to violence as part of seventh century Arabic culture that is no longer relevant today. Or they may spiritualize Muhammad’s life and call to violent jihad as if he were only calling for an inward struggle against sin.


Muslim fundamentalists, on the other hand, point to the life of Muhammad as their example. They are likely to point out that many of Muhammad’s battles were offensive, not defensive. After Muhammad left Mecca for Medina, he was no longer persecuted but became a powerful warrior who went on the offensive. He ordered executions, fought battles, and fought the infidel wherever he found them, just as he believed Allah had commanded.


Muslim fundamentalists may even argue that Muhammad’s later commands to violent jihad and to kill the infidel abrogate or overturn his earlier, more peaceful sayings. Some believe the commands to be merciful and hospitable extend only to other Muslims and to not apply to relations with “infidels.”


Indeed, Muhammad’s last command to leave no two religions in Arabia was a command of conquest, not defense. Beginning right after Muhammad, Muslim warriors—believing they were following Muhammad—extended the control of Islam by the sword all the way from southern France to Indonesia.


Unlike the commands to violence in the Old Testament which were given to a particular people at a particular time and place, commands to violence in Islamic texts are often broad enough and sufficiently vague to be applied to infidels at any time, in any place.


The Qur’an commands to “fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression” (Sura 2:193). It is always easy for Muslim fundamentalists to imagine some kind of “tumult or oppression” to use in justifying violent Jihad or to argue that they are fighting a defensive war. After all, the Qur’an forbids Muslims from killing other Muslims and yet that has not kept Muslim fundamentalists from killing other Muslims. The Muslim fundamentalists simply declare that the Muslims they are killing are not really Muslim at all. In the same way, it is relatively easy for Muslim fundamentalists to say they are fighting a defensive war against Infidels based on all kinds of imagined offenses.


Muslim fundamentalists would say that Muhammad’s commands to fight infidels was universal and cannot just be relegated to the seventh century but is an obligation for all Muslims at all times and in all places. They would insist that the call to Jihad is not just a call to spiritual struggle but is primarily a call to violent military struggle. The entire world must be brought into submission to Allah, peacefully if possible (i.e. if the infidel will convert to Islam) but by absolutely any and all means necessary.


As the Ayatollah Khomeini once said,


Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!

Conclusion


Muhammad was a military and political leader whose armies struck terror into the hearts of non-Muslims in Arabia as he battled, captured, enslaved and executed his opponents. Muslim fundamentalists interpret the life and words of Muhammad in historical, literary context and conclude that in order to be faithful to Muhammad their mission is to bring the world into submission to Allah, peacefully if possible, but by absolutely any and all means necessary.


As a result they follow the example of Muhammad waging violent Jihad in their attempt to force the world into submission to Allah. In modern times, these fundamentalist jihadists capture, enslave, decapitate and slaughter innocent people by the millions following the example of Muhammad.


Many Americans argue that Muslim fundamentalists are only a small percentage of the total Muslim community but even if only 1% of Muslims were fundamentalist, 1% of a billion Muslims is ten million people who think the world must be brought under submission to Allah by absolutely all means necessary (and some estimates range as high as 10% or more). These Muslim fundamentalists are often the worst oppressors of Muslims who do not share their interpretation of the Qur’an.


By contrast, the Jesus of the Gospels was an itinerant prophet who traveled from village to village healing the sick and disabled, casting out demons, and even occasionally raising the dead. He rejected all efforts to make him king.


According to the Gospels, Jesus taught that he could personally forgive sin, that he had the authority to overturn Jewish dietary laws, that he was lord over the Sabbath, and that he would be the final end-time judge—things in a first century Jewish culture believed to be true only of God. Such things would certainly explain the fact that he was charged with blasphemy by his enemies. When his earliest followers became convinced that he had actually come back physically from the dead, they believed him.


Christian fundamentalists interpret the New Testament in historical, literary context and conclude that in order to be faithful to Jesus Christ their mission is to go into all the world and preach the gospel of repentance toward God and faith toward Jesus Christ, showing love and compassion even to their enemies, as Jesus taught.


As a result, these Christian fundamentalists have spent millions and millions of dollars sending people into every area of the earth to proclaim and embody the gospel of Jesus Christ. These missionaries have often given up virtually everything, risking their lives to start and run clinics, orphanages, homeless shelters and schools all over the world.


Christian fundamentalists have rescued people from forced prostitution, sexual slavery, and domestic abuse. They’ve provided food, shelter, comfort, education, medical care, and other assistance, not just to Christians, but to people from nearly every tribe, race, nationality and religion on the face of the earth. In fact, many Christian fundamentalists have been murdered by the very groups of people they came to serve.


Undeterred, they still continue to go, while other Christian fundamentalists stay behind collectively giving millions to support these efforts and to work tirelessly in their communities through church and para-church ministries as well as community charities.

Fundamentalism, or absolute dedication and devotion, is not necessarily a bad thing—it all depends on to whom or to what cause one is dedicated.



Professor Claims Discrimination Because He's Straight | The FOX Nation

Professor Claims Discrimination Because He's Straight | The FOX Nation

State Department funding Imam trip to Saudi Arabia

According to the New York Post:

The imam behind a plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero is set to depart on a multi-country jaunt to the Middle East funded by the State Department -- raising concerns that taxpayers may be helping him with the controversial project's $100 million fund-raising goal.


Feisal Abdul Rauf is taking the publicly funded trip to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States, the State Department confirmed yesterday.

Can someone tell me why it is an unconstitutional violation of separation of church and state to have the Ten Commandments posted in a court house, but it is not an unconstitutional violation of separation of church and state for the U.S. government to spend public tax dollars to fund a trip by a Muslim Imam specifically designed to promote Islam.

And how do you promote greater understanding about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States by sending this Imam to Saudi Arabia? This is the guy who wants to spit in the faces of 911 victims by building his monumental mosque next to the 911 site! Is that the image of American Muslims the Obama administration wants to present to Saudi Arabia?

And by the way, in case you don't think building a gigantic Mosque next to the 911 site is to spit in the face of 911 victims and all Americans, just imagine if someone were to propose building an "American Patriotic Center" in Hiroshima. How do you think that would be perceived in Japan?

Or how do you think Muslims would feel if England wanted to build a memorial to the crusades near the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem!

Since we're talking about greater understanding, why don't we fund leaders of Jewish and Christian communities in America to go to Saudi Arabia to promote greater understanding. Certainly the people of Saudi Arabia could benefit more from understanding Christians and Jews than they could from greater understanding Islam in America. After all, everyone is Saudi Arabia already understands Islam quite well.

Oh, that's right, Saudi Arabia would NEVER allow a prominent Christian or Jew on a tour of Saudi Arabia to promote greater interfaith understanding!

Those in the Obama administration are either out of their minds, or they have a very definite pro-Muslim, anti-Jew, anti-Christian (and anti-American) agenda. And the latter is very definitely unconstitutional!

Friday, August 06, 2010

What is Judicial Activism? - HUMAN EVENTS

Great article on judicial activism:

What is Judicial Activism? - HUMAN EVENTS

Terrorism: Focusing on what we did to deserve it!

According to CNSNews:
During the unveiling of the Country Reports on Terrorism 2009 at the U.S. Department of State on Thursday, Counterterrorism Coordinator Daniel Benjamin said that the Obama administration’s strategy to fight terrorism around the world includes determining America’s own role in possibly increasing the number of terrorists. (emphasis mine).
Our government just doesn't get it. Even if every person in America converted to Islam and pulled every American out of Muslim countries and agreed to help Muslim countries destroy Israel--that still wouldn't be enough!

Some Muslims would declare that our brand of Islam really wasn't true Islam at all. Muslims have been slaughtering and oppressing Muslims since the time of Muhammad. For example, being Muslim didn't keep Iraq from invading Kuwait, nor did it keep Iran and Iraq from slaughtering each other by the millions!

The Obama administration's policy above is a bit like dealing with rape by focusing on what the woman did to contribute toward her being raped!

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Federal judge strikes down Proposition 8

A gay federal judge in California has just ruled the California's proposition 8--in which voters determined that marriage should not be re-defined to include same sex couples--is unconstitutional.

As I understand it, the ruling was based on the fourteenth amendment, section 1 of which says
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This amendment says that states shall not make laws that abridge the privileges of U.S. citizens without due process of law. It does not spell out what these privileges or rights are. The Constitution gives us numerous rights--the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., but there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that gives people the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Using the logic of this judge, it would seem than almost anyone with enough money to hire a good law firm, could assert a right--the right to marry multiple people at the same time, the right to marry one's dog, the right to marry one's sister--and appeal to the fourteenth amendment to protect that imagined right!

This is the essence of judicial activism in which the judge--after two hundred years--suddenly discovers rights in the Constitution that no one has ever seen before! This judicial activism destroys Democracy by overturning the will of the people on the pretense of Constitutionality.

More stimulus pork

More stimulus pork (CNSNews):
-- $554,763 for the National Forest Service to replace windows in a closed visitor center at Mount St. Helens;

-- $762,372 to create “Dance Draw” interactive dance software;

-- $1.9 million for international ant research;

-- $1.8 million for a road project that is threatening a pastor’s home;

-- $308 million for a joint clean energy venture with BP, a highly unpopular firm since the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico;

-- $3.8 million for a “streetscaping” project that has reduced traffic and caused a business to fire two employees;

-- $16 million to help Boeing clean up an environmental mess it created in 2007;

-- $200,000 to help Siberian communities lobby Russian policymakers;

-- $39.7 million to upgrade the statehouse and political offices in Topeka, Kan.;

-- $760,000 to Georgia Tech to study improvised music;

-- $700,000 to study why monkeys respond negatively to inequity;

-- $363,760 to help NIH promote the positive impacts of stimulus projects;

-- $456,663 to study the circulation of Neptune’s atmosphere;

-- $529,648 to study the effects of local populations on the environment…in the Himalayas.

50 BILLION dollars in stimulus fraud

The Democrats bilked our grandchildren out of nearly a trillion dollars ostensibly to stimulate the economy. According to Politics Daily, the money went for such things like the following:
-- $308 million for a joint-venture BP power plant that won't start construction for another 16 months;
-- $90,000 to build a sidewalk that leads to a ditch;
-- $145,000 to test the effects of cocaine on monkeys;
-- $3.8 million for a "streetscaping" project that has reduced traffic and caused a business to fire two employees;
-- $16 million to help Boeing to clean up an environmental mess it created in 2007;
-- $200,000 to help Siberian communities lobby Russian policy makers;
-- $1.8 million for a road project that is threatening a pastor's home.
In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch, the fraud could be as much as 50 BILLION dollars! Republicans warned against this and recommended instead that the stimulus money be given back to the taxpayers in the form of tax relief, i.e. let taxpayers NOT pay any taxes for several months. That definitely would have stimulated the economy and it would have undoubtedly kept many people from losing their homes and cars.

But Democrats wanted the money to spend on their own special interests projects (thereby buying votes for their next elections), which is precisely what they did, leaving you, your children and grandchildren to pick up the bill.

I know that Republicans are not holy knights in shining armor--many of them are just as corrupt as Democrats--but taken as a whole, Democrats stand for taking more and more of your money to build bigger and bigger government with more and more power leaving you with less money and less freedom.

I simply cannot understand why people vote Democrat.