Tuesday, November 24, 2015

The “clash of civilizations” involves Islam vs. the world–Turkey and Russia are center stage

A classic of international relations literature is “The Clash of Civilizations – and the remaking of the world order” by Samuel P. Huntington published in 1997.  The conclusion of that book is that Islam (among other world ideologies) will be involved in an epic clash with other world religions, including atheists.

A significant reason for this clash is Islamic doctrine mandates this “clash” via what the West refers to as “radical Muslims”.  Despite the denial by US presidents, the Pope, and most media that Islamic terrorists such as ISIS and other radical elements of Islam have NOTHING to do with Islam, there are sound Islamic doctrinal reasons why these groups have EVERYTHING to do with Islam.

In addition to the clear evidence of “radicals” claiming they are Muslim, that they perpetrate their terror on behalf of Islam, that they shout Allahu Akbar when committing their terror, that hundreds of terror groups identify with Islam, and that 99.9% of all acts of terror are committed by declared Muslims, there is clear Islamic doctrine that also supports Islamic terror.

What is the Islamic doctrine that informs and motivates ISIS and the other Islamic “radicals?”

Simply stated:

In Christianity, the operational mandate is “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.”  This verse has influenced Christian doctrine and behavior from Christianity’s founding.  Sure there have been exceptions.  But Christian doctrine based on the New Testament has declared it is unscriptural for individual Christians to exact vengeance.  That belongs to the Lord, either in the spiritual sense in this life, or in the afterlife.

On the other hand, in Islam the responsibility for exacting vengeance is the exact opposite.  It is the responsibility of the individual Muslim to exact vengeance on the infidel, the unbeliever who, in the view of Islamic scripture and tradition, have allegedly corrupted their Christian and Jewish faith.  Allah is angry at that alleged corruption by the infidel, and commands his faithful Muslims, individually and personally, to act on his behalf to exact vengeance on the unbeliever.  The so-called “radicals” are doing exactly what their Islamic religion requires them to do to be faithful to Allah’s commands.

The video below by Robert Spencer goes into great detail in his talk titled “The Theological Aspects of Islam That Lead to Jihad.”

Now on to how Turkey and Russia are at center stage in the Clash of Civilizations.

Some background. 

Prior to the first world war, 20% of the Turkish population was Christian.  In the period during the war, up to 3 million indigenous Christians were killed.

According to the Christian Literature and Living website,

In 1928, Ataturk [the first president of Turkey] had a clause removed from the Turkish Constitution that declared Islam as the national religion. Furthermore, all teaching on Islam was banned from [Turkish] school. Even after Ataturk's death, secularism has still been maintained by his successors.

The problem is, secularism ended with Turkey’s drift toward Islamism over the past 20+ years.  Islamist Recep Erdogan was elected as Turkey’s new president in 2014. He had a central role in guiding Turkey to orthodox Islam as he served as the Prime Minister of Turkey from 2003 to 2014 and as the Mayor of İstanbul from 1994 to 1998. He helped bring about a decidedly Islamist mandate to Islam’s laws, politics and culture.

Turkey was admitted as a member of NATO in 1952 during its primarily secular period. Since then, Turkey’s drift toward Islamism and purging of Christianity gained steam.  But US foreign policy continued to support Islamic Turkey despite its ideological shift away from US ideals.

Today, Christians constitute less than 0.2% of the Turkish population.  Over 98% of Turkey’s population is Sunni Muslim.  Turkey supports Muslims who are opposed to Syria’s Assad.  ISIS is among the Muslims Turkey supports against Syria.

Interestingly, Syria claims 87% Sunni Muslims and 10% Christians, many comprised of Palestinian refugees.

Russia, influenced by a combination of atheistic Communism and a significant (nearly 50%) Christian population, supports Syria’s Assad.  Russia likely sees Assad as a stabilizing force against the more orthodox (aka “radical”) elements of Islam – maybe seen as a Syrian “Atatürk”, trying to keep Islam in check, albeit by dictatorial and occasionally oppressive and violent means.

So, we have Islamic Turkey supporting ISIS, shooting down a “Christian” Russian jet bombing Islamists opposed the Assad, while the US is in a NATO alliance committed to Turkey’s defense.  At the same time the US has been supporting various Islamic forces, including ISIS, against the Syrian government supported by Russia.

The United States is presently on the WRONG side of this clash. [See related:  US has been arming ISIS]

If this isn’t a set up for a classic “clash of civilizations”, and more…

Stay tuned.  Things will be interesting.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Once we honestly acknowledge the Islamic threat, what should we do about it?

The US is far from honestly acknowledging the threat to our freedoms and nation from Islamic supremacism and intolerance, both here and abroad.

We have naïve political leaders, juvenile, Pollyanish media, and indifferent Christian and Jewish institutions.  Presidents and Popes insist Islam is a religion of peace while Islam’s founder, texts, doctrine, history, and current events provide mounds of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Social research assumptions are partly to blame.  Here is an example of assumptions in a 2011 PEW Study of Muslim AmericansMuch of this particular study is very superficial. 

For example, when it addresses "devoutness" of Muslims, it focuses on "belief in Allah", belief in Muhammad, belief in Islamic doctrine.  It does not address specific Islamic doctrine like jihad, Jew hatred, how the infidel is treated, treatment of women, etc.. 

It ignores the great likelihood that surveyed Muslims are reluctant to express their true feelings and beliefs.  The study appears to ignore the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya (lying and dissimulation to deceive or avoid conflict).  On page 7 where it discusses Muslim concerns about extremism, the study ignores the fact that Islamic beliefs may not be extreme, but perfectly normal and right to Muslims, while the same Muslim beliefs will be perceived by Western sensibilities, morality, and culture as extreme and an existential threat.

FBI: Officials taking report about ISIS threat seriously at Philips Arena

Consequently, the survey’s conclusions fail to address the growing Islamic problem in this country.

If the surveys' shortcomings that assume cultural equivalency and ignore specific Islamic doctrines were properly addressed, I have no doubt that a 2015 survey would be much more ominous.

The consequence of all of this misdiagnosis of the problem is accommodation - accommodation and mindless tolerance for a belief system and culture that is incompatible with most values of our own belief systems and culture. 

Continued accommodation and tolerance will unequivocally lead to the death of the West.

A  paradigm shift is desperately needed in American thinking to prevent what otherwise will surely lead to conflict, violence and upheaval in our nation.

While I personally believe that such paradigm shift is far away or may never occur, it provides a ray of hope for me to consider what such paradigm shift would look like.

Such shift needs to involve four components:

  • Defining and admitting the problem:  Admit that Islam, the belief system, is more “political ideology” than “religion”, and as such is a seditious system on the order of those who desire to subvert our government with fascism or communism, and NOT worthy of religious protections.
  • Adjust military policy:  Adjust “rules of engagement” to those of desperation we felt during WWII; acknowledge that civilians are complicit and not off limits; act as if we need to win to save our asses.
  • Strengthen immigration policy: Build walls, enforce existing immigration laws; vet immigrants on the basis of political and ideological beliefs; specifically reject believers in Sharia; prevent entrance by Muslims who have previously sided with our enemies, those from nations that persecute Christians, and those that are declared enemies.
  • Aggressively implement a deportation policy: Deport Muslims who advocate for Sharia, who promote, fund, or participate in jihad, or who aid or advocate for Muslim jihad overseas.

There are several examples of nations that have implemented one or more of the above policies.

From the BBC, here is a description of Australia's “Stop the boats” policy:

  • The previous Labor government reintroduced offshore processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea in September 2012 - a policy it had ended in 2008 - whereby it pays outsourced contractors to operate and provide security at temporary detention camps for asylum seekers on the Pacific islands
  • It also reached a deal with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers judged to be genuine refugees would be resettled in Papua New Guinea, not Australia
  • The current Liberal-National coalition government adopted Labor's policies and expanded them, introducing Operation Sovereign Borders, which put the military in control of asylum operations
  • Under this policy military vessels patrol Australian waters and intercept migrant boats, towing them back to Indonesia or sending asylum seekers back in inflatable dinghies or lifeboats
  • In 2013 some 300 boats carrying illegal migrants reached Australia. In 2014 the number was just one.

Geert Wilders, a member of the Netherlands parliament who is a worldwide advocate for the truth about Islam has a plan for Muslim migrants in Europe as reported by American Renaissance.com:

“The current invasion of Europe by Middle-Easterners no doubt contributes to the PVV’s current popularity. Mr. Wilders strongly opposes the open-door policy of the European Union and favors the Australian approach of sending back all illegal immigrants. Furthermore, the party wants to reintroduce border controls within the European Union and house all refugees in their own regions.”

The Cadillac of all national policies is Japan’s as reported by Cherson and Molschky.com in an article titled “Islamic Terrorism:  Why There is None in Japan.  Here are some relevant excerpts:

Muslim terrorists can be proud: their share in world terrorist attacks is now close to 100%.

Seems there is not a single country where Muslims would not show their true colors… But no! There is such a country. It’s one of the most developed countries on Earth, and its democratic nature is recognized worldwide, a true ally of the USA and a member of NATO. However, with all this, there was not a single terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims in this country. Moreover, there was not a single, even minor, riot, disturbance or protest, no matter how many citizens of this country support cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in some Danish newspaper or in a French magazine.

The name of this lucky country is Japan.

What Japan didn’t do…

Of course, Japan achieved this by some super effective integration policy, through using the most advanced technologies and assigning billions of yen on the building of thousands of mosques and Islamic schools all over Japan, banning pork in all public places, introducing separate hours for boys and girls in swimming pools in all public schools, and Japanese male doctors do not dare touch their female patients, Muslim women get immense social aid each time they have a child, Shari´a courts were introduced in the judicial system of Japan, and the Koran is considered a Holy Book in Japan…

What Japan did do…

No, nothing of the kind. What Japan did to avoid problems related to Muslims was much simpler and cheaper; Japan is practically closed to Muslims.

Officially, immigration to Japan is not closed to Muslims. But the number of the immigration permits given to the applicants from Islamic countries is very low. Obtaining a working visa is not easy for adepts of Islam, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region. As a result, Japan is “a country without Muslims”.

There is no reliable estimate on the Japanese Muslim population. However, claims of thirty thousand made by some researchers are without doubt an exaggeration. Some claim that there are only a few hundred. This probably amounts to the number of Muslims openly practicing Islam. Asked to give an estimate on the actual number of Muslims in Japan, the ex-president of the Japan Islamic Association Abu Bakr Morimoto replied, “To say frankly, only one thousand. In the broadest sense, I mean, if we do not exclude those who became Muslims for the sake of, say marriage, and do not practice then the number would be a few thousand.”

One of the leaders of the Muslim community in Japan,  Nur Ad-Din Mori, was asked: “What percentage of Japan’s total population are Muslims?” He responded, “The answer at the moment is: One out of a hundred thousand.”

Japan’s population is 130 million people, so if these Muslim leaders are correct, then there must be around 1300 Muslims. But even those  Muslims who obtained immigration permits and lived many years in the country have very poor chances of becoming Japanese citizens.

Japan officially forbids exhorting people to adopt the religion of Islam (Dawah), and any Muslim who actively encourages conversion to Islam is seen as proselytizing to a foreign and undesirable culture. Too active “promoters of Islam” face deportation- and sometimes even a jail sentence.

The Arabic language is taught by very few academic institutes; I could find only one such institute: The Arabic Islamic Institute in Tokyo. But even the International University of Japan in Tokyo does not offer courses on Arabic or Islamic languages.

Importing the Koran in Arabic is practically impossible, and the only one permitted is the “adapted” version in Japanese.

Until recently, there were only two mosques in Japan: Tokyo Jama Masjid and Kobe Mosque. Now, the total number of Muslim praying sites in Japan is counted in some 30 single story mosques and about a hundred apartment rooms set aside for prayers.

And Japanese society expects Muslims to pray at home: no collective “prostrating” in the streets or squares; in Japan, for such “shows” the actors can get pretty high fines, and in those cases Japanese Police consider “serious”, the participants can be deported.

Quite often, Japanese companies seeking foreign workers specifically note that they are not interested in Muslims.

There is not even a trace of a Shari´a Law in Japan, and halal food is extremely difficult to find in there.

The Japanese tend to perceive Islam as a “strange  and dangerous religion” that a true Japanese should avoid, and the recent murders of two Japanese nationals, Haruna Yukawa and Kenji Goto, by ISIS have not contributed to any improvement in the opinions of the Japanese on this matter.

And the most  interesting thing in the Japanese approach to Muslims is the fact that the Japanese do not feel any guilt for such a “discriminatory” approach to Islam, and they evidently do not think they should  apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they perceive their religion. Arab gas and oil- yes, and Japan maintains good relations with Arab exporters. But Islam – no, and Muslim immigration- neither. Islam is something that is suitable for others, not for Japan, and therefore the Muslims must remain outside.

And Muslims in Japan do not riot, they do not brand the Japanese “racists”, they do not burn cars, smash windows, behead Japanese soldiers for having been in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else on Earth – and not a single Japanese has been victim of a Muslim terrorist attack on Japanese soil in the last 30 years.

Maybe Europe and the USA should look at the Japanese model of dealing with Muslims more closely?

Is it too late?  Are we so heavily “blessed” with Muslims, both civilians and those in high places in our various governments that no meaningful restraints to Islamic morphing of the US is possible.  Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe the current trend is reversible?  The necessary “paradigm shift” is not likely to occur in time.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Disgusting attempts at moral equivalency between Jews and Muslims; US citizens and Nazi Germany

In the world of the left and those ignorant of Islam and history, here is the attempted double dose of moral equivalency:

Trump and his supporters = Nazi Germany

Judaism = Islam

The careless and mindless mainstream media strikes again. They are clones of Hillary and Barack in their claims that there is nothing to concern us about Islam or Muslims.  Their mantra:  Muslims are peace-loving and Islam is a religion of peace.

The cow dung icing on the dog pile of disingenuous slander for me was the media’s portrayal of Trump’s consideration of keeping better tabs on Muslims in the United States.  According to Yahoo news,

“Republican presidential rivals rushed Friday to condemn Donald Trump's support for a government database to track Muslims in the United States, drawing a sharp distinction with the Republican front-runner on a proposal also deemed unconstitutional by legal experts.”

In another exchange reported by the New York Times,

[Trump was] Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question.

Wait a minute.  Did that reporter just now compare Jews with Muslims?  Did he attempt to portray a moral equivalency between Judaism and Islam?  Is he suggesting Muslims are as innocent as Jews? Is he suggesting that because Jews, whose religious doctrines and practice posed no threat to anyone but were registered and slaughtered by Nazi’s justifies a “hands off” treatment of Muslims who have an opposite record of apoplectic intolerance and violence?

Did that reporter just now compare Trump and his supporters to the blatant anti-Semitism and attempted genocide of Jews by Nazi’s?

Indeed he did.  That reporter only portrayed his ignorance of history and the teachings of two major belief systems.

Here is what Trump stated on his Twitter account:

I didn't suggest a database-a reporter did. We must defeat Islamic terrorism & have surveillance, including a watch list, to protect America

Apparently Cruz, Rubio, and Bush are as ignorant as the media about the difference between the Nazis monitoring Jews and the US monitoring Muslims.  They all used the occasion to condemn Trump for daring to suggest that Muslims should be monitored or registered.  No one suggested putting them in ovens.

The last two decades and especially the last few months have given us overwhelming evidence of two things:

  • Islam is a radical, intolerant political belief system that breeds and motivates dozens of terror groups around the world; and
  • Our leaders are engaged in blatant lies and deception in their indefensible and unwarranted defense of Islam.
  • Several Republican candidates have joined the delusion.

Here are facts to consider:

  • Millions of “moderate” Muslims around the globe support what the radicals are doing.
  • There is a propensity for many “moderate” Muslims  to become “radicalized” themselves.
  • Centuries of Islamic doctrine and practice are reflected in exactly what the so-called ‘radicals”, e.g. ISIS, al Qaeda and dozens of other “radical” Islamic groups are doing. (HERE is a list of terror groups, the overwhelming majority being Islamic.)
  • So-called “radical” Muslims are the ones who most devoutly practice fundamentalist or orthodox Islam.
  • Based solely on Islamic doctrine and the interpretation and implementation of that doctrine through the centuries, there is a potential for 1.57 billion “lone wolf” attacks by Muslims.

Trump’s mention of some form of increased monitoring of Muslims is certainly an option worth evaluating if not implement sooner than later.  Beyond that, I do not doubt that our government is already performing a good measure of monitoring and cataloging Muslims throughout the nation and abroad, despite Obama’s purging of the truth about Islam from the government’s lexicon and training sessions.

The defense of Islam and slander of Trump by our government and several Republican candidates is a sign of one or more errors:

  1. Ignorance of Islam, its founder, doctrines, and history
  2. A case of the Stockholm syndrome – an attempt to go along to get along
  3. They have known some “nice Muslims” but ignore their doctrine of taqiyya that promotes befriending while deceiving.

Concerned about encroachment into religious freedoms?  Understand the fact that the terror and intolerance promoted by Islam is much more political than religious.  Islam is more “political ideology” on the order of Nazism than it is a religion on the order of Judaism or Presbyterianism.

As a reminder, The Religion of Peace, HERE, is a website that tracks the dozens of terror attacks committed by Muslims in the name of the Boy Scouts Islam each month.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

ISIS = Islam: Deceptive Obama denial

ISIS is not our only problem.  The focus is misplaced.

Obama and his fellow progressives, leftist, and Islamic apologists are hoping we can’t add two and two concerning the reality of the plague of Islam.  Amazingly, even so-called “right wing” media like The Five on FOX contend ISIS has little or nothing to do with Islam – agreeing with Hillary that Islam is “peaceful and tolerant.”  And only a couple of Cobra’s are poisonous, otherwise they make great pets.

I have some math that most of us understand.  It isn’t the new math.  It’s the old math of observation, logic and common sense.

Here it is:

ISIS=example of Muhammad=the Qur’an=1,400 years of doctrine=Islam.


Islam minus radical Islam=apostate Islam=no Islam

What we ignorantly call “radical Islam”=military arm of Islam

What we ignorantly call “moderate Islam”=deception=taqiyya

Moderate Muslims=sympathizers of radical Islam = tomorrow’s “radicals”

Obama=A or B

A=Muslim wishing to subvert and destroy our nation

B=Islamic sympathizer wishing to subvert and destroy our nation

Anyway, you get the drift.   I, for one, consider those who believe that only “radical Islam” is the problem are misunderstanding Islam. 

“Radical Islam” is the militant/jihadist/terrorist arm of the Islamic political ideology every bit as much as the German SS was the enforcer of Nazi interests.  The “moral”, financial, political, and legal support of the “radicals” is provided by the “moderates.”  The moderates keep their jihadi-wannabe hands clean by using our freedoms and institutions to support the “radicals.”  And, according to Obama, anyone who sees through this Islamic scam hate orphans and widows.

Might I remind my Islamic-apologist friends that 3, 5, and 10 year old Muslim kids in the Middle East and North Africa are shown videos of how to kill, behead, and shoot, and are given personal training and rewards for learning those skill sets to use against the infidel.  Might I remind my Islamic-apologist friends that widows strap bombs to the chests, as the woman in Paris did today.  So Obama’s attempted guilt tripping us with his “widows and orphans” BS is Obama=A or B.

This all begs the question:  Why are our leaders in Congress and our 4th estate, the media, so blind to the math that reveals this whole Islamic Trojan Horse infiltration and deception?  We are, IMHO, under siege by our own federal government. 

What I find especially brilliant (in a very taqiyya-esque way) is that Obama’s Islamic-pandering government not only fails to acknowledge the total incompatibility of the Islamic belief system with American culture and values, it not only denies that “moderates” are also a problem, but it denies that ISIS, al Qaeda, jihad, those who shout Allahu Akbar while shooting or blowing things up, Islamic terror, Imams who proclaim “death to America” or any of a thousand similar tidbits of reality have ANYTHING to do with Islam.

In a sane world wouldn’t one who denies reality as Obama is doing be determined to be unfit for office or any other job?  Why have we become so tolerant of lies and insults?   I have my theories, but I’ll save them for a later blog.

Things to ponder as you read the news over the next several days and weeks:

  • Is Islam primarily a religion or a political ideology?
  • Should Islam, given its doctrines and practice of supremacism, intolerance, hate, terror, and sharia, be afforded the rights of a “religion”?
  • Or should it be considered a seditious political ideology?
  • Should we agree with Congressman Ryan that there should be no religious test for Syrian immigrants to the US?
  • Or, based on a rational finding that Middle Eastern Muslims are likely to abide by Islam as a seditious political ideology, should we ban all Muslims from immigrating to the US?
  • How long should we wait to determine the consequences of a significant Muslim population in this country?

This is the latest ISIS propaganda video showing their wishes for New York City…

Friday, November 13, 2015

Just a matter of time: Consequences of Muslim invasion of the West…

Here are the Friday, November 13, 2015, headlines on Drudge Report:

Apocalyptic scenes...
Military deployed...
First Curfew Since 1944...
Gunmen shout 'Allah Akbar'...
'It's for Syria'...

ISIS Celebrates: 'Paris In Flames'...
Witness relates 'bloodbath' at packed concert venue...
EARLIER TODAY: OBAMA Declares ISIS 'Contained'...
FBI: 1,000 Active ISIS Probes Inside USA...

The Islamic attacks of Paris are simply another chapter of the consequence of the West’s stupidity concerning Islam and Muslims, both “moderate” and “radical.”  There is really little difference.  Moderates are merely the ones who support what the “radicals” are doing without necessarily doing what the radicals do - yet.

Head of US Homeland Security Jeh Johnson declared “no credible threat” here.  There was “no credible threat” in France, either.  Neither we nor they acknowledge Islam motivates the attacks.  We keep inviting the Muslims – those who despise our culture.

The leaders of most European countries, especially Germany, Britain, and France, must possess a death wish for their European culture.  Why are they inviting so many 10’s of thousands who are hostile to their culture and religion?  Do their own values have so little worth to them?  Are they that desperate for laborers?  Are they that desperate to re-populate their negative growth rate nations?

The US leadership is little different.  We’re just a few years behind.  With Obama’s enabling, we are catching up.

HERE is a link to a video that has gone viral throughout Europe that starkly depicts the disruptions, violence and disintegration that their societies are experiencing as a result of their thousands of invited barbarians.  Watch it and learn what the Muslim-occupied portions of  the US will look like in a few short years.  Marvel at the ignorance of European leaders.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Muccings on November 2015 current events…

Here is a quick and dirty set of opinions on the many dumber-than-a-brick people in the news:

University of Missouri:  That place has turned into an anarchist haven.  I would not be surprised if Obama-inspired community activists seeded the racist radicals to advance their progressive cause.   Where are the adults in the room?  White students and parents should boycott that institution.  Let the juveniles have their way and let it turn into a black university.  This is just the beginning of the inmates running the asylum nationwide.  Juvenile protests are spreading  across college campuses.    HERE is the response of Trump and Carson.


Illegal Immigration and the Party of “Can’t”:  The Establishment aka “RINO” Republicans are the party of “we can’t because we don’t want to.”

Here are typical headlines from RINOS and the left:

Rubio: Trump's Plan to Deport Millions of Illegals Impossible

The shocking reality of Donald Trump's plan to deport millions

 These sentiments comprise the majority of the views of Republican presidential candidates.  Their allegiance favors the US Chamber of Commerce, large corporations, and promoters of profits at the expense of the American citizen worker.  Cruz, and especially The Donald, are the only ones who not only believe we can deport illegals, but Trump is the one who will also make a way to do it.  I am so sick and tired of saying “we can’t do that” that I could scream.  Some of my own best roles in life involved being hired or used by an organization to accomplish things that the organization thought should be done but failed to do because of organizational paralysis.  Reversing illegal immigration is the intractable problem.  The electorate is the organization.  Trump is the change agent.


Reforming Islam:  Speaking of things we deny can be done, there are a few that are legitimate:  We can’t (yet) reverse the force of gravity on earth, we can’t go backward or forward in time, and we can’t reform Islam.  There are people who believe Islam can be “reformed.” By “reformed” they think of the un-Islamic tame and passive variety that existed between 1683 and 1983.  That was a period of Islamic heresy and remission.  ISIS and al Qaeda represent true Islamic reformation:  A return to a pure and unadulterated form of Islam that Muhammad practiced and intended.  Reforming Islam, like reversing time, is one of those things that cannot be done without making it something other than Islam.  Islam is as likely to be reformed as a serial killer or a scorpion.  Islam without fascism, intolerance, supremacism, and violence is not Islam.  It is a pipe dream.  But Islam can be contained, but only by measures we have not yet convinced ourselves we need to take.



The Presidential Election:  There is a good chance the Democrats will win.  Most Republicans were shocked that Obama won the second election – we fully expected the electorate to catch on.  They didn’t.  We now believe we are at a “now or never” point, expecting to win in 2016.  We may not.  A recent poll shows that if Hillary drops out because of her legal (lying) troubles, Bernie Sanders is likely to beat the Republican front runners.  I don’t know how valid that particular poll is, but such idiocy would not surprise me.  With the nurses union, the postal union, most ignorant Millennials, government employees, illegal illegal [no “sic”] alien voters, dead people, and the masses on welfare wanting a larger and larger government, the dwindling number of responsible adult voters may not hold sway.

Good luck and good night. 

Wednesday, November 04, 2015

On Leaving Church–a litany of reasons…

THIS article by Bill Muehlenberg titled “On Leaving Church” provides a number of reasons why people are not attending or are leaving the church.  It claims it is not because people are losing their faith or don’t believe in God anymore.  It suggests they don’t go because they are bored with it.  Same old same old.  Or it isn’t relevant to today’s culture.

I think of "relevance" differently than the most common usage.  Not in the sense of the Church needing to reflect and accept our fallen and perverse culture as most mainline churches have done.  The rock bands and encouragement of gays don’t really help.  Those things destroy the church.

I think of the failure of church relevance in terms of ignoring the perversions of our culture, being passive toward them, not instilling a Christian world view, and ignoring the liberal and licentious path of government and culture.

Churches refuse to engage the culture.  They have given up the idea of influencing the government.  They are fearful of offending anyone.  They are willing to tolerate any idea and any morality.  They gave up being "salt and light" over two decades ago - many much earlier.  I suppose the liberal and godless culture overwhelmed the church with their insults against Christian attempts at influencing the culture during the days of the "Moral Majority.  The Moral Majority became a pejorative, an insult.  We were mocked and marginalized.

The Church fell for the lie that we cannot and should not legislate morality even if we could.  We stupidly fell for the lie that we "can't legislate morality", even though every  piece of legislation ever adopted legislates someones morality.  Whether we begin legislating Sharia (Islamic morality), or promoting euthanasia and abortions (atheistic morality), or criminalizing various freedoms of speech and expression (fascist or communist morality), someones morality is being legislated.

Churches are stuck in the rut of being purveyors of first century ancient history as if none of it really applies to the political and cultural challenges of OUR day.  Many pastors just teach ancient history without understanding that the Bible was reflecting, responding to, and engaged in the culture and politics of its day.  The Church today needs to do the same.  It needs to move from its ancient history context to today's context.  It needs to apply all of the moral do’s and don'ts from its unengaging ancient historical context and enlighten us on its essential place in confronting our challenges today.

But, to my chagrin, that is not happening.  It might offend someone, church growth will be stunted and the revenue stream will dry up.  And what church has enough faith to let that occur?  Not many.

Tuesday, November 03, 2015

18 Mayors Urge Obama to bring in more poor, unskilled Muslims…

Yup, when I saw this headline I did a double take, too.

The organization, Cities United For Immigration Action, has over 100 member US cities.  Its purpose:

We stand for welcoming and inclusive cities that prosper, and the president’s action on immigration will help.

Eighteen of its member cities have petitioned the president to send more Syrian Muslim immigrants their way.

Here is the headline of their latest press release:


A highlight of the  18 mayor’s press release through this organization states:

We have taken in refugees, and will help make room for thousands more. This is because the United States has developed a robust screening and background check that assures us that we know who we are welcoming into this country. With national security systems in place, we stand ready to support the Administration in increasing the numbers of refugees we can accept.

We want thousands more “because the United States has developed a robust screening and background check that assures us that we know who we are welcoming into this country.”  This has to be a joke.  But it isn’t.  We spend billions on homeland security already and we can barely keep our head above water tracking wannabe Islamic jihadists.

We have over a hundred big cities and big city mayors who want more Syrian and Muslim immigrants to make them more prosperous.  They want more desperately poor, unskilled, non-English speaking, Muslims who generally hate our culture and don’t want to assimilate to “make them more prosperous.”

That is insanity.  As I read this stuff it sounds oddly like some B zombie apocalypse movie or a very bad dream.  I wish it was.

HERE is the link to the entire press release and the list of the 18 US cities.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

When NOT to accept the term “bigot”…

The term “bigot” is has been thrown around like baseballs during the World Series.  Sometimes its application hits the mark and sometimes it totally misses the mark.  Too often it misses the mark when it is used against an individual merely because they dislike what was said, even if it is the truth.   In the case of Muslims or their apologists, they will often call someone a bigot even when what is said about Islam or Muslims is correct.   Sometimes we impose on ourselves the label of “bigot” when we have negative thoughts about a particular group of people.

But what about the times when the negative thoughts or comments we feel or that are expressed about a particular group of people are factually correct – i.e. “the truth.”

When are we most likely to be called a “bigot?”  Here are four of my favorites:

  • When we speak the truth about Islamic history and beliefs
  • When we express distrust of Muslim based on their avowed practices
  • When we express concern about illegal immigration
  • When we express concern about an out of control immigration policy that takes away jobs of US citizens

Let’s look at the definition of “bigot” from Merriam Webster:

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Dissecting this definition,  the word “unfairly” is important.  Unfairly implies that the dislike is for reasons that are not justifiable, are unfair, or are false.  On the other hand, if the reasons for your negative feelings or statements are justifiable, fair, and true, the dislike is not bigoted.

Next, the word “dislike.”  Having negative feelings about a person may not necessarily be “dislike.”  It could be “fear”.  It could be “disagreement.”  It could be “discomfort.”     It  may be “pity” or “deep concern.”  “Dislike” may or may not be a component of your feelings, especially if your feelings are fact based.  In fact feelings of fear, disagreement, discomfort, pity, or deep concern may be justified by factual knowledge about an individual who is factually known to be a threat due to his known beliefs, associations and declarations.

The “especially” part of the definition is merely an example based on the criteria set forth in the first part of the definition.  It should not be interpreted without the overarching application of the first part, especially “unfairly” and “dislike.”

Now, let’s apply the definition of bigot to those of us who may be called a “bigot” or who might tend to self identify ourselves as a bigot for harboring fear of, or disagreement or discomfort about  Muslims.

Are we bigots for harboring feelings of fear, disagreement, discomfort, pity or deep concern with Muslims?

The answer:  Absolutely not!  Why not?  Because those feelings are based on the following facts:

  • The life and example of Islam’s leader, Muhammad.  Learn the life of Muhammad and you will know the beliefs and tendencies of Muslims.
  • The interpretation of Islamic texts, both historically and currently.  Learn the doctrine of abrogation and you will know the parts of the Qur’an that take precedence.
  • The teaching and practice of mainstream Islam throughout history and currently.  Learn the historical conquests of Islam and you will know what to expect from an Islamic resurgence, renewal, revitalization or whatever you want to call what is going on today.
  • The words and declaration of Muslims throughout history and currently.  Listen to Islamic leaders and spokesmen today, take them at their word, and know what to expect.
  • The fact that those who identify as “Muslim” declare their faithfulness to all of the above.  Why would they self-identify if they did not believe?
  • All the above provide factual evidence that Islam is intolerant, supremacist, vengeful, and declare hatred, annihilation, or second class citizenship toward anyone who does not convert to Islam.
  • Those who call themselves “Muslim” and claim they do not hold to the above beliefs are either apostate or are liars, practicing the Islamic doctrine of “taqiyya.”  Why would a person identify with the known evil of Islam if they did not believe it?  Without knowing such person intimately, it is nearly impossible to tell the difference.

Those who use the word “bigot” or anything-“phobe” against us do so with the intent to silence us.  We sometimes silence ourselves unnecessarily as a result of our cultural conditioning.  Get over it!

So, in answer to the question:  When should we NOT accept the term “bigot?”

Don’t accept the term “bigot” when our observation or concern is factually correct and verifiable.  The term bigot is inappropriate for our fact-based feelings and expressions of concern regarding Muslims. 

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Did Bush “dubya” 44 keep us “safe?”

I didn’t think much about the question “did Bush dubya keep us safe” until recently  - a month after Jeb Bush first raised the topic during his September 14 debate when he proclaimed in frustration:

“You know what? As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure, he kept us safe.”

Then it dawned on me – a month after those mindlessly defensive words – no Jeb, your brother absolutely failed to keep us safe.  We lost 3,000 souls during his watch and began a foreign policy chasing the wrong boogie men.

Not surprisingly, the left wing media jumped on Jeb Bushes’ failed attempt to claim his brother “kept us safe.”  HERE is one example from Think Progress.  Others who jumped on Jeb’s doomed claim include SalonEsquire, Huffington Post , Chris Matthews and several others. 

That Jeb miss-step gave Trump an opportunity to pile on, which he appropriately did in an interview with Bloomberg TV a few days ago when he stated:

"When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time…"

It’s amusing that the liberal mainstream media are today mocking Trump for saying the same thing about Bush’s failure as the liberal media said three weeks ago.

And yet , in a Breitbart review of Jeb Bush’s 2013 book ‘Immigration Wars’ Jeb Bush himself joined Trump’s argument and concluded that our “leaky” immigration policy was at least partially responsible for the attack.

Bush wrote:

“In addition to the Mexican drug cartels, the fact that several of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country lawfully under a leaky immigration system has heightened national security concerns—so much so that immigration enforcement has been placed under the Department of Homeland Security.”

Now a month after his attempted defense of his brother during the debate, Jeb persists in the impossible – making his case sound hopelessly pathetic – and destroying his assertion that he has distanced himself form his brother.  Here is the latest on this Trump-Bush feud from Politico.  Trump is winning the feud because he is not trying to defend the indefensible as Jeb is doing.  Will Jeb also attempt to defend the words of his brother – the words that distracted the United States from the real cause of the 9/11 attack - the belief system that motivated the attack - Islamic fundamentalism?

Here are his brother’s words – our president’s words 6 days after 9-11:

“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam.  That’s not what Islam is all about.  Islam is peace.  These terrorists don’t represent peace.  They represent evil and war.

“When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world.  Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace.  And that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race – out of every race.”

Those words clearly and painfully explain why Jeb’s brother did not keep us safe – why 3,000 were murdered during an Islamic-inspired attack on our nation under his watch.  For Bush dubya to utter those deceptive and woefully ignorant words only meant that he relied on advisors who not only misrepresented Islam, but failed to provide timely and accurate intelligence concerning the carefully planned Islamic-inspired attack.

Is this what Jeb is defending?  Jeb is defending his brother’s blindness about Islam.  He likely shares the same blindness and will likely share the same Islamo-ignorant and politically correct advisors.

Jeb has an even worse liability than the poor homeland security record of his older brother.  Jeb was governor of Florida during the lead up to 9-11.  During Jeb’s watch, many of the 9-11 Muslim hijackers were issued Florida drivers licenses that gave these killers free access to things reserved for US citizens.  Here’s the clincher from Breitbart revealing Jeb’s weakness on immigration and national security:

“Despite an attempt to address the news that some of the hijackers obtained the Florida I.D. cards, IBT pointed out, ‘Bush in 2004 endorsed a Florida bill to allow undocumented immigrants to apply for the very same identification cards carried by many of the September 11 hijackers.’”

Shame on George; shame on Jeb.

Image result for bush Islam is a religion of peace

…and if you ignore 1,400 years of Islamic deception and conquest based on orthodox Islamic doctrine.