Friday, December 28, 2007
Did he mean "apology" or did he mean "condolences" or "sympathy?" Can you imagine if Huck was employed by Hallmark: "We express our sincere apologies for the death of your beloved mother. We really didn't mean to do it."
"Apology" in the MS Word Thesaurus means "admission of guilt", "request for forgiveness", "confession", or "act of contrition." Oh yes, and "regret". Not the kind of regret like "I'm sorry that happened", but the kind of regret that means "I'm sorry I did it."
There he goes again, expressing his true colors of one who blames the US, our culture, our values, for all the world's ills. We are somehow complicit in the assassination of Bhutto. Yes, that's it - we antagonized the adherents of "the religion of peace" into being less than peaceful once again.
To demonstrate this as a possibility, here is a quote from Time magazine...
"But there are some who think the Bush Administration is not without blame. Hussain Haqqani, a former top aide to Bhutto and now a professor at Boston University, thinks the U.S., which has counted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally against terrorism since 9/11, bears some of the responsibility. 'Washington will have to answer a lot of questions, especially the Administration,' he says. 'People like me have been making specific requests to American officials to intervene and ask for particular security arrangements be made for her, and they have been constantly just trusting the Musharraf Administration.' "
Wow...Time magazine dug up Hussain Haqqani to proclaim that we bear responsibility because we didn't provide security for an opposition candidate in an Islamic nation? Oui!!! Is this what Huck is apologizing for?
Huck, a true Democrat, showing who he is even earlier in his campaign than Jimmy Carter did. Or does Huck just have a dismal vocabulary?
46% for Osama Bin Laden, the acknowledged mastermind of 9/11 and the "destroy the west" mantra.
38% for current Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
9% for US President George Bush (this is hardly a surprise since his polls are not much higher in the US.)
What does this tell us about the direction of Pakistan and their nukes? Additional background is provided here.
Couple this with the second most popular baby's name in Great Britain: "Muhammad", the forebear of "the religion of peace." (Where is my little "puking" emoticon when I need it?)
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
I would explain that the several core beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints cause it to possess a doctrine and history that is arguably one of the most consistent with the founding values of this nation. These include:
Free agency: Freedom or Liberty. The right to act freely to do the right thing or the wrong thing.
Responsibility: The responsibility, before God, to do the right thing in accordance with Scriptural principles of love, forgiveness, diligence, perseverence, and personal responsiblity and accountability before God.
Importance of the Family: Next to trust in God, the family is the most important set of relationships, forming the foundation for learning, responsibility and civility. Few institutions stress the need to keep the family unit strong more than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Eternal progression: The innate desire of people and the will of Heavenly Father to consistently become more Christlike, more Godly in our attitudes and actions. If evangelicals condemn this doctrine, they are condeming the Biblical mandate to be Godly. If not more like God, then what? More like Satan?
Faith/works: Acknowledge that the Bible teaches both faith and works as essential components of a unified doctrine. Mormons believe Christ died for our sins, and at the same time understand that we must persevere in faith in striving to be more Christlike through good works. If evangelicals condemn this doctrine, they are condemmning major portions of the Biblical mandate for the perseverence of the saints.
Origins of the Church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was founded in America, born out of the principles of religious freedom and tolerance.
Tolerance toward all religions and no religion: Recognizes, based on the historical experience of the church, how wicked religous persecution can be. (This is in stark contrast to the religion of Islam, which has demonstrated itself to have the polar opposite view toward religous tolerance.)
United States was founded by divine providence: The Churchs' doctrine parallels the beliefs of the founding fathers of this nation that this country has a divine purpose and a divine destiny.
All of these core values of the Church ought to be highlighted to inform the voters of Romneys own core values.
What I hope Romney does not do is apologize for his religion, or suggest, as did John Kennedy, that his religion will take a subservient role, a "back seat" to his role as President. A President's faith should inform and enhance his Presidency. Romney's faith provides ample evidence that upholding and defending the constitution of this nation is entirely consistent with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He knows that this nation was formed out of these shared religious principles. The nation did not become "a god" to replace God. Individuals, including our Presidents, should remain free, in fact held accountable, to have core values that are greater than the nation that they are chosen to lead and serve.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Besides being drawn to a candidate who is conservative, demonstrably moral, a lucid speaker with good presence and a quick wit, I need someone who recognizes the stupidity of flaunting our immigration laws.
Two events occurred today that shook my confidence in Huck:
1) His terrible record on enforcing immigration laws while governor of Arkansas was revealed – see here, and
2) I listened to his interview on the Sean Hannity show this afternoon where he justified the actions of illegal aliens.
This is the way the interview went: Sean was debating Mike on the need to enforce our immigration laws. Mike played the “poor victim” card in defending the actions of aliens entering this country illegally when he said, "...if I needed to feed my family, I'd do the same thing..."
This was a dumb as s--- response on two levels:
1) He is assuming most illegals enter this country because their families back in Mexico are “starving”. More accurately, they sneak into this country to take advantage of our largess and pitiful law enforcement to enhance their standard of living. It is doubtful starvation has anything to do with their reason for being here in most cases.
2) He justifies breaking the law on flimsy grounds. There is nothing wrong with an individual working to enhance his standard of living. But is “enhancing your standard of living” justification for breaking the law? Is “feeding your family” even a basis for law breaking? Can you imagine the anarchy that would prevail if we all practiced what Mike preaches? Don’t we all want to enhance our standard of living. Let’s see, which law is easiest to break without folks doing anything about it? Oh, I forgot. They really won’t do anything about it because they feel sorry for me – they might even think I’m starving when I’m not.
If Huckabee was portrayed as a “conservative” up to this point, his sentiments here sure destroy that myth. His attitude amply demonstrates liberal values:
- Assume people are starving even when they aren’t
- Assume we need to help them, even if there are other ways for them to be self-sufficient
- Just about anything justifies flaunting our laws.
For a plain ‘ol US citizen to justify ignoring our laws is bad enough. But for a Presidential candidate to justify law-breaking at the same time he proposes to lead “a nation of laws” is insane. Anarchy, anyone?
Friday, November 09, 2007
I used to watch Pat Robertson a couple of decades ago in my darker days. I used to respect the man during that period. Some may speculate that when a man reaches 77 years of age, his decision-making abilities begin to recede a bit. The starker reality is that many "evangelical", and especially "fundamentalist Christians" tend to be ignorantly, and rabidly anti-Mormon (aka Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).
Talk about flip flop! His endorsement of Rudy was a head-spinner!
Robertson has a long history of preaching against abortion. That had been one of his most passionately held opinions in his decades of televangelism. The only reason I can discern for Pat's pathetic priority, and one that reflects the attitude of most fundamentalist Christians, is his disdain toward Mormons. He apparently prefers to support an abortion candidate than the candidate who is by most accounts more closely aligned with his conservative social values than any other: Mit Romney. Why do you suppose this is so?
Some "evangelicals" I have known have a very narrow view of Christianity. If you don't believe the precise doctrine they believe, you are not "Christian", as they define it. Many spend more time worrying about Mormons than Muslims! They lose their ability to distinguish between degrees of good and evil. And they do this out of blind prejudice rooted in ignorance.
In Pat's case, he apparently spends more time worrying about Mormons than about abortionists who kill babies or Islamic doctrine that fosters hate, terror and intolerance.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
What vague, meaningless tripe. What do they mean? Values are like belly buttons: everyone has them. Radical Islam has values, Al Capone had values, Brittany Spears has values. Even I have values.
What we don't hear much is a definition for "values." Unfortunately, most of the traditional values we've long held are out of vogue and the brunt of jokes and disdain. Traditional families, traditional gender roles, traditional moral behavior are all out of favor. The big pop-value now appears to be absolute tolerance of just about anything. A word for that is amorality. A made up synonym is "avalueity". This gets close to the meaning of most political messages.
Could this be why we don't hear any definition given on the stump: We've lost our "value-system" in this nation? Absolute tolerance for anything results in a valueless culture. A valueless culture is difficult to defend or promote. This explains, in part, why a large portion of our population cannot sustain a war more than a few months. We think that our values (whatever they are or used to be) are no better, maybe worse than, anyone elses. We are into self-loathing. Unfortunately, there are major populaton groups on earth who love their values more than we love ours (even if we could agree what they were), who believe their values are worth fighting for, and literally blowing themselves up for.
Granted, our military and many conservatives have a strong traditional value system that motivates and sustains them. But a large, influential, and growing portion of our population has lost their values compass.
How well does this scenario bode for our nation: A culture without values to motivate and sustain its' will, perseverance, and endurance versus a culture with values so strong and deeply held that they turn themselves into human bombs and are numerically the fastest growing population group and religion on the planet. I am speaking of Islam.
We are in a "values" war. And we will be on the losing end if we cannot rediscover values worth defending and promoting. The three decades of mocking and joking and ridiculing (e.g. Garrison Keillor, famed liberal, culture-mocking star of "A Prarie Home Companion" and late night comedy generally) and challenging the deeply held values of the past 200 years is not helpful to our survival. Nothing of any great society-sustaining ability has replaced those values that we have ACLUed out of existence.
I'm all for not taking ourselves too seriously and the occasional joke about our culture. The problem is, these jokesters and mockers and challengers really mean it. They really do seem to hate our historical culture and the values that founded our nation.
An excellent book well worth reading or listening to is "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It" by Mark Steyn. He identifies our "values" problem as the greatest challenge to our success in the face of Islamic resurgence. To all of our valueless libs, can you say "Dhimmi" dummy?
There has been increasing terrorist activity by the Jahadi wing of Islam in Pakistan (blowing up non-Muslim businesses, etc.) not to mention their hosting (involuntarily???) Al Quida in the Paki-Afgan mountains. Our nation has urged President Musharraf to do something meaningful in response to this recent run up in Jahadi activity in his nation.
So now Musharraf is doing something: clamping down on dissident activity, e.g. civil rights attornies, the media, and others who are making his fight against terrorism difficult.
And the United States and Britain are objecting. Michell Malkin calls this a "train wreck".
It appears we are expecting Musharraf to fight Islamic terror in the same way we do... without knowing who the enemy is and without teeth. And we will withhold our billions in aid if he does things his way and not our way. Wow. Yes, trainwreck.
Do I need to spell out the likely outcome if we bribe him to do things "our way?"
If he insists on doing things HIS way...
* We will withhold our billions in aid and the radicals Musharraf was resisting will fill the vacuum
* We will have the first nuclear armed radical Islamic nation.
Or, if he bows to OUR demands...
* He will be ineffective in his fight against the radicals
* We will have the first nuclear armed radical Islamic nation.
We don't yet, as a nation, realize who the enemy is, and thus we haven't discovered the measures necessary to combat it. And we want to handcuff Musharraf in the same way we handcuff ourselves. I hear the train a comin'...
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Recently, I heard a discussion by a former pastor, now an atheist. He claims atheism is not a form of religion. Atheism is based on pure “reason.” Therefore, he reasons science and reason are beyond a religion – above, superior to, and exclusive from religion. He apparently rejects the concept of “faith” altogether. He will deny he has faith in science or reason. Science and reason just are. They don’t require faith. Faith would pollute, distort, and destroy them both.
Religious people rely a great deal on science and reason as well. In fact, intelligent religious people have learned to integrate science, reason, and their religious faith. I have “reasoned” that people who deny “faith” are narrow, self-deceived, and eliminate a majority of potential answers to the mysteries that permeate human existence and purpose.
Atheists live in a world that only science has revealed. Their world is unstable, unpredictable and incomplete because science, its theories and facts, are unstable, unpredictable and incomplete. Scientific “facts” are constantly changing with each new scientific peer group affirmation. Who were the “scientists” of 2,000 years ago? Astrologists. Predictors. How long has “modern science” been in existence? Depending on who you believe to be the “father of modern science”, Galileo, or Robert Hook, today’s version of science began in the mid-1600’s. Science itself is a form of reason in a state of flux. What might science and reason reveal a thousand years from now? Something very different from what we have now is a certainty. What does that say about the accuracy and reliability of science today? It is less consistent and predictable than most world religions!
It’s amusing to see the atheist deny God, make science and reason their God, and then deny that they make science and reason their God. They deny God. They deny faith. They apparently live only in the present and reconstruct the past and guess the future based on as much faith as the most devout theist. Yet their “scientific methods” have been around for less than 400 years. Sounds like a severe case of Napoleon complex and presumptive superiority to me.
And on the topic of reason, which is the atheist’s number one value (aka “God” if they believed in one.) A reasonable person would have trouble believing reality, past, present, and future, can or should be based only on science, knowing that science is so relatively new, so changeable, and so utterly incomplete. It seems to me, being a reasonable person, that there is much more reality all around us than what science has revealed. Reason goes further. Reason has created religion. Reason has created faith. Reason leads to the belief in a distant past that science will never figure out and in a distant future science refuses to imagine. I’ll go yet further. It is reasonable that there are forces that communicate in subtle ways with humans. We don’t know the exact nature of these forces, they could be genetic, airborne, radio-frequency, or an undiscovered sixth sense. In the meantime, we call the force “spiritual.” We call the messages “revelation.”
The realities of life are tenuous and incomplete with only science as the revelator of all truth. The realities of life are richer, whole and hopeful when completed with faith that only God can create.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Silly Turkey. They get the idea in their heads that they need to put a stop to the terrorist violence from the Kurds. The only reasonable way they see of defending their southern border is to eliminate the offending Kurds at their source: inside Iraq. So Turkey announces their plan to defend their border.
True to form, "defend no border Bush" comes trotting out and cries out "No, wait! Don't defend your border! Give us some time. We'll work things out!" Bush has taken seven years in this country to work out our border problems - I hope Turkey realizes where that has gotten us. Can you imagine 12 million Kurds in southern Turkey?
What hypocisy. What a double standard. We can invade Iraq from upteen thousand miles away and it is self defense. Turkey proposes to take some troops 2 miles into Iraq to defend themselves from ongoing murder and mayhem, and it's called interference.
This irony was enough to cause me to write to the Turkey Embassy in Washington DC and cheering them on to do whatever it takes to defend their border from terrorists. I wish we would do the same in our nation!
I was torn whether to title this blog The "Leave No Terrorist Behind" Policy or "The Only Good Border is an Open Border."
Thursday, October 11, 2007
First, the misconception – quoting what President Bush believes about Islam (the entire referenced article is here):
"Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that – we had a person blow up our – blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.
"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children – particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East – is an act of somebody who is a religious person.
Among the several serious problems I have with President Bush are these: First, his statement above reveals his ignorance of Islam, calling it “a religion of peace”. The facts speak otherwise, which he chooses to ignore. He embraces the deception (takiyya) as illustrated in the second example, following. For some inexplicable reason, he chooses to ignore these facts:
1) The hundreds of terrorist acts conducted monthly around the world by people calling themselves Muslim (see previous post).
2) Islamic doctrine of violence against the infidel (non-Muslims) based squarely on the content of the Koran. The so-called Islamic radicals (Islamists) properly interpret, teach and promote what the Koran teaches and what has historically been practiced.
3) The relative silence, the lack of outrage of so-called “moderate” Muslims against the teachings of their violent, hateful, intolerant brethren.
Bush is a useful idiot in regard to Islam. With regard to Christianity, he is willing to slander his professed faith by comparing one violent act of a so-called Christian with the continuing, almost countless, violent acts of Muslims around the world. This kind of ignorant spouting by our President should not be tolerated – he is a danger to our nation.
Mr. President is apparently ignorant of the basic doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam. He is superimposing his peaceful, loving, tolerant Christian understanding of religion on a religion whose pure doctrine promotes violence, hate, and intolerance. Oh how I wish he would read Robert Spencer’s book, “Religion of Peace: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t.” or Gregory Davis’ book “Religion of Peace?: Islam's War Against the World.”
Ok. Enough about our President. Now for our second example: Misdirection. This one is from a blog new to me called Muslims Against Sharia. “L.A.” from that blog site posted the following response to my previous post. He first highlighted this quote from another person who has observed a problem with Islam…
"Gradually--painfully gradually--people are beginning to see that Islam is the enemy. Period."
This is L.A.’s response…
The above quote is one of the milder examples of how many Westerners view Islam these days. This quote is a part of the comment to the article titled "Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims." posted on the Gates of Vienna blog. The article talks about radical Muslims in the West claiming to be moderates. It also brings up very interesting points. "[T]he government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims -- and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered.", "The situation is complicated by many factors, including, taqiyya and kitman", and "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims when deception of non-Muslims is so widespread, and lying to infidels is an accepted and established way of hiding Islamic goals? The answer, with all its difficult implications, is: We can't."
But that's where the Gates of Vienna is wrong. The main problem is that the term 'Moderate Muslim' is poorly defined. There is a clear distinction between a 'Moderate Muslim' and an 'Islamist' and the distinction is in the ultimate goal. An Islamist believes in Islamic Supremacy. Islamist terrorists and their supporters want to achieve it by waging Jihad. Non-violent Islamists want to achieve it by peaceful and democratic means. The means are different, but the goals are the same: Islamic World Domination. Moderate Muslims do not believe in Islamic Supremacy. For someone not very familiar with the subject, the distinction may be subtle. But in reality, it is the most important, because everything that Democracies hold dear is based on this distinction. This is the Koran vs. the Constitution, Islamic State vs. Secular State, and ultimately, Dhimmitude (Subjugation to Islam) vs. Freedom. I cannot stress enough how important this distinction is!
Now, comes an uneasy task of weeding out false moderates. Hopefully, with a clear definition of a 'Moderate Muslim' that task could be a lot easier. Coming back to the title of this post. Muslim community as a whole is not the enemy. Part of it is. A large part. But not all of it. The next time you ask yourself a question "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims?" don't trust their assurances; look at their record. No matter how well false-moderate Muslims such as CAIR or MPAC polished their facades, they have a record. Whether it is their support of terrorism or advocating Islamic supremacy, any Islamist group or figure who's been around long enough, at one time or another has shown its/his/her true face. Just because some government official or some talking head declares someone to be a moderate Muslim, it doesn't make it so. There are several counter-terrorism and Islam experts who keep track of Islamists. Most of these experts happen to be non-Muslim, but there is also a list of moderate Muslims who could be used as trusted sources for these inquiries. The list of those prominent Muslims is posted at the upper right corner of our blog. So now, my non-Muslim friends, when you have the tools to identify REAL moderate Muslims, you can no longer use your ignorance as an excuse to declare that Islam is the enemy. [bold added for emphasis.]
As much as I would like to believe L.A. and what he represents, I can’t help but suspect the above statement may be a perfect example of misdirection, an application of the Islamic “Taqiyya” which is the Islamic practice of deceitfully concealing their faith or beliefs during periods of persecution.
The question remains, my Muslim friends, do we really have the tools to identify REAL moderate Muslims?
A question that non-ignorant, but alarmed Islamic scholars would pose: How can the REAL moderate Muslims remain Muslim when Islamic doctrine supports the Jihadists, the Islamists, both today and throughout most of Islamic history? Are REAL moderate Muslims equivalent to so-called “nominal Christians” who may attend church and call themselves "Christian" but really couldn’t care less about what their relgion teaches? Are REAL moderate Muslims "nominal" Muslims?
Until I get a believable answer to this Islamic doctrine question, my “crap detector” will continue to sound the alarm.
I do have to admit, their blog site is worth a look. There is some interesting, even humorous stuff on there.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
We saw a Muslim in action at the United Nations: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We discovered he is great at lying and denying or distorting facts - for Islam. He is a Muslim. He is duping many in this nation into believing he is a moderate person.
The continuing “politically correct” but apparently ignorant media and otherwise pre-occupied masses continue to repudiate opinions such as those expressed by Pete in Minnesota:
“Without Muslims we have no 911 attacks. We have no embassy bombings in Africa. The Islam, the Christianity, of 1000 years ago is interesting, but we live in the present. There are 3 kinds of Muslims today. A very small minority who genuinely detest the violent faction. The avowedly violent faction: there can be no making peace with them. And a huge group in the middle who deep down think they will be better off if the violent faction comes to power.
"The West has 2 options: it can submit to Allah, or it can kill millions and millions of Muslims, until Muslims realize that "live and let live" is the best approach. Islam is not a religion: it is a political movement that seeks world domination. I am saddened by the slaughter to come."
If the Jihadi's persevere (which they promise to do) and successful strikes occur in this country equaling 9-11 or worse (which they promise to achieve), we have no choice. Consequently, I have to agree with Pete.
What is a "moderate" Muslim? Read here for some fresh insight.
Here is an article which helps explain why we have no choice if we want to maintain our freedom:
Douglas MacKinnon, a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the novel America's Last Days, states:
“According to [a] …recent Pew Center survey, a quarter of younger Muslim-Americans support suicide bombings in some circumstances. That’s right. They support suicide bombings. 25% of Muslim-Americans refused to give an answer when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Al-Qaeda. 5% of Muslim-Americans said they had a favorable view of the group that attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and tried to attack the White House or Capitol building.
"If we accept the Pew Center’s estimate that there are 2.35 million Muslims in the United States, then 5% of that number would be 117,500 Muslim-Americans who have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda. A number that should not only send chills down our spines, but cries out for eternal vigilance.”
I believe these numbers are very conservative. Many of the majority, but mildly sympathetic "moderates" are likely to turn more hostile to Amerca's ways as the screws tighten as they must.
The Jihadist minority are not radical because they are making things up. They are radical because they believe in their religion. They believe what the Koran teaches. They believe what Muhammad, their prophet, taught. The so-called “moderate Muslims” have no basis for their moderation. The moderates are the apostates. The teachings of their religion belie moderation. They have nowhere to go as Muslims except to believe in the message of their religions’ extremists, because that message represents what their religion truly teaches.
Here is some bit of good news from The Associated Press:
"DENVER (AP) — Negative opinions about Islam are on the rise, Mormons are viewed as Christian but different and Pope Benedict XVI trails his predecessor in popularity, a poll of Americans released Tuesday said.
"The survey of 3,000 adults from Aug. 1-18 was conducted for the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
"The number of Americans who say Islam has little or nothing in common with their own religion has spiked to 70 percent in the past two years from 59 percent, the poll found.
Another significant shift has taken place: In 2005, 36 percent of the public said Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence among its believers. That number has risen to 45 percent."
Are Americans gradually waking up? I can only hope so.
As a capper, here is an excellent book worth reading:
"America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It", by Mark Styne as detailed here.
It portrays what will happen to America if we keep our head in the sand about the true nature of Islam. It may already be too late for Europe.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
"In the wake of the September 11th attacks and the ensuing war on terrorism, it has become clear that the United States is facing a new security threat. The war America is already engaged in will not be fought like the wars of the past. After witnessing the tragic terrorist attacks against the nation, it is now time to coordinate the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies to provide better homeland defense.
Tomorrow's attacker is more likely to board a commercial airliner bound for the U.S. with a tourist or student visa - or he may simply walk across our porous southern or northern border carrying a device in his backpack. These issues must be addressed.
We are, I believe, in a clash of civilizations. That clash is fought on many fronts-some military, some diplomatic, and still others, ideological. On the military front we have won two significant victories. One was in Afghanistan where we destroyed the Taliban and Al Qaeda's command and control network. The second victory was in Iraq where, by toppling the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and creating the embryonic infrastructure of a democracy, we set in a motion a chain of events that could lead to a major strategic advantage for us and for the West. This advantage emanates from the forced political equilibrium that can be brought to the region and Iraq itself now that Saddam has been dispatched. The deep schisms in Islam will force countries in the region to impose this equilibrium. Our continued presence in Iraq as the referee in a civil war inhibits this development.
We must take whatever steps are necessary to assure our ability to respond quickly to events in the area as the process of creating this new balance of power goes on. But the quicker that process starts, the better.
In his speech to the nation on the war in Iraq, the President said he was establishing a "November benchmark" for the Iraqis to complete the task of controlling all provinces of the country. This should be more than a benchmark. I believe it should be used as the time frame for our disengagement from Iraq. We can maintain a military presence in the area to act as a quick response force with a mission to destroy Al Qaeda elements while simultaneously aiding the new balance of power in the region to develop.
I am not alone in my thoughts about what to do in Iraq. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, in a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, concurred.
"I think it's clear that the United States has met the obligation that it incurred when it overthrew Saddam Hussein. And that's to try and provide some conditions of security for the Iraqis to determine what kind of country or what kind of society they want in the future. We have met that obligation. That obligation does not need to be extended. And this is really the last chance for them. After that, we need to pursue very narrowly what our strategic interest is. And that's making sure that terrorism doesn't find root in that country."---
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton
At the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "What have you given us?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." We have purchased an opportunity for Iraq and the entire Middle East with the blood and treasure of America. It was a noble endeavor for which all who served can be immensely proud. It is now time to see if the Iraqis can take advantage of the opportunity and "keep" what has been so dearly purchased."
Do I think Iraq will take advantage of the opportunity and "keep" what has been so dearly purchased? Hell no, they won't. They don't have a clue. It's not that they don't have the ability. They don't have the desire. Two or ten years of US occupation will not reverse 1,500 years of uncivilized, deviant religion-based mad dog behavior. Case in point. A $50,000,000 reward has been established for the capture of Osama Bin Laden. This reward has been in effect since 2004, with no takers. Why is that, do you suppose? Is it because Pakistanis and Afghans don't like money? No. It is because the zealots surrounding Bin Laden believe in their cause more than in money. If any Christian in this country felt as strongly about his faith as the Islamo fascists believe in theirs, they would be jailed for committing hate crimes. Our religions to not tolerate zealots. They are labelled intolerant bigots. We cannot fathom being as zealous for our faith in the west as most radical Muslims are about theirs. As long as this nation, our leaders, do not understand that distinction, and they don't, we have no more business being in Iraq.
We are not there to "win" (whatever that is). We are there to sap the vitality and morale out of our own armed forces - or so it seems. I agree with those who are tired of the rhetoric of our president when on one hand he claims how critically important it is for our nation to win this war in Iraq, yet for the past two years he had not shown a strong will to win by committing the resources necessary to complete our mission. As in Vietnam, our troops are hamstrung by politically correct strategic and tactical constraints. Some of our troops fear killing the enemy because they may get charged with a crime, as some of our soldiers have. We don't understand the enemy. We do not allow ourselves a level playing field. We will lose doing what we're doing. Stepping back from this battle does not mean we lose the war. It means we come up with more intelligent, better informed methods, and hopefully, a stronger will to be effective.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Speaking for myself, and I believe millions share these views, my reasons for opposition include:
- Anger with the federal government for ignoring enforcement of our existing laws. This entire problem brings to light how little the feds care about the laws that are created to protect the economy, character, and stability of this nation.
- The feds pretending to take meaningful enforcment measures which end up being token gestures
- Righteous indignation that my grandparents had to obey the laws of the land to gain citizenship and the 12 to 18 million who are here ILLEGALLY don't - and many of our elected officials vehmently argued to reward them for their purposeful lawbreaking!
- Lack of desire on the part of many or most illegals to assimilate.
- Granting billions of dollars in government services to illegal, law-breaking non-citizens when many Americans are stuggling with taxes, health care, education.
- We don't buy the "no Americans will do the work" red herring. The clear motive of business is to reduce labor costs at the expense of American citizens.
- Increasing crime rates generated by the illegals out of proportion to that of the native population.
- A second language being forced upon virtually every business and institution in the nation.
- The lack of concern about national security at our borders.
A legitimate concern which is dwarfed by the concerns described above is the overrrunning of our population by one race and one language group which has never before occurred in this nation's history, and which will create disruption and change in the social fabric of this nation much more quickly than most people can tolerate without a sense of being invaded. But to suggest this is the major issue is ludicrous and demonstrates Geraldo's ignorance of all the other issues.
The capper was his statement on Brian and the Judge radio show on June 29 when he named Michelle Malkin among the racist Americans who want to keep the nation from getting darker. What kind of dumb remark was THAT! She's already darker than average!
When we feel our national security is threatened, we need to do what we do best: Go in, get it done, and get out. Lingering around to patch up the mess, most of it what we did NOT create, is just feeling too guilty for our own good.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
In the article, "Obama Warns of 'Quiet Riot' Among Blacks", is Barack just grasping at straws to further his political agenda? Yes. While he's grasping, he is pouring gasoline on that straw by dismissing the concept of personal responsibility by the complainers of New Orleans. It is true that New Orleans, almost two years after Katrina, is still in bad shape. It is equally true that there are many thousands of irresponsible, corrupt, ignorant people in New Orleans (and in many other places) who want to continue to be irresponsible, who want to continue to request handouts from others, and who want to continue blaming others for their own lack of motivation to do what needs to be done.
Barack finds this a great opportunity to blame others as well, and play to the ignorant and lazy among us to foment discontent. He would make a great al Qaeda spokesman: Promise violence and mayhem unless "the man", the evil voters in this country, dole out federal tax dollars to help fix the results of their failed behavior.
I much prefer a presidential candidate who recognizes the limitations of federal government and recognizes and promotes the concept of building up an attitude of self sufficiency, self-control, and personal initiative. Bill Cosby is a great example of calling an end to an attitude of helplessness. Why can't Barack do that? That's what makes him a liberal. To do otherwise is not in him.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Priority One: We need to learn how to protect our own borders (seaports, coastline, airports, Canadian and Mexican border) before we can even pretend to do Priority Two: Protect Iraq borders.
Our borders are simple and straightforward to defend compared to Iraqi borders. The distinction? - US citizens or non-US citizens. Clear cut. Process those who want to come in according to our existing laws. Enforce the process.
Iraq on the other hand is 1,000 times more complex. They have porous borders with Iran, Syria, Suadi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and Kuwait. They have borders within and between neighborhoods of 100 cities between Sunni and Shia. They have roaming bands of thugs and outlaws who don't have a concept of civilized human life – each of whom has no border. They have an antithetical variety of extreme religious beliefs amidst a culture antithetical to ours. And we think we’re going to control those borders? Wow! Talk about unrealistic. Critics of enforcement of our immigration laws say it is impossible to track or round up illegals in this country? And we're trying to do WHAT in Iraq?
I have a wonderful and logical idea...I don't know why I, or someone, hadn’t thought of this months ago.
If there is any legislative funding rider concerning our continuing and increasingly wasteful war in Iraq, it should be this:
Pull back our troops to outside the borders of Iraq. Reposition three quarters of our troops along our own borders (including seaports and coastlines). First priority: Demonstrate to the American people that we are capable of and have an indisputably strong will to enforce our own borders. Demonstrate that we are serious in dealing with illegal alien lawbreakers in our own country first. Use our border patrol agents to establish an accurate census of illegal aliens who are here and implement an effective tracking system. Immediately deport whatever percent of these illegal aliens who have broken laws in addition to our immigration laws. Give the balance of the illegal aliens a “reasonable time” to make arrangements to leave and seek citizenship through existing, appropriate means. Enforce employer violations of our immigration laws.
Once we have demonstrated our effectiveness at these tasks, then we might have more credibility in pursuing the Second priority, a border enforcement effort in a place like Iraq...if there are any Iraqis left.
But, for reasons that elude me, our leaders will demonstrate they are NOT serious about defending our own borders, and will continue to demonstrate our own lack of will, and thus lack of competence, elsewhere.
Friday, May 18, 2007
"They're still reeling from that," Kennedy said. "When I told them the bill would make them safe and secure, you should have seen the look in their eyes. They knew they didn't have to be scared."
Dumb _ _ _ _'s (with Kennedy chief among them). If I entered any other country in the world ILLEGALLY, you bet I would be scared the whole time I was there. And I would deserve to be scared. But not here, "the nation of laws." Haaa. Their tactic: How dare we allow anyone to be scared for breaking our laws. Obviously, Kennedy and the others want us to feel guilty over enforcing our laws and making lawbreakers feel scared. Geez. Are we the patsies of the planet? Sure seems that way.
And then Chertoff's swoon, referring to Kennedy: "He's awesome," gushed Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff , as he left a news conference announcing the bipartisan agreement. "I'd say he was one of the critical leaders in putting together this deal."
And Bush...I've given up on him - the advocate of big business, cheap labor, and to heck with the average American. America, be damned. It's free trade that matters. The true man comes out toward the end of their terms, doesn't it.
Bottom line: This bill, if passed, will entice tens of thousand of additional illegals across our border, overrunning the yet inadequate border protections we have , and overrunning and bankrupting our social services systems, including expediting the failure of social security.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
But I'm sure some other valueless, money grubbing corporate greed bag will snatch her up soon, so don't worry, fans.
Friday, March 30, 2007
"We entered Iranian waters without permission and we were detained by Iranian coast guards. I would like to apologize for this to the Iranian people," the agency quoted him as saying.
"Since our detention on March 23, everything has been very good and I'm completely satisfied about the situation."
The English is exactly as I experienced from a scamming Iranian buyer (who claimed to be from Nigeria - yes, that should have been my first clue) complete with their plural of the wrong words ("guards") and the soothing tone of "everything is very good and I'm completely satisfied about the situation."
This quote just has to be plagerized from an Iranian eBay scam script.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
As recently as a few years ago, the big news would have been someone being “outed” for the immorality of homosexual behavior. Today the big news is someone being “outed” for suggesting that homosexuality is immoral.
Here is the story:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon's top general expressed regret Tuesday for voicing his personal view that homosexuality is immoral, but he did not apologize for the comment that drew criticism from lawmakers and gay-rights groups.
In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces._________________
In response to General Pace’s comments, Senator John Warner declared that homosexuality, and by extension, homosexual acts, are not immoral. In other words, he declares homosexual acts to be moral.
Perhaps John holds Biblical principles in low esteem. Perhaps John, like many others, believe the Biblical criticism of homosexuality is a vague, isolated and detached principle bearing little relationship to the primary theme of Scripture. Maybe that is why the Warners of the world cavalierly dismiss this particular type of immorality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The theme of the evil of homosexual acts permeates both the old and new testaments. Here are a few examples:
- Genesis 13:13 "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.”
- Genesis 19:5 “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (Sexual immorality was the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.)
- Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
- Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor ba sodomite of the sons of Israel.”
- Isaiah 3:9 “The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.”
- Romans 1:27-30 “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
- Jude 1:7 7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
In this life, some have more or less of a predisposition toward alcoholism, toward drug addiction, toward homosexuality or other sexual perversions, toward violent behavior, toward impatience, and toward a wide variety of other shortcomings of human behavior. A measure of human character is our ability to bridle our negative predispositions. Just because we refuse to bridle our predisposition toward violence does not make our violent acts acceptable. Just because we refuse to bridle our predisposition toward homosexuality does not make our homosexuality acceptable.
The teachings of Christianity expressed in the Bible are this nations’ basis for morality and law. When out of convenience or as a result of political pressure groups and influence we dismiss one clear Biblical moral teaching, we begin the unraveling of all the rest.
Let’s check out what other Biblical declarations of immorality, upon which this nation’s moral standards and laws have been based, might soon be declared null and void by political decree…
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt honor thy mother and father
Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Which Senator or other half-witted politician wants to declare some of these Biblical standards null and void? Its bad enough that many of us fall short of these standards, despite considering them to be sound moral standards. But to purposely declare these standards irrelevant and not worthy to strive toward is idiocy.
What is the basis for morality? Is it what the most vocal group claims is OK? Is it something that can be determined by a pollster?
So, if the “Child Predators Association” or “The Man-Boy Love Association” or the “Animal-Human Love Association” or “defenders of murder” groups (trust me, there is a group representing every perversion you can imagine, and some you can’t) ever become prominent, Senator Warner and other amoralists may then declare child molestation, man-boy love, and murder to be moral.
General Pace is apparently considered “an unenlightened throwback” with regard to his moral standards by the folks who have declared traditional morality obsolete. Others might admit he has a right to his personal moral beliefs, and agree that such beliefs may still be valid, but argue he has no right to express them in a public forum or in the carrying out of his duties.
Wow! In either case, this smack down bodes trouble for our nation’s leaders, as well as for this and future generations.
Since when does a leader, a public leader in high places, lose his right and obligation to speak out on moral issues? That is a major part of the job of a good leader...not only to be a good moral example, but to speak out for morality.
And what is the next moral imperative that will be struck down by ignorant, self-serving, “politically-correct”, but ultimately destructive decree?
I see it coming. Soon there will be a time when nothing is considered immoral, when there is no basis for law, for abiding by laws, or for civil behavior. At such time as everyone does what is right in his own eyes will be the death of order and death of civilization. Thus will come a second Dark Age, unless Gods patience draws to a close and another cleansing occurs.
I thank God for people like General Pace. I pray there will be many more leaders just like him who rise up for Godly values with courage and conviction in the face of ignorant adversity.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
"Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
Commitment to God
Commitment to the Black Community
Commitment to the Black Family
Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System."
Commitment to the white community
Commitement to the white family
Adherence to the white work ethic
Disavowel of the pursuit of "Middleclassness" (this one deserves separate comment)
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
Pledge allegience to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
If there were such a church that embraced the "white" values above, this church would be called what? Come on, now, the word begins with an "R"... rrrr aaaa cist. Very good. You've got it. Racist.
Now, let's suppose a white presidential candidate belonged to this church that happened to espouse "white" values as above, what would this white presidential candidate be labelled, especially by the national media, and perhaps rightfully so? Right again. Racist.
So, someone needs to explain to me why Mr. Obama gets a pass on this.
The following concept deserves special consideration:
"Disavowal of the pursuit of "Middleclassness."
What do you suppose might be meant by this statement? Most of America is comprised of the middle class. Are they avowing pursuit of the "lowerclassness?" I doubt it. How about pursuit of "upperclassness?" Doesn't sound right. How about the pursuit of "classlessness." I think we're on to something now. Yes, that's it. The pursuit of a classless society, sort of like, err "socialism", or perhaps (bites lip) "communism". That's certainly classless. Lest you suggest they are simply trying to teach the traditional Christian teaching of refraining from chasing after riches, why wouldn't they just say that...unless they have a radical or revolutionary socio-political agenda. Just food for thought.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
A number of years ago, I was invaded with the accusation of being "sanctimonious" for discourging my family from watching a certain movie I felt was inappropriate at the time. I later learned that being called that word was a good thing, despite the negative intent of the name caller, as well as current usage. In fact, being sanctimonious is acting as though one has been sanctified; set apart; made holy through Christ. Of course our behaviors should be different from those who are neither sanctified nor sanctimonious. Those who are not sanctified tend to have a natural dislike of those who are. They like to ridicule.
Another word, "prude" comes to mind. Although I haven't been called a prude lately, I suspect some people think I am. But I was reminded by Laura Ingraham, speaking on her radio program, that the origin of "prude" is from "prudent" - a positive word suggesting thoughtfulness and care. I suppose since it is no longer fashionable (in the eyes of many) to be prudent, the natural thing to do is to ridicule those who are with a negative connotation via the word "prude."
I guess it boils down to this: If a person is and acts sanctified and you are not, ridicule him with the word "sanctimonious." If a person is more prudent than you believe is appropriate, ridicule him with the word "prude." The person who is called these things can take these words as a complement. As the Scriptures say, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."
So, to all you sanctimonious prudes out there - keep it up! We need more people like you.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Clever, but stupid. And what do you want to bet that these hacks will try to spin the circumstances to make the Boston officials sound like they over-reacted to their ill-conceived publicity stunt?
The truth is, these stupid guys fail to understand or care about the reality of the serious aspects of life. They clearly suffer from a lack of adult supervision, both from their parents and from CNN hierarchy. Apparently, the hierarchy at CNN also require more adult supervision, but I digress. Many "adult children" today have this same innate la la land mentality in common - an emotional IQ in the negatives.
This points to the larger issue involving the disconnectedness of generations in our culture. Parents are often too busy with sports, dancing, Hollywood gossip, divorce, watching TV, making money, and being otherwise too self-absorbed to maintain effective communication and respect to influence the next generation in a positive manner. Fortunately, despite parental lapes, some kids surprise their parents on the side of responsible and mature behavior.
In this case, though, what kind of parental upbringing, if they had any, do these apes reflect? Or are they degenerates inspite of parental influence?
Sunday, January 28, 2007
I'm glad that some folks are catching on that so-called "moderate" Islam is not as moderate as they would have us believe.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Read it here: http://www.towardtradition.org/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=284
Sunday, January 07, 2007
These comments are in response to those who wonder why some of us seem to be so concerned about the Muslim religion, including its’ practice in the United States. Let me explain my concern in a reasoned way – an argument other than “I’m not paranoid – they really are out to get us!!!!”
First, see if you agree with any of my opinions:
- Most Americans consider the great majority of Muslims to be moderate, benign, freedom-supporting people.
- The great majority of Americans don’t understand the basic doctrines of the Islamic faith nor the alignment of their “moral compass” as contrasted with that of practicing Christians.
- The great majority of Americans consider Islam through Christian-colored glasses, that is, from the religio-moral perspective of Christianity
- The great majority of Americans believe that most Muslims in the US are Americans first (believers in the values of freedom of expression, choice, etc.) and Muslims second.
- Most Americans greatly underestimate the Muslim threat in this nation.
Many Americans probably do not agree with the last bullet. So, I will especially focus on that issue: Why we are underestimating the Muslim threat in this nation.
Here is why I hold these opinions - based on the reality many do not yet understand.
Muslim growth and numbers:
Nothing is wrong with the growth of a benign group which has no intention of imposing its moral will and their form of government on me and my country.. I have no concern about the growth in numbers of Hindu’s, Buddhists, Shinto’s, Jews, or Baptists. It is the growth of an organization whose primary beliefs include coercion as the ultimate means of essential conversion and a highly repressive legal/moral code that is enforced by means that our culture believes is barbaric that is a problem. This spells trouble, especially for our culturally liberal friends (who are defenders of the Islamic faith) who hold the ability to do anything they please, no matter how morally outrageous or irresponsible, as their highest value. What an irony this will prove to be in the coming years! I almost wish I could be around to watch.
Back to the numbers. There are currently about 1.3 billion Muslim in the world and 3.9 million in the United States. The numbers of Christians is in decline in the world and in the United States. The rate of increase in the numbers of Muslims is increasing in both the world and in the United States.
Based on the rate of growth of Islam and the rate of decline of Christianity, in 2025 (18 years from now) Islam will be the majority religion in the world, with 30% (over 2.3 billion) versus 25% Christian. The number of Muslims in the United States will almost double, to over 7 million.
What difference do these numbers make? Let’s assume for a moment that the great majority of the 2.3 billion are “moderate” Muslim. Let’s say 90% are peaceloving and don’t really want to blow people up as an acceptable means of imposing their Sharia law and placating Allah. That leaves only 10% who tend toward the more literal version of Jihad…but how many constitute “only 10%.” Let’s see, that would be only 230,000,000 people that want to blow themselves up in our malls, restaurants, subways, and aircraft for their reward in heaven.
The point is, even 3, 4, or 5% who believe in and practice violent Jihad is a lot of folks creating a lot of trouble. But that is not my major concern. What exactly is a “moderate Muslim” and what does he believe?
Christianity went through a “reformation”, a return to traditional teachings of the faith, back in the 1500’s. These rebels against the Catholic church attempted to expunge the sectarian abuses and influences that crept into the Catholic church up till that time. They returned to the teachings of Christ, which centered on love, forgiveness, mercy, worship. The Catholic church itself instituted many reforms to correct the acknowledged abuses. In any event, neither coercion nor forced conversion were ever a teaching of Christ or of the early Church.
Many considered Islam a benign religion up until the last two or three decades. (Unfortunately, many still do.) A number of Muslim leaders themsleves have acknowledged that they have been a religion in decline in need of resurgence. Islam is felt to have strayed from its' roots, its' basic doctrinal teachings. That is why they have been benign until recently – they have not been practicing what their founder, Muhammad, has preached.
Islam is in a period of reformation – a return to their roots. Although unlike Christianity, their roots are not love, forgiveness, mercy, the sweet Christ-like attitudes that we take for granted. They are the attitudes of Muhammad. Let’s just say that they are the opposite of Christ. While during the early part of his life Muhammad practiced a degree of tolerance, during the latter part he practiced anything but. He taught war, he taught retribution, he taught conquest. He developed Sharia law (this is a whole topic unto itself). Let’s just say it involves the removal of various body parts for various infractions of the law. And oh yes, it does not involve freedom of expression, or religion, or women’s rights – take note, cultural liberals!
Those who point to portions of the Koran that sound peaceful and Kum Bay Yah-like…those are mostly in the early sections, the equivalent to the sequence of our Old Testament relative to the New Testament. The violent teachings occur in the latter portions of the Koran. And just as in Christianity where the later teachings of Christ supercede the teachings in the Old Testament (turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye), the Koran sequence is just the reverse. It started with turn the other cheek and later became “cut off the other cheek”. These later sections of the Koran supercede the earlier sections in this current Islamic “reformation.
So, who is a moderate Muslim? Who are the 90+% who are not involved in violent Jihad? What do they really believe? Are they the equivalent to the liberal Christians who doubt the literal messages and real significance of the New Testament? Are they in fact liberal Muslim who do not literally believe the teachings of Mohammad in his later life? Or are these “moderates” to some degree sympathetic to the recent Muslim reformation – the return to the glory days of the conquests of Muhammad? How many are sympathizers and in what ways are they lending support to the "reformed" core values of their faith?
Violent Jihad aside for the moment, there are several basic tenets of Islam. These deserve separate study apart from the space I want to allocate here for their understanding. But I will simply remind you what they are:
· The strictly narrow and subservient role of women
· Sharia law: Muslim law that takes precedence over all other forms of national government
· Dhimmitude: The second class and extra taxed condition of those who do not claim the Islamic faith.
· Taqiyya: The divine right to lie to advance the cause of Islam.. Examples of the use of this doctrine include Muslims deceptively pointing only to the early portions of the Koran to illustrate how peace-loving they are. A more outrageous example is the President of Iran claiming there was no holocaust and others claiming 9-11 was perpetrated by the United States or Israeli government to incite anti-Muslim outrage.
· Role of free choice in selecting a religion or no religion: None.
This latter tenet, the suppression of free choice, presents a real moral dilemma for this country. We cherish freedom and free choice as our highest value. Yet there is an organization out there (Islam) that wants to use our freedom of choice as a means to install their form of government and religious values that contends that free choice is evil.
Many of us question what business is it of ours to be concerned about a religion that does not share their values with most of us. How narrow minded and bigoted it is to be concerned about another religion in this manner.
Let’s pretend, for a moment, that Islam is not a religion, but is a political party. Let’s say that political party desires to overthrow our government by violent means and install an oppressive government that the political organization promotes? What would our attitude be toward that political party? Should such political group be outlawed?
This is exactly what is being taught in many of the Islamic schools within this nation, and certainly in most Muslim nations. Except for the fact of it being a “religion”, the resurgent “Islam” is another organization that desires to impose an oppressive form of government and faith on the people of the world and of this nation.
We are grossly and dangerously under prepared for the next jihadist event in this nation. Our national ignorance of the basics of the reformed Islamic faith are a big part of our problem. Blind tolerance and political correctness is another.
There are more Islamic jihadi sympathizers and helpers willing to assist in the next attack and the establishment of Sharia law in this nation than the public and possibly the federal government imagines.
For every example that can be shown of an American Muslim condemning terrorism or Jihadi terrorist acts by fellow Muslims, there are ten examples where they defend such actions, make excuses for such actions, or express outrage and offense that we are singling out Muslims for their terrorist acts. Nine out of ten times, Muslims express more concern over protecting their rights and privacy than they do over Islamic violence, murder, and terror.
I want to elaborate on this last point through the words of Brigitte Gabriel. She says it much better than I because she has lived through the Muslim torment.
Brigitte Gabriel is a Lebanese Catholic who, as a child in Lebanon experienced the Islamic revolution in her former Christian country. In her book “Because They Hate”, she ponders the "moderate" Muslim American…
“It is certain that there are genuinely moderate Muslims, perhaps a substantial number, who do not seek to impose Islam on this country and the world through violent jihad. However, they are conspicuous by their silence regarding the more problematic doctrines of Islam. To the extent that Muslim “leaders” and lobbying organizations in the United States even address the issue, they offer nothing more than vague, tepid condemnations of terrorist violence and heated denials that the behavior of Islamic terrorists has any connection with Islam.
Where is the Muslim outrage in this country over the supposed few who hijacked their religion? Where is the Million Muslim March on the Mall in Washington, D.C., sending a message to all Muslims in the Arabic world condemning the killing of human beings in the name of Allah? Where is the cry to raise the consciousness of the rest of the Muslim world about their hijacked religion? If something of yours had been stolen, wouldn’t you scream to the world that someone had hijacked it?
Where are the voices of Western Muslims, particularly the American Muslim community, sending a clear message to the Arabic world that we are American, and when you attack one of us you attack all of us? We condemn and consider the enemy Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al Gamaat al Islamiya, and the rest of the collection of barbaric Islamic thugs and murderers who have neither conscience nor humanity. Where is the outrage of the Muslim community? Why aren’t the imams of every mosque holding press conferences, and inviting the media to tell the American public, “We are Americans first. Any enemy of America is our enemy. We will work to find, stop, arrest, turn in, and condemn anyone in our community who aspires to radicalize our religion and harm our country”?
Why do we not hear this condemnation? Because their allegiance is to their Muslim religion, not to America. They may be “moderate” Muslims. But that moderation is only an abstention from violent Jihad. They still maintain their allegiance, and it does not include us.”
Sources for further information:
“Because They Hate” by Brigitte Gabriel (book)