Mosque: Anyplace but “here” is a cop-out

Those who argue against the “ground-zero” mosque only because of its proposed location in the vicinity of the Islamic aerial bombing of the World Trade Center are missing several points that will come back to bite us.

Sure, ONE of the reasons not to build the mosque there is the lack of sensitivity to the victims of 9-11.  After all, the attack was conducted by Muslims in the name of Islam.  Mosques are holy places that represent Islam.  They are also places of Islamic teaching, indoctrination, and propaganda.  Many people rightfully make the connection between Islamic terror, 9-11, and the mosque at that location.

Another reason given why the mosque should not be tolerated “at that location” is the Islamic tradition of mosques being built upon conquered sites – a triumphalist political statement.  Most of us would be deeply offended if that was allowed to occur here.

But proximity to ground zero should not be the only reason why mosques should not be built – at any location.

Here are several additional reasons to oppose a mosque, whether located near ground zero or anywhere else in the United States:

1. Islam is a political ideology that teaches hate against Christians, Jews and other infidels.  It is a supremacist, intolerant ideology in opposition to the freedoms embodied in the First Amendment to our US Constitution.
2. Mosques and related Islamic Training Centers are the primary facilities used to teach and promote the Islamic ideology.  Other major centers of Islamic indoctrination are middle eastern studies programs at many of our universities, which is a whole other problem.
3. Mosques are often the training ground for jihadi activities and activists against the United States and our allies.
4. Mosques are often sponsored, funded, or operated by Muslims with connections to known Islamic terror organizations. There are hundreds of Feisal Abdul Raufs all over the country; Muslims with terror connections wanting to establish new mosques.
5. Mosques are often the collection point of funds from within the United States to send overseas to terrorist organizations.
6. Islam has declared war on the United States.
7. There is no “moderate” Islam.  Islam is Islam.

Bottom line:  Beware of the “anywhere but here” arguments against the ground zero mosque.  A better approach would be don’t build them anywhere in the US until Islam is reformed into something that no longer resembles Islam.  William Kilpatrick expresses similar views in an article entitled “To Build a Mosque” located on the Front Page website.

For further insights into the purpose and problems of mosques, check out this book.

Clash of cultures – Washington DC and the rest of us

My attendance at the “Restoring Honor” event in Washington, DC was informative on several levels.  I traveled by bus.  The trip to DC was with Tea Party participants, mostly retired folks - a mono-cultural experience.  My return trip was by regular Greyhound, a 24-hour multi-cultural excursion through seven east coast bus terminals.  The passengers on this return trip were young and old, Hispanic, black, middle eastern, with a smattering of Caucasians.  I spoke with several.  They shared their challenges, hardships and successes.  The bad economy caused the greatest unease.

“The worst recession since 1929” doesn’t appear to affect the folks in the Washington, DC metro area.  This explains why the Washington left doesn’t really believe the recession is all that bad.  They really ought to get out more.  The housing market is stable, the unemployment rate is low, the parties are plentiful and the alcohol is flowing.  What’s not to love about that lifestyle, except the commutes, the traffic, and the subway system.

The subway system.  Not designed for crowds, and its maintenance is lacking.  The cause of the one-hour ordeal between getting off the subway and breathing fresh air outside was broken elevators and broken escalators.  ADA folks were instructed by PA system to get back onto the train and travel to another terminal where there was a working elevator.  One of the informational signs listed the non-operational elevators throughout the Metro system – it appeared there were more than a dozen. 

The other several thousand of us who remained in the cavernous holding pen inched our way forward toward the constricted exit and the ill-maintained escalators.  Of the three escalators, two were operational.  The one in the middle was not; it was blocked by a stern subway officer.  One of the two remaining operational escalators abruptly stopped while I was in mid ascent.  The crowd continued its march to the surface. 

Did I ever mention that I don’t like public transportation systems?  Those who are accustomed to them are like frogs who have been in the boiling pot for awhile – they take their loss of freedom for granted.  I, being the new frog, felt uncomfortable, controlled, and vulnerable.  And it was indeed hot in there.

The big takeaway from my experience is this:  Washington, DC is a unique subculture, detached and insulated from most of America.  Those who live and work in DC cannot understand, much less appreciate, what is going on in the rest of America except via the statistics they review and the liberal media in which they are immersed.  No wonder our government is so often out of touch.

Snarky reaction of Obama to 8/28 event

I attended the Restoring Honor event in DC this past weekend.  Here is my take on Obama’s reaction to it compared to the event I experienced:

Snarky, dismissive, arrogant, condescending – all of these terms describe our president’s reaction to this event.

Obama:

"It's not surprising that someone like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of (the American people) ... " 

From Investor’s Daily article on” Ignoring Glenn Beck and Us.”

Dripping condescension.  Any other president in the history of the United States would have either attended or would have spoken highly of such an event, its sponsors and participants.  This president reacted as if he had to swallow a bitter pill to even mention it.

The event was peaceful, respectful, patriotic, pro-America, pro-Judeo/Christian values, pro-faith, and pro-all-the-things-that-made-America-great-and prosperous.  But Obama spoke disdain.

What else can we expect from an evil, racist, socialist, America-hating president who demonstrates hostility toward other traditional Judeo-Christian, patriotic events and organizations.  The boy scouts, the national day of prayer, respect for our flag, support of free enterprise, driving our economy into the ground, support of Israel and our other allies – all are examples of the heart of American values being purposely snubbed by a radical who has an agenda different than that of the great majority of America.  His pandering to a small, arrogant, entitled, lawbreaking, unproductive fringe of America is wrecking our nation.  Congress is under his spell or otherwise facilitating this outrage.

On my 24-hour bus trip on the way home, I read the book “Losing Your Religion” by S. E. Cupp who details dozens of examples of the liberal media’s attack on Christianity.  When I got home what I experienced in listening to the media’s and our president’s reaction to the Restoring Honor event was as if I were reading a new Chapter 11 of that book.  The misrepresentation, insult, ad vitriol expressed by the MSM was informative of how far disconnected from reality they really are.  Our president and congress exhibit the same corrupting aloofness.

If Congress is not replaced in November, our nation deserves the additional grief that will result.  Research the candidates and VOTE in November.

Taqiyya-inspired Muslims: The tares among the wheat

This is a Biblical perspective of Islamic deception.

Islamic deception runs deep and wide throughout history.  Islamic doctrine calls for Muslims to blend in with the majority culture until their numbers and influence rise to the point where they can take aggressive action to overcome the former majority culture.  In the United States, “blending in” involves claiming they are “a religion of peace”, that Allah and the Judeo-Christian God are one and the same, that Muslims have the interests of this nation, the Constitution, and our freedoms at heart, and they are even more tolerant than the Islamophobic non-Muslims.

Not much liberty has to be taken with Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew Chapter 13, verses 24-43) to demonstrate that the followers of Islam are the tares growing amongst the wheat.

The explanation Jesus provides in verses 37-40:

“The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.  Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.”

Tares are poisonous.  From the time they first sprout until close to harvest time, the tares are wheat look-alikes, growing in the midst of and indistinguishable from the wheat.   The tares cannot be separated from the wheat until the wheat is ready for harvest because they look just like the wheat, but they ultimately do need to be separated from the wheat after the harvest.

The most common application made of this parable represents the tares as “false Christians” in the midst of “real Christians”, the wheat. False Christians oftentimes cannot be distinguished from real Christians. However, Scripture does not call the tares “false Christians.”  Tares are called “sons of the evil one.”  King James uses “children of the wicked one.” 

While this parable certainly refers to false Christians, it can certainly apply to other types of deceivers.  One no-brainer application is to those who falsely claim their Allah is just like God the Father, who claim theirs is “the religion of peace”, that they are tolerant of all religions and will live in harmony within the existing culture.

What major world ideology (I more accurately call it an ideology rather than a “religion.) is best known for their doctrine of deception (aka “taqiyya”")?  What major world ideology practices their deception among Jews and Christians (people of the book) to hide their poisonous influence until they amass enough influence and power to subvert the existing culture and displace the current religions?  What major world ideology is called a “Trojan Horse” as it practices its deception to control infidel nations?

Throughout history, Islam’s actions have earned the title of “sons of the evil one.”  The Muslim practice of deception to blend in and hide their supremacist intent within Christian nations clearly justifies their identity with “tares” in Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares. 

The limits of tolerance: Tolerance of the intolerant

We are a tolerant lot, we Americans.  We live and die by the first amendment to our Constitution, our mantra of tolerance:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We cherish tolerance of any speech, tolerance of every religion, tolerance of actions of all kinds.  And as many urge, the more offensive the speech, the religion, the action, the more important that first amendment becomes.  The amendment would not be necessary if we all greed on everything.  It is necessary because we don’t.

We have laws that prohibit, require, or regulate all sorts of things.  But laws with regard to the establishment or prohibition of religion or speech, or the press:  There shall be none.

Are there any exceptions to the prohibition of making laws respecting the establishment of religion, speech, etc.?   Yes, of course.  Some religions, speech, or actions are so extreme, so threatening, dangerous, or destructive that laws are necessary.  Yelling “fire” in a crowded room is one.  How about “free speech” that threatens the life of someone?  How about a religion that believes in child sacrifice?  How about a religion that believes in mutilation of women as punishment?  How about a religion that threatens the lives of a whole group of people such as Jews and Christians?  How about a religion and speech that advocates and actively pursues the abolition of the first amendment?

Another area of exceptions revolves around the question of when a “religion” is no longer a religion and becomes something else, such as a seditious, subversive political system or ideology.  When is that line crossed?  Is it possible to be crossed as long as that “religion” continues to be self-proclaimed as a “religion.”  Can such “religion” be bifurcated into its religious portion and political portion like some attempt with Islam.  Or does the whole package need to be considered either one or the other?

The solution to this problem proclaimed by many is we ought to be able to say and promote almost any vile thing, as long as we don’t actually do it.  Oh, I get it.  Advocating and teaching doctrine that is threatening, dangerous, or destructive is ok (i.e. “protected”) as long as no one actually carries out the teaching.  So, if we have 3,000 mosques across the nation that contain 6,000 Muslim Imams advocating and teaching hundreds of thousands of Muslims threatening, dangerous, or destructive ideas, this is ok as long as, miracle of miracles, none from among these Muslim hoards actually carries out the actions they are taught and their “religion” mandates. 

Islam and its mosques in this nation are pushing the limits of our tolerance – pushing the envelope of our first amendment freedoms.  More and more people who are learning about the Islamic ideology wrapped in a religious cloak are realizing that it teaches, promotes and carries out doctrine that is threatening, dangerous, destructive, seditious, and subversive.  Many are coming to the realization that the first amendment should not protect that ideology.  Many have come to understand that the longer the first amendment is used as cover for the Islamic ideology,  the more certain the destruction of the first amendment, our freedoms, constitution and nation will be as a consequence.

As Lt. Col. Allen West poignantly declared:  

"We must realize that when tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide" 

Tolerance of the intolerant won’t lead to merely cultural suicide.  It will lead to suicide of religious liberties, freedom of expression, and every good thing embodied in our constitution.  Such tolerance demands the suicide of our nation.

The Associated Press vs. Reality

The mainstream media gets ever further from delivering the relevant truth.  The AP issued a directive to all its affiliated reporters and media to cease using the term “ground zero mosque” and any other verbiage that may offend Muslims.  This despite the fact that a landing gear from one of the Muslim terrorist-piloted planes crashed through the roof of the building at the site of the proposed ground zero mosque, and despite the fact that Muslims insist on their jihad against America through deception, bullying, arrogance, and terror if the circumstances are right.

Atlas Shrugs succinctly describes the whitewashing of Islam by the media here.

iOWNTheWorld.com has what might well be a more accurate name for the new mosque:  The Landing Gear Mosque.

Moving to the category of quacking, walking, and laying eggs like a duck, the mainstream deceivers are aghast at the revelation that 24% of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim.  I would be aghast if as many as 24% believed he ISN’T a Muslim.  The way they put it:  24% of Americans surveyed erroneously believe Obama is a Muslim.  Erroneously, eh?  Are these news stories or are they editorial opinion pieces.  Does the media have a blatant. deceptive in your face agenda or what?  Islamic taqiyya has nothing over the media as far as the art of deception is concerned.

Imagine if you were a newly planted alien human placed in the middle of Iowa and you were given three sets of facts:  The current predominant beliefs and actions of Muslims in the world, the current predominant beliefs and actions of Jews and Christians in the world, and the current predominant beliefs and actions of Barack Hussein Obama in the world.  What conclusions would you reach, free of bias?

Lets look at the last 40 years of each of these three sets of facts. Predominant orthodox Islam has been all about intolerant supremacism by any means possible.  Predominant orthodox Christianity has been all about tolerance and God’s grace and love.  And predominant orthodox Barack Hussein Obama has been all about:

• Being born into a Muslim family
• Spending much of his youth in a Muslim nation
• Spending school years in a Muslim school registered as a Muslim
• Changing his name from an Anglicized to a Muslim name while in college
• Hanging out in college with radicals who shared Islam’s disdain for America
• Attending a church for 20 years pastored by a man who’s Black Nationalist, hate-America teaching was indistinguishable from the teaching of the Nation of Islam.
• Actively working to conceal his education and birth records
• Deeply bowing to heads of Islamic nations
• Invoking foreign policy more favorable to Islamic nations than to our traditional allies
• Working to neutralize Israel in favor of surrounding Islamic nations that have vowed to destroy it.
• Vowing to stand by Muslim immigrants in the US no matter what.
• Fondly describing the call to Muslim prayer as “one of the sweetest sounds on earth at sunset.”
• Appointing Muslims to key federal positions, including Homeland Security
• Refusing to identify acts of terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam (Fort Hood, shoe and underwear bombers, and others) as being associated with Islam or Muslims.
• Refusing to respect the flag of the US
• Declining to affiliate with any Christian church.

Granted, two or three of these characteristics by themselves may not raise eyebrows.  But this many?  Not logical, eh Scottie?  You tell me why ONLY 24% of Americans believe this deceiver is a Muslim.

Are we to believe Obama’s claim he is a Christian?  The Islamic doctrine of taqiyya condones a Muslim claiming he is a Christian if such claim furthers Islam.  In Obama’s case, it certainly does.

Ahh, here’s the ultimate test of his Christianity: 

“The President is obviously a -- is Christian," Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said. "He prays every day. He communicates with his religious advisor every single day.”

Of course Burton failed to mention two things:  Obama’s religious advisor’s role is to convince Christians that government should replace God, and the direction Obama faces when he prays.

In the end, is there really a difference between being a Muslim and “merely” promoting Muslim interests as if he were one?

The history of Obama’s life, words, and actions demonstrate that he is promoting Islam with the dedication of a committed Muslim.

Mosques have rights but just not at ground zero?

Opponents of the ground zero mosque cite the constitutional right for mosques, like churches, to locate anywhere.  It is just a politically correct judgment call that says “not at ground zero” and not any legal injunction against the establishment of a mosque.

That is a naive and ultimately misguided and dangerous principle.

This position assumes that mosques are just like churches.  It assumes Islam is just like any other religion.  But mosques aren’t and Islam isn’t.  They are diametrically and diabolically different.

Islam is a political ideology, like fascism and communism.

Mosques and Islam are tools of an oppressive, intolerant and supremacist ideology.  We are terribly mistaken and naive to equate them with churches and synagogues and what goes on in these place.

What goes on in most if not all mosques in this nation is the teaching of hate and intolerance and tactics of Islam to impose its will upon a self-absorbed and ignorant culture – ours.  The goal is the imposition of Sharia law to replace constitutional and common law.

Proposed mosques at any location need to be scrutinized.  Their Imams and sponsors and spokespersons and funding sources need to be scrutinized.  We need to see through Islamic taqiyya – deception – that says one thing to help us believe there is no ill intent while intending all along to promote Islamic law and culture at the expense of our own freedoms.  Mosques, generally speaking, are breeding grounds for intolerance and oppression.

An ideology that at its heart is in opposition to first amendment principles is not worthy of first amendment protections.

So be aware – just because a mosque is somewhere beside the site of an Islamic atrocity does not mean Islamic atrocities are not taking place wherever a mosque is located.

Interested in further elaboration on this topic?  Check out this book.

Our economy = toilet

And our president and congress are doing all the right things to make it worse.

Take for example Pelosi's emergency funding to prevent layoffs of state, municipal and county employees.  $26 billion.  Sounds great, doesn’t it?  This is part of the deluded, self-destructing “put government first” mentality of our national leaders.

Let’s look at this rationally, for a moment – without the gross distortions imposed by special interests.

Which sector demands and consumes tax revenues?  The government sector.

Which sector generates tax revenues?  The private sector.

What happens when the private sector performs poorly?  Fewer tax revenues are generated.

What happens to government when fewer tax revenues are generated?  Government loses its funding and needs to cut back.

What happens when governments refuse to cut back and continue to demand additional revenues?  Either taxes are raised or money is borrowed/manufactured.

In an already bad economy, what is the effect on the private sector of raising taxes or borrowing/manufacturing more money to pay for public sector jobs?  It is debilitating and will cause private sector jobs to contract.

What happens when private sector jobs contract?  Few tax revenues are generated.

And round and round she goes.

Doesn’t this latest government “bailout” seem to be the very worst thing to do?  I think this is considered by the feds as “priming the pump.”  I think it is more analogous to pumping more gasoline into a flooded carburetor.  It drowns the spark and the fuel is not circulating.

What about federal tax laws that encourage overseas manufacturing at the expense of jobs here at home?  We have a fraction of the manufacturing jobs we had twenty years ago.  And we wonder why we don’t have jobs here?

Wouldn’t it be infinitely wiser to do everything possible to enable private sector prosperity instead of promoting policies that penalize prosperity?

And wouldn’t it be infinitely wiser for our federal and state governments to do some serious belt tightening – especially in the areas where the feds excessively meddle:  welfare entitlements, aid to nations other than allies, federalized education programs, and private sector growth-stifling environmental regulations.  Cuts in these economically and educationally debilitating areas alone would save hundreds of billions annually.

Happy days would be here again.

No surprise – Obama and the ground zero mosque

Given that B. Hussein Obama is more demonstrably Muslim than Christian, and given his propensity to pander to Islamic interests more than American interests, this comes as no surprise.  This is merely more evidence of how bad this seditious excuse for our president really is.

Obama Supports Ground Zero Mosque!

Obama continues his pandering to Islamic supremacist interests.  It has nothing to do with “freedom of religion”.  It is about rewarding a fascist ideology hell-bent on making a political statement.  Islam is no more a religion than is fascist Nazism or Communism.  Obama is speaking out in favor of his bosom buddies who have been shown to have links to Islamic interests in the middle east contrary to the interests of Israel and the US.

Now Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam of the 9-11 mosque, has the backing of our president.  And, in agreement with Obama, Rauf blames Christians and Jews for Islamic atrocities.  Two of a kind.

Here is more evidence, beyond the bowing, of Obama’s Saudi/Islamic interests…

Moderate Muslims: Two Definitions

In discussing Muslims, there are two major types:

The “evolutionary” which we call “moderate, and the “revolutionary” which we call “radical.”  They both share the same desire for Islamic supremacism as their ultimate destination.

In discussing MODERATE Muslims, we hear conflicting views of what a “moderate” Muslim is.  Is there such a thing, and if there is, what does “moderate” really mean and what proportion of Muslims are moderate.

Here are the two descriptions that come closest to reality:

The “jettison most of Islamic teaching” moderate Muslim, and

The patient “don’t blow things up yet” moderate Muslim.

The first kind, the “jettison most of Islamic teaching” moderate Muslim is described in this article from Brigitte Gabriel’s website Act for America.  In essence, this moderate Muslim does not believe most of Muhammad’s Medina writings, nor the current interpretations based on these later Qur’anic passages.  This includes, among other current mainstream Islamic teachings, the imposition of Sharia law and the oppressive punishments associated therewith, the inequality and inhumane treatment of women, intolerance toward other religions, use of terror tactics, the subverting of the US Constitution and the suppression of freedom of speech.  It is said that most Muslims in the US are wessternized, assimilated, and peaceloving.  They may be referred to as "nominal Muslims” – the “in-name-only” Muslim.  But how many of these would really want to be associated “in name only” given the reputation of what Islam has become in the world – unless they really believe and agree with Islamic teaching? Unfortunately, such a Muslim is a pipe dream.  If any exist, they likely constitute a tiny minority.  If they exist and call themselves a “devout Muslim”, you really really need to question their truthfulness because they are likely to be expert in another Islamic practice they will not give up and have thoroughly mastered: “taqiyya” – the deliberate dissimulation of truth to further their Islamic cause.

The second kind of moderate Muslim is much more common, and probably represents the large majority in this country.  These are Muslims who differ from the so-called “radical” Muslim by their patience to implement their beliefs in this country by more gradual and deliberative means.  These are the “evolutionary” Muslims as opposed by the “evolutionary” Muslims who are called “radical.”  These evolutionary Muslims may actually express outrage at terrorist acts of radical Muslims because they believe that such action is premature and ultimately hurts their long range evolutionary supremacist cause. 

Whether such Muslims are currently active or not is beside the point. I am sure there are many inactive or “nominal” Muslims.  But they all share the whole cloth of Islamic belief – to promote their supremacy and dominance over “infidels” and impose Islamic Sharia law over our culture.  They are not moderate in their ultimate understanding and mission of Islam.  They are moderate with regard to the methods and timing of implementation.  Unfortunately, as their numbers and influence increase, more of these “moderates” will become more emboldened to take more radical action to further their Islamic dominance.  When Muslims constitute less then 5% of the population, they will work within the existing governmental system.  As their numbers reach 15 to 20%, you will see more demonstrations, threats, and acts of terror.  Over 40 to 50% and you kiss any non-Islamic culture bye bye.

For those interested in learning more and taking action, watch the video below, visit Brigitte Gabriel’s website, and join and participate in one of her ACT Chapters around the nation.

Mosque! An action guide for communities

If you are concerned about a mosque in your community or know someone who is, here is a new book to help them decide what to do about it:

Mosque! House of Prayer or Site of Sedition – An Action Guide for Communities

This is a Kindle book but can be read on any desktop, laptop I-pad or other readers using the free software below…

Windows PC

Macintosh

iPad/iPhone

BlackBerry

Android

Proponents of Gay Rights Claim Gay Judge Not Biased

This afternoons topic, boys and girls and inbetweeners, is “conflict of interest.”  There is no greater interest a person can have than his, her, or its sexual orientation.  And that interest certainly was in conflict with the task at hand: objectively judging whether the law allows “marriage” to be between only one man and one woman.

Well, here it is, the proclamation by gay rights advocates, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle that the gay judge making this landmark ruling could not possibly be biased by his sexual orientation.  Put that in our bigoted pipe and smoke it.

This is as intellectually and psychologically honest as declaring a drug addict is not conflicted when he judges whether drugs should be legalized, an abortion doctor is fit to rule on the right to life, or a porn producer fairly ruling on the merits sex videos. Give me a freakin’ break!