Why Mosques should be outlawed in the US…

As politically incorrect as this may sound,there is ample justification to outlaw Islamic mosques in the United States.

1. Islam is a fascist political ideology more than a religion. 
2. Islam, the ideology uses religion as a cover to promote their supremacist designs through

The Establishment Clause: Christianity and Islam

This blog post explores the implications of the “establishment clause” of the US Constitution on the practice of Christianity and Islam in America.
Especially at issue are these two prevailing attitudes toward these two religions by their respective adherents.

Islam: Religious, cultural, political, and military activity are inseparable from the practice of Islam.  Islam is no longer Islam without its political and military components.  The Islamic ideology is a fairly recent phenomenon in America.  It originates from non-Western cultures with radically different

Settling for corruption in the church

A friend was discussing an issue that has been smoldering for some time now in the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), the largest Presbyterian denomination in the nation.

 

The issue is whether homosexuals should continue to be denied leadership positions throughout the denomination or whether they should be allowed in any congregation that desires a homosexual to serve. My friend expressed his concern that this discussion is a distraction from the primary purpose of the church to feed the hungry and clothe the poor and believes the controversy should be ended by allowing homosexuals to lead in specific churches, e.g. those in Haight-Ashbury. 

 

I'm wondering where my friend would draw the line. Would he stop with homosexuals? After all, homosexuality is specifically called out in Scripture as being a vile sin, a recurring theme of Scripture, not just an isolated verse. Should the church reinterpret the Scriptural definition of sin? What about a practitioner of bestiality? Man-child love? Where do you stop?  If a church is in a neighborhood full of drunks or drug addicts, will it be ok for a drunk or drug addict to be a church leader?

 

I'm also wondering about his assumption about the primary mission of the church. Is feeding the hungry and clothing the poor the primary mission? My understanding is that being obedient to God's will and personal salvation are primary. Yes, feeding the hungry and clothing the poor represent one of the commands of God, but so isn't abstaining from sin and following God’s commandments.

 

As far as "distractions" are concerned, the distraction is the homosexual special interest group that is trying to weasel its way into church leadership and the misguided bleeding hearts who are supporting their cause, not the discussion of what to do about it.  Once the homosexual repents from acting on his predisposition, just as the alcoholic determines to quit acting on his predisposition to drink, and a period of time elapses to demonstrate the sincerity of his repentance, then the individual might be considered for a leadership position. Not before then.

 

To cave in to deviance from Scriptural mandates because discussing its resolution is a "distraction" is peculiar. It's like if our nation was being attacked, and we called discussion about our response "a time consuming distraction." Hey!  We are being attacked! The attack is the distraction, not our discussion on how to deal with it. In fact, discussion shouldn't even be necessary. And turning the other cheek is not an option, as ignorantly popular that misguided expression may be.  What you do is cleanse yourself of that attack. Just as the church must cleanse itself from immorality in leadership positions.

 

Sure, sinners are in "the church." That's who it's for. But Scripture is clear about the morality of church leaders. And it does not include homosexuals, no matter how many are in the neighborhood.

 

The need to have a prolonged discussion on something that is Scripturally cut and dried is a sign of a deeper problem in the church:  A rebellion against the Word of God.

 

The distinction between "the church" and the rest of our culture is disappearing. And it appears that the PCUSA, among other liberal denominations, is in the process of promoting the blurring of lines even further.

Fareed Zakaria: Progressive Islamist Apologist

A local church book study group will soon be discussing Samuel P. Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”, written in 1996.  I’m not sure why this 14-year-old book was chosen for discussion.  But I will make sure that the group is aware that one of Huntington’s “trusted advisors” in reviewing and commenting on his manuscript was Fareed Zakaria.  This is just a hunch, but knowing what I know about Zakaria, I’ll bet that he influenced Huntington to be softer on Islam in his book than he would otherwise have been.

Most popularly known as a TV news and foreign policy commentator on ABC television, Zakaria has a broad foreign policy background.  He was a managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, a columnist for Newsweek, editor of Newsweek International, he has written on a variety of subjects for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, and most recently authored the book The Post-American World (2008), and named Editor-At-Large of Time.

He has done all of these things while maintaining a distinct bias for all things progressive and Islam.  Zakaria self-identifies as a Muslim.

While his publicists claim he is straight as an arrow centrist and unbiased, Zakaria’s background and actions reveal otherwise.

His religious upbringing was supposedly secular, but included the honoring of Muslim holidays.  His father, Rafiq Zakaria, was a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and an Islamic scholar.

Note that most of Zakaria’s career has been devoted to predominantly left-leaning organizations and publications. Forbes, in 2009, referred to Zakaria as one of "The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media"^[8].

His most recent book “The Post-American World” manifests his multicultural, progressive upbringing and education when he advocates "a more organic international system in which problems are addressed through a variety of structures and solutions can create its own kind of layered stability."  This mimic’s George Soros’s and Barack Obama’s heartfelt desire for a one-world government – a new world order.

Speaking of Obama, our multiculturalist, third world President is a big fan of his fellow Islamist.  This is not just guilt by association, but guilt by striking similarities.

Zakaria has spoken out strongly in favor of the Ground Zero Islamic mosque in Manhattan.  In fact he returned an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) award granted years earlier because the ADL came out against the ground zero mosque.  In a Time editorial, Zakaria stated he believes the mosque should be built to enhance the cause of Muslims like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, which Zakaria calls “a moderate Muslim clergyman” despite solid evidence to the contrary.

He has publicly criticized Glenn Beck for claiming roughly 10% of the world’s Muslims are terrorist or have terrorist tendencies.  This argument demonstrates that Zakaria is the Muslim apologist and Beck is the realist.  Most reliable sources estimate that the proportion of the worlds 1.5 billion Muslims willing to invoke violent jihad range from 7% to over 15%.  Beck is likely on the conservative side of “pretty close.”  Remember what historic, orthodox Islam teaches: Supremacism, with a large dash of intimidation and terror to achieve their goals.  The most devout Muslims practice it to the letter.  Assuming 80 or 90% of Muslims are not “devout” Muslims, that leaves 10 to 20% who are.  And they practice or believe what Muhammad preaches.

Just as the folks who advise the president shape presidential policy and politics, so too do the folks who advise authors of books shape the content and conclusions of the book.  Beware of Zakaria’s “moderate” Islamic influence.

Free pass for Islamic mosques in the US?

We often hear from Americans, including many Christians, that we should in no way obstruct the establishment of new Islamic mosques in this nation.  That sounds fair and reasonable, doesn’t it?  Such defense of this assumed right is based on the assumption that Islam is principally a religion, and that the practice of historic orthodox Islam as promoted by the preponderance of Islamic leaders today does not threaten our nation, form of government or our freedoms –it is just another religion, like Christianity, that seeks peace, human well-being, and honors the same God.

The sad truth is that those assumptions are mistaken.

The Islam in vogue today, and as promoted in Islamic mosques across the United States is more political ideology than it is a religion.  In fact it is a supremacist, fascist political ideology that has subversive designs on the US government and our constitutional freedoms.  It’s inseparable Sharia law requires our freedoms and common law, Judeo-Christian-based legal system to be subverted and replaced by crude dark ages laws of the middle east.

And the final topper is that the funding for the great majority of Islamic mosques in the United States is from Saudi Arabia, namely the Wahabbi’s, among the most Mohammedesque sects of Islam.

Unfortunately the defenders of Islamic mosques in America are ignorant of the subversive intent of the funding, the teachings, and actions that emanate from these ideological violent training center.  Such advocacy is the equivalent of advocating new Nazi training camps in the US in the late ‘30’s and early 40’s.  Such advocacy would be quite ill-advised and suicidal.

The way to counter the Islamic threat is not by placating the establishment of new mosques as if they serve the same community function as new churches.  Each new mosque needs to be seen as the establishment of a new terror cell in your community.  Short of deporting all Muslims, the best way to counter the Islamic threat is though education of individual Muslims.  They must be informed and convinced of the better way – preferably Christianity, but any other way than their self-destructive, parasitic culture that condemns rather than forgives, destroys rather than builds, kills rather than saves.  Christianity should be held up as the ideal because in its purest form it forgives rather than condemns, builds rather than destroys, and saves rather than kills.

Admittedly there is very little of this type of convincing occurring in the US because we have not yet, as a nation, admitted the scope of the Islamic problem and the danger of our ongoing pandering and placating.

Conservatives fail at legislative semantics

There is no doubt that income taxes are excessive.  There is no doubt that our current tax and unemployment policies discourage productivity and encourage “The View/Oprah-addicted” to maintain their slovenly behaviors.

It is also true that conservatives would benefit immensely by learning lessons on semantics from liberals and progressives (LPs).  The LPs choose the words that make their socialist agenda sound attractive to the average lazy-minded and indiscriminate American. 

One of the best examples of the LPs use of semantics is the DREAM Act.  Wow!  The DREAM act.  Sounds pretty good.  No need for concern about that.  How many Americans are aware that the bill results in amnesty for millions of illegal aliens?  That DREAM stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors.  For every illegal alien minor granted citizenship based on loose and unenforceable criteria, dozens of related family members both inside an outside the US get a ticket to citizenship.  The DREAM Act is a dream for illegals and a nightmare for our economy, national security, and our culture.

Moving now to the semantics relating to the extension of Bush era tax cuts.  Income taxes were too high during the Bush administration.  Congress cut the tax rates across the board.  Unfortunately, there was a time limit on the duration of the cuts – to December 31, 2010.  The opponents of the tax rate cut extension calls such action “reducing taxes for the wealthy.”  Conservatives argue, getting part of it right, that this is not a “tax cut for the wealthy” – it is extending the reduction of tax rates for everyone.  What is being missed by conservatives – and the point of the whole argument – is that the wealthy are the most productive.  We are talking about INCOME tax rates here – which is a tax on PRODUCTIVITY.  Excluding the wealthy from the extension of the tax rate cut is increasing the tax on the most productive individuals in the nation – a disincentive for production.

OK, let’s hear it.  DO NOT INCREASE TAXES ON PRODUCTIVITY!  That will ultimately result in lower overall tax revenue for government or higher taxes on the middle class. 

And quit encouraging the predisposition of American humans toward a slovenly existence by continuing to pay them for not working.  Man, can we do anymore to destroy the success of our nation?  Quit calling it “unemployment compensation.”  After six months call it what it is:  An employment disincentive.  After 12 months, call it blatant counterproductive socialism.

Conservatives need to become much more aware – and much more creative – with their use of terms and their popular inference.  LPs have the upper hand in this skill set.  Conservatives need to take a page from the LPs semantics lesson manual.

Mike McCallister: No Allen West is he

Mike McCallister is running for US Senate in the State of Florida in 2012.  He is an early favorite of tea partiers – probably because no other Republican has declared yet.  He ran a distant third in the Republican primary for governor.

What is startling about Mike is his inability or refusal to communicate his position on national security issues, the sources of the threat, and the role and intent of Islam.

During his campaign kickoff speech on December 6th in a Tea Party meeting he said, and I paraphrase, “… this war was unlike any we've ever fought as it is not against a country, but against a culture of religious fanatics...”

That is substantially all he said about the reason we are fighting two wars and spending hundreds of billions on homeland security.  That answer is so vague and broad brush that it could apply to any group of people that political correctness declares to be “fanatics.”  Christians who profess belief in and actively promote the Bible as the word of God could be declared “religious fanatics” by secular progressives.  Sorry Mike, you are a bit vague in identifying the enemy.

A friend emailed to me a summary of his platform.  There was not a word about homeland security or Islam, the ideology we refuse to admit is behind our engagement in a war in two Islamic nations.

In my attempt to fill in the obvious gap of critical information in his platform, I emailed him with this question:

Please describe for me your understanding of Islam, and its threat to the US, if any.  Is it historically and currently a “religion of peace” or is it intrinsically a warring, supremacist ideology?

Thanks for your insights.

My name                                                                                Islamic Threat Committee                                                     Tri-County Tea Party, Florida

And his reply…

This I would discuss in person not by email.

And my follow-up, understanding that some folks have an aversion to emails…

Please provide a phone number so we can discuss.

And his reply…

I will at your TeaParty on Dec 6.

[He said very little on the topic at the Tea Party meeting]

And my follow-up, expressing shock at his refusal to answer…

Thank you for your reply.

I am, in fact most of us are,  looking for candidates who will speak and WRITE the truth with courage.  Initially, not knowing anything about you, I am disappointed that you, for whatever reason, feel you must avoid making your understanding of Islam known in writing.  Islam, as an ideology, has forced America to be engaged in two wars, spend billions of dollars on homeland security, and subject our traveling citizens to invasive, humiliating searches.  And you don’t want to put your understanding of Islam in an email.  Do you not have a position paper on the subject?

He apparently does not.  Further email exchanges followed.  The stonewalling continued - no answers whatsoever were forthcoming concerning his position on homeland security, national security threats, the role of Islam, or our roles in two wars in Islamic nations.  In fact he resorted to pomposity and condescension in lieu of transparency and forthrightness.

He strikes me as an academic in the worst sense, maintaining an air of high-minded superiority above the capacity of common folk to understand or have a need to know.  One of his campaign aids even bragged on his behalf that his CV (“Curriculum Vitae” for low life like myself who are ignorant of such acronyms) has 9 pages.  Nine!  I was so impressed I looked up how many pages of CV Bill Ayers has.  He has 34 pages!  Wow.  On that basis Ayers would make a better Senator than McCallister!

Please, Republicans and conservatives - we do not need a stonewaller on national security issues.  Usually stonewallers are ignorant about the issues they are stonewalling.  And if not ignorant, they have information they don’t want to share because they think so little of the capacity of their audience to understand what they are saying.  So whether McCallister is a stonewaller or an excessively pompous colonel matters not.  Neither one would make a good senator.  A Col. Allen West he is definitely NOT!

I pray for other conservative options in the coming months.

Who’s the numbnuts: The US or the Saudis?

The headline reads:

Saudi Arabia a cash machine for terrorists

Watching our State Department and US Presidents, not just Obama but even back to Bush and Clinton, you would think that Saudi Arabia is one of our good buddies.  There is constant schmoozing between the respective leaders.  Remember Obama’s deep bow?

Even the government of Saudi Arabia appears to be helpful on occasion when we hear they aided us with some intelligence gathering against “extremists, or they urged us to take out Iran’s nukes as we read recently via Wiki Leaks.

But we also know that Saudi Arabia is the primary funder of Islamic terrorists not only in the middle east, but in the United States and around the world.  In the US, Saudi Arabia is officially funding Islamic training centers and middle east studies programs in major cities and universities.  These centers and programs advance Islam and teach disdain for our culture, religions, and form of government.  And where did the Islamists involved in the 9-11 attacks come from?  Saudi Arabia.

The obvious questions I seldom hear asked is “why do we treat Saudi Arabia as an ally?”  Is it because of our lust for oil?  Our need for Saudi intelligence on terror groups?  Because Saudi Arabia is one of the more stable Muslim nations?  Or is it because of our ignorance of Islam and its agenda against us?

Saudi Arabia plays both sides.  Like feeding a desperate addict, the Saudis drip feed us oil and snippets of intelligence we crave.  We are more dependent on them than they are on us.  Knowing what our government knows about the continuing heavy funding of terror by the Saudi’s, we are undoubtedly the numbnuts.  If it was a single government official carrying out this sort of innane policy “on the sly” he would be fired or impeached.  But we have our entire federal government officially carrying out this policy in the open.  What insanity that is.

Fedophobia

Arachnophobia, homophobia, and Islamophobia are the most famous fears of the past decade.

The word “phobia” has two principle definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary at Answers.com:

(fō'bē-ə)
n.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

Phobias are most often considered irrational fears but not necessarily always.  Take the fear of spiders, for example.  Most spiders are capable of biting humans, though not all cause serious illness or death.  But some can and do.  If Cousin Hank has experienced the wrath of a Black Widow spider up front and personal, then his “phobia” is not irrational to him.  Most people don’t allow themselves to get close enough to a spider to distinguish between a Black Widow and the friendly spider next door.

Black Widow Spider

The Black Widow Spider is the deadliest spider in North America. While the instant of the bite is not painful, the later symptoms of the Black Widows bite include localized pain in the back and abdomen, sever cramping of the abdominal muscles, nausea, labored breathing, tremors, profuse perspiration, high blood pressure, restlessness, fever and occasionally, death.

Those who have not experienced the bite of the Black Widow like Hank has may consider Hank to be “phobic.”  But Hank knows better through experience.  He is not being irrational at all.

Homophobia is interesting.  It is not really an “irrational fear” as much as it is an aversion.  From the perspective of those who do not have an aversion to gays or the gay lifestyle, they will label such aversion as “irrational” because they don’t have the point of reference to homosexual behavior that the alleged “homophobes” have.  The point of reference of those who do have an aversion to homosexuality typically originates from religious beliefs, most notably from various passages of the Bible.  Homosexuality as understood by those having an aversion to it is related to un-Godliness, immorality, lack of self-control, and a degenerate culture.  As John McCain correctly noted in testimony before Congress, a significant proportion of those in the military are evangelical Christians who take their Christianity seriously.  And serious orthodox Christians have believed through the centuries that homosexuality is wrong, thus the “aversion” to homosexuality.  If and when the “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy is repealed, military leadership will be required to convince all their underlings that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, despite deeply held beliefs to the contrary held by both leadership and underlings.  Cognitive dissonance results, followed by distraction, conflict, and many leaving the military during wartime – not a good result.

Those who legitimately warn of the Islamic threat are called “Islamophobes” either by Muslims or by those who don’t understand Islam.  Islamophobia, like Arachnophobia and homophobia, is a derisive term intended to discredit the opinion, concern, or fear of the individual  who has been negatively affected by or who has a legitimate concern – in this instance about Islam.  I recognize that just as not all spiders are poisonous, not all Muslims are terrorist or desire to subvert our government and culture.  However, Islam does teach and promote these things.  Consequently we cannot, with certainty, know which Muslims believe and practice these historic, orthodox teachings of Islam.  As it turns out, most so-called “moderate” Muslims are found to have quite a bite.  Like the Arachnophobe, most alleged Islamophobes cannot get close enough to the object of his “phobia” to know for certain there is no threat.

And then there are the “Fedophobes”:  The alleged irrational fear of the federal government.  Those who believe the federal government should do everything to protect us from ourselves consider the federal government their friend.  The bigger the better – even if we need to go into irreversible and suicidal debt – the bigger the better.  The more the Feds can “protect” us from ourselves, the better.  They consider anyone opposed to the federal government’s intrusive role into everyone’s life to be phobic toward the federal government. 

From the perspective of the alleged Fedophobe, the engorged Federal government, like a bloated tick, is sucking the blood out of the formerly highly regarded human qualities of personal responsibility, initiative, hard work and sense of accomplishment.  This problem is obvious to the Fedophobes.  But apparently not so much to those who hold a “big-brother” Federal government in higher regard than these essential human qualities.

Use of the word “phobic” against others is a dual edged sword, much like using the word “bigot” or “racist” against someone.  The name caller often lacks understanding of the problem and himself becomes the object of the name he is calling.