Thursday, September 23, 2010

Send the security bill to the reactionary Muslims…

It appears that if a church, or any other organization or individual does anything to offend any easily offended Muslim, they will have to pay for their own security.

Given that Muslims are psychotically reactionary and so easily offended, a lot of us could receive a hefty security bill.  If the actions of Gainesville, FL, are any indication, it appears those who offend or express the truth about Islam will be billed for security.  Muslims don’t need to engage in terror acts to stifle free expression.  Their psychotic reaction to insults works wonders.  Fear of  receiving a $200K security bill is more than enough to chill first amendment liberties. 

Someone needs to pay for security when Muslims feel that Muhammad or Islam is insulted. It’s either the taxpayers or those exercising their free speech.  Wait!  How about those who threaten life and property who are too easily offended?  How about billing them?

News flash:  The problem is not free speech.  The problem is reactionary Muslims egged on by their hate-filled, intolerant, Qur’an-inspired Islamic religion.  From ABC News “Money”…

Gainesville Will Bill Terry Jones at Least $200K; Preacher Says Church Will Move


Sept. 21, 2010

The controversial Florida pastor who threatened to burn Korans on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is expected to be billed at least $200,000 by the city of Gainesville for costs associated with the stunt.

Pastor Terry Jones, who got international attention with his on-again, off-again plan to burn 200 copies of Islam's holiest book, said the costs would essentially bankrupt his 50-member church, the Dove World Outreach Center.

"That would be impossible for us to pay," Jones said. "That would bankrupt us, of course."

Jones, 58, vowed to fight the security bill in court and said he plans to move his church to Tampa because of what he called a lack of support in Gainesville.

The maverick preacher eventually called off his protest after increasing pressure from Washington and beyond.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

New insights into liberal churches…

“The true opposite of love is not hate but indifference. Hate, bad as it is, at least treats the neighbor as a thou, whereas indifference turns the neighbor into an it, a thing. This is why we may say that there is actually one thing worse than evil itself and that is indifference to evil. In human relations the nadir of morality, the lowest point as far as Christian ethics is concerned, is manifest in the phrase, I couldn't care less.’”

Joseph Fletcher

So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.  Revelation 3:16

Curious about my friend’s church’s politically correct teaching about Islam (it teaches that Islam is to be respected like any other religion), I asked him this question:  “Does your church teach anything about Islam’s Mahdi being the Christian anti-Christ and the Christian Messiah being the Islamic anti-Mahdi?”  He answered “Oh, no, we don’t get into that sort of thing because that pits one religion against the other – that brings about religious wars.”  Incredulous, I asked whether the Gulf War, Vietnam War, Korean War, World War II, World War I, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, or the American Revolution were “religious wars.”  Of course the answer was “no.”

To the mind of the church he represents, the “religious” wars of 1,000 to 2,000 years ago justify ignorance of Islam today, the greatest threat to Christian and American liberties in the 21st century.  This indifference to the Islamic ideology and the real threat it poses is typical among the great majority of Christian churches.

Indifference is caused by two things:  Lack of information (ignorance), and a lack of love – in this case lack of love for the historical teachings of the church.

Knowledge of Islam leads one to clearly understand that it is as much or more a political ideology as it is a religion.  A good number of the “religious” wars of the past have been fought on the basis of the political/ideological aggression of Islam – its doctrine of intimidation, aggression, conquest, domination, and submission.  Failure to understand the historical ideology and doctrines of Islam are more likely to embroil us in a so-called “religious war” than efforts to understand Islam.  With understanding we can act appropriately short of war to safeguard and preserve our freedoms.  Without understanding we will find ourselves in an untenable defensive position where war is the only option to preserve whatever freedoms we have left.

Lack of love for the teachings of the church is caused by several things:

  • Self-absorption.  Leave me alone.  Don’t tell me what I can and cannot do.
  • Cultural taboo of discernment, aka taboo of “judging” ourselves or others.
  • The abolition of moral absolutes; the new sin of of believing there are any moral absolutes:  right and wrong; good and evil.

The common denominator of these three things is “rebellion.”  From what?  From the self-discipline that enabled us to get to the point of feeling rebellious.  We lost the balance between Godly self-control and ungodly rebellion against self-discipline.  And without God’s standards, there is no measure or criteria for our self-discipline.  We, and especially our churches, have untethered ourselves from Godly standards of discipline.  This loss of discipline has brought about a loss of respect for diluted church teachings.  That loss of respect has in turn brought us to the point of indifference – an absolute loss of love for the teachings of the church – even of Christ himself.

The result:  We no longer have convictions of the truth.  The church, the former repository of truth, is no longer worth defending.  We should not even think of who the adversary might be or what forces may destroy the church.  Our primary goal rather than defending convictions we no longer possess becomes avoiding controversy, not offending anyone and avoiding the red herring ‘religious war.’ 

What happens when we discover that our tolerance and avoidance of controversy (as is the case with Islam) have backed us into a corner we can’t escape from?  Will it be too late?

One answer:  Seek a church that teaches about Islam, the differences between the doctrines of Islam and Christianity, and how these differences are manifesting themselves.  Become aware of the alternative outcomes of ignoring and of acting on these differences.  Such churches exist.  They may not be as comfortable as the lukewarm feel-good churches.  But they teach the truth.  And get engaged with that church and its people.  Your love will be revived.

Slandering “truth” and perverting “tolerance”

This may sound a bit too “Christian” for some people, but “the truth shall set you free” - you, me, and the rest of the folks in our nation.

Lest any narrow interpreters of Scripture suggest that the John 8-32 truth admonition applies only to the truth of the person and teaching of Jesus Christ, it does in fact apply to all truth.

The truth is, truth appears to be the new hate speech.  Truth is not just politically incorrect, but socially and morally as well.  Whether expressing facts about Christ, Judeo-Christian morality, or facts about Islam, truth is considered to be bigoted hate speech.  Out of ignorance truth is slandered.  That is exactly what happens when I talk with my liberal friends about the truth of the Islamic ideology.  They will say, “oh, you’re being hateful.  That’s just what you believe.  They [Muslims] are entitled to their own beliefs.”  To the blind and ignorant, truth has indeed become the new hate speech.

Closely aligned with the slandering of truth is the perversion of tolerance.  Tolerance used to be defined as “the power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.”  “I tolerated his bad behavior” was a common usage.  Tolerance did not mean “accepting”, “enabling”, or “respecting” as it is applied today.  We do not “accept”, “enable”, or “respect” bad behavior.  We “tolerate” bad behavior until we do all we can to make it go away.  Applied to Islam, we endure (tolerate) it until we can make it go away.  We do not “accept”, “enable”, or “respect” Islam as Islamic apologists command.  We endure it.  That’s what tolerance used to be.  We need to tolerate Islam like we would tolerate the Black Plague – until we can make it go away.

C. K. Chesterton saw the distortion of “tolerance” coming a number of years ago when he correctly observed that “tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions.”  We are convicted of nothing except rejection of moral absolutes.

Our culture has perverted the meaning of key words in our vocabulary.  To get Biblical again, Isaiah 5:20 comes to mind: 

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet bitter!”

The consequences to society are very ugly when reversals of God-given morality occur.  Truth is called bigotry and tolerance is called acceptance.  Phooey!  That is self-deception out of ignorance.  If not ignorance, then out of some unstated vile purpose.

Most of this perversion is the consequence of our society’s rebellion against absolutes, moral or otherwise.  But what makes the situation really peculiar is that the absolutes of Islam are infinitely more strict and harsh than the absolutes of Christianity.  Why would those who disbelieve absolutes defend an ideology like Islam that is raging with absolutes?  Suggested answer:  Christians are applying truth (which involves absolutes) to reveal Islamic ideology and intentions while Muslims defend Islam with lies claiming how tolerant (devoid of absolutes) Islam is.  The lie is easier to believe and accept than the truth.

“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.   Romans 1:22-26a (NIV)

We no longer recognize or acknowledge what is shameful and what is honorable – what is the truth and what is a lie.  And even if we did, we wouldn’t care.  This is the direction our nation has chosen.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

The intimidation and dhimmi response continues…

The evil of Islam and the stupidity of America’s response is never ending.

Here are two back-to-back examples.

First, 22-year-old Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, the originator of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” has fled from her former identity at the urging of our FBI.  Why?  Because the FBI has received credible evidence that her life is being threatened by Muslims who have taken offense at her cartoon below: 

norris2.jpg (courtesy of Molly Norris)

Norris was intimidated into recanting her idea for everyone to draw Muhammad and into changing her identity and going into hiding after threats from various Islamic sources.

Fox News on September 16th reported

In her cartoon, Norris mockingly proposed making May 20 "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!"

Soon after, a fan page popped up on Facebook, but Norris wrote on her since-shuttered website that said she had nothing to do with it.

"I did NOT 'declare' May 20 to be 'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,'" she said, adding that her idea was satire that was "taken seriously, hijacked and made viral."

"I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this 'day' be called off," she said.

Sounds a lot like the “burn the Qur’an” Gainesville pastor declaring that he will “never burn a Qur’an.”  Yes, boys and girls, your first amendment rights are being eliminated as a result of Islamic psychosis.

Ain’t a reputation for carrying out psychotic, reactionary death threats wonderful?   It creates such glorious submission.  I’m sure Allah is smiling.

And, on the same day, we have Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer claiming that burning the Qur’an might not be protected by the first amendment.  He said it is akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.  Well, I must disrespectfully disagree with dhimmi Breyer.  Burning a Qur’an is more like shouting “fire” in front of a pyromaniac, or shouting “drugs” in front of an addict.  Or shouting “food” in front of my dog.  It is not the shout that’s the danger.  It is the psychotic, uncivilized, foolish reaction that is the problem.  Islam teaches that reaction.  Islam promotes that reaction.  That psychotic reaction is ingrained into a huge unknown number of Muslims across the globe – brought to you by Muhammad.  Muhammad is the one who should not be protected by the first amendment, along with his Satanic verses known as the Qur’an and the satanic places for promoting that insanity known as mosques. 

Did I insult anyone?

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Govt. employment: Back door suppression of free speech

Derek Fenton, an employee of the New Jersey Transit Authority, was fired because he expressed himself by burning several pages of the Qur’an during a 9-11 demonstrations in New York City.  No charges were brought against him by police for his exercise of his right of free expression.

But what good is the right of free expression if your employer fires you for exercising it?  He apparently violated New Jersey Transit’s “code of ethics.”  Can we all say “sue the bast—ds?”  Assuming he was not on the clock, he has every right to express constitutionally protected speech that breaks no law.

Having worked for various governmental agencies during my 35-year career, it is true that government employees are under a magnifying glass insofar as public expression goes.  I refrained from any political activity in equal parts because of that microscope as well as not feeling that motivated to participate or demonstrate.  But employees right of free expression should not be suppressed when such expression has nothing to do with the functioning of their job. 

As a larger and larger proportion of workers become employed by public agencies, there will be an increasing tendency for the rights of such employees’ exercise their free speech to be suppressed.  Government employers tend to be much more sensitive to employee free expression than private employers.  Employee loss of this right seems to come with the territory of public employment.  Increasing public employment is the road to our nations’ employees losing their first amendment rights.  We need to rethink the current limits of pubic employee rights of free expression.

Derek didn’t demonstrate to have longer trains or to cram twice as many riders into them.  Perhaps his employer thought he might incite Muslims to blow up trains?  Sane people don’t blow up trains because their book is burned.  Free speech should not be suppressed because a certain group of people react to any provocation in a psychotic manner.  If that was the reason for his firing, then New Jersey Transit is a dhimmi inappropriately intimidated by Islamic threats.  Our government and media are way way too sensitive to Islamic intimidation.  At this rate, Islam will intimidate our nation out of our first amendment rights without needing to impose Sharia law or blowing up another building.

Let us hope the courts will see the danger of government suppression of free speech in this case and New Jersey transit loses the lawsuit that is sure to be filed.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Seeking a church home

Here are several factors I have in my mind when seeking a church home. I group these in three categories: essential, high priority, and nice-to-have. These factors are subject to change, refinement, and reordering as additional thought and prayer are applied. I recognize few churches, perhaps none within 15 miles of home, meet all of these preferences. Compromise is required. These preferences are unique to me. Most Christians will have different priorities. This explains why there are thousands of different Christian denominations – fortunately or unfortunately.


Bible-believing, i.e. “conservative”: Not only promote the Bible as the Word of God, but teach that moral commands and prohibitions must be literally applied to our lives today and not treated as artifacts of an old culture (e.g. homosexuality); understand history and recorded miracles are historic fact, not symbolic fiction; and parables and symbolism are taken seriously and applied as essential spiritual lessons, not options for the prudishly devout. Recognize that these are all high ideals, we all fall short, and require forgiveness.

Relevance to current problems, events and issues: Church culture/teaching/sermons should not focus on the academic, i.e., do not merely interpret the Bible as if we are living 2,000 years ago and trying to define Hebrew and Greek words and culture. More importantly, presentations should draw specific analogies to what is going on in our lives and nation today, including reference to unGodly cultural temptations, over-indulgences, wrong priorities, government lapses, threats from other religions (Islam), and Biblical guidance and mandates on how to overcome. Recognize that a major portion of scripture discusses governance, politics, and their influence on the people. Throw in some eschatology.

Church leadership: The church or denomination follows the Biblical, first century pattern for church leadership concerning moral purity and gender.

High priority:

Preaching/sermons: Dynamic, compelling, engaging style integrating current events, situations and behaviors as examples for lessons being taught.

Enthusiastic congregation: Participants don’t come to church to primarily socialize, but come to primarily worship, learn and encourage others. Presence of a sense of excitement and urgency.

Friendly/welcoming: Seek an intangible feeling of being a part of the group and proceedings. Natural unscripted greeting by members is preferred over someone being “assigned” to greet. Be offered opportunities in subsequent meetings to discuss or discern spiritual gifts and interests and counseled about opportunities to serve.

Respect and reverence: Prefer a pastor who goes by his last name (Rev. Smith or Dr. Smith), not his first (Rev. Bill); who wears a suit, if not vestments, and not merely a shirt with open collar. Expect reverence and prayer within the sanctuary, with areas for socializing in ample facilities outside of the sanctuary.

Traditional service: Traditional hymns with choir and organ; no amplified instruments, or music with a heavy beat or mimicking pop music of our decadent culture.

Nice to have:

Ministry opportunities: Wide variety of ministry opportunities and openness to consideration of new ones.

Good music program: Professional sounding presentations; potential opportunities to participate in instrumental ensemble.

Congregational singing: Two, occasionally three songs, max. except for special occasions.

Physical building: Churchy, reverent feel, clean and well maintained buildings and grounds. Good acoustics; clear sound amplification.

Children: Not allowed to run around in the church building. Younger children go to another activity during the bulk of the service, perhaps after an early children’s sermon.

Friday, September 10, 2010

9/11 9 years later: Look how far we haven’t come

As we remember the events of September 11, 2001, and the holocaust it was for 3,000 souls, we need to put that event into perspective.

It was the worst terror attack ever on US soil.

It was carried out by a world-wide network of Muslims whose Islamic ideology, as taught and promoted by the most influential international body of Islamic scholars, teaches hatred toward and ultimate conquest of Christians, Jews, western freedoms and western culture. The attack was a continuation of two decades of historic, orthodox Islamic resurgence - “reformation” if you will – among the 1.5 billion Muslims of the world.

Not understanding or desiring to face the real source of the attack which was the Islamic ideology itself, the United States struck out at regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while our then President Bush declared that Islam was a “religion of peace.”

In the meantime, Islamic interests have been building their network of “moderate Muslim” infiltrators into our educational, media, governmental, and military institutions.

Several books have been written to try to inform us that violent jihad is not the major threat, but is a tool used to intimidate and support the subversive political component of Islam: the imposition of Sharia and other Islamic influences into our society.

But much of the American public remains ignorant of that reality and of the Islamic alliances with liberal and progressive interests who are in the process of remaking America into their image, as contradictory as those images may be.

Those of us who are most concerned, and in fact best informed, are marginalized by the media as being Islamophobes, intolerant, bigoted, or racist. 

The “ground zero mosque” and the proposed Qur’an burnings have demonstrated that most are influenced more by fear of Islamic revenge than the value of our freedoms.  New York Imman Rauf has announced that upheaval in the Islamic world will occur if we dare relocate that mosque.  And our President, Generals, media, down through PTA members are scared to death of consequences of burning a book.  The message I hear from this:  It is better to stifle our freedoms than face the threats of Islam.

Here is the stark difference between the enemy today and the latest enemy we took seriously during WWII:  We haven’t identified today’s enemy yet.  We are reacting to tactics and shadows.

The Islamic ideology is the enemy, and we don’t want to admit it.  Is it fear?  Ignorance?  Alliances?  Has our leadership already passed the tipping point toward irreversible alliances with Islamic interests over the constitutional freedoms and the founding principles of our nation?

Here are two views of the state of our response to the Islamist threat to America brought to you by two influential sectors: Our government and the media.  One is from the National Security Preparedness Group and one is from Muslim-compliant ABC journalist Fareed Zakaria:

First from the National Security Preparedness Group, a bi-partisan body convened by the Department of Homeland Security to monitor the progress in fulfilling 9/11 Commission recommendations:  “The United States has failed to anticipate the danger from homegrown terrorists and now faces the most complex set of threats since the Sept. 11 attacks.”

And next from Muslim-compliant Zakaria: Zakaria asserts that the US overreacted to 9/11 and is still overreacting with a burgeoning security apparatus.  He is mining for alliances with libertarians who desire to join him in dismantling our security system even beyond that perpetrated by Obama.

So, what is the reality?  Is it the over-reacting scenario promoted by a Muslim-sympathizing national journalist, or the bad news expressed by a panel of non-partisan investigators?

Here is the reality from a typical American citizen who has been paying attention: 

The Islamic ideology is the source of the problem.  Some call it “radical Islam.”  Others call it “political Islam.”  The fact is, this is the ideology invented and promoted by a delusional middle ages man who had skills in communications, politics, and military strategy.  This is the ideology that today has remade itself in its original image and pronounced its intent to impose itself on the west by whatever means fit the circumstances.

The other part of the problem, and perhaps the greater part, is our inability to identify the enemy - our national ignorance of the Islamic methods and intent.  As WWII illustrated, we could have the most potent forces on earth aligned against us.  As long as we were united in identifying the enemy, we could overcome it.  The enemy was the fascism-driven governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan and we all knew it.

Today the enemy is the Islamic-driven governments of the middle east – but worse – the Islamic opinion makers and their sympathizers in the United States.  Islamic interests have infiltrated our nation much further than fascist sympathizers did during WWII.  Could you imagine in 1943 accepting “moderate fascists” or “moderate Nazis” into our institutions of government, education, media, and military?  But we do the equivalent today with Islamists.  We are a deeply divided nation in our understanding and acceptance of who or what the enemy is.

Even organizations which exist solely to bring the threat of “radical Islam”  to our attention accept and appease the stealthy “moderate Muslims” who have the same agenda as the radicals.  Rauf and Musri are among the thousands in the US who are cloaked in moderation but stealthily carry out the radical agenda of Islam.

The failure of our people, our media, and our government to recognize the real threat remains the sad status of our nation nine years after 9/11.

Who is Mohammad Musri, Islam’s Negotiator?

This was predictable, and didn’t take a lot of research.  Mohammad Musri, the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, the Muslim who “negotiated” with Pastor Terry Jones regarding his proposed Qur’an burning, has proven links to Islamic terror organizations.

Musri has provided assistance to known Hamas supporters and fund raisers.

View the entire video…

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Fishy in Gainesville…

Pastor Jones of Dove World in Gainesville built whatever reputation he has on the premise that Islam is of the Devil.  This claim presupposes that he knows a fair amount about the Islamic religion/ideology.

But that presupposition got whacked across the side of the head with his now conflicting statement that he made a deal for the ground zero mosque to be moved in exchange for calling off his Qur’an burning.

Jones is “clearly, clearly shocked that Imam Musri lied” to him, he said. Shocked, I say!  Musri is the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida.  I’d like to know his connections.  So, Jones, the “Islamic expert,” knows all about Islam enough to know Islam is of the Devil, but is “clearly, clearly shocked” when the Islamic devil lies.  Give me a break!

Click here for more information on Musri.  In short, he teaches the Qur’an to hispanics, he is buddies with Charlie Crist, he lhas links with Hamas, and he supported Obama’s healthcare plan that exempts Muslims.

Either Jones is a liar, he is truly ignorant of Islam, or he is terribly confused and disoriented.  Either way, he appears to be on the edge of believability.

An unimaginable amount of pressure was brought upon Jones to cancel the burning from all quarters.  And possibly he had this scenario on his mind to implicate the ground zero mosque and cancel the Qur’an burning from the beginning.  When people are in tough spots, many fail in the “maintaining personal honor” department.  It appears Jones might be one of those casualties.  He created his tough spot and is now on his way to spinning his way into further disrepute.

Stay tuned.

On burning Bibles and Qur’ans

Fact:  Our government is relieved when our military burns Bibles but most Americans are totally stressed out when a church proposes to burn the Qur’an.

Our own military burns Bibles. Let me suggest this right off:  Our troops should not be deployed to any nation where our military feels compelled to burn Christian Bibles.  But yes, our military does that.  They burn Bibles.  See this true and disgusting story here.  The reason?  We are fearful of offending Muslims.  Lt. Col. Mark Wright said such religious outreach can endanger American troops and civilians in the devoutly Muslim nation.  Muslims might be offended and harm our troops.

News flash:  Muslims are easily offended.  They do that as part of their jihadi technique of imposing Islam on the rest of civilization.  The latest is the claim by the ground zero mosque Imam that “…if you don't do this right [approve the mosque], anger will explode in the Muslim world."  Muslims get offended at our freedom and liberty.  Muslims get offended at cartoons.  Muslims get offended at the existence of Jews and Christians.  And when Muslims get offended, many tend to go berserk.  Thousands take to the streets, riot, shout death threats, set off more roadside bombs, send out more suicide bombers and torch more churches and synagogues.  They get offended and angry and intimidate through pronouncing threats and often carrying them out.  This is what they do to get their way and it is working!  This is what the Qur’an teaches them to do.

What can we learn from this?  Certain groups of Muslims are easily offended and show their offense by becoming psychotic.  But what we don’t yet realize is that the “crazy” Muslims do the dirty work of the entire Islamic “Ummah”, the worldwide brotherhood of Muslims, who support the purpose of the psychotic behavior, if not the methods. This explains the absence of, or at best tepid, condemnations by “moderate” Muslims against such psychotic acts.

Hyper-reaction to real and perceived insults to Islam in the form of threats, intimidation, and terror is the method of operation of many millions of Muslims.  And we in the west react to that insanity by shutting up and catering to their insane demands and become obsessively tolerant in the face of their intolerance.

Enough of this bull crap.  Anything that wakes up the ignorant media and ignorant public officials to this stupid self-destructive game we have collectively bought into is worth its weight in pigs and dogs.

How about the fact that the Qur’an, a seditious book, is not just an insult to millions of Americans, but is a subversive tool used to destroy our Constitutional form of government?  If our own military can burn our Bibles (that is “book burning” by the way) why is there such a brouhaha over burning a book that promotes our destruction and conquest? 

Oh wait.  Don’t tell me.  It is so we don’t offend the Muslims. 

Yes.  OK. I see now.  We burn our Bibles so we won’t offend the Muslims and we SHALL NOT burn the Qur’an so we won’t offend the Muslims.  That sounds reasonable, yes? 

Now THAT is a definition of Islamophobia.  Those of us who are speaking out about the two faces of Islam are not the Islamophobes.  The real phobics are those who demand our “tolerance” of every Islamic demand and shiver at even the thought of a shriek from a psychotic sheik.

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Balancing the first amendment…

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.

The First Amendment impacts several current hot-button controversies:

  • The right of a religion to construct a mosque
  • The right of a seditious political ideology to build a mosque
  • The right to protest the construction of a mosque
  • The right to burn books, even those of a “religion”
  • The right to protest the burning of books

The key to each of these “rights” is balance.  What is a “religion?”  What is protected speech?  Are there limits to these rights and protections?

When a religion, like Islam, contains among its doctrinal tenants the coercion of others to submit to particular beliefs or actions, it ceases being a religion and becomes a political ideology.  This coercion/submission principle is manifest in the orthodox teachings of Mohammad which has become Islam’s predominant world view and the heart of Islam’s Sharia legal system.

Is the practice of any political ideology always protected?  No.  Not when the political ideology becomes subversive, seditious, or treasonous.  When the exercise of speech or assembly is for the purpose of undermining our constitution and freedoms, the very heart of our national identity, such actions are no longer subject to protections.

This is why I question the alleged “protected right” of Islam to construct mosques, not just at ground zero, but anywhere in the United States.  Islam itself, not just “radical Islam, at its core, is a coercive ideology that requires submission, not merely by those who call themselves Muslim, but by everyone, believer or not.  Islam’s ideology is not different enough from Nazi fascism for such constitutional protections to be applied to it.

Consequently, we have the right and the DUTY to question and protest the establishment of new mosques, not just at ground zero, but anywhere they a proposed.  Moderate-appearing Muslim Imam sponsors of most mosques have been shown to have connections with individuals and organizations that have vowed to kill Americans overseas or remake the United States into an Islamic culture.  Isn’t that treasonous?  Or is the concept of “treason” out of vogue and now, for some unknown reason, impossible to commit?  Have we evolved so far that actions to protect our nation from destruction from within are no longer condoned?

Mein Kampf (translated “my struggle”) is the Nazi version of the Islamic Qur’an.  Guess what the word “jihad” means?  Struggle!  The great majority of the 164 references to jihad in the Qur’an use that term to refer to a military expedition, fighting, or distributing war spoils.  There are nearly 200 references to jihad in the  hadith (the sayings and actions of Muhammad) and all assume that jihad means warfare.  The Jihad as “inner struggle” propaganda fed to the media is a deception.  The common term “struggle” as used by the Nazi’s and by Islam is no coincidence.  Islam was an ally and cheer leader of the actions of the Third Reich.

Book burning is a protected right.  Most do not agree with actually doing it.  Might it incite Muslims?  You bet.  But so doesn’t depicting Muhammad as a teddy bear, the existence of Christian Churches and Jewish Synagogues, and the concepts of “freedom” and “liberty.”  There is a point where we will need to stand up and say “no more.”  Will it be at the point of identifying the Qur’an as a seditious book, or at the point of a sword when we are attempting to exercise our formerly free speech.

And yes, the right to protest the burning of books still exists.

Monday, September 06, 2010

Observations on “Burn A Qur’an Day”

General Petraeus has joined the majority of Americans who are concerned about the provocative nature of burning Qur’ans as a form of public protest against Islam.  They are not just “concerned” – it is more like they are in fear of the predictable psychotic Muslim reaction and its consequences to our efforts in Islamic nations.  

Has the good General and others succumbed to dhimmi status in their fear of psychotic and uncivilized Muslim reaction to such things?  How far into silence will Muslim tantrums provoke us into self-imposed loss of freedom of expression in matters relating to Islam?

Petraeus would have better served America by using this event as an example of the freedoms we enjoy in the US, and the tolerance to radical actions our culture allows compared with the oppression endemic in Islamic nations.  Instead he chose the course of succumbing to intimidation and threats of violence by being critical of the exercise of our freedoms.  We condemned the Dixie Chicks for bad mouthing America in a foreign country.  Petraeus deserves the same.

That is just the point that is being made by the Dove Worldwide Outreach Church:  How long will we continue to be threatened and intimidated by Muslims caught up in the tortured teachings of a vile and violent Muhammad?

Sure, book burnings have just not been a method Americans have embraced in the past to make a point.  But this particular book burning will most certainly draw the venom out of the viper ideology known as Islam.

Many thousands of people from around the world participated in “draw Muhammad” day in response to the psychotic Muslim reaction to the first published Muhammad cartoon a few years ago.  Remember the widespread riots and death threats?  Now take a look at the myriad of cartoons of Muhammad all over the web.  Search “Google Images” and enter “Muhammad cartoons.”  We are all still alive.  The Muslim world did not erupt in our face.  Muslims need to get over their insane reaction to such things. 

It appears that the Muhammad cartoons served as a desensitizer – like a human family intervention that confronts the practitioner of self-destructive behaviors.  When I received my first injections to counter my allergies to cat dander and cockroach dust, I was surprised that the very things I was allergic to had to be injected into my veins to help me overcome the allergy.  Muslims are allergic to criticism of their beliefs and react violently.  Injections of criticism may be what they need to overcome their violent reaction.

There may very well be a violent reaction of Muslims in response to the book burning. Might that violent and insane reaction result in a similar epidemic, not of Muhammad cartoons, but of Qur’an burnings?  Might such widespread burnings help desensitize Muslims from their insane allergy to criticism?

Many of us have finally learned that acts of passivity and tolerance toward Islam have been foolish.  Being tolerant while they are not does not work.

"We must realize that when tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide"   Lt. Col Allen West 

Americans do not react violently when our flag is burned in Muslim countries.  Christians have not vowed death to those who soak their sacred symbols in urine.  Do Muslims see that as “tolerance” or lack of commitment to what we believe in?

Muslims need to be confronted with a mandate for tolerance to the same extent we are called to be tolerant.  Dove World Outreach is trying to find a tactic that will achieve that end.  Is “burn a Qur’an day” the injection that will stem the violent Islamic allergy to criticism?  We will find out.  Are there other methods to achieve the same end result.  Perhaps.

When at war, we used to bolster our resolve by mocking the enemy.  We made fun of Hitler.  We ridiculed Mein Kampf.  We mocked the Nazi strut and the Heil Hitler salute.  We weren’t chastised for doing that.  There was no concern we would incite the enemy.  What has changed?  It is our national ignorance of the evils of historic, orthodox Islam that is in vogue today that is the greatest threat.  We are going to “tolerance” ourselves into submission.

Our nation’s reaction to Islam reminds me of a friend’s story about putting his daughter through college.  It took him three years to find out he was paying for her country club-like joyride rather than her education.  He had to confront her by cutting off his well-intended largess.  Was she upset, maybe angry?  Oh yes.  Our tolerance of Islam is our well-intended largess.  Islam is on an unencumbered joyride in America.  Muslims need to learn what this nation is all about and accept it and not try to change it into their Islamic country club.

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Immigration: Who wants who more?

Why has our immigration policy and lack of immigration enforcement failed us as a nation?  Why has it created excessive hardship for both the immigrants and the natives?  Hardship for the immigrants because of the their illegal status, and hardship for the natives because of the drain on our fiscal and law enforcement resources.

Do the immigrants want to be in the US more than the US wants them to be here?  Or do we in the US want the immigrants to be here more than they do?  Sure it is some of each.  But which force predominates? 

Immigration traffic is much like the illegal drug trade.  There are suppliers/dealers, and there are consumers/users.  It is agreed by most that if there were no demand for illegal drugs, the drug traffickers would have no reason to exist and would disappear.  However, if there are no suppliers/dealers but a strong demand for illegal drugs exists, a formerly non-existent drug trade would find a way to become a growth industry to fulfill the demand.

Immigration is much the same way.  But instead of demanding drugs (in most cases) the US “users” are demanding cheap employees.  The illegal immigrants are the equivalent to the “illegal drugs” for the employers.  While supply and demand is a synergistic relationship, which end of the supply/demand chain is most influential?   I will posit that the demand side is.  The demand for cheap employees, just like the demand for drugs, will create the supply.  Cheap labor is addictive to businesses which thrive on lowering the costs of providing their goods and services which enables them to achieve their “high”, their profits.  Just like the addict, the business community will generally (there are exceptions) do whatever it takes to achieve that high.  In the case of the drug addict, it is his drugs.  In the case of many employers, it is cheap labor.

This is not really a chicken and egg scenario.  Clearly the demand for something strongly influences its supply. If there were a supply without demand, that supply would not be motivated to move out of its warehouse.  Mexico is the warehouse for the supply or workers.  If there were no demand for those workers in the US, those workers would remain in Mexico.

So who wants who more?  It is clear that the US wants the illegal immigrants, and probably more than the US immigrants want to be here.   Jobs and money are the ring in their nose that drags them here. Most would probably prefer to remain in Mexico with their families.  Most probably have no intention of assimilating in the US as they leave Mexico. 

This question of who wants who more sets up a truism of human nature.  Whoever wants something more will be willing to give up more.  Its like whoever makes the first offer loses.  The US has demonstrated that it will do almost anything to enable cheaper labor to be provided to US business.  We have demonstrated that by expending our public treasury to pay for services that enable illegal immigrants to live here.  The federal government has consciously stymied the enforcement of our immigration laws to enable illegals to provide that cheap labor. 

We, as a nation, are giving up more than the immigrants because we want them here more than they want to be here.  We don’t demand they speak our language, we don’t demand they assimilate, we don’t demand they pay for their education or health care.  We don’t demand they pay taxes.  Why?  Because we want them here more than they want to be here.

That is an immigration policy guaranteed to fail.  That is an immigration policy that gives up our culture to the immigrants.  We are being urged to accommodate the Mexican culture.

This is backwards from what benefits this nation.

A successful immigration policy requires the immigrants to want to be here more than we want them.  They ought to be the ones speaking English, paying their way, and assimilating.  But it is apparent that we want them here more than they want to be here, so we are the ones who are giving in and accommodating – at huge national expense.

Just for laughs, here is Australia’s immigration policy:

Australian Visa Categories

Skilled - Independent
  • This visa subclass is the most popular skilled migration category for those looking to emigrate to Australia and is geared to skilled workers who can make an immediate contribution to the Australian economy.
    Emigrate to Australia Online Assessment Emigrate to Australia Online Assessment
Skilled - Sponsored
  • An Australian skilled immigration category for skilled applicants looking to emigrate to Australia who have close family members living in Australia or who are sponsored by an Australian State or Territory.
    Australia Visa Assessment Australia Visa Assessment
Skilled - Regional Sponsored
  • The Skilled - Regional Sponsored visa is for skilled migrants who either  have sponsorship from a participating state government or have sponsorship from a relative who lives in a  Designated Area of Australia who is willing to sponsor them
    Emigrate to Australia Online Assessment Emigrate to Australia Online Assessment
Skilled - Regional
  • An Australian skilled migration category for skilled migrants looking to emigrate to Australia who have been living in Australia on a Skilled - Regional Sponsored visa and are seeking a permanent visa pathway.
    Australia Visa Assessment Australia Visa Assessment
Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS)
  • The Australian Government's RSMS is limited to certain areas of Australia. It allows employers to sponsor skilled migrants for job vacancies. The RSMS visa provides permanent residency.
    Emigration Assessment Emigration Assessment
Skills Matching Visa
  • The Australian skilled migration visa for those who may or may not meet the Points Test and are seeking to be nominated by an Australian State/Territory or employer.
    Visa Assessment For Australia Visa Assessment For Australia
Labour Agreements
  • Labour Agreements enable Australian employers to recruit a specified number of workers from overseas in response to identified skills shortages in the Australian labour market. Employees may come to Australia on either a temporary or permanent basis.
    Online Visa Assessment Online Visa Assessment
Graduate - Skilled

The emigrant to Australia really has to want to be there.  That is the way Australia benefits by their immigration program.  They can demand certain minimum criteria for immigration.  The immigrant wants to be in Australia more than Australia wants the immigrant.

Our immigration policy demonstrates that we in the US are a bunch of short-sighted greedy patsies.  We need to realize we are getting the short end of the stick with our current policies.  We need to adopt policies based on the usefulness of immigrants to our national productivity – one that requires immigrants to want to be here more than we want them, unless they have the education and skill sets and motivation to assimilate in ways that truly benefit our nation.