Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Historic Islam’s approach to Kafirs: You and Me

Below is a video of Bill Warner giving the opening comments at a recent conference at Cornerstone Church in Nashville, TN, at a Geert Wilders event.

It is EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT.  It should be shared with all the folks who have an open mind; who are open to objective facts about Islam.

Dr. Warner has an excellent website that provides an abundance of resources on Islam, some of which are useful as Sunday School curriculum to teach the truth about Islam.  This video, titled “Kafir Civilization” originated on Dr. Warner’s “Political Islam” website HERE – listed under “Recent Articles.”

Dr. Warner speaking on the Islamic approach to Kafirs: You and Me

Political Bull-crap vs. Truth

Politicians have much in common with devout Muslims.  Both believe in lies to fit their purpose and audience.

Islamic doctrine has its “taqiyya”:  Purposeful deceit to protect themselves or to protect Islam.  This is used particularly when a Muslim is a minority in a non-Islamic culture or group.

Most politicians and media do much the same.  They continue to refer to “radical Islam” as the problem.  They fail to reveal the truth that historic, orthodox Islam, at its core, is the ideology that incites Muslims to do the things that they have become infamous for doing.  The dishonesty, the “political correctness deception” is akin to Islamic taqiyya.

Several examples come to mind.  Both Presidents Bush and Obama have claimed that Islam is a great religion and only a few “radicals” have hijacked that “great religion.”  Not only these Presidents, but the Pope himself has amazingly expressed that Allah and the God of Israel are the same god.  Is this ignorance or sloppy speech, or is this purposeful lying?

Zudhi Jasser, the face of moderate Muslims on Fox News and a self-proclaimed “devout Muslim” presents himself as a moderate.  Even his current actions appear to confirm his “moderate” label.  Yet the word “devout” as a Muslim betrays the “moderate” label.  How devout could he be if he dismisses hundreds of passages of Islamic “holy” books that ooze with hate, intolerance, and anti-Semitism?  Or is he practicing an extreme version of taqiyya.  How “devout” would a Christian be if he dismissed half the Holy Bible?

Political correctness even permeates organizations that attempt to inform the public about the true nature of Islam.  ACT for America, Brigitte Gabriele’s group, has fallen victim political correctness.  Privately it admits that basic, orthodox, Muhammad-inspired Islam is the problem we face.  And many of its local chapters speak out with truth and boldness on this topic. But PUBLICLY, national ACT only refers to “radical” Islam as the problem, as if the Islamic ideology that breeds the bombers has nothing to do with what we experience in the world today.  They continue to deny the truth.  Like most churches today, they do this so as not to offend.  Why don’t’ they care that it discredits their organization and their cause more when they lie than when they reveal the hard truth? 

Like our politicians, they are practicing “politics” which is little different from Islamic taqiyya.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The rules of liberals: Never talk politics

Do you have any liberal friends or relatives who demand that you don’t talk “politics?”  I have several liberal friends and a liberal close relative who have requested my silence.  Except for the rare time they are in the mood, they have declared that the discussion of politics is strictly off limits.

And the strange thing is, their definition of politics is all-encompassing.  Their broad definition includes economics, taxation, national debt, moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage, lapses in etiquette of elected officials, national defense, terrorism, and Islam. In other words, anything they feel uncomfortable discussing is labeled “politics” and prohibited from discussion.

This behavior is similar among Muslims.  Any fact or truth expressed about Islam is called Islamophobia, fear-mongering, and bigoted and is declared off-limits by those not wanting to hear the truth about Islam.

This behavior among liberals and leftists is confirmation of their ignorance of the most important issues facing our existence.  Their comfort zone is encompassed by daytime TV, travel, the greatness of other cultures (certainly not ours), perverse human behavior, and neighborhood gossip.  They tend to be devoid of any substance when it comes to governance, public policy, and who we should elect to or replace from public office.  Yeah, that kind of ignorance will go a long way toward good government.  Well, not really.  That ignorance enables corruption, nonfeasance, malfeasance, and out-of-control government.

Yes, libs.  Keep your head in the sand.  That is your right.  But those of us who believe these “political” discussions are important should not be silenced by those who choose to remain ignorant.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Why shouldn’t Palestinian lands go to Israel?

We continually hear that the path to peace is for Israel to give up more of its lands to the Palestinians for a “new Palestinian State.”  That a prosperous and free country, Israel, should give up its lands to help form a new supremacist, backward, and intolerant Islamic state of Palestine.

After listening to Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before a joint meeting of the US Congress today there was a convincing, though unstated, case made for Gaza and Lebanon to be turned over to Israel for governance.

Israel is already a sustainable democracy, Israel provides for the practice of any religion (any religion that does not practice terror or vow to eliminate Israel and annihilate Jews), Israel does not call for the killing of Palestinians wherever you may find them, Israel is economically prosperous and encourages freedom and human dignity.

On the other hand, the Palestinian governments on Israel's borders are unstable, are intolerant, do not allow the practice of other religions, has an abysmal reputation concerning human rights, and has a terrible history of self-governance.

This Israeli “land for peace” gambit is going in the entirely wrong direction.  Why should the successful, prosperous, stable, free, and democratic nation of Israel give up its lands to a people who are warring, intolerant fanatics who want to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth?  This is one of the great quirks of present day humanity.  Why do Israeli leaders even entertain the thought of giving up ANYTING?  They should by all rational human decency go in the opposite direction.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Islam: Protected - Christianity: Rejected

It never ceases to astound me how our nation, our leaders, our way of interpreting our laws has created such twisted, convoluted regard for religion.

The protection of Islam and the rejection of Christianity come to mind.

Islam, the supremacist, intolerant, subversive ideology it really is, is protected, defended, and promoted by not only our Islam-inspired president, but, it appears, most of our ignorant elected officials.  The practice of Islam is facilitated in all manner of public places, from airports to public schools and universities, to the military.  Not only prayer rooms and alcohol-free taxis, but no-go zones, even murder is allowed in the name of Islamic Sharia.  And utter any truth about Islam that is taken as an offense by Muslims and their leftist protectors, and all hell breaks out.  Burning Bibles is carried out by our military in Afghanistan so as not to offend the natives, but burn a Qur’an here and the establishment labels you an offensive, dangerous, hateful, Islamophobic bigot.

Ahh, Christianity, the founding religion of our nation.  Now that has to be suppressed and rejected.  No semblance of faith or practice of Christianity is allowed in our public schools, city halls or other public places.  Christianity on TV and movies is portrayed in a stereotypical mocking manner.  Christians who pray in public places are persona non grata.  Our national Christian heritage is denied and scrubbed from our text books.  What remains of our churches for the most part is either social service or entertainment centers.  Preaching a relevant faith that impacts lives and government is taboo.  Most pastors have been trained or tax-coerced into preaching pablum – (definition: Trite, insipid, or simplistic writing, speech, or conceptualization)

What we appear to have adopted in this country is a form of religious affirmative action.  The minority religion, Islam, takes precedence over majority Christianity.  Except in the case of Islam, it is “ideological affirmative action” where the ideology of Islam is given preference.  Islam is no more a religion than fascism or communism.  At best, it is a fascist ideology cloaked in religious garb.

Where will this double standard of religious preference end?  It will end when things get bad enough for Christians that home churches will multiply and useless pastors are replaced by black robe regiment types who will most likely come from the laity.  It will end when a strong minority of us feel threatened enough by the idiocy of this double standard to lock arms and throw useless, dumb as rocks career politicians out of office.  It will end after the universities are defunded to the point where they only teach math, the sciences, languages, history, geography, and traditional arts, and are forced to jettison the radical agenda that dominates campuses, including all middle eastern and Islamic studies programs.  These have no place in America.

Perhaps this double standard will be the kick in the ass Christians need to be bold people of faith again.

Get the “…” you DESERVE…

A Cinergy health insurance ad pushed me over the edge.  It urged

"Get the health insurance you deserve.”

Since when is health insurance something we deserve?  Get the Mercedes Benz you deserve!  Get the I Phone you deserve!  Get the Mediterranean vacation you deserve!  What manipulative garbage.

What does “deserve” mean, anyway?

“To be entitled, merit, or be worthy of something.”

Ahh, the entitlement generation. I imagine there have been innumerable ad agency-sponsored focus groups that test word usage to determine which words manipulate human emotion and action best.  And they apply these exploitive words liberally, political innuendo intended.

I think I’ve figured out why “deserve” is so effective.  It reminds the lazy, ignorant, gullible consumer (or voter) of the word “dessert.”  Both “deserve” and “dessert” produce the same visceral emotional urge to consume.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Who is the racist?

Obama received over 95% of the Black vote and 43% of the white vote.

What does that tell us about who is racist?  We know darn well that more than 5% of blacks would vote “conservative” given two white or two black candidates to choose from.  The 2008 black vote was based primarily on race.

Now, toss in a Barack Hussein Obama vs. Herman Cain contest to REALLY reveal whether or not color is an issue.

Obama, the light-skinned black liberal vs. Cain, the dark-skinned black conservative.  Obama acts more black (the walk - i.e. “bop”, the talk - when convenient, the fist bump, the basketball, and the attitude).

Who will the blacks likely vote for?  My money is on Obama.  Why?  Because he acts more black.  Who will the whites vote for?  The darker skinned black.  Why?  Certainly not because of color because he is the darker-skinned black.  Whites will vote for Cain because of his policies and platform – because he is better for all races; he is better for America.  Most blacks will vote based entirely, solely on the basis of blackness of behavior. 

Most blacks and most liberals will call Cain an Uncle Tom and worse.  Why?  Because he doesn’t act as black as Obama.

Who is the racist?

Friday, May 20, 2011

Two reasons why voters (still) love Obama…

I gained these insights after listening to Neil Bortz and then Rush Limbaugh today.
Neil had a self described “Afro-American” caller who frankly admitted that he will vote again for Obama ONLY because he is black.  He described black households across America who, for the first time, have books and photos of this president of the United States adorning their living rooms.  They don’t care about his politics or what Obama is or isn’t doing for blacks or for this country.  They adore him because he is black.  ONLY because he is Black.  This is the essence of bigoted racism.

That is reason number one.

Rush had a different perspective.  He believes progressives/socialists (and by definition, supporters of Obama) are ideologically driven – that no amount of logic about the damage they do to the economy, work ethic, motivational incentives, and human spirit of our country will dissuade them from their mission of assuring government regulates and controls every aspect of our lives.  This is the essence of narrow minded and uninformed bias.

That is reason number two.

So, for reason number one, we have nearly all of 13% of the US population (Blacks) that is likely to again vote for Obama because he is black. (Don’t forget, 97% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008.)  The big question will be will these blacks be able to viscerally connect with Herman Cain or Alan West as well as they have with Obama?  That may be when reason number two kicks in.
For reason number two, we have a combination of those who have a progressive/socialist agenda no matter what, those who are ignorant of the basis of the founding of the United States, those who are uninformed about economics, and those who are just short-sightedly lazy, greedy, and self-serving, despite the consequences to the sustainability of the liberties most of us have enjoyed in the past.  This group may constitute another 20 or 30% of the voting population of the US who will continue to love Obama no matter the damage he does to this country.

Wait! There may be yet a third reason why people still love Obama.  Some are so poor at grasping the issues, reasoning and self-expression that they simply don't understand the consequences of his actions and get so frustrated in how to express their ignorance that they instead defensely resort to name-calling.

Read more at “Our Electorate:  How Hopeless…”

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Romney avoiding truth of Islam

While Romney would be a better president than Obama, I am dismayed that he also sugar-coats Islam. I don’t know if his views have changed in the past 2 years since he made the following statements about Jihadism having nothing to do with Islam, but here it is…

There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.

I would venture a safe bet that millions of Muslims in dozens of Muslim nations would disagree with Romney’s separation of Jihadism from Islam. The actions of those millions betray that politically popular but wrong and na├»ve portrayal.

His position on this disqualifies Romney from my support. We’ll see what else he has to say on this topic in the coming months.

Read more HERE and HERE.

Who sounds like the better Republican nominee?

Here are the comments of three Republican hopefuls in response to Obama’s budget speech.  Two sets of comments appear to be superficial, and one set of comments demonstrates a more through understanding of the problem.  Or you could say one set of comments is overly wordy, and the other two are succinct..

You make the call…

Romney, Cain, and Pawlenty on Obama’s Budget Speech

Mitt Romney – Romney called Obama’s speech, “too little, too late.” He said:

Instead of supporting spending cuts that lead to real deficit reduction and true reform of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the President dug deep into his liberal playbook for ‘solutions’ highlighted by higher taxes…With over 20 million people who are unemployed or who have stopped looking for work, the last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on job-creators, entrepreneurs, and small business owners across America.

Herman Cain – Cain released the following statement on Obama’s speech:

President Obama’s address proved yet again that he values ideology over basic economics and leadership.

His budget employs his typical class warfare tactics, insisting on taxing America’s job creators into oblivion for what he deems “fairness.” In doing so, he makes clear his willingness to further cripple our economy in exchange for pushing his wealth redistribution agenda and abandonment of the free enterprise system.

President Obama also took the opportunity to blame everyone but his own administration for this economic disaster, shifting blame to the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans and America’s highest earners, neglecting his own administration’s reckless spending.

Instead of using this speech as an opportunity to preview a budget that could significantly pay down our mounting debt through meaningful spending cuts and entitlement reforms, he again insisted on saddling America’s job creators with an even heavier tax burden to pay down the debt. Meanwhile, Congressman Ryan proposed his own budget that reduces the national debt by $6 trillion without raising taxes on a single American family or business.

Most importantly, actions speak louder than words. President Obama claims that his budget proposal would cut $4 trillion in just 12 years. Can we really trust a man who vowed time and time again that his administration would cut the budget deficit in half, but instead, brought our budget deficits to record levels in just half a term in the White House?

Indeed, since President Obama just filed his re-election candidacy papers, Americans today got their first televised campaign speech for 2012: all talk, no leadership

Tim Pawlenty – Pawlenty referred to Obama’s speech as “window dressing.” He said:

Today’s speech was nothing more than window dressing…President Obama’s lack of seriousness on deficit reduction is crystal clear when you look at the budget deal he insisted on to avoid a government shutdown.

The more we learn about the budget deal the worse it looks. When you consider that the federal deficit in February alone was over $222 billion, to have actual cuts less than the $38 billion originally advertised is just not serious…The fact that billions of dollars advertised as cuts were not scheduled to be spent in any case makes this budget wholly unacceptable. It’s no surprise that President Obama and Senator Reid forced this budget, but it should be rejected. America deserves better.

From Race 4 2012.

Monday, May 16, 2011

That’s a relief: Trump not running

Many suspect The Donald’s ego was toying with the American electorate.  His announcement today that he doesn’t want to give up his entrepreneurial “first love” was no big surprise.  But it is a relief that we won’t have to suffer a strong independent bid that would split the conservative vote.

More HERE.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Our electorate: How hopeless is it?

I don’t blame Obama so much for where this nation is headed as I do the ignorant or self-serving electorate who voted for him.

The conservatives of this nation, the Tea Party, the libertarians, the Constitutionalists; all are energized to make a difference in the next presidential election.  But will they make a difference?

I see two problems facing us. 

One, will we be united enough to form a solid block behind one candidate who can win?

Two, are there enough of us so that even if we did form a solid block, we would win?

I have my doubts about number Two (are there enough of “us”) because of the following facts:

16% of all voting electorate work for local, state, or federal government.  They have a vested interest in perpetuating or expanding government.  Assuming voting family members are sympathetic, that would mean roughly 32% of the electorate would support bigger government, or at least be opposed to cuts in government jobs.  Check out the video supporting these figures at Government Gone Wild HERE.

But that is just the tip of the special interest electorate iceberg.  We need to also consider the voting block comprised of those who are dependent on government entitlement and welfare programs for their support system:

  • 50 million Medicaid
  • 40 million food stamps
  • 10 million unemployment insurance
  • 4.4 million on other forms of welfare
  • Housing assistance highest in index history

Sources:  HERE, HERE and HERE

Toss in the non-government workers who are not receiving government assistance but who nonetheless have an ideological bias toward communism, socialism, social justice, Islam, or bleeding heart-ism (college students, environmentalists, liberal Christians and Jews, and most under 30) and you can add another several million to the electorate who will vote for communists, socialists, and other big government advocates.  And then there are those who will vote strictly based on race, as over 95% of the blacks did in 2008.  Race trumped any latent conservative tendencies among blacks.  And finally we have the dead, illegal, and incarcerated voters who have little chance of casting an credible or intelligent ballot.

With these pro-big government, pro-socialist, pro-government entitlement components of our electorate, have we exceeded the 50% tipping point yet?  It appears we have.

We have reached the point where our electorate no longer has a symbiotic relationship with our nation, but a parasitic relationship:  sucking the resources out of the host until it dies.  That certainly results in chaos for the parasites!

Beyond this next election, and maybe even in our next election, I have little hope for the vote to go in the direction of reversing this parasitic trend.

So, if any of this is true, what do we do with this prospect?  Do we continue to do what we have always done?  Do we all become political activists?  Do we adapt or perish?  Just go with the flow?  Those in their sixties and beyond won’t be personally subject to much of this transformation.  Their children and grandchildren, on the other hand, will.  But they still have a choice.   They will either learn the errors of their political ways and help change what appears to be an inevitable outcome, or they will reap what they sow.  And that reaping will bear no relationship to the freedoms and opportunities their grandfathers had.  There may be equality in all things: educational attainment, jobs, incomes, health care, housing and possessions.  But those equalities will all sink to the lowest common denominator of mediocrity, with little place for dreams, aspirations, enthusiasm, or motivation.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Questions you need to ask “moderate” Muslims…

The media is chock full of interviews of presumed “moderate Muslims.”  Their purpose is either to balance out another Muslim being interviewed who is considered “radical”, or to defend or promote their “religion of peace” in the face of facts about Islam from non-Muslims.

Zudhi Jasser is one such Muslim making the circuit, especially on FOX News.  There are many others, including those that CAIR will trot out to promote the idea that Islam loves democracy, loves America, and is just “another religion” that needs to be protected from Islamophobes.

Some of us may have Muslim neighbors, acquaintances, or coworkers who appear as nice as any neighbor next door.  Here is the problem:  Islam has gained such a reputation for terror, intimidation, supremacism, and intolerance that any Muslim who is not overtly practicing such behaviors is considered “moderate” and “nice.”

We need to be much more discerning with Muslims than we have been.  While it is not good to lump them all together as being terrorists, it is also not good to believe that they are all “just like us”, with similar values, morals, life principles and objectives.

Here is a set of questions that, when the opportunity arises, we should ask Muslims.  These questions would also be appropriate to ask those who are blind defenders of so-called “moderate Muslims.”

  • Do you believe in the principle of abrogation, wherein the Medinan portions of the Qur’an abrogate or supersede in importance the Meccan portions?  (They may plead ignorance of this broadly-accepted means of Qur’anic interpretation.)
  • Do you try to imitate the life Muhammad and practice his teachings?
  • Do you believe that Muhammad initiated or led violent battles against his enemies?
  • What do you believe was Muhammad’s attitude toward women?
  • What do you believe was Muhammad’s actions toward infidels?
  • Do you believe Muhammad led a perfect life?
  • How does Islam promote the rights of women today?
  • What is Islam’s approach to infidels today?
  • What are your thoughts about Sharia law in Islamic nations?   Eventually in America?
  • Why do Muslims react so violently to cartoons of Muhammad, burning of the Qur’an, and any other perceived offense against Islam?
  • Do you think Islam is superior to all other religions?  Does that superiority justify intolerance of other religions?
  • What do you think of the verses of Islamic writings that call for slaying of non-believers such as in Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."  Dozens of other examples are HERE.  Pick two or three.
  • What portions of the Qur’an or Hadith would you dismiss or spiritualize to enable Islam to become more tolerant of others who believe differently?
  • What portions of the Qur’an would you dismiss or spiritualize to enable equal rights for women and gays?
  • Do you support the right of Israel to exist?  Why or why not?
  • Do you understand the concept of “taqiyya?”

This last question may be a key to whether the answers to any of the above questions were delivered truthfully.  Since Islam teaches a morality 180 degrees from Judeo/Christian morality, any answers provided may not represent their true beliefs.  This is done to protect and defend their faith.

Zudhi Jasser calls himself a “devout Muslim.”  He comes across in his interviews and in panel discussions as sounding sincerely moderate; even a defender of our constitution and in opposition to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  However, being a “devout Muslim” presumes reverence for that “religion’s” leader, Muhammad, for its god, Allah, and for the entirety of its “sacred” scripture, the Qur’an.

It is inconsistent to call oneself “devout” on one hand, and reject major portions of the life and teachings of the religion’s founder and its sacred writings on the other.  There is a significant amount of “taqiyya” being practiced by Jasser.  Otherwise, he would have chosen some other religion as his faith.  This same assessment, by definition of “Muslim”, must be made with regard to any individual who calls himself a “moderate Muslim” or who claims to practice a “moderate Islam.”

Non-Muslim promoters of so-called ‘moderate Muslims” must receive an equal does of skepticism.

We need to continue to interact with Muslims.  But we must understand that, for the most part, they think differently than we do, they have a different moral compass and a different agenda.  We need to understand where they are coming from and where they want to take us.  And that place is nowhere near where our founders intended or where liberties will flourish.

Monday, May 09, 2011

Poster child Muslim reformer debates Robert Spencer

How real is “moderate” Islam?  Is “moderate” Islam the ideology that wants to subvert your culture and take away your freedoms through peaceful political means rather than via terror and bloodshed?

Robert Spencer and Muslim reformer Zudhi Jasser debate that question in the video below.

After viewing this video, and considering other arguments Jasser has put forth over the months, he is either a) A Muslim in name only (MINO) on the order of what Unitarianism is to Christianity (what are the odds that Unitarianism will change Christianity?); b) A grossly fanciful thinker; or c) a grand deceiver.
 
In any event it appears to me that his facts and logic fall far short of Spencer's.  The fact is that Islam is now, and has been during the majority of centuries since its founding, a dangerous, inhumane, intolerant, supremacist ideology as taught by its founder, Muhammad, as recorded in its "holy" literature, and as interpreted by the great majority of its spiritual leaders today and through the centuries. 
 
My take:  Whatever Jasser's intent, the outcome of his work is  c)  He is a grand deceiver.  His wishful thinking does not admit to what Islam really is.  He is an advocate for sweeping the realities of Islam under the rug.  He engages in fanciful thinking because he believes what he puts forth is the only possible solution.  He expresses denial of reality.  Whether that denial is purposeful deception or heartfelt truth is beside the point.  The consequences are the same:  Denial of true Islam. 

Jasser appears to believe in something that is not Islam, but he insists on calling it Islam.  Why?  Why is he insistent in calling something that is not Islam, "Islam?"  Either he wishes to promote Islam through the back door, or he should give a different name to whatever this new religion is that he believes.

I have often wondered:  Why would an individual continue his affiliation with, and actually spend his life promoting an ideology that is so well known for what Islam has done throughout history, and especially for what Islam is well known for today - unless he believed in those things.  What a model for life, indeed.

Saturday, May 07, 2011

So WHAT if Obama is a Muslim?

Yes, so what?  What if Kennedy was a Mafioso.  What if Truman belonged to the KKK.  What if Roosevelt was a closet Nazi.  They weren’t, but you can see that if they were how history would have changed.

What one sympathizes with deep down inside does make a difference.  And for Obama, one doesn’t have to go very deep down inside to see his allegiance toward, his “respect” and his defense of Islam.

We are familiar with his statement about what is the prettiest sound at sunset, his defense of Muslim immigrants over American natives, his catering to enemy Islamic nations over traditional allies, and his appointment of Muslims to critical high level positions in his administration.

Indeed, so what if Obama is a Muslim.  It means that deep down, he prefers an authoritarian sharia law, he prefers a centralized governance that is rooted in Islam, and he dislikes our culture, our form of government, capitalism, and the independent spirit that made America great.  This is the “hope and change” he has brought to our country.

All this is a manner of introduction of several must reads on this topic, short booklets on Obama and Islam.

The first is written by Robert Spencer and David Horowitz titled Obama and Islam and can be ordered HERE for $3.00 each, or in bulk (25 copies) for $1.00 each.

Another is by Andrew McCarthy, an Islamic intelligence expert.  His book is titled How Obama Embraces Islam’s Sharia Agenda and is available at Amazon HERE.

And finally, a booklet written by Dr, Steven M. Kirby titled Islam and Barack Hussein Obama available at Amazon HERE.

Each of these books document how Islam is dangerously misrepresented by our president and his administration as benign and just another religion to be respected, when in fact Islam is, at its core, a violent, intolerant, supremacist ideology.

Only the woefully uninformed or purposeful deceivers will disagree with this diagnosis.

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Qur’an burning - Osama killing: Fearing reaction

Book burning or leader killing.  Which is likely to incite more?

Burning a book of a hostile ideology or killing a leader of a hostile ideology.  Which is likely to incite more?

Burning a book of a hostile ideology prompts all sorts of wrath from our media and political leaders. That act is a cultural taboo.  But killing a leader of a hostile ideology brings praise and celebration.

Why is the one condemned and the other celebrated?

There are dangerous misconceptions about both.

First, it is erroneously promoted that the Qur’an is the “holy book” of a “religion of peace”, in the same league as the Hoy Bible.  In fact, the Qur’an is quite the opposite of the Bible.  It serves as inspiration and justification for the deception, hatred, and terror practiced by Muslim activists, and its’ violent intolerance is revered by Muslims who are not so active.  One does not have to be al Qaeda to embrace the violent doctrines of the Qur’an.

Second, it is erroneously promoted that Osama was the leader of an illegitimate faction of Islam.  In fact, he was the spiritual, ideological leader of historic, orthodox Islam in the manner taught by Muhammad and documented in the Qur’an.   Muslims the world over have revered this Muslim leader.  Yet our leaders deny his “Islamism” and influence.  How many Muslim nations celebrated Osama’s demise?  How many thousands in Islamic nations will rise in rabid protest against his killing?  Many are still in denial that he has been killed.  When they awake from their disbelief, we will witness their psychotic rage.   And ponder this:  If Osama was not truly representative of Islam, why was he given Islamic burial rites by a Muslim aboard the Carl Vinson - a slap in the face of the families who suffered as a result of that God-forsaken creature - before shoving him off to sea?

Contrast our nation’s security response to Qur’an burnings.  None that I am aware of.  To the Killing of Osama?  We are on high alert with a rare world wide travel advisory issued.  Does that indicate that Osama was not recognized as a significant Muslim leader in the world?

Our government’s propaganda is wrong on both counts:  Wrong on the portrayal of the Qur’an as just another benign “holy” book.  And wrong about Osama as just another fringe radical having nothing to do with Islam.  What bull!

Oh, and by the way, whether we burn Qur’ans or not, whether we kill revered Islamic leaders or not, whether we draw cartoons of Muhammad or not, whether we insult Islam or not, the devout among Muslims will hate us and wish to kill us anyway.  So let’s not sweat telling the truth and doing the right thing to inform one another and defend our culture and our nation.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Obama: “We will never be at war with Islam”

Why the evil and widespread, insidious cancer of Islam is played down by our leaders is a mystery to me.  Obama is not the only one who said “We will never be at war with Islam” which he repeated last night on national television.  George Bush said the same thing after 9-11.  They both praise Islam as “a religion of peace.”

How wrong and dangerously deceitful they both are.  Is it wishful thinking?  Is it fear?  Is it part of a grand strategy that is a mystery to most of us?

Think about and answer these questions:

Why did most of the middle east (Muslims) rise up in celebratory jubilation upon hearing the news of the 9-11 attack?  Those weren’t all al Qaeda who were celebrating.  They were the Muslim man and woman in the street.  It was spontaneous.  No time for the Muslim Brotherhood to plan those spontaneous demonstrations.

How did Osama Bin Laden stay hidden from an intense manhunt by our crack intelligence and special forces organizations for 10 years?  How was that possible?  It took not only al Qaeda operatives but the governments and citizens of both Afghanistan and Pockeeston (as Muslim Obama prefers to pronounce)  to keep this inspirational Islamic mastermind hidden.  There are millions in the middle east and south Asia who supported the actions and promoted the security of this character either physically or emotionally.  Osama promoted pure Islam, and Muslims throughout the region promoted Osama.

And now Obama claims Osama was not an Islamic leader?  That is such bull crap I cringe at the thought of the ballsy lie of our president.

Osama was NOT a radical Muslim.  He was a good Muslim.  He was promoting pure, historic, orthodox Islam.  He was the modern day Muhammad, doing exactly as Muhammad taught – exactly what the Qur’an and other “holy books” of Islam teach.

I look forward to the day when we will have leaders in this nation who understand and will honestly portray Islam for what it is:  A vile, violent, deceitful, political ideology hell-bent on destroying the west and, as their “holy books” put it “and our miserable house.”

I hate being lied to by our leaders.  They must take us for morons.  But they are the ones who appear as morons by those of us who are paying attention to the deception which is Islam.

Lefty ladies on presidential elections…

On The View today, Barbara Walters and Joy Behar, the two ignorant liberal queens of inane daytime TV, exposed themselves for what they are.

Responding to the short-lived boost in popularity Obama will enjoy after his “I”-laden speech announcing the CIA-Special Forces killing of Osama bin Laden,  Ba-bwa and Joy couldn’t resist their Obama-inspired leg tingle when they said:

Ba-bwa: “I’d hate to be a Republican running against Obama.”  Ba-Bwa, you would hate to be a Republican in ANY situation.

And Joy, in her spontaneous tizzy exclaimed: “Skip the next election!"  Oh, wouldn’t this full-mouthed, empty-brained non-thinker love THAT to happen – as would most on the left who thrive on belittling the will of middle America.  Who’s the one who recently said “elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do.” Oh yes.  The leftist queen of lunacy who didn’t like the outcome of last November’s election, Nancy Pelosi.

Well ladies.  Truth be told, there will be LOTS of Republicans running in the next election.  And they will all love it.  They will love the opportunity to represent America and her values, not the values of perverts and elitists.  And Joy – skip the next election and miss all the fun?  For the record, Nancy and you other leftist ladies: Elections are important!  And this next election will matter a whole lot more than you would care to experience in your worst nightmare.

Suggestion to Islamists…

Who snitched on Osama’s whereabouts?  How did the Great Satan know where to find him to kill him?

There is a mole in your leadership and its staff.  How many, we do not know.  Who can be trusted?  No one!  You must clean house.  It is time. Islam teaches how to clean house.  You know what to do.  Allah commands it.  It must be done.  Your secrets are no longer secrets. Those among your brothers are traitors.  Perhaps your brothers are traitors, also.  Cleanse your house of all vile traitors.  Start from the top and work your way down.  Your leaders cannot be trusted.  Just do it.

Sponsored by Nike.