Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Islam: Only religion that promotes suicide as a weapon - this time on Flight 370

In some sects of Christianity suicide was believed to be an unpardonable sin.  Now it is considered a result of mental illness that is to be pitied.

In Islam, suicide, when committed to promote the imagined purposes of an imagined “god”, is a badge of honor in Muslim culture -  especially when it takes as many lives as possible.

Islam is the only ideology (aka “faux religion”) that invokes suicide as a weapon.

Evidence points to the likelihood that the pilot chose Flight 370 as a means to commit an Islamic-inspired “sudden jihad syndrome” suicide.  If he held virtually any other belief system, his suicide would have been alone, a private affair, taking no other life than his own.  But Islam is unique.  Uniquely evil.

This suicide took 239 lives. 

Here is the evidence of this theory as provided by a terrorism expert.

Supreme Court Women Promote a Tax on Religious Expression


Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgThe pending Supreme Court ruling on protecting first amendment freedoms depends on the likes of these individuals. 


These women will rule on the law of the land against religious freedoms.  God help us!  They represent the abortion lobby – not Hobby Lobby – and not religious freedoms.  What will be the result of their unGodly views prevailing in the High Court? 

The federal government will have a right to impose a tax (a “belief” penalty) on anyone whose religious convictions contradict the views of “the State.” 

In essence, the government will tax religion.  And for what purpose?  To facilitate the murder of unborn human beings.

Those who promote this abomination should be convicted of treason for they conspire against our nation’s constitutional foundation  and promote the violation of natural law.

Obviously pro-life is out of favor with our federal government.  What religious beliefs will be subject to a tax/penalty next?  Already Christians are persecuted for expressing our beliefs about sexual immorality.  Perhaps we’ll see a tax on evangelizing.  How many other Christian values will become persona non grata and subject to taxes and penalties?  Have we reached the point in this nation where our taken-for-granted “freedom of religion” has given way to the narrowly defined, boxed-in “freedom of worship?”  You know the difference, don’t you?  “Freedom of religion” is the right to practice your religion in public, in your work place, in your neighborhood and in your home.  “Freedom of worship” (minus freedom of religion) confines your rights to a church and your home only.  You no longer have the right to exercise your religious beliefs throughout your life’s activities.

How convenient for the Secular world view.  Bad news if you care about your religious convictions.  Perhaps the majority of Americans don’t have any convictions worth arguing about anymore.  We are being silenced by the tyranny of the secular majority.

Saturday, March 08, 2014

Russia responsible for cyber weapon infecting Ukrainian networks

Capable of disrupting public water and electrical systems…

Ukraine and Lithuania have been attacked by a computer system virus called “Snake” as complex and potent as Stuxnet.  Digital forensics identify the source as in the Moscow time zone.  It is too complex to be developed by any other than a government entity.

Here is an excerpt from the Financial Times:

“Cyber warfare experts have long warned that digital weapons could shut off civilian power or water supplies, cripple banks or even blow up industrial sites that depend on computer-controlled safety programmes.

“The origins of Ouroboros remain unclear, but its programmers appear to have developed it in a GMT+4 timezone – which encompasses Moscow – according to clues left in the code, parts of which also contain fragments of Russian text. It is believed to be an upgrade of the Agent.BTZ attack that penetrated US military systems in 2008.

“The malware has infected networks run by the Kiev government and systemically important organisations. Lithuanian systems have also been disproportionately hit by it.”

This event should inform and warn us that we don’t need to be hit by a hurricane or by an EMP attack or solar flare to be without electricity or water for extended periods of time.  Use your resources for preparing wisely.

Monday, March 03, 2014

They prohibit discrimination and don’t even bother to define it…

Freedom of speech, expression, and association brought slowly to a boil in San Antonio and a hundred other places…


Last September, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, promoted the accommodation of homosexual acts to its discrimination ordinance.

A key section of the ordinance reads as follows:

No appointed official or member of a board or commission shall engage in discrimination against any person, group of persons, or organization on the basis
of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability, while acting in their official capacity while in
such public position.

The underlined section, “sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status”, was added to the City’s existing discrimination language.

A big deal was made of this added “sexual” and “gender” language in the media and among religious groups.  It is a big deal.  But the bigger deal is the mindset that established the original anti-discrimination language.

Here are the problems:

First, there is no definition of “discrimination” in the ordinance.  Apparently, discrimination can be anything the city declares it to be.  The problem of lack of definition is discussed more, below.

Second, while “race”, “color”, and “national origin” are legitimate topics of anti-discrimination because such individuals did not choose those identities, and there is nothing inherently evil, dangerous, or immoral in those identities, there is no such legitimacy to the several listed protected behaviors, namely “religion”, “sexual orientation”, and “gender identity.”

Here is a big problem with this ordinance and the hundreds that are just like it around the country.  Religion is a personal belief system.  People choose their belief system.  Not all religions promote peace, despite the ignorant politically correct propaganda. 

One religion in particular is as much “political ideology” as it is a religion:  Islam.  It is, in fact a supremacist and intolerant political ideology that is incompatible with the culture and laws of the United States.  It is not incompatible just because of the belief and actions of “a few radicals” but because its original doctrine and current practice are at odds with our form of government and culture.  The great majority of its leaders, even in the United States, promote establishment of Sharia law and Islamic domination of our government and culture, not to mention the terrorist jihad that is an often used tool in their politico-military toolbox.  And yes, Muslims are more involved in persecution of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists around the world than every other belief system combined.  And we are prohibited from associating Muslims with that fact without being charged with “discrimination.” 

A prohibition against speaking the truth about Islam is tantamount to a prohibition against speaking the truth about Nazi’s during World War II, or expressing opposition to those who are dumb enough to identify themselves as allies with serial killers. 

I could never be appointed to a Board or Commission of San Antonio or any other city that has a similar ordinance.  Why?  Because I distinguish Islam from other religions.  I recognize its origins, its history, its leadership, its doctrines, and the beliefs and behaviors of its followers.  I dare to present the facts about Islam.  Consequently, I would be guilty of  discriminating against Islam, the organization.

This ordinance, and the hundreds like it, stifle the truth about evil and threats to our nation and freedoms.

Protecting what has been historically and universally declared to be immoral behaviors (homosexual acts and gay marriage) is just another chapter in this continuing erosion of freedom of speech, expression, and association.

These ordinance trample on the freedom of expression of Christians by declaring talk about what is moral and what is not to be “discrimination”, again without any definition of what discrimination really is.

So, what is discrimination?

Here are a number of definitions from several sources:


dis·crim·i·na·tion, noun \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\

: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people  Staff report Ordinance, complete with staff slide show.  But where is the definition of discrimination?

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

Full Definition of DISCRIMINATION

1. a :  the act of discriminating

    b :  the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2. :  the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3. a :  the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

    b :  prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment<racial discrimination>

dis·crim·i·na·tion, [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] , noun

1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing basedon the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with greatdiscrimination.

4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

dis·crim·i·na·tion (dĭ-skrĭm′ə-nā′shən), n.

1. The act of discriminating.

2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

dis·crim′i·na′tion·al adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

discrimination (dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃən),

1. (Sociology) unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice

2. subtle appreciation in matters of taste

3. the ability to see fine distinctions and differences

4. (Electronics) electronics the selection of a signal having a particular frequency, amplitude, phase, etc, effected by the elimination of other signals by means of a discriminator

disˌcrimiˈnational adj

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

dis•crim•i•na•tion (dɪˌskrɪm əˈneɪ ʃən), n.

1. an act or instance of discriminating.

2. action or policies based on prejudice or partiality: racial discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment.

What is it, then?  Is it the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people?  When a group of people are known to believe in and promote violent acts, intolerance, supremacism, and practices incompatible with our form of government and culture, are we prohibited from treating these people or such organizations differently?  Differently say, from those we know as being productive, compatible, loyal, truthful, and desiring to promote the best interests of our nation and community?  This ordinance says “no”, we cannot distinguish between people or organizations with these distinct differences.

Or perhaps discrimination is the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment, as in distinguishing good from evil, best from mediocre, safe from dangerous, tolerant from intolerant, team player from rebel, and every other point of distinction that makes great organizations and productive nations.  Sorry.  That’s likely not what the framers of these discriminatory, free speech-robbing ordinances had in mind.

What additional formally taboo behaviors and cherished freedoms will be added to the list of prohibited acts of discrimination?  The establishment and incremental cancerous growth of such ordinances does indeed remind me of the frog in a pot slowly brought to a boil.  The proponents say “hey, what is there to worry about with this additional provision – we already have an ordinance that prohibits this, that and the other – what’s one more category of “discrimination?”  What’s one more nail in the coffin of our freedom of speech and expression?

Here are several original documents  relevant to this discussion:

The City of San Antonio’s propaganda piece saying “nothing to see here folks, just another minor provision being added:

The City of San Antonio’s staff report presenting adoption of their comprehensive anti-discrimination (anti-free speech) ordinance: 

The City of San Antonio’s comprehensive anti-discrimination (anti-free speech) ordinance adopted in September 2013, complete with staff slide show: 

Here is another source describing the problems with this type of ordinance:

Saturday, March 01, 2014

Ukraine: Relevant facts and realistic prospects

Here are some facts of life for Ukraine and some dire predictions:

  • Ukraine’s economic and military resources are less than 1/20th of Russia’s, or worse.  Ukraine is near bankruptcy and desperately require either Russian or European Union economic assistance.
  • More than 80% of the Crimean peninsula’s population favors Russia and Russian military intervention over a European Union alliance.
  • The new Ukraine leadership is in disarray and inexperienced.
  • The European Union is far from united on how or if to assist Ukraine.  The EU itself is nearly bankrupt, except for Germany and a few smaller nations.  They are in no position to assist Ukraine militarily or economically.
  • Ukraine’s former government vanished rather than invoke a bloody repression of the pro-EU uprising and expose itself to international human rights scorn.  This “vanishing” was by design knowing that Mother Russia will now be justified to defend the Russians and Russian sympathizers – and its own military and economic interests – throughout Ukraine.
  • President Obama is in la la land from a foreign policy perspective (and most other perspectives).  He is making Jimmy Carter look like a foreign policy genius.

The predictions:

  • The US will do nothing militarily.  We may invoke a few symbolic gestures and make some rhetorical but uninspired threats.  But we will do nothing of substance, and Russia knows it.
  • The European Union nations will do nothing of substance, and Russia knows it.
  • Russia will not stop at the Crimean Peninsula.  They intend to take the entire Ukraine back – under military authoritarian control if necessary.  They will not care if 100,000 perish in the process.  They will merely call them deserving fascists and hooligans.  If Russian perceives a real threat of international resistance to their takeover, and this is not very likely, they will, at the very least, annex the Crimean Peninsula.
  • Russian success in Ukraine will spell trouble for Georgia and other former USSR satellites that have since gained their independence.  And the rest of Europe and the United States will do nothing – and Russia knows it.