The Dualistic Dilemma

12 07 2015

Guest Column by Jana Rea

When I was a kid, if I said something about God, people would ask me if I wanted to be a missionary. A neighbor friend once told me I should be a nun. That unsolicited advise puzzled me then, but now I understand it: Relegate the ‘religious’ to a profession so they stay put in a tidy place where ‘normal’ people don’t have to bother with the “Thees, Thy’s and Therefore’s” of dealing with a Presumed Presence from Whom we would rather keep a comfortable distance unless we need something. Let the religious do their bit while the rest of us live in the real world. The Real World. And what, pray tell, is that exactly?

I didn’t know it then but I had been subtly introduced to dualism—the assumed disparity between the seen and the unseen, between faith and reason–a kind of mental construct that assigns categories to our efforts to grasp Reality. Life assumptions—like dualism can go undetected until a conflict, or irony opens them for full view.

Recently I read an article about a movement in Australia to call the world to pray for America. The press release from the National Day of Prayer, Australia read:

“We in Australia believe it is our turn to bless the nation of America and pray for healing for the USA through prayer and fasting according to II Chronicles 7:14. We in Australia are grateful for the protection that America gave Australia and the nations of the free world during World War II.”

About the same time, a friend loaned us a copy of a self-published compilation of Kingdom Stories; The Life and Labors of Rev. G.V. Albertson (Copyright 1935 by Ruth Hill, Boston Ma). A cowboy turn preacher is a fascinating coming-of-age account that gives color and context to the territory days in ‘Bleeding Kansas’ and early settlements in Oklahoma. It is a personal narrative that reveals the hardness of life that forged the characters of our mid western fore bearers. From one chapter, “ Ill shoot the Preacher”, the author writes,

Many of this generation, hearing the gospel from fine cushioned pews, and enjoying most conventional up-to-date services, could scarcely be made to comprehend the hard beginnings of many of our churches a generation ago and particularly of some of the 2200 that have been founded by Sunday School Missionaries on the frontier . . . Good people who had taken homes there had to be most watchful for property and life; . . . all manner of crimes were being enacted. With those who stood for law and order, the Sunday School Missionary under took to build up a church. (p. 68)

While I work with our son on the renovation of a tiny house in East Lawrence, my husband oversees the building of a school in Africa as a volunteer. Continents apart, our very real worlds could not be more different. I order tile from a warehouse; a contractor measures for kitchen cabinets with special compartments for spices, trash and recycle. Meanwhile Ed admires African workers who pat down the hand-mixed pavers into the earth for the classroom floor; a wall shelf is a luxury and an unexpected convenience. The slow and steady work of missionaries is opening new opportunities and casting doubt on the efficacy of witch doctors for relief from sickness or demons. Demons–now there is a worldview indicator word!

Whether on another continent or during an earlier era, what determines this fundamental difference, besides geography and genetics? In these three cases a Judeo/Christian worldview has taken root or is taking effect; the result permeates every aspect of society—family, economy, and the judicial system. Justice in the Wild West was settled in the streets until law and order was established by a Biblical moral code. African villages under the tribal influence of ancestral loyalties and Islamic customs in some places are yielding to the good news of the God of the Bible. Industry replaces dependency so the disinherited wives and children have a livelihood; education is made affordable and opens doors to new futures for the young. America’s foundation was firmly Judeo/Christian. The unprecedented prosperity that resulted propelled prosperity else where, like Australia.

Ironically, it is not the foreign fields at risk now—it is the homeland of America. Our dualism has finally dealt us a dilemma. We have politely excised our religion out of our public square and left chards where once there was a vibrant fountain. Thankfully the mission fields in Africa and Australia and church plants of yesterday are now returning the favor by praying for America. So what does that say of our maturity, our supposed progress? It sounds more like a civilization in its dotage than its vigor. There is something very full circle or ironic about the pairing of these accounts– this frontier account of fledgling churches that became the root system of communities for generations while the fruit of their labor spread into foreign fields now offering solace to our morally bereft nation.

You have to wonder how did we get here. Critical thinking and self-examination are casualties of a culture that prefers delusions for now then simply pass the nonsense on to the next generation as they observe it practiced by us. And practice it we have. And do. Our dualism is so perfected we stay on cue, going from church to club to work to party to home and hearth and never realize how compartmentalized we have become. Split.

What is it if not schizophrenic to assert “In God We Trust” but refuse to acknowledge Him publicly or privately as the Giver of all of our Nation’s bounty? Or refuse to recognize that the Founders were devoutly determined to invoke God’s favor and did everything necessary to set their lives in agreement with His revealed Word. Divorcing sacred from secular by insisting that politics and religion cannot co-exist does not alter reality. It does however reveal the modern fault line in the American mind. However, I do believe that this split in consciousness is amendable. Where there is a will to examine one’s belief systems and make changes where necessary.

Dietrich Bonheoffer wrote, “All things appear as in a distorted mirror, if they are not seen and recognized in God.”

In Jesus Christ the reality of God has entered into the reality of this world. The place where the questions about the reality of God and about the reality of the world are answered at the same time is characterized solely by the name: Jesus Christ. God and the world are enclosed in this name . . . we cannot speak rightly of either God or the world without speaking of Jesus Christ. All concepts of reality that ignore Jesus Christ are abstractions. As long as Christ and the world are conceived as two realms bumping against and repelling each other re, we are left with only the following options. Giving up on reality as a whole, either we place ourselves in one of the two realms, wanting Christ without the world or the world without Christ—and both cases we deceive ourselves . . . There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is God’s reality revealed in Christ in the reality of the world. Partaking in Christ, we stand at the same time in the reality of God and in the reality of the world the reality of Christ embraces the reality of the world in itself. The world has no reality of its own independent of Gods’ revelation in Christ . . . [T]he theme of two realms, which has dominated the history of the church again and again, is foreign to the New Testament. (Bonhoeffer, Eric Metaxas, pg469)

Biblical support is easy to find. Colossians 1:15-20.

What governs moral law whether in remote villages, the Old West or ‘progressive’ American cities? Whether codified or not, what places a schematic in place that explains the cause and effect of human behavior within the known universe? The worldview of the inhabitants. But dualism renders it blurry.

It is time as a nation to realize that the foundation of our county and the subsequent buildings upon it are grossly incongruent. Never before has it been as obvious. There is nothing faulty with the foundation. It is brilliant. But over time we have allowed slip shod construction and derelict leaders to occupy prominence, preeminence over our Constitution and our conscience until our national contract is in shreds.

Wherever there is a virtue, there is a counterfeit.

Socialism pretends to correct American individualism with collectivism, which of course has been tried and failed and yet under the current administration has been resurrected with new meanings to our lexicon of trusted words like ‘Hope’ and Transformation, all of which peddle the deranged ideology of Saul Alinsky, exalted to czar status empowering governmental mandates from every agency; all substitutes for what God had in mind:

“Love God with all your heart and strength and mind and your neighbor as yourself.” It has been called the Golden Rule but it is much more than that because it is predicated on self-love. That only happens by first acknowledging God the Creator, Sustainer and Giver of life thus giving Him the proper honor. Then in gratitude we live as stewards of a world we did not make and do not own. Agenda 21 is the pretender of this virtue as it doesn’t recognize the proper created order and seeks to demonize ‘Man’ as the persecutor of the Earth and all the species in it. For sustainability, only an “all- wise world order” would be able to control the evil capitalists who seek profit at the expense of undeveloped counties. The problem is— who gets to make the rules in the New World Order? I hope no one I see on the world stage. No person, because human nature is not trustworthy. Government was instituted to keep human nature in check. The bigger government gets, the more humans can mess it up. It becomes a god and functions like a tyrant. God, not government rights all relationships. Self-governance precedes generosity and ethics.

It has always been about worldview, which asks the big philosophical questions of the individual and society: What is the nature of Reality? (Metaphysics), How can we know it? (Epistemology) How then shall we live? (Ethics) You would think in a university town the residents would have the tools for critical thinking but when slow cooked in the toad water of liberalism, it has fallen prey to a ploy of social justice and redistribution. Of course justice matters. But defining justice is a prerequisite to a workable solution. Muslims and Christians are worldviews apart on definitions of that word. Let’s not pretend.

In an America that is being ‘fundamentally transformed, reduced to the diminished and awkward role of a “Post-America World” player, I have dusted off my textbooks on Western Civilization which is clearly out of vogue as the current President was photographed carrying a book with that title to and from Air Force One—his free ride. Recently published textbooks enhance the view of Islam and minimize Christianity as a persecutor of all things Islamic; our universities are substituting Western Civilization with Middle Eastern Studies. To appeal the Middle Eastern dollars of course and sell our soil and soul! There is nothing more important now than a coherent worldview and to be able to articulate it. Right now we are not a melting pot, we are a cacophony of chaos due to implode.

The Judeo/Christian worldview was fundamental to the shaping of our government. Man, left to himself will corrupt, pervert and mask his intention to do so as long as possible to hold power until tyranny is inevitable. Education cannot redeem– government doesn’t succor the soul. It is not the socialist worldview nor is it the Islamist worldview that founded this country—it was the Biblical worldview.

Not long ago I was asked, “Has the Douglas County Republican Party become too religious? ”

I love the question. A perfectly legitimate one and deserves a well-reasoned answer. But before that, I need to ask questions.

What is meant by the word “religious”? The term usually has connotations of the moralistic. So if by the question they intend to ask, is it proper for a political party to assert that we live in a moral universe? I reply, Yes. And is that assertion necessary to the scope of the Republican Platform? Again I say, Yes.

If by ‘religious’ they are asking, are we promoting one religion over others, I would ask which religion is foundational to our Republic? Is it Hindu, Islam, Rastafarian Atheism, Secularism? None of the above. Only the Judeo/Christian Bible is quoted more than any other source in our founding documents. Judaism gave us the Law; Christianity gives us the only One who was able to keep it, revealing the true nature of God and paid the penalty we deserve. The Founders celebrated this. Allusions and overt references in their writings are unmistakable to the literate. Therefore when George Washington pens words like:

“… Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties move men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. What ever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

(George Washington excerpted from Farewell Address 1796)

I would ask, are we then being too religious to recall, to recite and to seek to reinstitute them? I think not. In fact I would go so far as to say, we utterly fail without them. John Adams says it better than I:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

(John Adams, in a letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, on October 11, 1798)

The question itself is very revealing about the American mind—it is incredibly dualistic. When we assert a belief but subvert it in word or in practice that mind is divided and integrity is at risk. If faith does not permeate all of life it is infantile at best. The unexamined mind leads to unexamined groupthink and so goes society. The only remedy is the entrance of an objective Truth and the hard work of self-examination for a unity of mind and spirit. But that of course begs the question of a spiritual dimension to our existence.

So I would ask, if the questioner is a Republican by affiliation? If so, how do they ignore the fundamental premises of the Republican Platform? If the questioner is of the Democrat party, then I understand the disassociation from God. It is systemic. Sporting a collage of contradictory worldviews is not open-minded liberalism –it is maniacal schizophrenia. We are way past resuming the integrity of our thought, word and deed as a Nation.  We must exhume rather than resume.

The confusion I have felt for the better part of 8 years is how to invest my life energy, how to live faithfully when every system in our society is teetering toward collapse. I have chosen to stand squarely on the Republican platform admitting no contradiction to my worldview. I have chosen to stand in a political field erstwhile it questions the viability and relevance of faith; I have chosen Christianity while that faith field in practice often dismisses the immediate or ultimate benefit of the political endeavor. I must somehow find those contradictions illogical as did Dietrich Bonheoffer, whose integrity inspires me in these days.

In the meantime, the Judeo Christian worldview is on the public scaffold. Adherents may follow. However, the God of all Time and all nations will not be mocked and laughs at the derision of Man. Psalms 2. He would shepherd the fatherless and the widow at the very end of all time, and draw nearest to the broken-hearted. Psalms 145. Eventually we will no longer see darkly through the dust of dilemmas but clearly when we see Him face to face. II Corinthians 13:12, Psalms 17:15.

Until then, Reality begs for participants.





Sins of The Fathers – Purged by Fire

5 02 2015

As the Media Trilobites once again flounder about trying to bring their version of the “news” to the viewer, the coverage of the latest big event involving the Islamic State, the media are stumbling all over themselves bringing their profuse apologetic narrative to a fever pitch, which coincides perfectly with President Obama’s narrative that “ISIS is not Islamic!!”

Via FrontPageMag.com

The execution by burning alive of Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, 26, by the Islamist “Islamic State”, has been hijacked by those who would rather “use a crisis” to further their own agenda.  That young man is the same age as my own son (a USMC Sergeant), and the pilot died in the service of his King and country, fighting an enemy who will, if not stopped, take not only Syria and Iraq, but also Jordan, just as they will Saudi Arabia and the rest.  The pilot, while himself a Muslim, is considered apostate, and was fighting in the service of an Apostate King, in the eyes of the Islamic State and Caliph Al-Baghdaddi.

Apologists all over the news networks, both British and American, spent seldom mentioned this story without profusely making the point that “There is no mention in Islam for this kind of barbarity!” “This is proof that ISIS is not Islamic!”  Al Jazeera English even joined in the chorus with an editorial from a California State University professor calling ISIS a “nihilistic death cult acting in the name of Islam…”  Shoot, I’ve been calling Islam a death cult for years.

It seems that with every savage instance of Islamic Terrorism, from 911 up to every sordid beheading video that IS releases, the media is more concerned about a “potential backlash against Muslims”, than the butchery itself!  The “Backlash” that never happens!  Perhaps those Muslims who may be concerned about becoming a victim of a “backlash” might want to be more concerned about the butchers because the Caliph looks upon any Muslim who desires to integrate into Western Society and enjoy its freedoms, as one of two things: Apostate, which according to Sharia “deserves to die”, or Jahili, which is a back-slidden Muslim, and if non-repentant, also may die.

Muslim Brotherhood‘s own Seyyid Qutb writes all about this Jahili in his “Milestones“, the vanguard publication for the modern Islamic Revival, published 1965.  Qutb explains that Muslims must repent and remove themselves from that Jahiliyyah (a state of ignorance) leadership which has enticed Muslims into submitting to earthly, man-made rules and rulers, instead of submitting to Allah by means of following his laws (Sharia).  This theological doctrine is the root of everything we are witnessing in the Islamic world today.

Muslims are not to commit allegiance to a nation or state or geographic area.  (This is why there is little or no national loyalty in Islam.) Neither is a Muslim bound by any commitment or loyalty or oath to non-Muslims. Only to Allah does one claim or pledge allegiance.  Only through Islam is any relationship, contractual or filial valid.  Qutb writes,

“A Muslim has no country except that part of the earth where the Shari’a of [Allah] is established and human relationships are based on the foundation of relationship with [Allah]; a Muslim has no nationality except his belief, which makes him a member of the Muslim community in Dar ul Islam; a Muslim has no relatives except those who share the belief in [Allah]…” [p. 108, 109]

In the closing paragraphs of Milestones, Qutb conjures macabre images referring to his title:

This intricate point requires deep thought…to whatever country or period of time they belong; for this guarantees that they will be able to see the milestones of the road clearly and without ambiguity, and establishes the path for those who wish to traverse it to the end…Then they will not be anxious, while traversing this road ever paved with skulls and limbs and blood and sweat, to find help and victory…” [p. 158]

The Trilobites were finding “scholars” and “experts” wherever they could drag them out to reassure that “burning a human is not acceptable in Islam”.  They continued this for hours, expressing “how barbaric” this mode of execution is, and this is proof that ISIS is not Islamic.  Really?  Is it more barbaric than sawing a mans head off with a dull knife?!

Burning is indeed not only an accepted means of execution, it has a history in some Islamic applications.  Apostacy is an especially grievous sin against Islam, and in 1400 years there has never been an Islamic society which has not enforced the capital laws against leaving Islam for another religion, or no religion at all.  You see, Sura (Quran) 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion…”  is abrogated by 9:29, commanding to fight non-muslims until they are subdued (dhimmi).

The Islamic State (IS, ISIS, ISIL) is ruthlessly following the model of Islamic conquest that was practiced by Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s (the prophet) top lieutenant and most trusted friend.  He gave his young 6 yr old daughter Aisha to Muhammad to wife, making him the prophet’s father-in-law, and was Muhammad’s first convert outside the family.  Immediately after Muhammad’s death in 632 AD, the tribes began to quit Islam, becoming apostates, and refusing to pay the zakat (required alms of Muslims).  Abu Bakr thus became the 1st Caliph and began a systematic military campaign that swept across the Arabian Peninsula, known as the Ridda Wars, or the Wars of Apostacy.  Within 2 years he had put down or executed those Muslims who refused to pay, even though they practiced the prayers, referring to them as apostate because they failed to practice all 5 pillars of Islam.  Therefore their blood was on their own hands.

In a letter sent out to the various apostate tribes, Abu Bakr warned that, “the Apostle of Allah…struck whoever turned his back to him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly.”  And then that, Allah had called him (Abu Bakr) ” to fight those who deny Him“, and that Abu Bakr “will not spare any of them he can gain mastery over, but may burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means…take women and children…nor shall he accept from anyone anything except Islam.” Within 2 years Abu Bakr had brought the “apostate” tribes back under his rule, and had sent his generals to conquer the Sassanids (Persians) in Iraq and Persia.  This was a very speedy and overwhelming conquest in which Khalid’s light cavalry could swoop down on a city and own it before the indigent armies could respond.  The Caliph then declared Jihad against the Byzantine Christians.

Abu Bakr only ruled for a bit over 2 years and was the 1st of the “Four Rightly Guided Caliphs”, the other 3 of which led short, bloody reigns as well.  These “Four Rightly Guided Caliphs” were all personal companions of Muhammad’s, and are yet today highly revered as men who closely followed in the steps of Muhammad.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, via Wikipedia

It is no accident that the current Caliph took this name – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  This man holds a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Baghdad and has been supervising and enforcing the Sharia since the mid-2000’s.  He is indeed an expert on Islamic Law (Sharia).  His job as Caliph is to punish apostates and carry jihad to non-believers who refuse to embrace Islam.  If you deny this, you deny 1400 years of history.  You have to be an imbecile to refuse to make the connection of true Islamic doctrines and theology to fundamentalist Islamic militant groups such as IS.

However, we are dealing with the Trilobites; a media organism who has no knowledge or desire to investigate history beyond their last bowel movement, which is incidentally about the same consistency of what they report. Jordan’s military, just like Saudi Arabia, exists pretty much to keep the Royal Families safe.  Hardcore movements against Islamic State are not going to be part of the program for either country.  Jordan may divide shortly with a lot of internal upheaval and Saudi will be soon to follow.  The military for both of these countries are paper tigers, perhaps Jordan’s a little tougher.

Any true security or stabilization in the region is going to have to come from one of 3 sources: USA, Israel, or Russia.  President Obama isn’t interested, despite the fact that Jordan is probably the most moderate Arab country in the region, obviously the most stable and is a pretty good ally to Israel.  Obama keeps throwing up a straw man argument that it’s either continue our ineffective airstrikes or send in 300K ground troops, and that’s not an option of his.  He will give aid but no Middle Eastern leader trusts him now anyway, enough to depend on him.

Israel knows it is the ultimate target and continues to monitor the progress of IS and has attacked positions in the Golan area of Syria/Lebanon.  Saudi Arabia is depending more and more on Israel for its own security and Jordan is working with Israeli military also.

Yep, it’s gonna get pretty sporty…





Thanksgiving Proclamation 1789

26 11 2014

By George Washington, President, 1789

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to“recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

George Washington, via Wikipedia

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3rd day of October, A.D. 1789.

washington signat





Imminent Terrorist Attack Warning By Feds on US Border

29 08 2014

The Following article from Judicial Watch comes on the heels of President Obama saying he doesn’t “have a strategy for ISIS yet”. –

JW- AUGUST 29, 2014
Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.

Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.

Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source. “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.

The disturbing inside intelligence comes on the heels of news reports revealing that U.S. intelligence has picked up increased chatter among Islamist terror networks approaching the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While these terrorists reportedly plan their attack just outside the U.S., President Obama admits that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to combat ISIS. “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” the commander-in-chief said this week during a White House press briefing. “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.”

The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting. In the meantime, who could forget the famous words of Obama’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano; the southern border is “as secure as it has ever been.”

These new revelations are bound to impact the current debate about the border crisis and immigration policy.

(Click here for original article – H/T Judicialwatch.org





Why Are There No Anti-“ISIS” Rallies?

1 08 2014

I have yet to see any CAIR rallies, or any other Muslims rallying in the cause to separate Islamic State from Islam! Where are the chants: ‘This is not Islam”! or “No! No! Crucifixions! This is not our way!” or maybe “Stop the killing, Stop the Hate, We condemn Islamic State!” Perhaps “From Damascus to the Gulf, Stop beheading, that’s enough!”

Protests in the Hague mark the first time the ISIS Flag has been flow in Europe.

Protests in the Hague mark the first time the ISIS Flag has been flow in Europe.

Why? Why do you not see these rallies across America or Europe? Very simple! Because these methods ARE part and parcel of the propagation and purification of Islam, yes, according to the Prophet, Muhammad! There is no condemnation for the Jihadi who is either killing “infidels” (atheists or pagans) or “apostates” (Muslims who have gone astray), or Jews and Christians who fail to submit to the Islamic State (Caliphate). This is prescribed practice according to “Umdat al-Salik” (The Classic Manuel of Islamic Holy Law, otherwise known as “Shari’a”).

Anti-Israel protest, Miami-via Brietbart.com


It is the method by which Muhammad conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula, and followed by ‘The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs” (Abu Bakr, Ummar, Uthman, Ali), a period of conquest that spanned a hundred years which included the Islamic conquest of all the Middle East into South and Central Asia, North Africa, and the Iberian Peninsula (Spain, Portugal), finally stopped by the armies of Charles Martel in France.
The Third Caliphate split into a civil war which resulted in what we know as Shia and Sunni, a theological/political disagreement over who is the legal successor of Muhammad, and thus began the great schism which we see today, wherein Muslim is allowed to kill Muslim because one group views the other as “Apostate”. The group now known as “Islamic State” is Sunni. The governing majority of Iraq that the United States established is Shia (supported by Iran).

Other Sunni Jihad groups include the Muslim Brotherhood and all its spawn, including HAMAS (Gaza), Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Islamic Jihad of Palestine, PLO, Fatah, and a myriad of other militant groups around the world including CAIR, MAS, MPAC, MSA, ISNA, ICNA, NAIT among many more in the United States. Yes, CAIR is HAMAS.

Shiite, or Iranian supported terrorists include Hezbollah in Lebanon and lessor known groups such as Mahdi’s Army, Promise Day Brigade.
When these two groups can’t find enough Infidels to kill they will kill each other for Apostacy.

Such is the quality of life lived (or not) under the Islamic State, otherwise known as the Caliphate. It is the prime directive of all good Muslims, the ‘Ummah”, to establish this Caliphate so that “Allah’s Religion Shall Reign Supreme”. If you don’t believe me, ask the next CAIR rally that you see to condemn HAMAS, ISIS (IS), or any other Jihad group. Even Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate who tweeted recently that “the Caliphate is inevitable”. Elibiary was one of several Muslim Brotherhood associates who were appointed to the Department of Homeland Security by the Obama Administration after the election of 2008. Elibiary allegedly provided classified documents to media, but DHS Secretary Napolitona did not deem it necessary of disciplinary action.

He also tweeted, “America is an Islamic country”. (For more on Elibiary click here)

Now you know why the United States Government has been “aiding and abetting the enemy”, HAMAS, (designated by the Federal government under the Bush administration, as a “terrorist organization”, so yes they are the enemy!) in its battle with Israel. Now you know why the Administration enacted what amounted to “economic sanctions” on Israel by shutting down all American air carriers for the span of two days under a false pretense of “safety concerns” while these same airlines have been flying in and out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan with no such restrictions from the FAA. This also explains Israel’s frustration and distrust in the US Government. (If not for Senator Ted Cruz’s efforts this FAA restriction would have lasted much longer.)

Israel knows if they do not destroy HAMAS once and for all, this war will never end. Former Prime Minister Golda Meir once said, “Israel will have peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.” Current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “If the Arabs lay down their weapons we will have peace. If Israel lay down their weapons there will be no more Israel.”

Truer words were never spoken by man.

As I have written in a prior article, the HAMAS Charter specifically points out that there is no “two state solution” and “the only solution is Jihad”. HAMAS and the PLO cannot abide a Jewish State of Israel, thus the only possibility for peace in the region is a “One State Solution”, that is governed by Israel, to assure the attacks on Israel cease and therefore Israel’s military responses will not be needed against the “Palestinians”. In other words, the threat will be mitigated simply because there is no “safe haven” for the terrorists to organize, re-arm, regroup, and launch attacks from.

Author and former Israeli official Caroline Glick is one of my favorite writers. She has written a book that explains this fully in “One State Solution”. Israel simply cannot allow HAMAS to survive.

As for the United States, it remains to be seen what the American People will do in response to the White House assisted infiltration of the government by the Muslim Brotherhood, and how they will react to the current invasion of our Southern Border, which by CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) reports show that a large percentage of those apprehended are from the Middle East, bearing tattoos in Farsi and Arabic, (speaking those languages), and prayer rugs and Korans.

Benny when you finish with HAMAS we could use a little leadership here in the USA.





US/Mexican Border: What’s really going on

21 07 2014

Zack Taylor is a retired Border Patrol Agent in the Tuscon Sector. Mr. Taylor brings, perhaps, the most clear explanation of what is happening on the border with Mexico. He draws upon his lifetime experience in intelligence on border issues to lay out this very simple brief on Asymmetrical Warfare which in this case is involving trans-national criminals including the Russian Mafia. Please watch this entire 15 minute interview! It is astounding!





David Crockett: Frontier Statesman

15 06 2014

crockett_portraitI saw this piece by Derry Brownfield and had to post it. Derry was one of the countries premier ag broadcasters and outspoken on many issues.

David Crockett served 3 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Upon his defeat for a 4th in 1835 by an Andrew Jackson supporter, he bid farewell to Washington declaring, “You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas!”. He was killed in action defending the Alamo in 1836.

Derry Brownfield
February 7, 2003

Colonel David Crockett was a member of Congress when the Georgetown fire, which could be seen from the nation’s capital, consumed many homes and left women and children suffering in the streets. Crockett, along with other congressmen, appropriated $20,000 for their relief. Later that year, while campaigning in his district, he met a farmer named Horatio Bunce who said he voted for him once but couldn’t do it a second time because he either did not have the capacity to understand the Constitution, or that he was wanting in the honesty and fairness to be guided by it. Horatio told him the Constitution must be sacred and rigidly observed in all its provision. He told Crockett that he read in the papers last winter where he voted for the bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers of the Georgetown fires. David Crockett replied “certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve suffering, particularly with a full overflowing treasury, and I am sure if you had been there you would have done just as I did.”

“It is not the amount Colonel Crockett, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man. If you had the right to give anything the amount was simply a matter of discretion. You could have given twenty million as easily as the twenty thousand. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all. The Constitution neither defends charity nor stipulates the amount. You will vary easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individuals members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.”

At a later time in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up to appropriate money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. The speaker was about to put the question to a vote when Crockett arose: “Mr. Speaker: I have as much respect for the money of the deceased and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice.

We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of public money. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object. If every member of Congress will do the same it will amount to more than the bill asks. The bill failed to pass.

Later Colonel Crockett spoke, “You remember that I proposed to give a weeks’ pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity and justice to obtain it.”

Colonel David Crockett was elected to Congress in 1827 and served until 1835. In one hundred and seventy five years congress has changed very little. The only real change we see is that there isn’t a Davy Crockett there to control them.

© 2003 Derry Brownfield, All Rights Reserved

http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield11.htm








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,701 other followers

%d bloggers like this: