Fundamentals

1 07 2010

There is an old parable which goes something like this: “For want of a clench, a nail was lost. For want of a nail, a shoe was lost. For want of a shoe, a horse was lost. For want of a horse, a knight was lost. For want of a knight a battle was lost. For want of a battle, a kingdom was lost.” Well, something like that.

Words are like nails. The definition of a word determines the tightness of the clench. I’m into definitions. I suppose that is obvious from the name of this blogsite. The reason I’m into definitions is, to quote a famous radio personality, “Words mean things”. Words define sentences, which define subjects, which define ideas. Communication, even sign language, is reliant upon words to inflect meaning and definition of language expressing emotion, thoughts, intents, and ideas.

One word which particularly interests me these days is “fundamental“. The commonly used internet dictionary Merriam-Webster defines “fundamental” as follows: 1-a: serving as an original or generating source; [primary] b: serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function; [basic] 2-a: of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts; [radical also: of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application ] b: adhering to fundamentalism 3: of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration 4: of central importance: [principal ] 5: belonging to one’s innate or ingrained characteristics: [deep-rooted] (note: some punctuation/symbols edited for clarity in this format)

Fundamental is a word used to express definitive structure or skeletal origin and principles concerning architecture, music, athletics, sociology, politics, religion, government, virtually everything tangible and intangible. Everything has a fundamental nature, cause, precept, function, ideology, value, means, or purpose. Even this article has a fundamental purpose.

That purpose specifically is to discuss the fundamentals of religion, and perhaps briefly, our government. Now, if you have read my page “God Hates Religion” you probably already know where I stand on the definition of religion. But for the sake of this discussion, I am going to refer to religion in the general sense and explore two of those: Islam and Christianity.

The fundamentals of a religion define it. As with a building, the foundation determines the size, shape, weight and height of a building. That is source of its existence. It’s “founding”. The fundamentals of a government are revealed in it’s founding documents. The founding documents of our American Government are the Mayflower Compact, The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and The Constitution of the United States. Further insight can be gained by studying the people who wrote those documents: “The Founders”. These define American government and give insight to America’s purpose as a nation. (Incidentally, I think I remember candidate Obama saying he wanted to “fundamentally change America”. Wonder what he meant by that?)

Likewise, in order to get to the fundamentals of a religion you must explore the founding documents and those key figures of it’s early existence. Those who adhere to the fundamentals of their religion are known as “fundamentalists”.

Fundamentalist Christians take the Bible as the Word of God. They also trust in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Christ, the Son of the Living God as recorded in the pages of the Bible; Prophesied over 300 times in the Old Testament, and the central figure of the New Testament. They believe that He was born of a virgin, crucified on a Roman cross, suffered for the sins of all mankind, died, was buried and then was resurrected from the dead. The New Testament places Him present on Earth for 40 days after the resurrection and records Him to be seen by a minimum of over 500 people. He then ascended into Heaven and will return at the conclusion of this present age of Grace. These are the fundamentals of the Christian faith, which of course are dependent upon the Bible as its founding documentation.

Examining the Bible as a founding document, we find a collection of documents actually, from the Law of Moses, to the Psalms, to the Prophets and including the Gospels and the letters right up to the prophecy of The Revelation. These documents written over a period of 1500 years, given by revelation through the Holy Spirit to 40 men over that span of time, all fit together, none contradicting another.

Islamic Fundamentalists likewise take the Koran as the word of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the angel Jibril (Gabriel to you Bible scholars). They do not however believe that Muhammad is the son of Allah (“Allah forbid that he have a son!” (Koran Sura 19). Muhammad never claimed to be the son of Allah, or even the messiah. He did however claim to be the last and greatest Prophet, and established the law of abrogation, which nullifies every prophet, scripture, and revelation to precede him. Muhammad even used the law of abrogation to nullify those passages of Koran which taught peace and love, by those which teach violence and death to those who do not submit to Allah’s religion of Islam. Sura 9 was the last major revelation from Jibril to Muhammad and it is indeed the most violent. Abrogation defined is “the latter takes precedence over the former”.

During the last ten years of his life, Muhammad himself led or planned 66 raids in many of which men, women, and children alike were butchered, property confiscated or burned, and slaves taken, used or traded. He took to wife a 6 year old child, consummating the marriage when she was 9. Although Muhammad had limited his followers to only 4 wives, he enjoyed 11 not counting slave girls he kept to service him.

Muhammad would fall into a “trance” (some speculate a seizure) and come to with a new revelation from Allah, which he recited (this is what Quran means, “recitation”) to his companions. Muhammad did not read or write, being illiterate. All his Koran was verbally transferred and retained by memory for years until after his death, and during the Uthman Caliphate the Koran was finally standardized in written form, aggregating bits and pieces of Sura’s from palm leaves, bone, skins, and memory of the reciters.

The “Golden Age of Islam” that is so vaunted by Islam’s scholars and sympathizers, was that time period after Muhammad’s death, in which Islam was ruled by the “Four Rightly Guided Caliphs” of the 7th Century up through about 1100 AD. All four of those Caliphs were either killed in battle or assassinated. The fourth, Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali presided over a massive civil war in which Muslims killed Muslims by the tens of thousands. From this came the two schools of Sunni and Shia Islam.

So there is your founding for Islam. A Koran which in fact contradicts itself in numerous places, is inconsistent in content and directive, a prophet which claimed to be the exclusive, last and greatest channel of Allah’s law and directive for Mankind, and a blood-soaked century in which the believers were ordered, and dutifully obeyed, murdering, robbing, raping those who would not submit to Muhammad’s new religion of Islam.

Now at this point,, you may be thinking, “What about the Crusades when the Christians killed so many Muslims?” Great question and I’m glad that you asked. Remember now, we are talking about Fundamentalism. The Crusades did not begin until 1095 AD. Jesus died in 30 AD.

Jesus never told His disciples to kill anyone. In fact, to the contrary he said, “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword” and He chastised Peter for attempting to defend Him with his sword.  His commission to His followers was to “Go into all the World and preach the Gospel to every creature”. (Mark 16:15) Muhammad said, “Make war on them: Allah will chastise them at your hands and humble them.” (Sura 9:14) The only blood that Jesus ever shed was His own.

The Crusades were largely organized and carried out by the Roman Church originally to stop the tide of Islam invading Europe.  Some Crusades were sponsored by kings themselves seeking glory in battle and sometimes they devolved into something less honorable and Jews, and Papacy rejecting Christians were killed instead of Muslim invaders. This never was a fundamental facet to Christianity and has been held up by its critics as part and parcel of the Christian religion. No, it doesn’t stick. Go back and check the definition of “Fundamental”. Then read your Bible again. Oh, there was plenty of blood for the Christians too, in their first 300 years. Christian blood quenched the dust of the Roman Colosseum and amphitheatres throughout the empire. Romans hunted them for sport, and used them as human torches at garden parties. They were despised, nonetheless they multiplied in such great numbers they changed history.

You see, the fundamental documents, the teachings, and the founders of the religion defines it. Those beliefs are at the core, not the extremities or the fringe. Diagram A illustrates the politically correct view as opposed to the factually correct view.

Diagram A

As you can see the Fundamentalist must be the core value holder simply by definition. If placed on the extremities of the circle, it is no longer a fundamental but an extremity. For example, your hand is an extremity; you can exist without it. Your core (torso) contains your vital organs. Without your vital organs your extremities cannot exist and function.

Diagram B illustrates the effect that each has upon the mainstream. The Fundamentalist, adhering to the core of the belief system, is the influencing factor on the entirety of the religion. The closer you are to the fundamentals, the less you are influenced by the extremities. Conversely, the Extremist, or the fringe element has no practical access to the core values or the fundamentals of the belief system.

Diagram B

So here now is the myth of Islam: “Islam is basically a Peaceful Religion that has been “Hi-Jacked” by Extremists”. Now here is the fact: Islam was a peaceful religion for nearly 13 years while Muhammad resided in Mecca. As he became more obnoxious and belligerent the Meccan’s threatened his life and he and his companions fled to Medina which was a bit more accepting. From there he began raiding Meccan caravans for a living and finally provoked a war.

Islam at its very core is flawed. The fundamentals are inconsistent with a practical and uniform belief system. Its self proclaimed prophet is inconsistent with all that is just and good. It’s deity called Allah is impersonal, untouchable, unloving, and without grace and mercy. Heavy on judgment, Allah would never condescend to sinful Man and offer any semblance of relationship.

This all should make sense by now; Allah is not the God of the Bible. Allah’s symbol is the Moon. The Bible says the moon is the ruler over the darkness, “the lesser light to rule the night”. (Gen. 1:16) The “greater light” to rule the day is known as the Sun. That’s Messiah. (Malachi 4:2) More specifically, Jesus is referred to by Peter as the “day star” (2 Pet. 1:17-19).

So if Allah is not God, and is the “ruler of darkness”, who does that remind you of, Hmmm? Fundamentally, speaking…..

Advertisements




“Discussing the Soul of America”

11 04 2016

“Discussing the Soul of America”

This has been the tagline of my blog ever since I first published the title article, “Defining the Narrative” in 2010.

In that first work I discussed the secularization and subsequent spiritual retardation of American culture. By pushing Judeo-Christian ideology to the margins of society, the Bible is removed as the basis for ethics, laws, and morals.

Secularization has made possible Pluralism, which basically says that no ideology, philosophy or faith belief system is of higher social value than any other. All are equal and must not only be tolerated, but embraced. This is the last great virtue of a secular society. Tolerance.  (Which actually is not tolerant of Biblical based principles.)  Tolerance is the politically correct means by which values are exsponged from the minds of apathetic  or emotion driven uneducated populations with no historical moorings.

“By attempting to embrace everything, you can hold onto nothing.”

This is where history finds us, America. Amidst a culture which cannot define itself, lacking a foundation to stand upon, and floating aimlessly in a sea of political correctness fed by the river of pluralism. We don’t know our own narrative.  Could this be the reason that no one in the media, academia, or government can say definitively that America is in a fight for survival? Is it possible that this 40 year drunken binge on “pluralism” has inhibited our ability to see the enemy when he is standing before us, smiling that sinister grin with one hand extended and the other holding a sword?

For the last several years many have been working to restore confidence in the founding Principals of the American nation whose beginnings are unquestionably rooted in the desire of people under tyrannical rule who found oppression in their quest to freely worship the God of the Universe, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Author of the Holy Bible, and Redeemer of Mankind, according to the dictates of their own conscience.

The necessity for this endeavor is made by attempts to defame the American Founders, their motives, and to mislead, confuse, and dishearten modern Americans, drawing into question our very purpose as a people, and eventually disenfranchise today’s patriots and American Christians of all stripes. It is, in effect, an attack against the very foundations of our beloved Country.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams

“Fundamentally transforming the United States of America” is not a Barack Obama original thought. It is in line though, with Mrs. Obama’s statement that “we are going to have to change our traditions, change our history”.  These people are simply the blossom on the weed of Progressivism, which sprouted at the turn of the 20th Century.  While America has a plethora of problems, politically, morally, and spiritually, the fundamentals are not among them.

constitution_thumb_295_dark_gray_bgOnce was the time when America’s virtue was the dominate governing quality of her
people and that virtue, according to the Founders, their contemporaries, and observers such as Alexis D’ Tocqueville, was the direct result of an overwhelming and inherent belief in a Creator God who was Supreme Judge of nations and individuals, and as such, every person was accountable for his/her own actions, which not only resulted in self-government, but was the very framework upon which the Founding Fathers hung the Constitution. The Judeo-Christian ethic, as taught by the Bible, was not only the impetus for the idea that “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, but was considered as absolutely necessary to maintain a free and civil society.

Progressivism, brought into the main arteries of modern culture of America by Saul Alinsky (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both disciples), is a barely more subtle approach to raw Communism, and has its roots in Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, and Adam Weishaupt (founder of the Illuminati, which was the seed of Communism). The strategy to accomplish this is expedited by drawing into question the character of the American Founders and their motives, demoralizing modern Americans and leaving them feeling betrayed by their heroes, believing they have been misled by their parents, teachers, and institutions.

Progressivism, while claiming the high moral ground, takes advantage of the human condition, (the fallen nature of Mankind) and focuses entirely on the faults of those they oppose, justifying their own lusts and proclivities, while passing judgement on their enemies. The Founders, above most, if not all their succcessors theretofore, were fully aware of this condition and placed their highest priority on keeping government from interfering with the vital task of imparting virtue, and spiritual accountability to Almighty God, to every generation of American, namely through the Judeo-Christian scriptures- the Bible.

Upon this cornerstone rests the entirety of American culture and virtue, and subsequently, the success of the “experiment” of self-government. In that the Founders were also human, there are indeed some fair points of concern. As the reader is full aware, wherever you find men, you will find sin. God’s perfect governmental structure is a Theocratic Kingdom, and He, and He alone, the Perfect King. “All else is ashes and dust”, as the saying goes, and subject to the failures of man and his sinful tendencies. This premise can hardly be refuted. However, until that “Blessed Hope” descends and establishes His perfect Kingdom, Man in his fallen state is relegated to his best feeble attempts to establish civil government, an institution established by God Himself, to avoid disorder and chaos, where the natural man’s own desires are his only conscience.

Until America’s beginnings, there were no kingdoms, nations, or states where men were free to worship accordingly, without dictate from the government which god or creed was the prescribed or acceptable form of worship, and yet still held full and equitable citizenship.

The United States of America was the culmination of all human government attempted to that point. It sought to avoid “theocratic rule” for that specific reason, understanding the corrupt nature of men who would seek positions of power within the “theocracy” and dictate according to their own “god” or creed. Theocracy run by men results in the likes of the Holy Roman Empire, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Church of England where the King was the Divine Sovereign, from which the Founders were warily seeking to separate. The point can easily be made that this is the glaring reason there is no mention of God in the Constitution.

The self-evident truths outlined in the Declaration of Independance, (the first official -declaration-hero-Edocument of the United States) among others, are that, “all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”   

The Bible itself actually teaches that all are created equal, “neither Jew, nor Greek, male or female” and that “Thou shalt not murder”, because the other person has a right to life. Liberty, to choose one’s own destiny; no one is forced into Heaven or Hell, or a certain class or status of life. “Go to the ant thou sluggard” and see that even he makes preparation for the future. Men are free to worship God and be blessed, or not. “Thou shalt not steal” – you don’t have a right to take my property, and I do not have a right to take yours. These truths are indeed self-evident and easily find Biblical foundation.

It is this purely American ideal; Liberty to both choose, and pursue, one’s own destiny, employing one’s own God given talents and abilities for the betterment and support of a good and virtuous society, as well as one’s own interests, which has served to motivate and inspire generations of Americans to preserve these values for future generations, lest they ill remember those poor and selfish stewards who lost them.

Fellow Americans, it has fallen to us, in these latter times, to step to the battle lines and engage. We stand at the precipice in a confused and polarized attitude while our children and our grandchildren look to us for leadership, stability, discipline, and courage. Can we imagine this world without an America? It is not simply for our own progeny’s sake, but for the sake of the entire earth that we must revive and restore the spirit of those forbearers, lest the hope of freedom be dashed, for all, upon the jagged stones of tyranny, or smothered under the low stagnant, choking, clouds of apathy and indifference. Christ is the ultimate “Blessed Hope” for Mankind. And because He is, America has been the temporal hope, a haven, a place of escape to, for peoples around the World.

The Pilgrims embarked upon an impossible mission of hope; to establish a society under the Authority of Christ where they could worship the Creator freely. They separated from the State Church of England (thus the label “Separatists”-these were not the “Puritans” who shortly followed) and endeavored to establish a “great hope, for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world” Upon landing at Plymouth (Cape Cod) they established the foundation of future civil government for all (for there were among them those who were “uncommitted to church fellowship”, but were loyal subjects to the Crown for civil/social order) in America by signing together the Mayflower Compact:

“In the Name of God…Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.” 11 November, 1620

By 1636 the recently arrived Puritans established a school desiring to educate young men for the ministry, and in 1638 that school became Harvard College among whose Rules and Precepts was found,

Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him Prov. 2, 3.” And “Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day…

Upon this foundation was built the framework of a moral and civil society based upon the Gospel of Christ, and His teachings, resulting in, and sustaining that “moral and religious people” which John Adams would later write, upon whom rested the success of Constitutional self -government.

The Constitution therefore, was designed to hang upon that framework, whose foundation was the Bible itself. As Adams so succinctly stated, this Constitution is “wholly inadequate to the government of any other” people. The People must be grounded upon a Biblical worldview, wherein they recognize that each is accountable to the Supreme Judge for their own actions.  Herein lies the answer as to why the Constitution is no longer adhered to, neither is it adequate.  Americans are no longer “a moral and religious people“.

The Constitution has not failed us; we have failed the Constitution. And in failing that Constituion we have failed not only the Founding Fathers, but God Himself.  That which He had entrusted to us has been spurned, ridiculed, and squandered.  A reprobate people cannot, and will not, self govern.

As one time Speaker of the House Robert Winthrop said, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet.”

Can America be saved?  That is the question of our time.  The answer is this: Not without the Creator God of the Bible.  Any attempts otherwise are going to result in such tyranny as has been felt in the rest of the world for centuries.

“Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history… We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.” -A. Lincoln

If we are not successful in preserving this American Ideal, then: “…government of the People, by the People, and for the People…” [shall indeed] “perish from the Earth.”
-Abraham Lincoln





The Myth of “Self Radicalization” and the Fallacy of “Radical Islam”

4 12 2015

This article is a repost from 2 years ago.  I have edited and updated it slightly.  It is as much, if not more relevant today. -DTN

Media Trilobites and government officials continue to bump into each other, feeding on nonsensical buzz words that become trendy for a few weeks and are eventually absorbed into the pop culture lexicon.  These phrases or terms may lie dormant for ages until suddenly they’re on every television commentator’s lips.  If we can’t find a word in the English language to spin up to instant glory, we’ll borrow one from another language.  Al Gore did just that when he described himself as having “gravitas” during his run for the White House. Nearly instantaneously, every talking head in the country was using the heavy Latin word, until finally Chris Mathews commented that Barack Obama’s gravitas caused a tingle to run up his leg.  It kinda lost its punch after that.

But the real point here is the incessant blathering about “self radicalized” terrorists, specifically the brothers Tsarnaev, better known as the Boston Bombers, who were responsible for nearly 270 maimed, wounded, or dead, and now the “San Bernadino Terrorists”who have now been proven to be fundamentalist Muslims and are celebrated as “Shahid” (martyrs) around the globe.  They were not “violent extremists”.  They were Mujahideen, “soldiers of Allah”, on jihad.

Disregarding the obvious elephant in the room, both the government and the media, began hunting for fleas and swatting at gnats.  “Whatever could be the reason for this horrendous tragedy?”  In the Boston Bombing case the story line continued for hours into days that this had to be the work of some “right wing extremists”, and even the President floated a hint or two about April 15th being “tax day”, of course insinuating it was a right-wing tax protest, obviously connected to the Tea Party.

Even before the victims at San Bernadino were removed from the horrific scene of the attack, commentators, reporters and officials were forming a narrative of “3 White Males dressed in military fatigues and body armor“.  Many of the reporters were hoping they were White Supremist’s, not even holding out the possibility of a terrorist attack.  In fact, there seemed to be a refusal to even consider the possibility of the shooters having any ties to Islam, continuing, like CNN’s Harry Houck and law enforcement analyst Tom Fuentes, to speculate “right-wingers” were most likely the culprit; Fuentes surmising it to be “an anti-government domestic militia group”. [H/T Newsbusters]

After all, there have been so many “right wing” attacks – Like the first bombing of the World Trade Center back in ’93; no wait, that was Islamic jihad.  Oh, like the 911 attacks when Tea Party members flew passenger airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and were headed for the White House; oh…sorry, those were Islamic jihadist hijackers. Well, like the DC Snipers who terrorized the city for 3 weeks in 2002; no wait, they were Islamic also.  Well then there was the White Supremacist, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and wounded another in front of the recruiting office in Arkansas in 2009; sorry, again Islamic jihad.

Well…there are so many events that are known to have connections to “conservative right wing Christian radicals” such as: The Fort Hood Massacre when that Christian shooter yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ as he gunned down 40 people, killing 13.  The 2009 Riverdale New York bomb plot planned by 4 radical Tea Party grandma’s, the Times Square Bomber who had his SUV full of propane tanks and fireworks (surely some redneck like Larry the Cable Guy), the “Fort Dix Six”, the “Underwear Bomber”, the “Shoe Bomber”, etcetera ad nauseam.

My, my, what could it be? What ever could it be that is initiating all these attacks and plots?

[According to this Congressional report, there have been well over 60 successful, attempted, or plotted Islamic Jihad Terrorist attacks on US soil between 9-11-2001 and Jan of 2013.]

Of course, most of these were played off as “Lone Wolf” scenarios where the terrorist was “self-radicalized”.

Listening to all the ‘crack investigative reporters and hard-hitting journalists’, one could come to the conclusion that these guys just must wake up one morning and “self-radicalize” deciding today is a good day to kill some people’.

This term is a copout for lazy journalists and downright deceiving when used by anyone.  A person cannot “self-radicalize” any more than “self-socialize”.  There must be a cause, a mentor, or an ideology that brings a person to the point that he is willing to, no, compelled to kill random people that he doesn’t even know.

That mentor, in many cases, is a spiritual leader.  That cause, or ideology, which is that rather enormous and obnoxious “elephant in the room” that none of the trilobites are willing to discuss?  Islam.

Forget Islam as a Religion

The sooner Americans refuse to continue accepting Islam as a viable and peaceful “religion” and begin to view it as the sociopolitical ideology that it truly is, the greater the possibility the America will survive its onslaught.

The root problem for America is not that Islam has come to colonize her, which it has, but the fact that we have allowed “multi-culturalism” (immigration without assimilation) and “pluralism” (all cultures, ideologies, realities are equal) to progress unchecked resulting in a “balkanized” or “tribal” society wherein competing ideologies are viewed as co-equal.  Not all ideologies are conducive to civilized society, nor are they consistent with the basic premise of freedom, as established in America’s founding documents.

If I were to try to convince you that Germany’s National Socialism (Nazism) is a peaceful ideology that was hijacked by a few “self radicalized” individuals, resulting in the holocaust, you’d laugh in my face.  Well, that’s a pretty good comparison: You have a ‘prophet’ by the name of Hitler who sought to consolidate power under a banner of a unified ideology by clearing the field of competing ideologies, and went to war in order to stoke the economy and gain control of more land area.  Had Muhammad access to German weapons of mass destruction he would certainly not have hesitated to use them.   Hitler’s Holocaust resulted in an estimated 11 Million deaths, many of which were communist (because Karl Marx was Jewish), mentally or physically handicapped, Jehovah’s Witness, homosexual, or Christian leaders such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer who refused to place their names upon the “Aryan Clause” and become “Reich Churches” to do the bidding of the “almighty Fuhrer”.   But his “Final Solution” for 6 million Jews had already been proven and prescribed by Islam’s prophet Muhammad in the Arabian Peninsula 1400 years prior in places with such names as Banu Quaraysa and Khaybar, where Muhammad slaughtered unarmed male prisoners and enslaved the girls, and women, finally appropriating all Jewish property to Muslims.

Both economies required perpetual war.  (The fundamental Islamic world view is “Dar al-Islam” or Dar al-Harb: The world is divided and you either dwell in the “House of Islam”, where Islam rules, or you dwell in the “House of War” and are subject to Jihad.)

Both ideologies have religious overtones (Hitler was worshipped and given a godlike status).  Both ‘prophets’ were consumed with power.  Both cultures fostered distrust and suspicion (Gestapo was everywhere and anyone who challenged the Prophet was dealt with harshly.)  Both Nazism and Islam are fundamentally racist.   Neither can compete philosophically with opposing values, absent of an oppressive legal system or war.

Consider the following argument:

“Well, you know those “Brown Shirts” are really not as bad as the SS or Gestapo.  Now those SS are some evil dudes.  SS are the real “radical” Nazi’s.  The Brownshirts might beat you up but those SS will kill you!  We really need to reach out to those individuals and find out why they hate us so much.  But most of the Nazi’s are moderate.  They aren’t violent at all.  Sure, they go to the rallies where Hitler is speaking, but they’re just normal folks like you and me!  They want the same for their families as we all want.  Yeah, Nazism is actually a very patriotic and peaceful ideology, it’s just been hijacked by some radicals who seek to politicize it, and destroy property and kill people and take their property in the name of this peaceful movement.” 

Well, as you can see this defense of Nazism just doesn’t fly!  Ironically, this is the exact apologetic defense that Islam gets from not only the American mainstream media, but from our government as well!

“Self Radicalization”

This term makes about as much sense as “Obamacare”.  An individual who is willing to commit a violent act of mass murder and mayhem in the name of his god, or any other cause, is soaked in an ideology which is taught or programmed into a person’s psyche.  That ideology doesn’t simply spawn in the mind of the perpetrator.  It comes from someone else, whether through print or other media; from a teacher, guide or mentor.  But the term “self radicalize” is specifically designed to deflect attention from that aforementioned ‘elephant’ sitting in the middle of the room.

Islam is that ideology and it can be taught by other people or the documents themselves, the Koran, Hadith, and countless commentaries and books of Islamic scholars (such asSeyyid Qutb) may be read and studied by the individual, even to the point of the student acting upon those teachings.  Tamerlan Tsarnaev did not “self-radicalize” anymore than Nidal Hasan or Osama bin Ladin.  He was taught.  He was taught the purest form of Islam, the Fundamentals of Islam. He believed it, he consumed it, and finally it consumed him.  His actions were based on his faith in his Scriptures (Koran), his prophet (Muhammad), and his god (Allah).

“We Love Death more than You Love Life”

The first victim of Islam is the Muslim.  Islam is, as I have pointed out before, a Great Black Beast.  It will consume everyone in its path if left unchecked, until finally there is no competing religion or ideology permitted.  There is a creed that surfaces occasionally when studying the Islamic culture which is so shaped by the obligatory act of jihad: “We love death more than you love life.” It has been a part of Islam since its earliest doctrines were formulated during that period immediately following Muhammad’s death in 632 (AD). This is that age of Islamic conquest the four “Rightly Guided Caliphs”, It is used by Hamas in their propaganda media.  It was recently used in a letter to the British government by six terrorists who pleaded guilty of planning an attack on the EDL last year.   It was repeated by the Madrid terrorists and actually earned a slide in a power point presentation by Nidal Hassan prior to his jihad attack which resulted in 13 dead and 32 wounded at Fort Hood, Texas. Islam is the largest death cult in the world. Those countries and regions where Islam rules unchecked are anything but bastions of freedom.

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) came up with a new word in order to try to embarrass and defeat anyone who opposes Islam.  They have been quite successful in defining the Islamic narrative in the United States.  That word is “Islamophobia”. The goal is to paint opposition to Islam as bigoted, racist, and xenophobic.  It doesn’t stick.  Sorry CAIR, I am not afraid of Islam, I am not a racist, nor am I a bigot.   But I will tell you what true “Islamophobia” is.  Just as the word says, “Fear of Islam”.  But CAIR has misplaced the word.

Islamophobia is when a free press self-censors for fear of offending Muslims and consequential retribution from Islam.

Islamophobic is a government which refuses to name the enemy in a war which has been declared on the United States of America by the collective ideology called Islam, for fear of political influence of CAIR, ISNA, ICNA among Islamic organizations, and fear the Saudi’s will pull out of Wall Street and crash our economy.

Islamophobic is a White House which is more interested in “winning the hearts and minds” of a sworn enemy than defeating him, while Islamic groups like CAIR and the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) filter every training manual and terrorism report issued by the Pentagon.

Islamophobia is when a military acquiesces to the demands of that same sworn enemy to deny Christian or Jewish religious ministry to its own soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen on sovereign soil of our military bases in Afghanistan, but allows an Imam to pray over our dead SEAL’s at Baghram AFB, damning their souls in the name of Allah.

Islamophobic is a President who is more interested in punishing the producer of a two-bit video “slandering the prophet” than he is about punishing those who murdered 4Americans in Benghazi, Libya in a jihad attack, for fear that he will lose the upcoming election if he offends Muslims.

Islamophobia is an Attorney General who vows to prosecute those who say anything critical of Islam.  THAT, my friends is “Islamophobia”.

In the words of Billy Vaughn, father of Aaron Vaughn, one of 26 Navy Seals killed in the “Extorsion 17” helo crash in Wardok Province in 2012, “When you hide the truth, you become part of the lie.”

Americans must face the truth.  We have allowed our government and our media to hide the truth. We have hidden our own faces from the truth.  The ideology that is Islam is fundamentally, and diametrically opposed to America and all that she stands for.





2nd clipping from “Revealed Faith of the Founders”

18 09 2015

While America has a plethora of problems, politically, morally, and spiritually, the fundamentals are not among them. It was not always so; America’s virtue was the dominate governing quality of her people and that virtue, according to the Founders, their contemporaries, and observers such as Alexis D’ Tocqueville, was the direct result of an overwhelming and inherent belief in a Creator God who was Supreme Judge of nations and individuals, and as such, every person was accountable for his/her own actions, which not only resulted in self-government, but was the very framework upon which the Founding Fathers hung the Constitution.

The Judeo-Christian ethic, as taught by the Bible, was not only the impetus for the idea that “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, but was considered as absolutely necessary to maintain a free and civil society.

…Cleon Skousen published “Naked Communist” in 1958 wherein he summarized the 45 objectives of Communism within the United States of America as detailed in Congressional reports and writings of ex-Communists. Today every one of those goals has been met. They attack the very heart of the American ideal, Virtue.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch”.

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state’.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a world-wide basis.

30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man”.

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of “the big picture”… [p. 248-49, The Naked Communist, Skousen]

Progressivism, brought into the main arteries of modern culture of America by Saul Alinsky (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both disciples), is a barely more subtle approach to raw Communism, and has its roots in Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, and Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati, which was the seed of Communism.

The strategy to accomplish this is expedited by drawing into question the character of the American Founders (29 & 30) and their motives, demoralizing modern Americans and leaving them feeling betrayed by their heroes, believing they have been misled by their parents, teachers, and institutions. Progressivism, while claiming the high moral ground, takes advantage of the human condition, (the fallen nature of Mankind) and focuses entirely on the faults of those they oppose, justifying their own lusts and proclivities, while passing judgement on their enemies.

The Founders, above most, if not all their successors theretofore, were fully aware of this condition and placed their highest priority on keeping government from interfering with the vital task of imparting virtue, and spiritual accountability to Almighty God, to every generation of American, namely through the Judeo-Christian scriptures- the Bible.

Upon this cornerstone rests the entirety of American culture and virtue, and subsequently, the success of the “experiment” of self-government…

Read More…Here





So is ISIL (ISIS, Islamic State) Islamic or Not?

26 09 2014

Incidentally, ISIL is probably the more accurate acronym to describe the terrorist army advancing across Syria and Iraq, setting up the new Islamic Khilafah (Islamic State, which I wrote about back in 2011). ISIL stands for the Islamic State in the Levant. The Levant is that region in the Middle East often referred to as the “Fertile Crescent”. This region extends from the rivers of Iraq through Syria, northern Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. Yes, Israel…

Seems that ISIL is having trouble convincing President Obama that they actually do represent the fundamentals of Islam, as they raze the landscape of non-Muslims wherever they go, just as Muhammad did in the 7 Century. Jihadwatch.org published this graphic by Nicolai Sennels which puts it all in very simple terms. Judge for yourself – (H/T to Mr. Sennels and Jihad Watch)

ISvsQuran





Immigration is key to the “stealth jihad” says Muslim convert to Christianity

22 09 2014

I have been warning of the “stealth jihad” being perpetrated upon America, and in particular upon her Churches, for many years now. The whole “Interfaith Dialog” movement was begun in 2002, right after 911, in order to “reform” Islam’s image. Sadly, this is the ONLY reformation that Islam has or will ever incurr because the theology that drives the ideology known as Islam is not debatable. Any Muslim who speaks of “reformation” or changing Quran or Sharia is automatically ostracized or labeled “Apostate”, which status qualifies for the death penalty. A pretty good method of assuring that the fundamental doctrines of Islam can never be “moderated”. Satan did his work well when he developed this “Beast”!

H/T Ann Corcoran – Refugee Resettlement Watch





Defining the Enemy: Why the United States Government Can Not Win the “War on Terror”

7 09 2014

ontherise“… If you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” –Sun Tzu, The Art of War

A government, nation, or an individual for that matter, who pours their own definition into terms or words is doomed to failure, confusion and isolation in a world where communication is imperative for success on any level. A person cannot say “I have no enemy” and walk peacefully down a path lined with a mob who seeks his death, expecting a leisurely stroll. The Jews learned long ago, when someone says they’re going to kill you, believe them. Likewise, a government cannot long ignore an enemy who has declared war upon that nation, no matter how distant that enemy may seem.

A nation, government, or individual who refuses to recognize an existential threat is either naive, insane, or suicidal. However, this is exactly what the United States Government has been doing for over ten years. Even as far back as 9/11/2001, US government officials and their willing accomplices in the media, have gone out of their way to refuse mention of the enemy that struck us on that fateful day.

Even after 13 years of war operations, in Afghanistan the US has lost 2344 military personnel, and 4486 in Iraq to an undefined enemy. Many of these casualties were the result of “Rules of Engagement” (ROE) which tie the hands of our brave American service members, and resulted in the single largest loss of Special Operations Forces in American military history, the shoot down of Extortion 17, August 6th, 2011, in the Tangi Valley. 30 crew and Spec Ops personnel were on board including 17 Navy SEALS. The father of one of those men, Billy Vaughn wrote “Betrayed”, an expose’ on how faulty ROE’s (which includes all missions approved by Afghan military commanders), among other bad decisions resulted in the tragedy that cost his son Aaron’s team their lives. I highly recommend this book.

We continue to fail to recognize the true enemy; the ideology that not only threatens America, but the rest of Western Civilization. This ideology is diametrically opposed to the values and freedoms that Americans hold dear. It is incompatible with our United States Constitution, nevertheless our government continues to embrace this ideology, yes, even promote it within our own borders.

“The War on Terror”

-President George W. Bush coined that phrase and was reprimanded by followers of this enemy ideology for referring to our military combat operations going into Afghanistan as “this crusade, this war on terror, is going to take a while.” in an unscripted Bush ICWDC AwadCAIR Sept17 statement 5 days after 9-11. The Council on American-Islamic Relations did not like that word “crusade”, and Mr. Bush apologized and never used it again. He also became an apologist for Islam, referring to it as “a peaceful religion” the very next day at the Islamic Center of Washington DC, while CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad looked over the left shoulder of the President. Yes, I will say it. Islam is the enemy of America, Israel, and the entire Western Society as well as all the world!

I am sick to death of everyone from the media, to government officials, to pulpits in America avoiding this controversial statement. Islam has declared war upon all nations, tribes, cultures and governments that do not submit to Islamic leadership and government. This war was declared in the 7th Century as the Islamic hoards swept across Northern Africa up into Spain, and conquering Persia, India, and Afghanistan pressing up into Eastern Europe. It has never been ended.

As you can see in my previous post, the video of the History of Jihad, Islam has been on the offensive pretty much non-stop since Muhammad conquered Mecca in 630 AD. In fact, just about every month or two now, we hear of a new jihad group declaring war on Israel and America. Islam is the arch-enemy of Judaism and Christianity. It is the enemy of paganism, atheism, and Zoroastrianism (think Yezidi people trapped on the mountain). It has conquered, murdered, subjugated, and oppressed people of all other cultures and religions for 14 Centuries. It is relentless, it is cunning. Islam is persistent. Islam is unforgiving. Islam is patient…very patient. But listen, Islam is not “Terror”, as in “the war on terror”. To say “War on Terror” is like saying “War on Blitzkrieg”. Blitzkrieg (blitz) was a tactic employed by the Nazi’s as they rolled through Europe, speedily conquering neighboring states. To declare “war on Terror” would be like Eisenhower deciding to fight only those Nazi forces who are using blitzkrieg to gain control of its victims. Or perhaps deciding that the Allies would only kill the SS troopers and avoid fighting the regular Wehrmacht, after all they were mostly draftees, and didn’t really have a choice in their situation. Utter foolishness! Does anyone remember Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg? But wars were simpler then. The enemy was anyone who aided and abetted, or participated in, the war fighting or subversive capabilities of those who engaged in activities with malice towards the United States of America and/or threatened the safety/security of American citizens and/or our allies.

“Terror” is a tactic

It is a tactic used by an enemy to render its opposition “terrified” and confused, disorganized and willing to “submit” (the very definition of “Islam”) to be ruled by Islam. Islam has learned that Western secular government officials and media drones don’t seriously hold any religious values, beliefs or practices. They understand that Europe and America have been “de-educating” their children for about 3 generations now, replacing the Judeo-Christian ethos with “Pluralism” and “Multiculturalism”. (Pluralism= All beliefs, faiths, ideologies are of equal value; Multiculturalism= No culture is superior and diversity is the modern goal for perfect cultural balance) Of course, Islam is correct in its assessment of the state of Western Culture. We have set ourselves up to be conquered. We are so willing to embrace an ideology/religion that is totally foreign to the American ideal, and so quick to refuse the true roots of everything that made America the strongest, most benevolent, peace-loving country in world history, our Judeo/Christian heritage.

Our government has been influenced in the highest offices by Islamic groups such as CAIR (HAMAS’s American PR organization), Muslim American Society, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Society of America, and the list goes on. These groups are all known Muslim Brotherhood affiliates. The Muslim Brotherhood has been classified as a terrorist organization by Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. If you haven’t read the “Explanatory Memorandum” that outlines how the Brotherhood plans to take the United States from within, please, by all means click here to read it! (The English translation begins halfway through the document) The Muslim Brotherhood also is known for its desire to re-establish the Caliphate, or “Khilafah”, the Islamic State. This is a common objective among Muslim organizations world wide, not just those “jihad” “terrorist” organizations like ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Haqqani, Al Nusra, Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, PLO, HAMAS, Hezbollah, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

Do you get the picture? For every Muslim apologist in the West who says that Islam is a peaceful religion there are many more who either actively engage in jihad, support it financially (this is where a portion of zaqat alms goes), or know that jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam and to deny it’s purpose of “warring against non-Muslims…to establish the religion”** of Islam, is to deny Islam itself!! (**Umdat al Salik, Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law [Sharia], o9.0, p. 599).

The Caliphate is that “Islamic State” that I wrote about in 2011 under the title “New Khilafah”. You can visit that article to get a bit of history about the Caliphate and why it is important to Muslims. So you see, ISIS, now known as “Islamic State” has simply put feet to the movement to establish the Caliphate, which has been the goal of Islam since the beginning, and was temporarily suspended right after WW1. ISIS is only one of a myriad of groups, here-to-fore listed, which all hold the same ideology: Islam must rule the world. Now where do you suppose all these freak extremist terrorist groups get their ideology? Well, from the same place that those “peaceful” Islamic supremicist and friendly civic/social groups (CAIR, MPAC, MSA, MAS, ICNA, ISNA, etc.) get theirs… Al Quran (Koran)!! Every one of these groups is made in Islam! Check out this Clarion Project article on Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim Brotherhood supporter who was appointed to the Dept of Homeland Security Advisory Board by the Obama Administration. Elibiary tweeted that “The Caliphate is inevitable” and touted it as an EU version of an Islamic Union of States.

I am going to quote for you the exact Koranic verses as they appear in the section of “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law” that are given as justification for jihad to establish the religion of Islam:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216) (2) “Slay them wherever you find themn” (Koran 4:89) (3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36) [Umdat al-Salik, Reliance of the Traveler, p. 599]

Then from the section under the heading “Objectives of Jihad” the same manual goes on to specify what the role of the “Caliph” is:

o.9.8 “The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Mulim poll tax (jizya…)-which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remainging in their ancestral religions) and the war continues until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax. And from o.9.9 “The caliph fights all other peoples until they becom Muslim…”

President Obama and the rest of the stooges may continue to swear that ISIS is an “extremist group” that “does not represent any religion” or speak for any faith, and are not properly following Islamic teachings. Well, both the jihadis and the silent Muslims all around the world disagree with you, sir. These are undeniable doctrines inherent in the Islamic religion/ideology. They are indisputable in their fundamental influence in the entire religion of Islam. Now, I would not say that every Muslim wants ISIS to rule the world, nor would I say that every Muslim is an “Islamist” (one who seeks to propagate the religion by whatever means, peaceful or otherwise. A Muslim who is not an Islamist is in danger of apostacy by the standards of Koran and the Sharia). But every “Islamist” does want Islam to rule the world. And while not every Islamist is a violent Jihadi terrorist, they do share the common objective of Khalifah. And those organizations I listed earlier in this article, both the Jihadi groups and the political/social groups all share that common objective, just as indicated by the Elibiary quote. “The War on Terror” cannot be won. One could just as well declare “war on child abuse” or “war on poverty” (oh, wait, we tried that one-failed), or “war on drugs” (another failed). As long as evil exists in the heart of Man, man will continue to succomb to evil. It is his natural state. Only Jesus Christ can change the heart of man.

“Brother Rachid” is a former Muslim from Morocco who had his heart changed by Christ. He has a message for President Barak Hussein Obama. Please watch.





Historical Truth: Jihad vs Crusades

1 09 2014

I am getting quite a few inquiries and invitations to speak to groups who are looking for information on the recent developments in the Middle East. Terms such as “Caliphate” are becoming more a part of America’s lexicon since “The Islamic State” (ISIS, ISIL, IS) began rolling across Syria and Iraq beheading opposition, crucifying Christians, and exiling anyone who doesn’t want to join the cause. Jihad has become a more common term to the West since 9-11, yet few actually acknowledge the reality of it, and who or what is behind it. Yes, many know it as “Holy War”, but not many Americans actually understand the tenacity and the real threat that is come upon this country. Jihad is the war, “terror” is one of the tactics of that war, and destruction of America and domination of “Allah’s Religion” is the objective. (Ask the Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the White House.) ISIS is just one of many Jihadi groups (Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Taliban, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyaff, Ansar al-Sharia, etc ad nauseum.)

As a continuation of the video series I promised, here is installment 3 from one of the best.

Dr. Bill Warner is the author of the website “Political Islam” and several books about Islam and its irreconcilable differences with other civilizations. He applies his background in math and engineering sciences to analyze Islam and uses Islamic texts and the words of Muhammad himself to expose the lies and purpose of world domination. Before Islam attacked the World Trade Center in 2001, Dr. Warner was predicting the coming war between America and Islam.

I have written much on this site about historical Islam and even forayed into the Crusades early on. One of the chief arguments from Islam in defense of “Jihad” is the accusation toward the West, and Christianity in particular, decrying the Crusades. In this video, Dr. Warner has developed a timeline battlemap that gives context to both “jihad” and the “Crusades”. Jihad began with Muhammad in about 623 AD. The first Crusade did not happen until 1095.

Spend 5 minutes and learn which party has inflicted unyielding war and unending death upon the world since its inception. I think you will be enlightened.





Would Be Wichita “Bomber” a Self-Proclaimed Islamic Terrorist

13 12 2013

ON Friday Dec 13 FBI Agents arrested 58 year old Terry Loewen, Avionics Technician, (and Muslim convert), for attempting to bomb the Wichita, KS Mid-Continent Airport.  FBI had been investigating Loewen for months, during which time he repeatedly expressed his desire to “please Allah” and to “be active in some kind of… jihad to feel I’m doing something proactive for the Ummah…”

KWCH Eyewitness 12 News released this older photo of Loewen

The FBI agents, who posed as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula operatives in the sting, communicated for months with Loewen to clarify his intent.  When Loewen was ready and fully committed to a “martyrdom operation” (suicide bombing) in which he and one of the “brothers” (FBI posing as Al Qaeda) were to die in a truck laden with C4 on the tarmac of the Wichita airport early Friday morning when maximum number of “target” aircraft were present with passengers.

Loewen’s “self-radicalization” is not an isolated incident, and is only a portion of what US Government officials, and media alike, refer to as “Home-grown Terrorists”.  The term “home-grown” is somewhat misleading, and deflects attention away from the fundamentalist Islamic Jihad that is underway in many forms throughout the US and Europe.  In fact, initial reports played down or ignored Loewen’s Islamic ideology, one stating that he had no ties to any Wichita religious group.

Terry Loewen is a true fundamentalist as described in his own words,

As time goes on I care less and less about what other people think of me,
or my views of lslam. I have been studying subjects like jihad, martyrdom
operations, and Sharia law.2 I don’t understand how you can read the
Qur’an and the sunnah3 of the Prophet (saw)a and not understand that
jihad and the implementation of Sharia is absolutely demanded of all the
Muslim Ummah

This statement could not be more true, as I have written previously in “The Myth of Self Radicalization” and here in “Fundamentals“.  Loewen went on in later communication to express his satisfaction with his decision to become a “shaheed” (martyr) for the cause of Allah:

“All is good with me. lnshallah, this operation will be huge. Just to be a
part of any operation with these brothers is a great honor for me, but of
(sic) it can instill and great financial loss to the tagoot who run this
country, then I will truly feel blessed. I pray the peace of Allah(swt) will
be upon you and the other brothers. May this mission, inshalla h, be
fruitful for all of us.”

In a letter dated 12/11/13 to a family member, Loewen left these final remarks:

“By the time you read this I will – if everything went as planned- have
been martyred in the path of Allah. Therewill have been an event atthe
airport which I am responsible for. The operation was timed to cause
maximum carnage + death. [. . .] My only explanation is that I believe in
jihad for the sake of Allah + for the sake of my Muslim brothers + sisters.
[. . .] Fact is, most Muslims in this country will condemn what I have done.
[. . .] I expect to be called a terrorist (which I am), a psychopath, and a
homicidal maniac.”

Courtroom sketch of Terry Loewen arraigned Friday, Dec 13. Published by KAKE.com Wichita

Terry Loewen was arrested after his disabled ID badge failed to open the gate allowing the “explosive” laden truck access to the tarmac area.

I will be waiting to hear the voices of those Muslims in this country who condemn his action, but more specifically those who disavow Jihad as a fundamental and integral part of Islamic doctrine, and Islamic Sharia Law.

In spite of all the scandals in government in the last few years,  I tip my hat to the FBI agents who got to this guy before the real AQAP Brothers did.

[Terry Loewen quotes from official FBI Criminal Complaint document here.]





Milestones in Review – Reposted

30 05 2013

There has been quite a lot of interest in this article recently, so I have republished it for any new “Defining the Narrative” readers, or those who may have missed it or would like a refresher.  One of my first articles, it has continued to grow popularity.

I recently read the book Milestones by Seyyid Qutb.  He is considered by some to be the father of the modern Islamic revolution.220px-Qutb

Milestones was written from an Egyptian prison in 1964. Qutb had spent 2 years in America several years prior, and reported that his prejudices had been confirmed concerning American depravity. America was ripe for the picking.

Qutb’s book wasn’t his first, or his longest work, but perhaps Milestones has had the most impact on the modern world. Although some attribute the modern “Islamic Revolution” to this book, that was not exactly the outcome that Qutb desired.

Actually, Islamic Revival was his desire and purpose. Milestones was to be the “vanguard” publication to accomplish this. By initiating a revival of Islam among those who profess it, the natural outcome would then be an alteration of the course of human history. Revolution would not be necessary, but world conquest would be at hand. Revival of the fundamentals of Islam within the culture itself would make Islam irresistible in both principle and on the battlefield. A revived and truly Muslim population in the cause of Allah would be invincible.

Islam had, according to Qutb, become compromised by moderates and liberals (Muslim) who, for various reasons, embraced Western Culture and prosperity. Obviously the development of Middle Eastern oil fields was responsible for most of this merging of the two worlds, and the petro-dollar brought an ancient culture roaring forward into the industrialized 20th century with so much speed, there was no time for gradual adaptation. Yet today, there is a stark contrast within these countries, and without the petro-dollar they would shrivel back into the desert survivalist culture of a mere century ago.

Seyyid was disturbed by the fact that Muslims, during the first half of the 20th Century, were with a few exceptions, content to “live and let live”, professing Islam while immersed in ‘Jahili’ (the state of ignorance of guidance of Allah) culture. A Muslim should withdraw from all Jahilayyah relationships and become joined completely to Islam just as Muhammad and the Companions had disavowed all ties to polytheism and its adherents. A Muslim cannot be true Muslim, submitted to Allah, and retain any ties to non-Islamic influences. Qutb laments, “This is why the true Islamic values never enter our hearts, why our minds are never illuminated by Islamic concepts, and why no group of people arises among us who are of the caliber of the first generation of Islam.” He then adjures, “We must return to that pure source from which those people derived their guidance…[their]concepts of…the universe, the nature of human existence…Our aim is first to change ourselves so that we may later change the society…this system which is fundamentally at variance with Islam…”

Qutb’s call to all Islam was a return to Fundamentalism, that being the founding principles of Islam. This “revival” within Islam would then lead to political reformation in Islamic countries, bringing to bear those governments which had established within their own constitutions; that Islam is the official state religion and Islamic jurisprudence (Shari’a) is the law of the land. This move to “right” Egypt’s secularized government along with his fellow members of “Muslim Brotherhood” is the reason he was imprisoned and consequently executed by “The Arab Republic of Egypt” in 1966.

Egypt was but one of the Islamic Republics which had not implemented Shari’a as enumerated in its own constitution. Turkey is the most widely known which has managed, even today, to maintain a modicum of separation (though currently very tenuous) between religion and state; for practical purposes a secularized government. The United States has, in fact, assisted in the establishment of two of the latest Islamic Republics of the world; Iraq and Afghanistan, complete with constitutions which name Islam as the official religion.

Seyyid Qutb goes on in Milestones to express disdain for Muslim apologists who insist that Jihad” is simply defensive war.  He refers to them as “defeatists”, and explains thatJihad is the means by which to establish the Divine Law (Shari’a).  Jihad, according to Qutb as well as Koran, is offensive action that “tries to annihilate all those political and material powers which stand between people and Islam…It is not the intention of Islam to force its beliefs on people, but Islam is not merely ‘belief’.” Then he clarifies, “…in an Islamic system there is room for all kinds of people to follow their own beliefs, while obeying the laws of the country which are themselves based on the Divine authority (Shari’a).”

In other words, you can believe whatever you want, but you will live according to Shari’a LawThis is the mission of Islam defined: Not to convert the entire world to Islamic belief; but to bring the entire world under submission to Shari’a, or Islamic Law.

Muslims are not to commit allegiance to a nation or state or geographic area. 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. “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]…”

Dar ul Islam is the “house of Islam” which “is that place where the Islamic state is established and the Shari’a is the authority…” The rest of the world is the “house of war” or Dar ul Harb. “A Muslim can have only two possible relations with Dar ul Harb: peace with a contractual agreement [hudna or truce], or war.”

Seyyid further explains, “But any place where the Islamic Shari’a is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes [Dar ul Harb]”.

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…”

This book, the “vanguard” of modern Islamic Fundamentalism, written in 1964 has inspired Jihadists, Mujahidin and Shahada (“martyrs” aka suicide bombers) for 45 years. Seyyid Qutb is considered Shahid by fundamentalist Muslims around the world. I have read several books from and on Islam and would recommend Milestones as essential reading for one who desires to understand the purpose and designs of modern Islam and the resolve of Islamic fundamentalists.





The Myth of “Self Radicalization” and the Fallacy of “Radical Islam” – Part 2 of “Jihad? No Jihad Here…”

10 05 2013

Media Trilobites continue to bump into and feed each other nonsensical buzz words that become trendy for a few weeks and are eventually absorbed into the pop culture lexicon.  These phrases or terms may lie dormant for ages until suddenly they’re on every television commentator’s lips.  If we can’t find a word in the English language to spin up to instant glory, we’ll borrow one from another language.  Al Gore did just that when he described himself as having “gravitas” during his run for the White House. Nearly instantaneously, every talking head in the country was using the heavy Latin word, until finally Chris Mathews commented that Barack Obama’s gravitas caused a tingle to run up his leg.  It kinda lost its punch after that.

But the real point here is the incessant blathering about “self radicalized” terrorists, specifically the brothers Tsarnaev, better known as the Boston Bombers, who are responsible for nearly 270 maimed, wounded, or dead.

Disregarding the obvious elephant in the room, both the government and the media, began hunting for fleas and swatting at gnats.  “Whatever could be the reason for this horrendous tragedy?”  The story line continued for hours into days that this had to be the work of some “right wing extremists”, and even the President floated a hint or two about April 15th being “tax day”, of course insinuating it was a right-wing tax protest, obviously connected to the Tea Party, just like so many other terrorist related events have been linked to them.  Like the first bombing of the World Trade Center back in ’93; no wait, that was Islamic jihad.  Oh, like the 911 attacks when Tea Party members flew passenger airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and were headed for the White House; oh…sorry, those were Islamic jihadist hijackers. Well, like the DC Snipers who terrorized the city for 3 weeks in 2002; no wait, they were Islamic also.  Well then there was the White Supremacist, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and wounded another in front of the recruiting office in Arkansas in 2009; sorry, again Islamic jihad.

Well…there are so many events that are known to have connections to “conservative right wing Christian radicals” such as: The Fort Hood Massacre when that Christian shooter yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ as he gunned down 40 people, killing 13.  The 2009 Riverdale New York bomb plot planned by 4 radical Tea Party grandma’s, the Times Square Bomber who had his SUV full of propane tanks and fireworks (surely some redneck like Larry the Cable Guy), the “Fort Dix Six”, the “Underwear Bomber”, the “Shoe Bomber”, etcetera ad nauseam.

My, my, what could it be? What ever could it be that is initiating all these attacks and plots?

[According to this Congressional report, there have been well over 60 successful, attempted, or plotted Islamic Jihad Terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11-2001.]

Of course, most of these were played off as “Lone Wolf” scenarios where the terrorist was “self-radicalized”.

Listening to all the ‘crack investigative reporters and hard-hitting journalists’, one could come to the conclusion that these guys just must wake up one morning and “self-radicalize” deciding today is a good day to kill some people’.

This term is a copout for lazy journalists and downright deceiving when used by anyone.  A person cannot “self-radicalize” any more than “self-socialize”.  There must be a cause, a mentor, or an ideology that brings a person to the point that he is willing to, no, compelled to kill random people that he doesn’t even know.

That mentor, in many cases, is a spiritual leader.  That cause, or ideology, which is that rather enormous and obnoxious “elephant in the room” that none of the trilobites are willing to discuss?  Islam.

Forget Islam as a Religion

The sooner Americans refuse to continue accepting Islam as a viable and peaceful “religion” and begin to view it as the sociopolitical ideology that it truly is, the greater the possibility the America will survive its onslaught.

The root problem for America is not that Islam has come to colonize her, which it has, but the fact that we have allowed “multi-culturalism” (immigration without assimilation) and “pluralism” (all cultures, ideologies, realities are equal) to progress unchecked resulting in a “balkanized” or “tribal” society wherein competing ideologies are viewed as co-equal.  Not all ideologies are conducive to civilized society, nor are they consistent with the basic premise of freedom, as established in America’s founding documents.

If I were to try to convince you that Germany’s National Socialism (Nazism) is a peaceful ideology that was hijacked by a few “self radicalized” individuals, resulting in the holocaust, you’d laugh in my face.  Well, that’s a pretty good comparison: You have a ‘prophet’ by the name of Hitler who sought to consolidate power under a banner of a unified ideology by clearing the field of competing ideologies, and went to war in order to stoke the economy and gain control of more land area.  Had Muhammad access to German weapons of mass destruction he would certainly not have hesitated to use them.   Hitler’s Holocaust resulted in an estimated 11 Million deaths, many of which were communist (because Karl Marx was Jewish), mentally or physically handicapped, Jehovah’s Witness, homosexual, or Christian leaders such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer who refused to place their names upon the “Aryan Clause” and become “Reich Churches” to do the bidding of the “almighty Fuhrer”.   But his “Final Solution” for 6 million Jews had already been proven and prescribed by Islam’s prophet Muhammad in the Arabian Peninsula 1400 years prior in places with such names as Banu Quaraysa and Khaybar, where Muhammad slaughtered unarmed male prisoners and enslaved the girls, and women, finally appropriating all Jewish property to Muslims.

Both economies required perpetual war.  (The fundamental Islamic world view is “Dar al-Islam” or Dar al-Harb: The world is divided and you either dwell in the “House of Islam”, where Islam rules, or you dwell in the “House of War” and are subject to Jihad.)

Both ideologies have religious overtones (Hitler was worshipped and given a godlike status).  Both ‘prophets’ were consumed with power.  Both cultures fostered distrust and suspicion (Gestapo was everywhere and anyone who challenged the Prophet was dealt with harshly.)  Both Nazism and Islam are fundamentally racist.   Neither can compete philosophically with opposing values, absent of an oppressive legal system or war.

Consider the following argument:

“Well, you know those “Brown Shirts” are really not as bad as the SS or Gestapo.  Now those SS are some evil dudes.  SS are the real “radical” Nazi’s.  The Brownshirts might beat you up but those SS will kill you!  We really need to reach out to those individuals and find out why they hate us so much.  But most of the Nazi’s are moderate.  They aren’t violent at all.  Sure, they go to the rallies where Hitler is speaking, but they’re just normal folks like you and me!  They want the same for their families as we all want.  Yeah, Nazism is actually a very patriotic and peaceful ideology, it’s just been hijacked by some radicals who seek to politicize it, and destroy property and kill people and take their property in the name of this peaceful movement.” 

Well, as you can see this defense of Nazism just doesn’t fly!  Ironically, this is the exact apologetic defense that Islam gets from not only the American mainstream media, but from our government as well!

“Self Radicalization”

This term makes about as much sense as “Obamacare”.  An individual who is willing to commit a violent act of mass murder and mayhem in the name of his god, or any other cause, is soaked in an ideology which is taught or programmed into a person’s psyche.  That ideology doesn’t simply spawn in the mind of the perpetrator.  It comes from someone else, whether through print or other media; from a teacher, guide or mentor.  But the term “self radicalize” is specifically designed to deflect attention from that aforementioned ‘elephant’ sitting in the middle of the room.

Islam is that ideology and it can be taught by other people or the documents themselves, the Koran, Hadith, and countless commentaries and books of Islamic scholars (such as Seyyid Qutb) may be read and studied by the individual, even to the point of the student acting upon those teachings.  Tamerlan Tsarnaev did not “self-radicalize” anymore than Nidal Hasan or Osama bin Ladin.  He was taught.  He was taught the purest form of Islam, the Fundamentals of Islam. He believed it, he consumed it, and finally it consumed him.  His actions were based on his faith in his Scriptures (Koran), his prophet (Muhammad), and his god (Allah).

“We Love Death more than You Love Life”

The first victim of Islam is the Muslim.  Islam is, as I have pointed out before, a Great Black Beast.  It will consume everyone in its path if left unchecked, until finally there is no competing religion or ideology permitted.  There is a creed that surfaces occasionally when studying the Islamic culture which is so shaped by the obligatory act of jihad: “We love death more than you love life.” It has been a part of Islam since its earliest doctrines were formulated during that period immediately following Muhammad’s death in 632 (AD). This is that age of Islamic conquest the four “Rightly Guided Caliphs”, It is used by Hamas in their propaganda media.  It was recently used in a letter to the British government by six terrorists who pleaded guilty of planning an attack on the EDL last year.   It was repeated by the Madrid terrorists and actually earned a slide in a power point presentation by Nidal Hassan prior to his jihad attack which resulted in 13 dead and 32 wounded at Fort Hood, Texas. Islam is the largest death cult in the world. Those countries and regions where Islam rules unchecked are anything but bastions of freedom.

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) came up with a new word in order to try to embarrass and defeat anyone who opposes Islam.  They have been quite successful in defining the Islamic narrative in the United States.  That word is “Islamophobia”. The goal is to paint opposition to Islam as bigoted, racist, and xenophobic.  It doesn’t stick.  Sorry CAIR, I am not afraid of Islam, I am not a racist, nor am I a bigot.   But I will tell you what true “Islamophobia” is.  Just as the word says, “Fear of Islam”.  But CAIR has misplaced the word.

Islamophobia is when a free press self-censors for fear of offending Muslims and consequential retribution from Islam.

Islamophobic is a government which refuses to name the enemy in a war which has been declared on the United States of America by the collective ideology called Islam, for fear of political influence of CAIR, ISNA, ICNA among Islamic organizations, and fear the Saudi’s will pull out of Wall Street and crash our economy.

Islamophobic is a White House which is more interested in “winning the hearts and minds” of a sworn enemy than defeating him, while Islamic groups like CAIR and the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) filter every training manual and terrorism report issued by the Pentagon.

Islamophobia is when a military acquiesces to the demands of that same sworn enemy to deny Christian or Jewish religious ministry to its own soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen on sovereign soil of our military bases in Afghanistan, but allows an Imam to pray over our dead SEAL’s at Baghram AFB, damning their souls in the name of Allah.

Islamophobic is a President who is more interested in punishing the producer of a two-bit video “slandering the prophet” than he is about punishing those who murdered 4 Americans in Benghazi, Libya in a jihad attack, for fear that he will lose the upcoming election if he offends Muslims.  THAT, my friends is “Islamophobia”.

In the words of Billy Vaughn, father of Aaron Vaughn, one of 26 Navy Seals killed in the “Extorsion 17” helo crash in Wardok Province in 2012, “When you hide the truth, you become part of the lie.”

Americans must face the truth.  We have allowed our government and our media to hide the truth. We have hidden our own faces from the truth.  The ideology that is Islam is fundamentally, and diametrically opposed to America and all that she stands for.





Obama is not a Muslim; He is a Progressocom

21 02 2013

H/T wnd.com

I continue to see and have good, well-meaning folks come up to me and talk about President Barack Obama being a Muslim.  I have many close friends, and faithful readers, who also believe that he is Muslim.   It is invariably a topic that comes up during the discussion time when I speak on the subject of Islam.  I have studied this issue quite in depth and have come to the following conclusions.

Technically, by parentage, Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim because in Islam if your father is Muslim, you are Muslim. It’s just the opposite of Judaism where if your mother is Jewish then you are Jewish. That makes sense because Islam, contrived by Satan himself, inverts everything.

You see,  according to the fundamentals of Islam, Allah is not simply another name for God such as YHWH, Hashem, Elohim, Adonni for the Jew, or Jehovah, Creator, Almighty, or Yeshua or Jesus for the Christian, or follower of Christ.  The character traits are different for Allah, than for the Creator God of many Names.  The difference is really quite simple:  Creator God of the Bible/Tanakh is the God of Light, Love and Life.  His “type” in Scripture is the Sun, “the Bright and morning Star”, Giver of Life, God of grace and redemption.  Allah is the god of Darkness, Damnation, and Death.  His “type” is the Moon, the Ruler of Darkness, Dictator of Law (Sharia) and purveyor of Death.

Bush ICWDC AwadCAIR Sept17

Pres. Bush with Nihad Awad and others at Islamic Center of Washington, DC, 9/17/01. National Archives Photo

However, technicalities aside, Obama is not a practicing Muslim. He is not a Christian either, though he does profess to be so. Neither do I believe him to be a Muslim practicing Taqiyya, or deception, in order to advance Islam.  (Taqiyya is a tactic used where lying is permitted, even commanded, in order to advance the cause.)

Yes, I know that much of the Islamic world believes he is Muslim.  Many Americans believe he is a Muslim and this story about Obama’s “shahada” ring from World Net Daily gives a convincing argument.  Further, I do agree that he seems to favor Islam in both his foreign and domestic policies.  [However, in all fairness, his policies dealing with Islam, both at home and abroad, are not unlike his predecessor, George Bush’s. I remember post 9-11 that President Bush was the one who said that Islam was a peaceful religion that had been hi-jacked by extremists.  (That statement was the impetus which prompted me to begin my study of Islam.)  In fact, it was President Clinton, (not Thomas Jefferson) who held the first White House Iftar Dinner to celebrate Ramadan. Bush continued that tradition, bringing more importance to it in the aftermath of 9-11.]

No, Barack Obama is neither Christian or Muslim. Those both require faith in a deity more powerful than one’s self. He is a Narcissist and believes that he, Barack Obama, is the smartest, most eloquent, and best looking guy in whatever room he occupies.

He is a Marxist, no doubt. As such, he is atheist, which is at odds with Islam or Christianity in any form, his ring notwithstanding.  As a Marxist, he believes that Socialism/Communism will work – it just hasn’t been tried by the right people yet. He, and his Progressive/Socialist/Communist (ProgresSoComs) cronies are the “right people”.

Saul Alinsky is the closest thing to deity that this man trusts in. Alinsky’s tactics of smash and burn down the status quo and all supporting structures, divide and conquer, and politics of personal destruction, is not much different from the Islamic tactic of Jihad.  The end justifies the means.

The basic principal of Socialism/Communism is redistribution of wealth, with the governing power in the hands of a very few elite. For this reason Muslims vote Democrat.  Fear of the governing structure, and intimidation, along with hyperbolic misinformation are used as tools to keep people divided and ensure they will not unite against the authority, whether that authority is Islam or any other authoritarian governmental structure.  The old Arab proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, is brought into play.

This is why Barack Obama has allied himself with Islam. The principals are parallel. The tactics not dissimilar. The objective is the same.  The only practical difference is that Islam is “Theistic” wherein they believe they are on a mission from a god. Obama and his fellows believe the state is god. Both entities are fundamentally at odds with America as she has historically existed. This is what Obama meant by “fundamentally transforming America.” Both parties want America to fall. Both parties believe after it does, they will be able to overcome their expedient ally.

It would be interesting to know who will win in this scenario – Obama and the Progressocoms, or Islam.   Nevertheless, I hope I do not see it…





“The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Would Slander the Prophet of Islam”

1 10 2012

“The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.”

A friend had called and told me of this quote by the President of the United States and I must admit, I did not believe it.  This friend calls me often to discuss world events and usually has his facts right.  He is the only person I know who can read a newspaper, listen to the television, and carry on a coherent conversation all at the same time, and tell you detailed information from all three sources.  I am jealous!

I asked him to see if he could confirm that with another source while I began to research myself.  A news break confirmed it, and I still couldn’t believe it!  I began to text a few close and trusted friends who hadn’t yet heard it.  Then a while later they began texting back that “…Obama also spoke against violence against Christians.”  So I watched the entire speech at the UN myself. Then again.  And finally a third and fourth time, rewinding and replaying several key points.  So here is my analysis of Barack Obama’s speech before the UN General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2012.

The underlying theme of the entire speech was “Tolerance”.  This should not surprise anyone, anywhere, as it is the prevailing theme of Leftist/Progressive/Socialist ideology around the world, particularly in the West.  The only problem with those who preach tolerance, is they aren’t.  Most of the time when someone demands your tolerance of something be it speech, morality, or behavior, is not asking for your mere “tolerance” of them, but demand your codification of whatever it is. But I digress!

While the “overt” theme was tolerance and “mutual respect”, the main subject matter related directly to the stupid little Youtube video which made fun of Muhammad and Islam.  It looked like something high school kids might come up with. Very poorly done and amateurish.  I question not only the source of production, but also the fact that United States Government officials are bending over backwards to disavow the stupid thing.  As Shakespeare would say, “Methinks he doth protest too much”.

The President did the right thing by formally paying tribute to Ambassador Chris Stevens killed by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.  Next he posed a valiant effort in standing up for freedom of speech, especially as we know and understand it in America, while recognizing that “not all countries” share our belief in free speech.

Mr. Obama then addressed the violent reactions to the video, blaming the actions of a few backward extremists for the attacks and calling them to leave the cause of violence  and politics of destruction behind and join with us to create a better future….Kumbayah!  Oh, I have no problem with what he said, and he said it well, but either his naivety or his chronic narcissism has clouded his view of the real world.  Especially, the Islamic world.  You see, these “extremist impulses” which “divide the world into us and them”, are part and parcel of the Sharia which all Muslims are obligated to establish so that there is no more “us and them”; that is Dar al-Harb (“House of War”-anywhere that is not under Islamic control) has been absorbed by Dar al-Islam  (“House of Submission”) and “Allah’s religion shall reign supreme!” (Quran 8:36)

No Mr. President, this violent Islamic extremist activity has been going on now for over 14 centuries, and will not ever cease until the 2nd Coming of Christ!  It is not the result of the infidel Americans casting aspersions upon the “prophet”, nor the result of American or even Western intervention in Islamic lands or Colonialism of 3 centuries gone by.  It has been going on since the “Prophet” was exiled from Mecca in 623 AD!

Back to the speech.  Nearly 20 minutes into the speech, Mr. Obama began a series of comments about “the future”.   Now, lest I be accused of taking the lead quotation out of context, I will include the whole of these comments here in block quotes and follow each phrase with commentary in [brackets].

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt, it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted ‘Muslims/Christians, We are One!’.

[I have no problem with this statement and commend the President for drawing attention to the Coptic’s plight at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

The future must not belong to those who bully women, it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.  [Again, the words of the President are spot on.]

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources, it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who see a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stand with. Theirs is the vision we will support.  [Not quite sure what Mr. Obama is driving at here but will assume that he is speaking to historic European Colonialism.]

The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam. But, to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated,  or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.  [I want to come back to this!]

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shia Pilgrims.  [Let’s do that!]

It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” [Gandhi also said, “A religion which takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them is no religion.”]

In analyzing this portion of the speech, which in my opinion was the most interesting, I consulted with an attorney friend of mine.  As we went through the points about “The future must not belong to _____”, she brought to my attention that each of the crimes pointed out; violence/assault/murder (specifically here against the Copts) against any  people, beating/bullying women, stealing, these are all crimes recognized quite objectively by any legal system.

Slander on the other hand, i.e. “The future must not belong to those who would slander the Prophet of Islam.”, is quite subjective and as Muhammad has been dead for, well a long time, a dead man cannot be slandered or defamed.  Especially under American jurisdiction, where an opinion is freely expressed about anything or anyone.  Free Speech according to our First Amendment of the Constitution.  Legally, a plaintiff charging slander must prove in court that he/she has been defamed by the defendant at a personal cost, be it economic or social.  Muhammad cannot do that and since no one is alive who actually knew him to speak on his behalf, the charge is not provable.  If I call Muhammad a pedophile I am not slandering, because he actually had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl, molesting her much earlier at the age of 6.  If I call him a robber and a thief, I am not slandering because his raids of caravans are documented.  If I call him demon possessed, I am not slandering because Muhammad himself thought he was demon possessed and contemplated suicide.  If I call him an idiot, that is my opinion, and as such that is all it is worth.  Sharia cannot stand either historical fact or the opinion of a dissident!

Only under Islamic Law, ala the Sharia, can someone be charged with slander by criticizing Muhammad, or Islam, or even Muslims.  In America you can criticize any religious figure, book, government official, teacher, neighbor, or family member without fear of retribution.  It is an essential and inherent right, and the Founders understood freedom of speech to be so, in order to arrive at the truth of any matter and specifically to maintain personal liberty without fear of an oppressive governmental authority.  In Islam, Sharia is the government.

The other thing about this sentence in Mr. Obama’s speech is this.  This is a stand alone statement.  Anything that he adds afterward is merely window dressing, but taken at face value, all he is saying here is “if you condemn the slander of Muhammad you must also condemn hate.”  Hate, which presumably results in actions of desecration of icons, destruction of churches, or denying the Holocaust.  So are we to simply condemn the hate and not the action, or should we include hate as a crime, or what about prosecuting those who actually committed the crimes of destruction of property or causing personal injury?

Sometimes I wonder what planet these ideologues come from where they deny basic human instinct and behavior!  They never consider that aspect of human nature which, as fallen from the original state of Creation, is selfish, driven by his own lusts, and violent.  In the Psalms, King David writes the rhetorical question, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?”  The answer of course is “Because they are heathen and people are vain!”   But David says it better, “The kings of the Earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.'”  Rebellion against God always results in destruction, whether personal, or national, or cultural.  Islam has chosen another god from the God of the Bible and the result is darkness, blood and pain, not only for those who are in it, but now it has come to all the world.

Barack Obama’s eloquent speech was just so much white noise in the chambers of the UN General Assembly.  Immediately following Obama, Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari demanded insults to religion be criminalized.  Over a dozen people were killed there in protests against the film, while they burned President Obama in effigy.  “The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression,” he said.

Mohamed Mursi, the new Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt echoed that sentiment on Wednesday.  “Egypt respects freedom of expression, freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone,” he said. “We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us.”

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time to put an end to the protection of Islamophobia masquerading as the freedom to speak freely.

Outside the United Nations in New York, about 150 protesters demanded “justice” and chanted “there is no god but Allah” outside the U.N. building on Thursday. One placard read: “Blaspheming my Prophet must be made a crime at the U.N.

Islamic leaders in Dearborn, MI, held a protest on Friday, Sept 28, protesting freedom of speech, demanding laws that criminalize hurting the feelings of Muslims.

Yeah, me too…





Sharia Law: What is it?

1 02 2012

If you have come to this site because of the headline question, I applaud your interest.  There is much confusion as to what Sharia is and is not.  I will endeavor to make this introduction to Sharia as simple and concise as possible, using quotes and references to Sharia’s own documentation*.  For point of reference, “Sharia” translates “the Right Path”.

Most Americans believe Sharia to be no different to Muslims than the Catechism to Catholics or church tenants to Protestant Christians.  Absolutely NOT so.  Many Islamist groups such as CAIR, MSA, MAS, MPAC, ISNA, ICNA, and many others have allowed that false idea to perpetrate and even promoted it, under the Sharia principle of “taqiyya” (deception), as a religious freedom issue protected under the Constitution.

Taqiyya is not only permission by Sharia, but direction to lie [r8.1 “…obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory…” (which Jihad/dawa is)] in order to advance the cause of Islam, which is not to convert the entire world to be Muslim; but to bring the entirety of the world under rule of Sharia.  In other words, you can be a Christian or Jew or even Zoroastrian, and live under rule of Sharia as a second class citizen.  This is called “Dhimmitude”.  It is covered in Sharia under the section on “Jihad” [o9.O] as “Non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic State (Al-Dhimma)” [subsection o11.O].  This status of “mercy” is extended to any religion whose sacred book is recognized by Islam at the time of Muhammud.  It does not include idol worshipers, pagans, athiests, Mormons, Sikhs, Bahais, etc. These people are given opportunity to convert to Islam or die.

As a “dhimmi”, or subject of Islam, you must agree to acquiesce to Islam in all things.  Pay the “Jizya tax”, the “non-Muslim poll tax” (protection money), refrain from any public display of non-Islamic religion including funerals, weddings, Barmitzva’s, ringing of church bells, display of crosses, menorah’s, Star’s of David, etc., because these practices and symbols are an affront to Islam.  You may not quote Scripture aloud, celebrate Holy Days (Christmas, Easter, Passover, etc) and pork and wine are strictly forbidden.  Proselytizing Muslims, criticizing Islam or Muhammud, and many other things are treated under the code of Sharia as subject to capital punishment[o11.11 referencing o9.14].

These are just a couple of relevant subjects discussed in Sharia. Sharia is the legal skeleton which supports the full and complete practice of Islam.  Without Sharia you have no Islam (“Submission”).  Without Sharia, Islam is powerless.

Never think for one minute that Islam is simply a religion, comparable to other religions, and Sharia is simply it’s tenants, or statement of faith.  Islam is a complete socio-political ideology with its own jurisprudence, wearing a veil of religion.

Islam, by its very nature, must not co-exist with other religions, and the “Great Commission” given to Muslims is to bring the World into subjection to Islam, establish the Sharia, so that “Allah’s religion reign Supreme” [Quran 8:39].

I mentioned earlier that Islamists are promoting Sharia as simply a religious freedom issue, protected under the Constitution of the United States.  Sharia flies in the face of the Constitution.  Under Sharia there is no separation of “mosque and state” because under Sharia the legal authority is the Imam.  Just in the few examples I set forth previously, there are numerous infringements upon individual Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religious choice without government oversight, freedom of fraternization, and the list goes on.

Article Six of the US Constitution declares the Constitution to be the Law of the Land,  so therefore Sharia attempts to abrogate the Constitution.  There’s another term familiar with Islamic Jurists, “Abrogation”. (Check it out here)

There are currently running, advertisements by ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America-a Muslim Brotherhood operative) across the country on radio and billboards, which denounce man-made law (Constitution) and extol the virtues of Sharia (“God’s Law”)-they are saying “God’s Law” because if they said “Allah’s Law” you would immediately reject it.  I have heard these advertisements on the radio myself.

ICNA Billboard Kansas City, KS

It is no coincidence these ads began at the same time that most States Legislature’s convened for 2012. Some 20 states are considering “American Laws for American Courts”, or something very similar which will codify the already established and proven Constitution of the United States, prohibiting use of any jurisprudence which does not protect the rights and liberties of ALL people according to the Constitution.

Islamist groups are opposing this measure as a religious freedom issue and charging racism, xenophobia, and bigotry.  Sorry.  This law is teflon coated…those charges won’t stick.

*[Quotes and References from: “Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”, by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, accepted by Islamic Scholars around the world as the authoritative English translation]

UPDATE:  This advertising campaign coincided with hearings in Kansas (and other states) on the “American Laws for American Courts” legislation, Kansas HB 2087. This bill underscores the liberties and freedoms set forth in the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Kansas.  It will in no wise prohibit international contracts, but will protect individual freedoms and the right to be judged according to US and/or Kansas Law in court, and preclude use 0f Sharia or other law contradicting the Constitution.






Islamic Reformation

18 03 2011

Islam will never have a reformation

There has been lots of talk recently focused on the “Reformation” that Islam is currently experiencing. There are a handful of good people, Muslims, like Dr. Zudhi Jassar of Phoenix who is working tirelessly to bring a liberal view of Islam to life; and Ali Eteraz, who’s articles in the UK Guardian discuss the need to form a ‘Muslim Left’ which denies the legitimacy of theocratic governments.

However, these voices are lost in the cacophony of rhetoric from pro-Islamist groups such as CAIR, MAS, MSA, MPAC, ISNA, ICNA and the like. Then there is dawa, or “Islamic colonialism” being practiced and promoted far and wide by the “Turkish Delegation” through groups like the Turquoise Council of American Eurasians (TCAE), The Gulen Institute, and the Raindrop Turkish Houses which host countless receptions, breakfasts, socials, and trips to Turkey for public officials including everyone from the local firehouse, to city councils and mayors, to state legislators. These latter lobbyists forge relationships that serve to influence support and introduction of legislation particularly friendly to Islam.

Many self ascribed “experts” and “intellectuals” and bleeding heart “moderates” in American politics and academia have declared that Islam is struggling to emerge through a “Reformation” of the religion that will purify it and allow it to shed it’s violent and oppressive political nature, keeping intact those virtuous qualities of peace and benevolence with those who do not share the same beliefs. Usually they cite the Christian Reformation as the model for such a phenomena.

These pundits and commentators obviously have no grasp of religion of any kind, never mind the complex system we call Islam.

Christian Reformation

Firstly, I want to clarify that the Christian Reformation wasn’t about purifying or modernizing a “religion” or “faith”. The basis of the Christian faith, the Holy Bible, written by forty different inspired people over a period spanning 1500 years, was left intact and unchanged (although translated into several languages, which had been previously forbidden by Rome) throughout the process of the Reformation. The movement of “Reform” was a political move against the Papal authority of an organized Church over the whole of “Christendom”, which was a result unification of church and state by Constantine in 325 AD. There was nothing Biblical about this political move by the Emperor of Rome. Constantine unified church and state in order to preserve the Empire after Rome had failed to stamp out Christianity for 200 years. In fact, Jesus Himself actually taught separation of church and state when He was asked if the Jews should pay taxes to the Romans. His answer was “Whose image is on this coin? (Caesar’s) So then give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and give to God that which is God’s.” (Of course the image of God is in mankind.)

The Reformation was not about changing the fundamentals of the Bible. It was a political movement. Thus, the “Protesting” resulted in “Protestants” rejecting the authority of the Papacy. [Indeed it was a bit more complex, but in a nutshell this was the Christian Reformation.] While there were some liturgical and practical changes made, the Bible was still the foundational document delineating the teachings of the founder, that being Jesus Christ, the perfect model for the aspiring Christian. The “fundamentals” remain yet today.

The glaring problem for “Islamic Reformation” is this: The fundamentals are flawed. Not only the self proclaimed prophet Muhammad, but the Koran itself is rife with inconsistencies. But the inconsistencies are not even the main problem. (These may be understood when considering the Islamic principle of “Abrogation”. That is to say if there are two differing instructions on the same matter, the latter verse abrogates the former.)

The consistent themes of the Koran and Hadith carried by the enforcement of Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia Law) through an over arching political ideology are so intertwined they can never be separated. To live the fundamentals of Islam is to practice “Islamization” on a global scale because this is what Islam demands. There can be no separation of religion and state because the “religion’s” legal system must run the state, and will if Islam is allowed to run its natural course to fruition.

Islam is not simply a belief or a religion.

This has been the mistake of the last 50 years, especially here in America as well as Western Europe. To ascribe Islam as a religion gives it a free rein to infiltrate and affect not only culture, but politics and jurisprudence in a manner we would never allow another contradictory ideology or legal system.

Islam is a socio-political ideology with a religious aspect. In those nations or societies where Islam reigns supreme, competing religions or political movements are not only discouraged but forbidden. Just watch the news.

In order for a reformation to occur within Islam, first the Koran has to be open to critique and debate; It is not. Secondly, Muhammad must be availed to critique and scrutiny; He is not. Finally, Islam itself must be open to debate and self examination; It is not. Why? Because Allah, through his messenger Jibril, gave his ‘perfect Koran’ to his ‘perfect Prophet’. It is not open for doubt or debate; he reminds the reader about 200 times, “Do not doubt this Koran”. To change the founding document would be sacrilege and no doubt lead to “Fitna”, or civil war within the Muslim Ummah, the same way the standardizing the Koran did in the mid 7th Century. We have all seen the uproar caused by those who dare to criticize or characterize Muhammad.

This is the reason ‘Reform’ will never happen in Islam. If you take away the oppressive demand for submission; you have no Islam. If you rewrite the Koran to eliminate the Jihad, the racist element, the directives for dominating your women, the demand for world dominance of Allah’s perfect religion, then you have no Islam. If you eliminate the passages of Koran and Hadith regulating slavery, the supremacy of Muslims in society, and the directives to institute Islamic Law for the good of humanity, then you have no Islam.

Everyone knows that water consists of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen. If you separate one hydrogen molecule from water, you no longer have water.

I must say I respect Dr. Jasser in his honorable intentions to separate the religion from the politics of Islam. But if you could do that, which you cannot, then you have no Islam. The very word “Islam” means “Submission”. This submission is not simply for the pious Muslim, but the Muslim is charged with the responsibility to advance the code of Islam into the culture or society until Islam reigns supreme and everyone, including non-Muslims, are subjugated under Sharia. Those Muslims who refuse this task, are shamed by the fundamentalists, who accuse them of “shirking” their responsibility. (“Shirk” is to disobey Allah)

Islam has already experienced its “Reformation”

Ibn Taymiyyah, 1268-1321, began a call to Muslims back to the fundamentals of Islam to follow more closely the teachings of Koran and Hadith. This was then refreshed and further advanced in the 18th Century by a student of Taymiyyah named Abd al Wahhab . Wahhab began to revive fundamentalist Islamic practices by first leveling the shrine at the grave of Zayd Khattab, the brother of the Caliph Omar. Wahhab contended it had become an object of idolatry. He then ordered the stoning of an adulteress, a practice which had become rare in the region. This kind of radical teaching brought some life threatening attention to Wahhab who left and settled in a village occupied by Muhammad Ibn Saud in 1740. Saud and Wahhab became inseparable and their heirs expanded their holdings by both dawa and military campaigns, gaining control of the modern day Arabian Kingdom. Their legacy continues today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where Wahhabism is both protected and funded throughout the globe. Wahhabism is the foremost source of radical Islamic fundamentalism and has influenced more or less nearly every other school of Islamic theology, particularly in Sunni Islam, which accounts for over 80% of Islam.

Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and Seyyid Qutb, both Egyptians, carried on the torch of fundamentalism throughout Sunni Islam by their writings and leadership from the 1920’s until Qutb’s execution in 1965 for sedition against the government of Egypt. This influence is more alive today than ever before, and on a global scale. The push is on for Islam to dominate the globe in this century, bringing the entire world into “submission to the religion of Allah” and all governments using the Sharia.

Such is the directive of Islam. Not to convert everyone to Muslim; but to subject everyone to Sharia. Only then can there be peace in the world.

Good Luck Dr. Jasser!





Intellectuals, Jihad, Abrogation, and Dhimmi’s

8 12 2010

Intellectuals abound. Oh yes, they are everywhere. They think of themselves as, perhaps agnostic, atheistic, or secular. The thing about these “intellectuals” that I find so very humorous is these very individuals who perceive themselves as “broadminded” and “tolerant” are the most narrow minded and intolerant creatures when it comes to things they have no real knowledge of, specifically spiritual matters, or more generally “Religion”. Furthermore, what really amazes me, is in spite of their unbelief or even disdain for “religion”, they do not cease from embracing and even defending the most oppressive of all these; Islam.

As I observe the commentary from the “intellectuals” something becomes very clear: It isn’t simply that they defend and embrace Islam, but the fervent hatred with which they address and refer to Christianity and Christians. Never mind that the entirety of Western society has its basis in the Judeo-Christian ethos; if it is Christian it must be evil. If it is anti-Christian it must be good. (It isn’t yet politically correct to slander Jews in America. Jews aren’t Christians and therefore do not yet warrant the same vitriol.) Isaiah 5 speaks of those calling “evil good and good evil.” Romans puts it, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

Education does not equal intelligence; nor does knowledge equal wisdom. Education is simply information transfer and knowledge is the retention of that information. Intelligence is the capacity to process that information. But wisdom… Wisdom is spiritual.

Wisdom is that rare quality of discernment which guides the proper dispensation and application of knowledge. You cannot obtain wisdom from instructors; worldly wisdom comes only from objective assessment of world experience. Likewise, godly wisdom comes from experiencing God. Therefore, the “intellectual” has placed himself at an obvious disadvantage when assessing things of a spiritual or religious nature.

Many critics throw out the “Crusades” as proof that Christianity is just as wicked as any other religion. Then also, terms like “Christian terrorist” when referring to people like Scott Roeder, (murderer of the abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller) or Timothy McVeigh, convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing. These are used in order to deflect criticism of Islamic terrorism or try and make the point that Islamic terrorists are but an extreme element and Christianity has its own terrorists. (You can hear this on any radio talk show or website which discusses Islam.)

I would never stoop to defend or justify any murderer nor advocate any such actions of these criminals as justified on any political or religious basis. I have previously set forth my argument for evaluating a religion according to its own founding documents or scriptures. (See Fundamentals)

Admittedly, there have been some horrendous things done throughout history in the name of Christianity. Not only to Muslims, but more-so to Jews and to Christians who refused to acquiesce to Papal authority. However, such an act that is done under the banner of “Christianity” by an individual, group, government or even a church, is not found as a directive in Christian scripture. Therefore, the responsibility lies not at the feet of the religion, but squarely upon those who perpetrated the acts. Nowhere will you find a scriptural reference to the man Jesus commanding an earthly army or admonishing his followers to advance Christianity or any religion by the sword.

Islam on the other hand, has instructions given for jihad, holy war, in the Quran. It is very specific in who and how to kill unbelievers and apostates. In fact, it warns against refusing to make war upon the unbelievers, and advises Muslims not to befriend non-Muslims. If you question the definition of ‘jihad’ look no further than Shari’a itself*. The first line (o9.0) reads: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…” There are nearly 8 pages of instruction on how to conduct jihad, its Quranic justification, its obligatory character, the objectives of jihad, the spoils of war, and so on. In all those pages only one line states of the “greater jihad”, the inner struggle, “it is the spiritual warfare against the lower self”. This latter definition is the one given for Western consumption. *[Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law]

Jihad is justified when Islam is insulted. To insult Islam one needs to do no more than reject it. Sharia requires that an invitation to Islam is given to non-Muslims. If rejected, this is seen as an offence to Islam and consequently justifies jihad as a “defensive” action. Medieval Islam had reached the zenith of its empire by jihad. History has shown it will only co-exist long enough to re-arm, regroup, and gain strategic advantage. Once it has the advantage, the battle continues.

There also seems to be some confusion among those “intellectuals” about history, some citing jihad as a response to the Crusades.

For context here is the historical timeline: Judaism founded by the Hebrews circa 1400 BC. Jesus Christ crucified 33 AD and Christianity founded by Jews in 1st Century in Jerusalem. Roman Church established 325 AD by Constantine. Mohammad gets his first vision in 610 AD establishing Islam and dies in AD 632. Islam conquers from Central Asia across North Africa and by 750 AD has advanced into France where it is finally stopped at Tours. (The Crusades to reclaim Jerusalem for Rome would not be declared for another 300 years.)

The establishment of the historical timeline is significant in understanding Islam today. There is a principal, a law established in Quran known as “Abrogation”. This single word and principal is perhaps the most important tenet in Islam.

Quran is very unique among the texts of ‘revealed religion’, in that it invokes this principal known as “abrogation”. That is to say, “the latter annuls the former”. In other words, the earlier peaceful revelations to Mohammad are abrogated by the later, more violent revelations. Mohammad was quite a peaceful and affable individual early in his ministry, but after the Meccans put out a warrant on him he fled to Medina, where he gained strength militarily. Mohammad began raiding Meccan caravans as retribution. Eventually, this violence increased culminating in a war which the ‘Prophet’ was victorious being personally militarily involved.

This law of “abrogation” is discussed in Quran concerning the disclosure of Sura’s to Mohammad as a progression of revelation, bringing Mohammad and his Companions from point A to point B slowly and in stages. This is the model set forth by Islamic scholars for the strategy of covering the entire world with the cloak of Islam. You see, the historical ‘revealed religions’ occur sequentially. First came Judaism, then came Christianity, and finally comes Islam. Islam teaches that each successive religion abrogates the former until Islam reigns supreme, and without opposition. So much for “co-existence”.

To my “intellectual” friends I would simply impart this fair warning: Christians and Jews are known in Al Quran as “People of the Book”. Once conquered, if they do not choose to convert to Islam, these are afforded the status of “Dhimmi” if they agree to submit to the authority of Islam and pay the Jizya (poll tax). Dhimmi must acquiesce to Muslims in everything and have no equity with Muslims. Atheists and pagans are offered no such clemency. There is only conversion or death. There is no tolerance for “intellectual dissention”.

Please do not simply dismiss this information. Do some reading to see if it isn’t so. The current narrative is being written by Islam. It cannot be trusted. Never forget the Islamic doctrine of “abrogation”.

I do not advocate bigotry toward Muslims; only understanding that Islam is antithetical to the American system of government, to the Judeo-Christian ethos, to liberty and choice, and equality before the law. Islam has its own socio-political system which emanates from Shari’a. It is not simply a “religion”.

Prove me wrong.





The Great Black Beast

14 11 2010

The first victim of Islam is the Muslim.

September 11, 2001

Islam is a great black beast that engulfs everything in its path, shutting out the light of reason. It buries people under a system of control which allows no freedom of thought, debate or criticism. Islam cannot stand up against any questioning of its authority; this is precisely the reason that it reacts swiftly and sometimes violently when challenged. In fact, the more control Islam has over a society the more violent the response to a challenge of its authority.

You will note that those nations whose government allows Sharia (Islamic Sacred Law) to be the law of the land, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Kuwait, UAE, and Yemen, just to name a few, are among the most oppressive societies in the world, especially to Muslim women. Many other countries which have a dual system in which Muslims are permitted to use Sharia courts to determine legal or social matters, may not be constitutionally ruled by Sharia, but in all practicality use self imposed Sharia. These would be countries such as Somalia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Again, not exactly bastions of freedom and tolerance.

These countries which embrace Sharia are known for harsh punishments and swift judgments. A small boy may have his hand slowly crushed while driven over by a car for stealing a piece of candy. He is fortunate. If he was of age, his hand would be cut off. A young teenage woman who is raped by her cousin must produce four male witnesses to testify on her behalf that she was not compliant in the sexual act; otherwise she may very well be stoned to death for adultery. In some cases, her own family will execute her for “dishonoring” the family.

Worldwide there are 5,000 of these “Honor Killings” every year, most of which are performed by immediate family members. In the United States alone there have been at least 19 documented honor killings since 1989. In Irvine, Texas, 2008 Amina and Sarah Said were two beautiful teenage girls whose father shot them both at point blank range in the back seat of his car and left them to bleed to death. Why? They were “behaving like western girls”. He was never apprehended. Noor Almaleki, 20, died in November, 2009 after she and her boyfriend’s mother were run over by her father in a Peoria, Ariz., parking lot. The father was dishonored because she rejected her marriage in Iraq. Palestina Isa, 16, of St. Louis, MO was brutally stabbed to death by her father while her mother held her down and repeatedly said, “Die my daughter, Die”! Her crimes? She had taken a part time job and was spending time with an African-American boy.

Public stoning, burning or even beheadings have been known across the Islamic world, for what sometimes amounts to a false accusation of adultery by someone in the community. Pick up a DVD of “The Stoning of Soraya M.” and witness a true story of a divorce seeking Persian who brings false charges of adultery against his wife when she refuses his demands. In typical Sharia fashion, under direction of the local Imam, she is convicted, bound, and buried from her waist down. Each villager throws a stone until she is dead. Many of these types of barbaric executions of violators of Sharia are captured on video and are done in a ritualistic fashion amounting to nothing less than human sacrifice.

What is it that can move a Palestinian mother to wrap a cellophane bag around her own daughters head while she sleeps, and slice her wrists with a razor? In West Bank, the village of Abu Qash, 17 year old Rofayda refused to commit suicide after her brothers raped and impregnated her. So her 43 year old mother waited until she went to sleep and killed her in order to restore the “family’s honor”. The execution of her sixth born child took 20 minutes, confessed Amira Qaoud. Fatima, 9, the youngest surviving child said, “My mother did this because she does not want us to be punished by people. I love my mother much more now than before.” Stunning!

The Palestinian media is fraught with images of young children 3 to 5 years old being taught to repeat songs and phrases, such as “Kill the Jew” and “Death to Israel”. They are taught from the earliest ages to hate Israel and America, and that, as former terrorist Kamal Saleem says his mother taught him, “My son, when you kill a Jew your right hand will glow with glory before Allah.” A cartoon ‘Mickey Mouse’ type character leads children in singing songs that refer to Jews as “pigs and monkeys” and reinforce the rhetoric that it is glorious to kill Jews, if even by suicide bombing.

How can this be? What can possess parents to teach their children that the highest calling they could ever aspire to is to die “Shahid”, a martyr in the cause of advancing the religion of Allah? This is insanity.

Avi Lipkin, well known author and speaker, has written several books on the subject. He rightly identifies Islam as a religion of insanity. It consumes people to the point they can no longer enjoy life and are obsessed by death. As the infamous Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, expresses in his power point presentation given at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 2007, “We love death more than you love life”. Islam is the largest death cult in the world. When you have Islamic leaders like Iran’s Ahmadinejad, who has time and again threatened Israel’s very existence, who believes that he is the predecessor to the Twelfth Imam and in order to hastened the Imam’s return from the cave, must create chaos in the Earth, now the world has a problem.

Ok, so now I can hear my critics saying, “These are extremists! They do not represent the true Islam!” To you I simply say, “Read the books of Islam.” Then read my previously written article on this site entitled “Fundamentals”. What the world is witnessing today is Islam is returning to its foundations. Seyyid Qutb called for it nearly 50 years ago. The current “Century of Islam” is upon us. It began in 1979 on November 20, the New Year 1400 on the Islamic calendar. This is the time designated for Islam to conquer the entire Earth. For you Bible scholars it is the beast of the Revelation.

The ironic phenomena occurring in the Islamic world is the startling number of Muslims converting to Jesus Christ! They are coming by the tens of thousands out of the great black beast and into the light of Truth. Muslims who have become disillusioned and disgusted with the unbearable burden of Islam are calling out to God, and He is answering.

Sheik Ahmad Al Khatani, president of The Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, recently lamented in an interview on Al Jazeera TV that there are 16,000 Muslims in North Africa converting to Christianity every day! Reports from all across the Islamic world are coming that Muslims are seeking truth in earnest and are receiving visions and dreams of Jesus Christ by the thousands!

Up until now I have regarded the Islamic invasion of America as evil and very dangerous. While I still believe that the system of Islam is evil and very dangerous, I now look at it as an opportunity. Listen to me well: Islam is evil, Muslims are not evil. Muslims are victims! Islam, the beast, consumes people who have a God given thirst for Him. When the truth of God is absent or forbidden the human spirit is nevertheless famished for spiritual fulfillment and a reason for existence. It will accept whatever is offered; sometimes having no choice. Islam is not a choice for millions upon millions of people; It is foisted upon them. It is the only thing allowed in many places, saturating the media, culture, music, and traditions so much so that everything you see, touch, smell, hear, and even think is limited to Islam. The deeper one gets into it, the less light is available to illuminate and expose the lie. Most Muslims are not Muslim by choice, even if they profess to be. They are subject to the heaviest and most restrictive religious cult in the world.

No, Muslims are not the enemy! Islam is the enemy. If this “religion” is allowed to continue creeping across America, America too will find itself bound in the shadow of the Great Black Beast.
Salaam!





The Revealed Faith of the Founders

15 05 2010

-declaration-hero-E

“Fundamentally transforming the United States of America” is not a Barack Obama original thought. It is in line though, with Mrs. Obama’s statement that “we are going to have to change our traditions, change our history”. 3 These people are simply the blossom on the weed of Progressivism, which sprouted at the turn of the 20th Century as the prevalent ideology of the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, and Jack Reed. While America has a plethora of problems, politically, morally, and spiritually, the fundamentals are not among them. It was not always so; America’s virtue was the dominate governing quality of her people and that virtue, according to the Founders, their contemporaries, and observers such as Alexis D’ Tocqueville, was the direct result of an overwhelming and inherent belief in a Creator God who was Supreme Judge of nations and individuals, and as such, every person was accountable for his/her own actions, which not only resulted in self-government, but was the very framework upon which the Founding Fathers hung the Constitution. The Judeo-Christian ethic, as taught by the Bible, was not only the impetus for the idea that “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, but was considered as absolutely necessary to maintain a free and civil society….

To read or download the entire document in pdf please follow the link below:

Revealed Faith of the Founders





Euramerika: Part 1; Statesman, Stupid, or Suicidal?

5 03 2010

This article first published Dec. 8,2009 under title of:

Statesmen, Stupid, or “Suicidal”

Revised March 1, 2010 and included as first in a series of articles entitled “Euramerika”.

I heard a radio talk show host a few months ago talking about the Liberals “End Game”. The question was, “What is their end game”? I thought about that for a while and I will share a few of those thoughts in this article…

The first nature of a politician is to compromise. Sometimes it is necessary in order to get legislation passed; perhaps as a politician you don’t get everything you wanted in a bill, but after wrangling and lots of discussion you decide that you can support the amendments of the opposition in order to pass a bill that contains the basics that you were in favor of for the benefit of your constituents. Consensus always comes by compromise. This is inherently how politics works, like it or not.

The second nature of a politician is self preservation. One cannot compromise too much without risking the support of the constituency in the next election. Very few individuals in the political realm will act without considering these consequences.

Then, on occasion in history, we have seen in a politician real statesmanship. That is, a wisdom and understanding of when compromise is acceptable in achieving a goal for “the greater good”, and when compromise is detrimental to society. When the dust settles, (perhaps years later) the statesman is vindicated and even though his constituency as well as many colleagues may have opposed him at the onset, he’s hailed a hero.  This type of politician, a true statesman, only comes along once every other generation or so. These would be men such as the American Founders.  Winston Churchill also comes to mind along with Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge and Margaret Thatcher. (I suppose I should say ‘Statesperson’ to be PC, but that’s another article.) I would even go so far as to throw Ronald Reagan in that classification, just as a recent example, though some of my readers may not agree. (Too bad, it’s my article and I have no pretense of being an “objective journalist”!)

My conundrum is, across the current political landscape, identifying the goal of the players;  “The end game”? What is the ultimate objective? My opinion…

I believe we are at a point in history in America that has been long awaited by some for perhaps as long as 100 years. The “Progressive Movement” that was so much of who Woodrow Wilson was, has come to the point of balance that is very near tipping. Once that balance shifts, there will be no return to America as we have known it. Perhaps it already has.

What possesses a politician to oppose his constituents on a matter? Statesmanship?  Yes, at times that has been the case. But have we suddenly morphed scores of new statesmen from formerly career politicians? I shall withhold my full reaction to that question at this juncture. Suffice to say, Not!

So if not ‘statesmanship’, then what, ‘stupidity’? Perhaps…“Stupid is as stupid does” you know. But I find it hard to believe there are that many stupid people who could get elected.

So if not statesmanship or stupidity, then what? Suicide? Now there’s a real possibility. Just think of them as “suicide voters”. The empire of Japan brought us the “Kamikaze”, the suicide pilot. Islam has brought us the “suicide bomber”. Now the Progressive movement has brought to America the “suicide politician”!

Does anyone really believe that if this Congress continues to act against their constituents’ loud opposition to the “Bailouts”, “Stimulus”, “ObamaCare”, and “Cap and Trade” that they can stand for re-election this year? Seriously, it is as if the mission of the legislation has become the objective and the people nothing more than a means to fulfill the objective. Not by consent of course, but as the piggy bank. (I believe it was Mrs. Thatcher who said, “The trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”)

But that doesn’t work either. It goes against the second nature of preservation for a politician to sacrifice everything for nothing. However, there may be a few who could be persuaded by their leadership that their “run is done” anyway, and others may be “persuaded” to get on the bandwagon or suffer the (scandalous) consequences. (Reminiscent of the Gestapo of the 3rd Reich)

Then there is the true believer, the martyr, the “Jihadi warrior” who truly supports the objective. They are the leadership and faithful believers who march lock step toward the objective, no matter the price, some even believing that the rewards will be “Paradise” or at least a political payback or immunity. (Sorry boys, no 72 black-eyed virgins; only Nancy Pelosi!)

The objective?

Consider “Dissolution”. In order to “fundamentally change” anything you must change the fundamentals. That is, completely dissolve what you want to replace and begin again. It is a tactic that has been used by Revolutionaries for centuries.

Columnist Mark Steyn began his November 23 column “Happy Warrior” in National Review magazine by quoting the famous German poet and playwright, Bertolt Brecht, who after the East German uprising in 1953 wrote this: “Would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?”

Dissolve the people…yeah, that could work…like through pluralism, secularism, revisionist history, open borders, affirmative action, Darwinism, reparations, and class warfare!  The rules as well as the objective, the “end game”, were established a hundred years ago! A brief study of Woodrow Wilson reveals a philosophy akin to Karl Marx. Wilson with no help from the US Congress, was key in forming the League of Nations, later to become the UN. We all know what a smashing success that utopian idea has become.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Candidate Barak Obama did say he wanted to “fundamentally change America”.  I concede that we do have some problems, but the fundamentals are not among them. In fact, the problems we have are due to leaving the fundamentals behind and pursuing something that doesn’t exist, making it up as we go.

Obama also referred to himself, as have others such as Senator Clinton, as “Progressive” after the model of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. He then declared, “Our time has come!” Who’s time has come? “Ours” as in America’s, or “Ours” as in Progressives. Or was he speaking to someone else?

Brecht was of course, a Marxist. We call them “Progressives” today in Euramerika.





Milestones in review

26 01 2010

I recently read the book Milestones by Seyyid Qutb.  He is considered by some to be the father of the modern Islamic revolution.

Milestones was written from an Egyptian prison in 1964. Qutb had spent 2 years in America several years prior, and reported that his prejudices had been confirmed concerning American depravity. America was ripe for the picking.

Qutb’s book wasn’t his first, or his longest work, but perhaps Milestones has had the most impact on the modern world. Although some attribute the modern “Islamic Revolution” to this book, that was not exactly the outcome that Qutb desired.

Actually, Islamic Revival was his desire and purpose. Milestones was to be the “vanguard” publication to accomplish this[p. 12]. By initiating a revival of Islam among those who profess it, the natural outcome would then be an alteration of the course of human history. Revolution would not be necessary, but world conquest would be at hand. Revival of the fundamentals of Islam within the culture itself would make Islam irresistible in both principle and on the battlefield. A revived and truly Muslim population in the cause of Allah would be invincible.

Islam had, according to Qutb, become compromised by moderates and liberals (Muslim) who, for various reasons, embraced Western Culture and prosperity. Obviously the development of Middle Eastern oil fields was responsible for most of this merging of the two worlds, and the petro-dollar brought an ancient culture roaring forward into the industrialized 20th century with so much speed, there was no time for gradual adaptation. Yet today, there is a stark contrast within these countries, and without the petro-dollar they would shrivel back into the desert survivalist culture of a mere century ago.

Seyyid was disturbed by the fact that Muslims, during the first half of the 20th Century, were with a few exceptions, content to “live and let live”, professing Islam while immersed in ‘Jahili’ (the state of ignorance of guidance of Allah) culture. A Muslim should withdraw from all Jahilayyah relationships and become joined completely to Islam just as Muhammad and the Companions had disavowed all ties to polytheism and its adherents. A Muslim cannot be true Muslim, submitted to Allah, and retain any ties to non-Islamic influences. Qutb laments, “This is why the true Islamic values never enter our hearts, why our minds are never illuminated by Islamic concepts, and why no group of people arises among us who are of the caliber of the first generation of Islam.” He then adjures, “We must return to that pure source from which those people derived their guidance…[their]concepts of…the universe, the nature of human existence…Our aim is first to change ourselves so that we may later change the society…this system which is fundamentally at variance with Islam…”

Qutb’s call to all Islam was a return to Fundamentalism, that being the founding principles of Islam. This “revival” within Islam would then lead to political reformation in Islamic countries, bringing to bear those governments which had established within their own constitutions; that Islam is the official state religion and Islamic jurisprudence (Shari’a) is the law of the land. This move to “right” Egypt’s secularized government along with his fellow members of “Muslim Brotherhood” is the reason he was imprisoned and consequently executed by “The Arab Republic of Egypt” in 1966.

Egypt was but one of the Islamic Republics which had not implemented Shari’a as enumerated in its own constitution. Turkey is the most widely known which has managed, even today, to maintain a modicum of separation (though currently very tenuous) between religion and state; for practical purposes a secularized government. The United States has, in fact, assisted in the establishment of two of the latest Islamic Republics of the world; Iraq and Afghanistan, complete with constitutions which name Islam as the official religion.

Seyyid Qutb goes on in Milestones to express disdain for Muslim apologists who insist that “Jihad” is simply defensive war [p. 61, 62].  He refers to them as “defeatists” [p. 57], and explains that Jihad is the means by which to establish the Divine Law (Shari’a) [p. 62, 63].  Jihad, according to Qutb as well as Koran, is offensive action that “tries to annihilate all those political and material powers which stand between people and Islam…It is not the intention of Islam to force its beliefs on people, but Islam is not merely ‘belief’.”[p. 61] Then he clarifies, “…in an Islamic system there is room for all kinds of people to follow their own beliefs, while obeying the laws of the country which are themselves based on the Divine authority (Shari’a).” [p. 61]

In other words, you can believe whatever you want, but you will live according to Shari’a Law. This is the mission of Islam defined: Not to convert the entire world to Islamic belief; but to bring the entire world under submission to Shari’a, or Islamic Law. [p. 58]

Muslims are not to commit allegiance to a nation or state or geographic area. 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. “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]

Dar ul Islam is the “house of Islam” which “is that place where the Islamic state is established and the Shari’a is the authority…” The rest of the world is the “house of war” or Dar ul Harb. “A Muslim can have only two possible relations with Dar ul Harb: peace with a contractual agreement [hudna or truce], or war.” [p. 118]

Seyyid further explains, “But any place where the Islamic Shari’a is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes [Dar ul Harb]”. [p. 124]

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]

This book, the “vanguard” of modern Islamic Fundamentalism, written in 1964 has inspired Jihadists, Mujahidin and Shahada (“martyrs” aka suicide bombers) for 45 years. Seyyid Qutb is considered Shahid by fundamentalist Muslims around the world. I have read several books from and on Islam and would recommend Milestones as essential reading for one who desires to understand the purpose and designs of modern Islam and the resolve of Islamic fundamentalists.








%d bloggers like this: