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.





What Does Marxism Look Like? Retired Green Beret Lt. General knows

23 03 2012

In this video entitled “Marxism in America” General Jerry Boykin discusses his background and training in understanding Marxist insurgencies and how current government actions parallel Marxist tactics.





To Pee or Not To Pee…Men and War

20 01 2012

I can’t stand it any longer! Four Marines relieve themselves on dead enemies that had been killing and maiming their buddies, and by the media and Pentagon leadership’s reaction you’d think there were implications on par with My Lai. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was “totally dismayed”. Really Leon Panetta? “Utterly deplorable”?!

How about this for “utterly deplorable”: The butchering of American GI’s on the streets of Mogadishu in 1993 by beheading and evisceration after being wounded and bludgeoned to death, then dragging the bodies through the streets of the city, while children dance and laugh, and women and men alike sing victory songs to Allah. Not deplorable?

Or perhaps the two 101st Airborne soldiers captured and brutally tortured and finally gutted and beheaded in Yousifayya, Iraq in 2006, all captured on video for the viewing public by the barbarian AQ pukes who then take two other American boys KIA and tie them to IED booby traps on the road to the other bodies. This incident was hardly mentioned in the media, let alone by any government officials at the time.

If that’s not “deplorable” enough Leon, how about Daniel Pearl, the civilian journalist who’s head was hacked from his bound body while his gurgling screams were drowned by his own blood. As Daniel struggled against his murderers they read from the Quran and chanted praises to Allah. Is that deplorable?!

I am amazed that the United States Government can still raise a volunteer force of the best fighting men and women in the world in light of the fact that their government officials may or may not have their backs. Now that’s “utterly deplorable”!

One specific instance that comes to mind is the bloody battle that 4 Navy SEALS who were on a surveilience mission in Afghanistan and were discovered by two Afghan goat herders. The SEALS knew if they released the herders, they were sure to bring the Taliban on them. However, if they did harm to them, their own government would crucify them. The SEALS chose to take on hundreds of Taliban rather than a civilian government who doesn’t understand war. Three of the four SEALS never came home and Marcus lives the life of a “Lone Survivor”. “Deplorable”?

War is war. It is not a football game where the rule book is enforced by umpires, close calls are reviewed in the instant replay booth,  and afterward we all shake hands and go home. The object of war is to kill the enemy and break his stuff until he quits trying to kill you. Human emotion and frustration during war sometimes drives civil people to do things that society may view as unacceptable, at least under normal conditions. How “civilized” is war anyway? It is indeed “utterly deplorable”.

Lt. Colonel Allen West, now Representative in the US Congress, suggests the Military handle the affair as follows:

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

To Col. West I say, “Kudos”!

To a government who cannot decide if their paid military should be allowed to fight a war to a victorious end and are not willing to identify the enemy, I say this: “If our cause is not just, then get my son the hell out of Afghanistan!”

To my Marine son and his buddies I say this: “Semper Fi my brave boys; your politicians may be weak, but your people are strong!” Oooraah!

P.S. Here is a photo of a pose that General George S. Patton struck as he crossed the Rhine river, showing the Fuhrer what his thoughts were at the time. The following Patton quote was to Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force: “…I have just pissed into the Rhine River. For God’s sake, send some gasoline.”





Dedicated to Those Who Gave All

30 05 2011

I wrote this poem many years ago after taking my family to visit the portable version of the Vietnam Memorial Wall which was visiting our town. It is called the “Moving Wall” because it is portable. However, it was emotionally one of the most ‘moving’ experiences of my life. Even though these verses were inspired by those valiant Americans whose names are engraved on that black wall, it is nonetheless a tribute to each and every person who has ever died in the service of our country. When this was written, my son whom I mentioned was about 6. He is now a 25 year old United States Marine Corps Reserve, and an Afghan vet.   He is my hero.

The Wall

I saw your name the other day
While reading the local news.
It said you played a good ball game,
Your last year, and you’ve paid your dues.

I saw your name then sometime later,
Graduation day had come.
You walked up proud and took the scroll
That your hard work had won.

I saw your name in another season
And smiled to myself as I read
Of a young married couple just starting out
With a promise and dreams ahead.

I saw your name a few months later
But this time it worried me.
Your name, and others, on a long list
Training for war overseas.

I saw your name and uttered a prayer
For you and your young family.
I knew of your character and duty-bound love
For country, for God, and for me.

I saw your name and thought of your father
Who fought in another time.
And he, just like you, hated to leave
His wife, and new son behind.

I saw your name just yesterday
And my heart broke as mist filled my eyes.
You were killed with some buddies while out on patrol
Where many a good young man dies.


I saw your name again just today
And all of your comrades’ as well,
Where flags fly high and monuments stand
With more stories than words can tell.

I saw your name on a glossy black wall
And as my throat became tight,
My chest swelled slightly with pride for a man
Who thought freedom was well worth the fight.

I saw your name in the deep black reflection
of the face of my dearest young son,
And prayed he would never be called on to go,
But would cherish the liberty won.

I saw your name and wondered just how
I might thank your family,
For sacrifice made for people unknown,
As well as my family, and me.

I saw your name and thought that perhaps
Despite lack of glory and fame,
It may be enough to think of you now,
And tell them that I saw your name.

Copyright (All rights Reserved)





I Won’t Ask; They’ll Still Tell!

29 01 2011

The ongoing debate on the “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” policy of the Pentagon has ended with the President signing into law the repeal of a policy instituted by President Clinton. This came in the waning days of a lame duck Congress which knew they had to pass the law before the new Congress came in. Now homosexuals are not only permitted, but encouraged to join the ranks of the military.

After a quick check via Google, a United Nations website, unaids.org, netted some startling statistics. In North America, parts of Latin America, Australia, New Zealand and most of Europe, 70% of all AIDS cases are transmitted by male on male intercourse. As many as 56% of those are suspected of bisexual activity, which then calculates into 39 of 100 women engaging in intercourse with bisexual men can be exposed to HIV. The remainder of cases are attributed mostly to injection drug use .

The average life expectancy of a homosexual male is early 40’s. Not only does HIV/AIDS weigh in heavily but a myriad of other sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) create health problems along with drug usage, which more often than not is a factor. It is a very destructive lifestyle and when Kinsey was doing his infamous sex studies, less than 1% of his homosexual men were 60+. A 2008 published study shows the overwhelming majority of deaths in homosexual men occur between ages of 25-45.

A man for whom I have a great deal of respect is a retired Lt. Colonel, US Army who served 26 years including Vietnam, where he was Special Forces, wounded in combat and treated other wounded soldiers in combat. Dr. Rich Kiper recently wrote some editorial letters and an article expressing his outrage over the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and with his permission, the following is a graphic excerpt of one of those articles from “Pioneer Pathways”:

“Few members of Congress have served, and even fewer have combat experience…I believe there is no understanding of what occurs on a battlefield. Hence, they and the public, view the gay issue only in terms of some bogus civil right rather than the life-and-death matter that it actually is.

I want to be clear that I am speaking only from my personal experience. My experience was that I was wounded in a fight where my unit took over 50% casualties-fortunately no deaths. It was terrifying and chaotic. Back then there were no such things as rubber gloves for the medics or anyone else. It was a situation where the medic was treating a lot of people and was being assisted by those who were able to do so, all the while fighting..for our lives. I find it hard to imagine that, even if the medic had had enough rubber gloves, that he would have been able to change them between every wounded soldier. I am not trying to be dramatic; that was the way it was and Congressmen and women and many liberal military-hating so-called journalists don’t have a clue about such situations, or if they do simply don’t give a —-

Now, what if a wounded soldier were gay? With blood all over, with bare hands, with wounded soldiers bandaging wounded soldiers, blood is going to be mixed. What if that gay soldier is HIV positive? How many other soldiers could be infected by his blood? Does anybody give a damn? Apparently not the Congress; not the media; and not the American people because they certainly did not raise a major outcry against repeal.

A sucking chest wound inflicted by a bullet is not uncommon in combat. It is necessary to get the chest cavity sealed as quickly as possible. Ideally, the person treating the wound will have rubber gloves. What if none are available? If the wounded soldier is known to be gay, someone has to make a decision whether to use his hands to cover the bullet hole while applying a dressing, or letting the guy die. What member of Congress is willing to make that choice? I have seen traumatic amputations in combat. There is a great deal of blood. The first reaction is to wretch. Apparently the idiots that voted for repeal of the gay ban actually believe that it is possible to treat that wound without getting the blood on oneself. In another fight I had a medic give mouth to mouth to a soldier who was mortally wounded to try to sustain him long enough to be med-evac’d. How much of his blood did my medic ingest? Apparently the 315 medical doctors in the House and Senate who voted for repeal have a good answer to how future medics will provide similar treatment to gay soldiers. Again, the choice – treat the gay soldier and possibly die yourself, or don’t treat him and let him die.

What if the medic is gay and is treating the wounded although wounded himself? Or has cut himself while taking care of the wounded? I guess for the gay rights advocates it will be perfectly acceptable for him to infect wounded soldiers, because, after all, the gay person is a repressed minority so cannot be condemned for anything.

How does this sorry bunch called Congress propose to prevent an HIV positive person from being in the situation in which I found myself? Will everyone have to undergo HIV testing? How often based on the incubation rate? We know damn well there will be no requirement that only gay soldiers get frequent testing because that would be discriminatory. Better to let a gay soldier go untested than have a heterosexual soldier die after being infected…

How about the Congress simply decree that gay soldiers may not serve in combat units? Therefore, gay soldiers will have the least amount of risk for being wounded. Just let heterosexuals face the bullets and the RPGs so tainted blood will not be an issue. I would not be surprised if some moron in Congress actually proposes that.

…the ones who pay the price are not the bastards who voted for it, but the soldiers and the families who volunteered to serve the nation. This vote has the potential to devastate the military. …10%-15% of the military say they will get out. If that happens we will be in an extremely serious situation.”

Dr. Kiper’s graphic and impassioned argument does indeed give one much to think about and although he also addressed the moral/Biblical view, this is an aspect of the argument most never think about.

But this issue is not only front and center in Washington, but many city councils are being forced by the gay lobby to address the issue of special rights for homosexuals and codification of the lifestyle. One of these is Manhattan, Kansas where the Council recently narrowly passed an ordinance that would wage heavy fines upon any business or landlord’s discretion in hiring or housing homosexuals.

The move was hotly debated within the community, with anyone who took a Biblically based moral stance being labeled as “homophobic, hateful, bigots”. It is remarkable that, when activists have only emotional arguments with few or no facts, they quickly digress into name calling, hissing, and shouting.

I enjoined in the written debate and was soon told that since Christians were supposed to love everyone those opposing the ordinance were hypocrites. Then, that Jesus never spoke out or taught against homosexuality, and the Old Testament passages referring to it were null and void since Jesus cancelled out the Law. These arguments are often used as ‘proof’ that Jesus never condemned homosexuality and thus Christians, who refer to the Bible when opposing these types of moral issues, are just wrong.

Ok, a Biblical response:

Firstly, Jesus Himself declared in Matthew 5:17-18 that He did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament) but to fulfill it. Then He goes on to say that until ‘heaven and earth pass’ not even a punctuation mark will be changed in the Law till it is fulfilled. He further states that if you break one commandment you have broken them all. Not only the actual doing of the thing but the very thought of the sin is enough to condemn you. “If you look upon a maid to lust after her, you have committed adultery in your heart already.”

[The New Testament begins at the ‘death of the Testator’, Christ, according to Hebrews and every estate judge in the land. Jesus walked the Earth in an Old Testament economy. Yeah, I know…it’ll take a minute to grasp that one!]

As a matter of fact, Jesus does speak against fornication (sexual intercourse outside of marriage) which includes not only homosexual activity, but also heterosexual intercourse, pedophilia, incest, bestiality and so forth. While Jesus does not specifically name “homosexuality”, but neither does he specifically name “incest, pedophilia, or bestiality”. Does lack of specific mention codify or legitimize sexual intercourse with a minor child or animal, or even necrophilia (with the dead)? I would hope that you would agree that it doesn’t.

I would allow that certain individuals may have a predisposed propensity for homosexual attraction, but so do pedophiles, and zoophiles. Alcoholics also have a predisposed propensity for their weakness. If these could not be controlled there would be no “sober” alcoholics, just as there would be no “former” homosexuals. Obviously there are many who have overcome these predispositions.

The question of sexuality is not even necessarily a simple “religious” question concerning morality but is as much a scientific or biological question and environment plays a huge role in development. What is the purpose of copulation in nature? In nature every species “mates,” only at specific times, for one purpose: Propagation of the species. Ours is the only species that is capable of spontaneous copulation, or “recreational” intercourse (for mutual pleasure), propagation of the species notwithstanding, and the only one equipped to look into the eyes of our mate while engaged. (The Bible says the eyes are the window to the soul; thus for humans, sex is a spiritual act/communion as well.)

Nonetheless, the baser “natural” lust of mankind, becomes tempered by morality; a philosophical if not religious attitude that contains our urges, lest we succumb to our “desires” in every public venue. So then, there are advantages to societal limitations (moral guidelines, if you will) on what behavior is ‘acceptable’ and where, especially when you consider public viewing of these activities, age of consent (pedophilia), interspecies copulation (bestiality) and so on. Everyone lives according to someone’s morality, even if they claim to be amoral. Society demands it.

The logical conclusion to the matter is that open sexual activity which is harmful to society therefore is, and must be regulated; if not by law, then at least by some moral principle which has been established by that society in order to maintain a social order which will preserve and propagate the society. Read Greek and Roman history to see examples of great societies which fully and openly embrace homosexuality to understand the effect it has.

The real problem here is not even that LGBT’s want to do what they do, but demanding that the rest of society embrace or condone it. I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your bedroom. I just don’t want government telling me I have to embrace it by providing you that bedroom to do it in. That infringes upon my Constitutional rights, which are in fact apparent, and lacking no uncertainty.

Hearkening back to “What would Jesus Do?” I can’t help but pose the thought that those practicing homosexuality and refuse the call of Jesus to “go and sin no more” are no different than those people with any other sin, be it another “lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, or the pride of life”. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Experiencing God is not just for the afterlife; it is for this life. This is the “abundant life” that Jesus spoke of.

A person who refuses reconciliation with God either thinks himself too great, or God too small.





To Define the Enemy You Must Know Him

11 11 2010

No other war in history has been met by such an imbecilic response as the Jihad America finds itself in. In order to survive a nation must be willing to identify and then subsequently meet the enemy on the battlefield using tactics that are effective enough to thwart the enemy attack. Unless and until the enemy is identified there is no hope for victory. Just ask Thomas Jefferson, who so often is hailed as owning a Koran. He read it in order to know and understand the enemy he was facing in the “Barbary Pirates” who were ravaging trade ships in the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic coasts of Spain and Africa. Then he sent the Marines to the “Shores of Tripoli”. Jefferson did not try to negotiate with the “Musselmen” (then popular term for “Muslim”). He met them according to their own terms. No more piracy from that source for many years.

Colonel Allen West defines the enemy in this video while the rest of the panel would rather be para-sailing. Check it out:

(Courtesy of The Hudson Institute’s Reclaim American Liberty Conference)





Second Verse

6 06 2010

Former Marine was to ask a question. No one was ready for what he did…

H/T to boudicabpi.wordpress.com








%d bloggers like this: