UPDATE: HR 569- Special Status for Muslims Bill

7 01 2016

***LATEST UPDATE BELOW as of Sept 10,  2016***
(Scroll down to see latest sponsor update)

Last December I published “Freedom of Speech: The Continued Assault on America’s Most Precious Liberty” which discussed the dangerous aspects of the bill giving special status/protection to one religious group.  I published the entire text of the bill (without the list of sponsors)  in that article- If you have not read it yet, you can see it here — https://definingthenarrative.com/2015/12/31/freedom-of-speech-the-continued-assault-on-americas-most-precious-liberty/

According to GovTrack.us  the House Resolution which will give Muslims special status against “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric” has gained many new co-Sponsors, all Democrats.  This makes 145 co-Sponsors, all Democrats.

The bill is still in Judiciary Committee, which is comprised of 23 Republicans (including Louis Gomhert, Trey Gowdy, and Steve King) and 16 Democrats (including Hank Johnson, who thought the island of Guam would capsize with so many military personnel and equipt, and Sheila Jackson Lee).

Here is a link to the entire text of the bill in pdf itself so you can see the entire list of the original sponsors and download for your own use:  https://ingrafted.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/hr-569-us.pdf

This bill is an American Muslim version of UN Resolution 16/18, a bill pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which represents the 56 Islamic nations around the world.  Hillary Clinton stumped for it at Ankara, Turkey, while Sec of State.

HR 569 specifically names Muslims as a special class, worthy of protection from “bigotry or hateful rhetoric”.  “Hateful rhetoric” is a subjective term and can mean anything, including criticism of Islam, and in the Shari’a “bigotry” can be something as simple as rejection of Islam itself, which is an offense to Muslims according to the Sharia, and justifies jihad.  We are seeing the results of this manifested in European countries today.  I do not ever recall a House Resolution which gives special preference to Jews, Christians, Buddhists, or any other religious group.  It is outrageous!

We hear the propaganda from the media on a daily basis about how Muslims are the most persecuted group in America.  The simple fact is, of all religious groups, Jews are still the most victimized.  The FBI reports 62% of anti-Religion hate crimes are against Jews, compared to 11% against Muslims.  While that FBI report is 2012, the latest available in a quick search, the latest data gathered by a media study group shows an uptick in post terror attack of about 17% in the next few weeks, but dropping back to 10% higher a year later.  That would increase the overall anti-Muslim instances to about 12-13% of all anti-religious hate crimes are against Muslims while not changing the 62% against Jews appreciably.

This pro-Muslim bill is most likely being peddled by Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood organization who has had incredible influence on the Democrat Party members and some Republicans.  They have free access to the White House and continue to have “preferred” status at WH events.  CAIR is still listed as a “co-conspirator” in the 2008 terrorist funding trial, where several of its members were convicted and are currently in prison.   The indictments ceased when Mr. Obama took office.

Contact your Representative as well as the House Judiciary Committee members which you will find at this link:  http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/committee-members .

Tell them to stop HR 569 in Committee.

New Post

******ATTENTION*****

LATEST UPDATE as of 9/10/16:  Most recent Additional Co-sponsor:  Garamendi, John [D-CA3] (joined May 23, 2016)

Updated 5/17/2016  NEWEST Additional Co-sponsors are:
Foster, Bill [D-IL11]  Capuano, Michael [D-MA7]  Adams, Alma [D-NC12]  Graham, Gwen [D-FL2]   The Resolution now has 144 cosponsors (144 Democrats, 0 Republicans)

Updated on 4/28/16 -Newest additional Co-sponsors are:  Rep. Pete Aguilar [D-CA31] ,   Rep. Susan Davis [D-CA53] , Rep. Mark DeSaulnier [D-CA11] , Rep. Tulsi Gabbard [D-HI2] . The resolution now has 140 cosponsors (140 Democrats,  0 Republicans).

Updated on 4/22/16:  HR 569 now has 136 Democrat sponsors (No Republicans to date). Latest additions include the following Representatives:  Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick [D-AZ1] , Rep. David Scott [D-GA13],  Rep. Eliot Engel [D-NY16] Clarke, Yvette [D-NY9] ,  Hoyer, Steny [D-MD5] , Kind, Ron [D-WI3] , Nolan, Richard [D-MN8] , Levin, Sander [D-MI9] , O’Rourke, Beto [D-TX16] , Visclosky, Peter [D-IN1],   Beatty, Joyce [D-OH3]

Update 2/3/16:  HR 569 now has 125 Democrat sponsors (No Republicans to date) Latest additions include the following Representatives:  Rep. Janice Hahn [D-CA44]Rep. John Lewis [D-GA5],  Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3] Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY17] ,  Rep. Sean Maloney [D-NY18],  Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA32] , Rep. Donald Norcross [D-NJ1],  Rep. John Sarbanes [D-MD3]< /a>Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA14]Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1].

Update 1/20/16 :  There are now 115 Democrat sponsors on HR 569 (No Republicans to date).  New additions include:  Rep. Joe Courtney [D-CT2]  Rep. Juan Vargas [D-CA51]  Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman [D-NJ12]  Rep. Tony Cárdenas [D-CA29]  Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ10]  Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL1]   Rep. Nydia Velázquez [D-NY7]  Rep. Elijah Cummings [D-MD7]  Rep. Lois Frankel [D-FL22]  Rep. Kathleen Rice [D-NY4]

Previous additions (1/11/16) include Rep. Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR1] , Rep. Ben Luján [D-NM3] , Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY10] , Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D-CA40] , Rep. Bennie Thompson [D-MS2] ,  Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA2] , Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA18] ,  Rep. Hakeem Jeffries [D-NY8] ,  Rep. Ann Kuster [D-NH2] ,  Rep. Rick Larsen [D-WA2] , Rep. Brenda Lawrence [D-MI14] , Rep. Ted Lieu [D-CA33] ,  Rep. Robert “Bobby” Scott [D-VA3] ,  Jared Huffman, D-CA; Steve Israel, D-CA; Alan Lowenthal, D-CA; Michelle Luian Grisham, D-NM;  James McGovern, D-MA;  Seth Moulton, D-MA; Patrick Murphy, D-FL; Raul Ruiz, D-CA;  Louise Slaughter, D-NY; Adam Smith, D-WA.

 

Advertisement




Freedom of Speech – The Continued Assault on America’s Most Precious Liberty

31 12 2015

ontheriseHouse Resolution 569 was introduced into the United States House of Representatives on December 17, 2015.  It will be part of the legislation reviewed by Congress in 2016.  Just to give you a peek at the language included, here is the introduction, right off the top of the bill:

“Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.”

Well, I think “violence” against anyone is already condemned and considered a crime under existing legislation across the land.  “Bigotry and hateful rhetoric” has been the target of lawsuits, city ordinances, statutory law, and social pressure for generations now.  So why do we need more legislation on the books condemning these behaviors and crimes against anyone?  Of any religion? Race? Creed?

The U. S. Dept of Justice defines “hate crimes” as:  “the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.”  41 states and the District of Columbia have laws against “hate crimes” on their books.  These gist of these laws is that the penalty for committing a crime against a random victim is not as bad as for a crime against someone who has been targeted for one of the above reasons, which presupposes then the victim of a “hate crime” is hurt more than your average run of the mill victim.  Seriously, an assault victim bleeds just as much whether the perp has chosen them because of a “hate” reason or an economic one, or for for whatever reason.  A murder victim is just as dead whether chosen for the color of their skin or for the car they were driving, or the money in their pocket.  Dead is dead, and the murderer is still a murderer and will spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison or be executed.  As you can tell, I struggle with the logic of “hate crimes”.

Be that as it may, the fact remains there are plenty of laws on the books that address the issue for all victimized people, regardless of race, religion, etc.

But the point of this bill is this:  Muslims are a special class of people, worthy of much higher standards of protection than, say, Jews, Christians, or Buddhists, Sikhs, or atheists.

Rep. Don Beyer, 8th Dist VA. Via Wikipedia

So where does this idea come from?  Well, I can tell you this much.  It wasn’t the brainchild of Virginia Representative Don Beyer (D), sponsor of HR 569, who just happens to represent Virginia’s 8th Congressional District, which just happens to include the city of Falls Church, which just happens to be the location of the Dar al Hijra Islamic Center.  This is the mosque, you may remember, where several of the Sept 11th hijackers attended, where Anwar al-Alawki was the Imam (before he fled to Yemen where a US drone took him out), and Major Nidal Hassan attended prior to his Jihad on Fort Hood.  Dar al-Hijra just happens to be the mosque co-founded by Ismail Elbarasse, whose basement was a storage hold for a plethora of documents seized by the FBI in 2004, among which was the document known as the “Explanatory Memorandum for the Strategic Goal for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America”.  This was one of the documents entered as evidence in the largest terrorism funding trial in US history.  The mosque itself appears to have a long history of Islamic extremist  and terrorist ties.

But, yet, even so, the Dar al-Hijra (“Land of Migration“) mosque is not the origin of HR 569.

HR 569 is but a mirror image of UN Resolution 16/18, which was formerly known as the “Defamation of Religion”, or more accurately “The International Blasphemy” law.   The goal specifically in HR 569 is to stop any criticism of Islam or anyone or anything Islamic.  This has been the steady mantra in the Islamic groups ever since President Obama stated in the UN General Assembly “The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.”

Muslims encourage stifling of free speech

Muslims encourage stifling of free speech

That statement was like blood in the water for sharks.  It followed the White House propaganda line concerning the Benghazi affair where Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were murdered by Islamic Terrorists.  Muslim groups in the UN as well as around the country called for illegalizing criticism of Islam.  The Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City posted a link on its own website to a petition for a “law against insulting one’s religion”.

Obama was echoed by the likes of Pakistani President Zardari who said, “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.”  In other words, violence on the part of Muslims around the world must be expected when someone criticizes Islam or the prophet Muhammad, and it is the critic’s responsibility, not the violent Muslim’s.

That same chorus was joined by the newly elected Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi of Egypt, and then 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.  Turkey’s President Erdogen called Islamophobia “a crime against humanity”.

These officials were inside the UN in New York promoting their speech killing rhetoric while outside on the street and around the nation protestors were echoing the same thing, demanding the criminalization of free speech.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-chaired an international conference in 2011, applauding the adoption of UN Resolution 16/18, and promised to apply pressure at home in the United States to suppress Islamophobia.

UN Resolution 16/18 is the work of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest special interest group in the world and second largest governance body compared to the UN itself.  OIC, funded largely by Saudi Arabia, represents 56 (Syria was 57) Islamic states throughout the world in their common interest of advancing the cause of Islam, which includes establishing the Sharia worldwide.  OIC has been a subject of previous posts on this blog. For more information on OIC click here.  The term “Islamophobia” was coined by OIC and propagated by CAIR, and has become part of the lexicon used to silence critics of Islam.  (OIC’s inferred definition of “Islamophobia” does not mean ‘fear of Islam‘ as the word suggests; rather ‘critical of, unaccepting or hostile to Islam in any way‘.)

Obviously then, the OIC, by way of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), is behind HR 569.

CAIR was at the forefront immediately following the recent San Bernardino jihad (which left 14 dead and 22 wounded) and, according to Investors Business Daily, “running interference” between investigators and witnesses and suspects”.

“As medics were still removing bodies from the mass shooting, CAIR rushed to assemble a bizarre press conference, letting the media ask questions of Farook’s brother-in-law before the FBI had a crack at him.” – (H/T IBD read more here)

CAIR remains on the FBI’s “bad boy list”, and has been denied delisting by Federal Court as an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in the largest terror funding trial in US history in 2008 – Un-indicted because the current administration suspended all previous indictments concerning that trial.  CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood organization and has been proven to have direct connections to HAMAS.

CAIR was  proactive and led the narrative in the San Bernardino jihad about the concern of “backlash” against Muslims.  Less than 2 days later, the US Atty General was leading the charge on CAIR’s behalf stating her greatest fear was not terrorist attacks, but retaliatory acts of violence against Muslims.  She went on, while addressing a Muslim gathering, to include “rhetoric and bigoted actions” in her list of prosecutions under way.

CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and all its affiliates are having great success formulating or perpetuating the narrative.  Something tells me that “rhetorical terrorism” is a term that will be used by more than those spoiled little socialistic college students on college campus’ this fall.  While they’ve been looking for a “safe space” from “impactful” words, the Islamists have been working to outlaw them.

Stephen Coughlin, expert in Sharia and Islamic terrorism, and past consultant to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Daily Caller this:

“Over the last few years, major left-wing and Islamists organizations have been working diligently to reframe free speech in an oppositional narrative that distinguishes sanctioned speech, designated free speech, from hate speech in a long-term campaign to brand nonconforming speech as hate speech that is at first to be ridiculed and then criminalized”. (Read more Daily Caller)

Read that again.  Major Coughlin has summarized the entire Progressive playbook into one paragraph.

HR 569 in the US Congress has little chance of passing even if it gets out of Judicial Committee.  And it’s a resolution, not statute (Not that resolutions are not important and formative).  However, the really scary thing is it does have 82 Co-Sponsors, all Democrats.  82.  [UPDATED 2/3/16:  HR569 now has 125 Democrat co-sponsors.  For more updated info see here.]

You can download the entirety of HR 569 here complete with sponsors names, or see the text below.  It’s not long and I promise it will raise your blood pressure!

RESOLUTION Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States. HRES 569– Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

-Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

-Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

-Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

-Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

-Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

-Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

-Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—  expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes; (2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;
(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim 12 community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and
(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

Well…isn’t that special…?  I’m not even gonna unpack that sucker!!!

***For Updates on HR 569 click here.***





3 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Islam

18 12 2015

Many Americans still are confused about Islam, thanks to propaganda from Muslim Brotherhood organizations like CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, ICNA, Muslim Students Assn, etc.

This video says in 9 minutes what I’ve been saying the last 9 years.  Take a look!





What Is Natural Law?

15 12 2015

Judge Andrew Napolitano explains where Rights emanate from and how the Natural Law spoken of in the Declaration of Independence, is the bulwark against Tyranny.  He also gives a dire warning to the youth of America.

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen united States of America:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the declaration_stone_thumb_295_dark_gray_bgopinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

 

Watch Judge Napolitano’s speech:





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.





Exchanging Freedom for Equality

30 11 2015

Lenin, Jefferson, Alinsky and Tocqueville

“The end of Socialism is Communism” – Vladimir Lenin

“Polyezniy Idiot” or “Useful Idiot”:  A term coined by Vladimir Lenin to describe Westerners who blindly support Communism.

The Utopian dream of “total equality” is the crux of Communism and the fuel of revolutions for time eternal.  It also totally discounts the fallen nature of mankind.

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

 Even if total political, social, and economic equality were possible to achieve, there would be those among us whose intellectual capacity, initiative and/or talents, overshadow the rest of us.  Total equality is not achievable.

Cries of “Social Justice” and “Black Lives Matter” echo in protests on college campuses and street protests around the country, largely emanating from “polyezniy idiots” who are not only ignorant to why they are protesting, but worse yet, ignorant to what the Great American Idea is; that being that all men are created equal before the law and are free to pursue a life of liberty and happiness.

“Pursue” that is.  It’s not guaranteed.  One’s own success depends upon his own desires, dreams, and abilities.  The role of the government, as originally established, is to guarantee that each individual is protected under the law so that he may be free to pursue his own place in society.  The success of the individual lies within his own limitations (everyone has them), abilities, and desires to overcome and/or apply those.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”- Declaration of Independence

All men are created equal being endowed by God with certain “unalienable rights”.  (Cannot be given or taken by any government, king, or tyrant.)  Among those rights are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. (No one has a right to deprive you of life, liberty, or things pursuant to your happiness (exploitation of ones own talents, legal/moral pursuance and acquisition of wealth and property- both physical and intellectual, living a life of liberty according to ones own choosing which does not infringe upon or require subsidization from ones neighbor.)  You are not guaranteed success in these endeavors.  You are a sovereign individual among fellow sovereign individuals, to pursue your own success.  You are also free to fail.  And most times failure precedes success.  Failure will aid success in the future if the individual learns from the experience.  But he must be allowed to fail.  (The same goes for businesses; no one is “too big to fail”.)

[Individualism as opposed to Egotism according to Tocqueville:  Individualism is a mature expression which disposes each member to sever himself from the masses into a smaller circle of family and friends leaving society at large to itself.  Egotism is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with his own person, and to prefer himself to everything in the world.]

Are the militant demands for “Equality” that bombard us on every front today a natural result of liberty in the scheme of societal evolution?  As liberty is acquired and handed down, equality in everything becomes more and more desired, even when unattainable.  Do you really want “total equality”?

A friend recently turned me on to the French writer, political thinker, and historian, Alexis D’ Tocqueville who came to America in 1845 and studied the new nation for several months.  I’ve carelessly perused some of his quotes in the past, but never really read him. My loss.  He was a contemporary of Karl Marx.  His work “Democracy in America” is his observation of the American people, their virtues and faults, their strengths and weaknesses as well, and commentary on those concerning man in general.  His remarks about liberty compared to equality are worth considering (especially in the context of my last post about “Campus Capers”).  He writes:

“There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality that incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom … But liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol.” -[Democracy in America, 1847, Book 2, Ch. 1]

Saul_AlinskyIt is my contention that most of these protesters are a product of a progressive/marxist education system which is designed, not to promote freedom and responsibility, but to incite a revolutionary mindset which demands “social justice” not to elevate those who “have not”, but to reduce those “haves” to a common misery, always assuming those who “have” gained by immoral means.  This is the practical result, and as Saul Alinsky wrote, “The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the Revolution.”

Again, Tocqueville:

“Democratic nations are at all times fond of equality, but there are certain epochs at which the passion they entertain for it swells to the height of fury. This occurs at the moment when the old social system, long menaced, completes its own destruction after a last intestine struggle, and when the barriers of rank are at length thrown down. At such times men pounce upon equality as their booty, and they cling to it as to some precious treasure which they fear to lose. The passion for equality penetrates on every side into men’s hearts, expands there, and fills them entirely. Tell them not that by this blind surrender of themselves to an exclusive passion they risk their dearest interests: they are deaf. Show them not freedom escaping from their grasp, whilst they are looking another way: they are blind – or rather, they can discern but one sole object to be desired in the universe…”

“I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom: left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality, their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible: they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism – but they will not endure aristocracy. This is true at all times, and especially true in our own. All men and all powers seeking to cope with this irresistible passion, will be overthrown and destroyed by it. In our age, freedom cannot be established without it, and despotism itself cannot reign without its support.” -[Ibid]

I am finding Tocqueville to be fascinating and quite prophetic.  His insight was incredible.  He called socialism a “new form of slavery” in 1848.  But my current pondering continues to be this startling matter of preferring equality to liberty.  Indeed, I believe it to be irrefutable.  The Bolsheviks are among us.  Dear God, we raised them…

 





Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789

26 11 2015

 By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.
[New York, 3 October 1789]
Washington Signature

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

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

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

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington





Campus Capers and Cacophony: Inside the Student Protests

23 11 2015

After 2 weeks of Protests on college campuses around the country, the movement continues to grow.  There are signs that the protests are not “copy-cat” or coincidence, but a concerted and well planned effort by a revolutionary element yet to be positively identified.  Incuded in this article is a first hand report from inside one Student Senate meeting this last week which will reveal much of what is taking place on universities around America.

OxyUnited

Notice the clenched fist symbol used in Communist revolutionary expression since the Bolsheviks.

Beginning at University of Missouri in early November, that protest finally culminated on November 16th with the resignation of President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor Bowen, over lack of response to alleged racial concerns in U of M.  Missouri Governor Jay Nixon followed this with a statement that it was “necessary step toward healing and reconciliation”.

In quick succession, protests were felt in major universities across the United States:

Occidental College in Los Angeles – Student protestors occupy an administration building for a week.  14 demands are made by a student group called “Oxy United for Black Liberation”.  Demand #9 is that campus police immediately discontinue wearing bullet proof vests.  # 10 is “Immediate removal of LAPD’s presence on campus”.  President Veitch says there is no way all their demands can be met.  Protestors call for his resignation and he agreed to do so.

Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York – Organizers “People of Color” call for “radical/transformative change in governance and structure at Ithaca College” and demand the resignation of President Tom Rochon.  On Nov. 10th Rochon announced a new position of Chief Diversity Officer, a position which Oxy obviously already has.

Amherst College – As a response to the UM protests some students held signs that lamented the “death of free speech” and “All Lives Matter”.  That was simply so harsh that a group known as the “Amherst Uprising” listed 11 demands, among which requires President Biddy Martin issue a statement saying that Amherst does “not tolerate the actions of student(s) who posted the ‘All Lives Matter’ posters, and the ‘Free Speech’ posters.”  In addition, the “Uprising” demands the people behind the “free speech” fliers be required to go through a disciplinary process as well as “extensive training for racial and cultural competency.”  After all, we can’t actually have students thinking they have freedom of speech on college campuses now can we?

Yale – Students protest an alleged “White girls only” fraternity party. The party is under investigation but evidence is not substantive enough to confirm any “racial profiling” by the frat brothers, although it is suspected they were screening for attractiveness, no matter the race or ethnicity (imagine college boys doing that).

One Yale faculty member was “protested” due to a failure to remember someone’s name and an email that his wife had sent to the dorm where they serve as “Masters”.  Nicholas Christakis was surrounded by students calling for his resignation and screaming, “Why the f*** did you accept the position?”  The email questioned why there was a need to warn and protect students from culturally insensitive Halloween costumes—a response to a set of guidelines sent by Yale’s Intercultural Affairs Committee.

“If you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society,” Mrs. Christakis wrote.  My sentiments exactly!

But not to the modern “Revolutionary” on American college campuses.

Claremont McKenna College – Junior class President Kris Brackman resigns her office after a photo of her and other students in Halloween costumes was circulated and posted by someone taking offense at the “racially insensitive” costumes of two of the girls in the picture with Brackman.  (Wearing ponchos, sombreros and fake mustaches).   In her resignation letter Brackman accepts full responsibility for her “offense”:

“As a bystander I did not assertively speak out against the costumes, despite knowing that they were disrespectful,” she wrote. “Even worse, I associated myself with the offensive message by willingly standing in a photo with the costumes … I am regretfully sorry to have been associated with this harmful incident, and after thoughtful consideration I have decided to leave my position as the Junior Class President.”

This wasnt’ enough and the College Dean, Mary Spellman also stepped down after 6 years.

University of Kansas – All four state universities in Kansas- Wichita State, Emporia State, Kansas State, and University of Kansas have all experienced some form of protest in the last few days.  We will take a closer look at “Rock Chalk Invisible Hawk”(RCIH), the group protesting at KU.

The protests at KU erupted on Nov 11 when the Chancellor held a townhall meeting to discuss the University of Missouri events.  RCIH interrupted the forum, taking the stage holding signs supporting Mizzou and protesting various issues, including at least one which read “Black Lives Matter”.   The crowd reportedly became caustic, at times yelling over Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little, in the packed out Student Union.  RCIH also carried signs which enumerated 15 demands, some of which Kansas University has no jurisdiction over, such as re-opening an investigation into a homicide from 1970 of a 19 year old Black student.  Another demand included increasing the number of “undocumented students” on campus.  (My head is beginning to hurt).

RCIH took note of two students, the Student Body President and Vice President, when they did not stand to show unity with the protestors.  That failed action singled them out for brutal social media coverage and accusations of racism and insensitivity.  Yes, they are white.  President Jessie Pringle, VP Zach George, and a third student, Chief of Staff Adam Moon may face impeachment proceedings now, as they refuse to resign, even after they signed a written statement formalizing support for “Black Lives Matter”.

“Rhetorical Terrorism”

A few days ago a friend attended the Student Senate meeting at KU on November 18th.  She is a professional, and took meticulous notes, and has been releasing related materials ever since.  The following commentaries are excerpts from her report:

People don’t realize how far this social justice/political correctness agenda has gone. I didn’t realize it until last night! I am frightened in a way I haven’t been before. And nobody is offering me a “safe space” where I can “breathe” and have “my humanity affirmed“. [Italicized are recurring terms which are often mentioned in these meetings.]

There was talk about ally vs accomplice. Those white students who spoke in support of RockChalkInvisibleHawk (RCIH) could be called an “ally” but only if persons of color (more than one) granted them that status. That comes directly from KU OMA (office of multicultural affairs) which previously had a workshop on how to be an ally.

I was disappointed in the responses of the three officers who didn’t resign and are now under the impeachment process. It was sheer self-flagellation. Profuse apologies for not giving multicultural students what they need and ruining their experience at KU (which experience is to provide “learning, self-exploration and above all enjoyment“).  The officers want everyone to come together, to restructure the senate, additional appointed senate seats, mandatory “cultural competency training“, cap election spending (and possibly minority coalition subsidies), address the retention rate,…

Changes will include international students and gender neutral language. Adam Moon had said something about the “normal freshman experience’ and a representative of the International Students Association got up and asked why he “called international students abnormal. You said normal freshman…why are we abnormal?” When [Moon] denied that he called them abnormal, she told him he needed “to watch his rhetoric“.
Someone asked if requiring “students of color” be on the election commission and that was affirmed as a possibility. In other words, quotas.
There was a lot of questions about how to make sure those who have gone through cultural competency training are actually competent and if not deemed competent, how they could be removed.  Stephon Alcorn (black senator) said that “all students have a right to inclusion and success“.
“Rhetorical terrorism” — as in, what you said just made me feel unsafe; therefore, you have terrorized me with your words.
If there was something said or a question asked that they didn’t like, they would say “Impact”. If the speaker would say, that’s not my intent, the response was “I don’t care what your intent was, you have impacted me.”
Dr. Andrea Quenette Asst Professor of Communications used “rhetorical terrorism” and denied institutional racism.  RCIH has published an open letter calling for her resignation based on insensitive and racist remarks in a classroom discussing the current issues.  She insists that her motives were not discriminatory and now fears for her job, because she voiced that she doesn’t see racism on the KU campus and used the “n-word” in a frank discussion about race, stating she has never seen that word spray painted on the walls.
Intimidation was strong. The meeting chair (who did a great job) kept having to take a motion to extend the speakers’ time. The first couple of times the votes were “Yay” and a few “Nays” until Omar (RCIH student)  got up and exclaimed that if you don’t want to have questions and allow them to speak “then there’s the door”.  After that, all extensions of time were unanimous. At one point, while the RCIH were standing up front talking about their demands, they said “and if you don’t like this or vote against it”, “We see you. Don’t think we don’t see you“.
Folks, this type of intimidation tactics are classic Saul Alinsky style, “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”, “pick the target, freeze it and personalize it”.  Also, “power is not what you have, it’s what the enemy thinks you have”.   These people have been trained.  It is concerted and highly organized.  These few colleges are not the entirety of this effort. It is nationwide.
The following short video is a great illustration of what we are seeing take place on our universities across the country, right now.  Watch this, Please!





Victory for Freedom of Speech

2 11 2015
On Wednesday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals completely reversed a lower court’s decision and ruled in favor of Evangelical Christians who were arrested for disturbing the peace at the 2012 Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan.  The Christians had bottles, eggs, and other items hurled at them by Muslims for publicly preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  A short video of this episode can be found here.
During this festival, a group of Muslims approached the Christians and asked to hear about the Gospel. The Christians obliged and began sharing about the Bible, Jesus, and their faith.  Other Muslims became angry and assaulted the Christians for their speech.  The police ended up arresting the Christians, not the Muslims.
The case, Bible Believers v. Wayne County, was brought by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of the Christians.
On August 27, 2014, a divided, three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit dismissed the civil rights lawsuit, finding the violent response of the Muslim hecklers justified the Wayne County sheriffs’ order to the Christians they would be arrested for disorderly conduct if they did not leave the festival area.
Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the Christians on every issue, completely reversing the lower court opinion, and directing the court to enter judgment in the Christians’ favor.
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit ruled the County and the two Deputy Chief defendants were liable for violating the Christians’ First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, and for depriving the Christians of the equal protection of the law. The court ruled the individual defendants did not enjoy qualified immunity, and the County was liable as a municipality for the constitutional violations.
In its opinion, the Sixth Circuit stated, in part:
“In a balance between two important interests-free speech on one hand, and the state’s power to maintain the peace on the other-the scale is heavily weighted in favor of the First Amendment. . . . Maintenance of the peace should not be achieved at the expense of the free speech. The freedom to espouse sincerely held religious, political, or philosophical beliefs, especially in the face of hostile opposition, is too important to our democratic institution for it to be abridged simply due to the hostility of reactionary listeners who may be offended by a speaker’s message. If the mere possibility of violence were allowed to dictate whether our views, when spoken aloud, are safeguarded by the Constitution, surely the myriad views that animate our discourse would be reduced to the standardization of ideas by the dominant political or community groups. Democracy cannot survive such a deplorable result.
 
“When a peaceful speaker, whose message is constitutionally protected, is confronted by a hostile crowd, the state may not silence the speaker as an expedient alternative to containing or snuffing out the lawless behavior of the rioting individuals. Nor can an officer sit idly on the sidelines-watching as the crowd imposes, through violence, a tyrannical majoritarian rule-only later to claim that the speaker’s removal was necessary for his or her own protection.”
 
In short, this was a complete victory for the Constitution and for all freedom-loving Americans who enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.
The AFLC is first and foremost a public interest litigation firm, which aggressively seeks to advance and defend America’s Judeo-Christian heritage in courts all across our Nation.  The AFLC’s mission is to fight for faith and freedom through litigation, education, and public policy programs.
A short video detailing AFLC’s mission and accomplishments can be seen here.
AFLC is comprised of attorney Robert Muise, a combat veteran Marine Officer and expert in Constitutional law, and attorney David Yerushalmi, one of the nation’s most knowledgeable attorneys on national security, Constitutional law, as well as Sharia (Islamic Law).
AFLC states on their website:  “The strength of our Nation lies in its commitment to a Judeo-Christian heritage and moral foundation and to an enduring faith and trust in God and His Providence. AFLC seeks a return to America’s founding commitment to receive God’s continued blessing to preserve the soul of this great Nation.”
This ruling demonstrates there are still bastions of sanity in the American judicial system where liberty under law still reigns in America, and where judges committed to justice win over the progressives trying to destroy our nation.
Let us celebrate this significant victory today and raise a glass to the courage of the Americans who withstood the attack, the AFLC for its work to defend our liberties, and the Court for doing what it should always do – rule judiciously.
John Guandolo, UTT




The Satanic Alliance: Marxism, Islam and Privileged Hatred

26 10 2015

islamintern

Islamic Marxism, Islamic Socialism, seems to be a contradiction of terms.

Be NOT Deceived!  THIS has been an allied movement for a long time in the US and for generations around the world!

THIS is why the Progressives/Socialists/Marxists find kindred purpose with the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood groups such as CAIR, MSA, ICNA, ISNA, MPAC, and etc. ad nauseam.  Every “Social Justice” movement in the world has origins and common purpose in the destruction of Capitalism, the United States of America, and Western Society in general.  It is Anti-Christian, not Anti-Religion; Christianity focuses on the rights, liberties and value of the individual!  Individuals do NOT exist in this post-American World; Only the Collective!

Familiarize yourselves with “Sustainable Development”, “Sustainability”, “Sustainable Growth”; it is found in the UN (Marxist from its roots) agenda known as “Agenda 21”.  New buzz words encompassing this belief include, 20/20, 20/30, 20/50, “Smart Growth”, and “Smart Growth Corridors”, all coming to a city council near you!

In the following video, watch for phrases like: “Social Justice”, “Socialist”,  “Justice”.  This phraseology is straight out of the Communist Manifesto!

Pay Attention!  The world has already changed and America is now Ahmerikah!

(More on this subject to come)





Islam IS Incompatible with the US Constitution

22 09 2015

I have written extensively on this site of the threat that Islam and it’s self contained jurisprudence known as the “Sharia” (The Right Path) poses to the United States, its Constitution, and all of Western Society.  It is amazing that 15 years post 9/11 and ignorance is the main player in the American media as well as the mainstream pop culture which consumes it.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is beside itself demanding, DEMANDING I say, that Ben Carson get out of the Presidential race and America condemn him as “unfit” to serve as President, because he doesn’t understand the Constitution!

Let’s see now, CAIR, a known HAMAS tied Muslim Brotherhood front group, founded by Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad, both of whom were members of the Islamic Association for Palestine which was proven in Federal court to have funneled American money to HAMAS and other terrorist groups for jihad,  and still remains on the “Un-indicted Co-conspirator” list left over from the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest Terrorist Funding Trial in US history, who called on Mr. Obama to back legislation limiting freedom of speech, is lecturing America on the Constitution!

Back in 2013 I wrote an article that explains what Sharia is and how incompatible Islam is, not only with American culture, but our laws including the Constitution.  It includes excerpts from Umdat al-Salik, The Classic Manual of Islamic Holy Law which also gives Quranic justification for each statute.  An excerpt from that article is posted here:

[At] Kansas KU Sharia HandbookUniversity Law School there are classes that teach Sharia to aspiring young law students.  The textbook reads like you would expect; revised history and a sanitized theological discussion, soothing the non-inquisitive mind and ignorant spirit that it’s just “freedom of religion” and no different than Jewish Halakhah or Catholic Canon.  Of course, the sanitized Sharia version leaves out all the gory stuff like dismemberment for thieves and pow’s, execution for apostates (o8.1; “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”), homosexuals (p17.1 “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.”), wine-bibbers (p14.2-1, “Scourge whoever drinks wine…if he drinks it a fourth time kill him.”) atheists (o9.0 “The Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.”), and anyone of the Jewish or Christian persuasion who does not “submit” to the rule of Islam.  Sharia also obliges the Muslim adherent, male or female, to circumcision (e4.3), and despite Muslim claims to the contrary, there is no age limit for marriage of girls.  A high percentage in the Islamic world are given (for dowry) in marriage by their fathers under the age of 16, many before puberty, such as the recent case in Yemen resulting in the death of the 8 yr old child.  This is not uncommon in Sharia controlled states. But the sanitized version will treat this as an outlier, a regional or custom related practice, when in reality under sharia, the family determines the age.

Touted as mainly for use by Muslims for “family matters”, the sanitized version also leaves out the fact that a woman’s testimony is worth half the value of a man’s and she rates behind any male heirs who get the first shares of the estate right after the mosque,  and a rape victim is generally to blame for her plight and she could be shamed, outcast or worse.  It is not uncommon for rape victims to be beaten or stoned for adultery, fornication, and/or “honor killed”, under sharia as discussed in this article by Hasan Mahmud.

The Sharia that is taught at KU and is shown to the general public also whitewashes Jihad as the “inner struggle”, ignoring the fact that this one line is cherry picked from 8 pages of directives concerning the Jihad (Holy War, o9.0) “to war against non-Muslims…signifying warfare to establish the religion (Islam)…” and presents Hadith’s like Bukhari quoting Muhammad as saying, “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat . If they say it, they have saved their blood and possession from me, except for the rights of Islam over them.”  The remaining headings under “Jihad” are titled: “The Obligatory Character of Jihad”,  “Who is Obliged to Fight in Jihad”, “The Objectives of Jihad” (“The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…[and] fights all other people until they become Muslim.”), “The Rules of Warfare”, “Truces”, “The Spoils of Battle”. This section on “Jihad” is immediately followed by, “Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Dhimmi)”.  Now I ask you, does that sound like that very personal, struggle within ones own self to submit to Allah and maintain one’s faith?

One other important aspect to Sharia is that it codifies lying, or “deception”, in order to advance the cause of Islam (r8.2) and stay out of trouble with one’s wife!  Aside from the obvious advantage of keeping the wife deceived, “Taqiyya” (deception) is employed especially when Muslims are outnumbered, as a minority of a host society, in order to gain the trust and deceive the host, until a majority of Muslims can use politics, education, or force to overpower it.  Sound familiar yet?  Click here for more on Sharia.

[Shaira 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]

You see, the objective of Islam is not to be equal, just as CAIR co-Founder Omar Ahmad stated, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Then there is the proposed “Blasphemy Law” that is being called for by Muslims around the world, which would make it a crime against humanity to criticize Islam.  Immediately after Barack Obama gave his infamous speech, declaring “The future does not belong to those who would slander the prophet” at the 2012 United Nations General Assembly, in the wake of the Benghazi terrorist attack (which he and Hillary Clinton blamed on an anti-Muhammad video), Muslims from around the world and closer to home made the hue and cry for freedom of speech to be made criminal.

Muslims encourage stifling of free speech

The Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City posted a link to a petition on their website encouraging visitors to sign on, petitioning “The President of the United States: To sponsor a bill that outlaws any action that may insult one’s religion”.  (The petition got a whopping  351 signatures.)  While the President hasn’t actually sponsored legislation to curtail free speech, he has enacted policies within the many bureaucracies, including DHS and the DOJ, which are threatening American’s freedom of speech.  The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) immediately petitioned the UN to pass the same ordinance.

You can be sure this will not be slowing down anytime soon.  CAIR and cohorts are like sharks with blood in the water.  Once a breech is made, a flood will ensue.  In fact the flood gates are open and this breech will not be closed under this government. While “American Laws for American Courts” is good law and so far, effective as to it’s intent, it is only as good as our legal system which is becoming increasingly compromised.

American’s (non-Muslim that is) must learn why Islam is detrimental to all of Western Culture and the basic freedoms that we have enjoyed for so long.  Islam is indeed, “The Great Black Beast”, a cloud hanging over head that is going to become more oppressive unless we learn to reject it, and once again embrace the true God which has been the source of all that is good and just in our culture thus far.

Sayyid Syeed, National Director for the Office for Interfaith & Community Alliances for the Islamic Society of North America (another Muslim Brotherhood affiliate), put it this way in 2004, “Our job is to change the Constitution of America”.  That is to make it more compatible with Sharia.

As you can see, Islamic Law doesn’t fit well into the American Jurisprudence and, as Dr. Carson so eloquently stated, is incompatible with our Constitution.

Dr. Ben Carson seems to be a bit old fashioned…I mean…really!  The Constitution is something that he really cares about?  And he is running for President!!





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





The Revealed Faith of the Founders

16 09 2015

My apologies for neglecting this blog for so long.  I have been working on multiple projects, and one of those is quite finished.  This post is an introduction to the work I’ve been doing on a study of the Founding Fathers.  I will post a few snippets of that study every few days for the next week or so.  -declaration-hero-E

“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.  “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 as the prevalent ideology of the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, and Jack Reed.”

The entire document can be found in pdf form by simply clicking the page tab at the top of the screen “The Revealed FAith of the Founders”.  Just click the link by the same name, “The Revealed Faith of the Founders”.  Feel free to download the pdf and read the entire study at your convenience.





Kim Davis Broke No Law!

7 09 2015

The best commentary on the Kim Davis case I have seen yet. Anna Maria Perez nails it: Judicial tyranny by a gay activist judge. Check it out!

Flat Out Unconstitutional

Amp229

For days people have been arguing about Kim Davis’s refusal to hand out gay marriage licenses in Kentucky on social media.  This issue isn’t even about gay marriage.  The Supreme Court unconstitutionally threw out the laws and constitutional amendments of all states which banned gay marriage.  This was a large majority of the states.  These laws were legislated by legislative branches of government or voted on by the people and passed legitimately.  The Supreme Court has no constitutionally enumerated authority to rule on the Constitutionality of a law or to throw out a law. None.  You will not find these powers listed in Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as the 10th Amendment requires.

Federal Judge David Bunning found Kim Davis to be in contempt of court when she refused to break Kentucky state law and hand out marriage licenses to homosexual partners.  She based her decision on religious grounds. …

View original post 1,264 more words





Common Core and Civilization Jihad (Video)

6 09 2015

Alice Linahan is releasing a new book which adeptly peels the layers off Common Core and reveals the outcome of P-20w educational philosophy which is designed to “fundamentally transform” the next generations of Americans into followers of globalism, and submission to the global Caliphate.  Take a look at this short video and pass it on.





A Country Purposefully Divided

8 08 2015

I’ve been following this blog for sometime. I don’t know Kingjester, but we are kindred spirits, and since I have not had time to write lately, I would like to share this post which reflects my sentiments precisely. Well done!

Kingsjester's Blog

th (23)You know, I was asked by an NPR reporter once why don’t I talk about race that often. I said, “It’s because I’m a neurosurgeon.” And she thought that was a strange response . . . I said, “You see, when I take someone to the operating room, I’m actually operating on the thing that makes them who they are. The skin doesn’t make them who they are. The hair doesn’t make them who they are. And it’s time for us to move beyond that because . . . our strength as a nation comes in our unity. – Dr. Ben Carson, Closing Statement, GOP Presidential Candidate Debate, Fox News, August 6, 2015

Thursday night, 24 million Americans tuned in to Fox News to watch a multitude of Republican Presidential Candidate Hopefuls attempt to distinguish themselves from one another.

Some are saying that it was the biggest audience ever for…

View original post 1,489 more words





The Dualistic Dilemma

12 07 2015

Guest Column by Jana Rea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wherever there is a virtue, there is a counterfeit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(George Washington excerpted from Farewell Address 1796)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until then, Reality begs for participants.





How Team Obama Helps the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Wage Jihad on Freedom of Expression

9 07 2015

Deborah Weiss has done extensive work and research on the OIC and their efforts in the UN to bring the globe, specifically the United States and the West into Sharia compliance.  OIC is actually have a great success in that endeavor, intimidating and bullying those who would criticize Islam and it’s prophet.  The OIC’s invention of the term “Islamophobia” has netted great progress in that endeavor, and with the Obama administrations assistance, has had a huge impact on the conversation in the American media, academia, and business worlds.  Be sure to click and read Deborah’s full monograph in PDF at the end of this post. (DTN)

The Following article from SecureFreedom.org

Washington, D.C.: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest Islamic organization in the world – comprised of 56 UN Member states plus the Palestinian Authority — has long been trying to silence, and ultimately criminalize, all criticism of Islam, specifically targeting America and the West.  What has largely gone unremarked is the help the OIC has received from the Obama administration to this end.

Deborah Weiss, attorney, author and expert on Islamist efforts to stifle free speech reveals in a new monograph published by the Center for Security Policy Press how the OIC is working through UN resolutions, multilateral conferences and other international vehicles to advance its agenda.  The goal of these efforts, according to the OIC’s 10-year program of action, which was launched in 2005, is to combat so-called “Islamophobia” and “defamation of religions”.  In practice, this means banning any discussion of Islamic supremacism and its many manifestations including:  jihadist terrorism, persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.
Upon the publication of her monograph entitled, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech, Ms. Weiss remarked:
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the largest and most powerful voting bloc in the United Nations and yet most Americans have never heard of it. Of particular concern is the OIC’s ten-year program which amounts to an international effort to suppress freedom of expression under the guise of protecting Islam from so-called “defamation.” This initiative, however, is in the service of OIC’s long-term mission: the world-wide implementation of Shariah, a legal-political-judicial-religious doctrine which favors Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, and denies basic human rights and freedoms.
Ms. Weiss’ monograph documents how the Obama Administration has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in ways that, whether intentional or unwitting, have advanced the OIC’s supremacist agenda.  As it happens, recently released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch through court-enforced Freedom of Information Act requests underscore the extent of Team Obama’s collusion with the OIC.
Specifically, these emails offer insights into how, in September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the White House worked with the OIC to fabricate a narrative that falsely blamed an online video “Innocence of Muslims” for the violent uprising at the U.S. special mission compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the documents reveal that the Obama administration immediately went into damage-limitation mode, with a well-coordinated effort to scapegoat the video as the cause of the attack.  Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s envoy to the OIC, reached out to the Organization’s leadership urging it to condemn the “anti-Islamic film” and “its related violence” and to respond in a way that is “consistent with Islamic principles.”
The OIC readily obliged, issuing a statement accusing the video of “incitement” – though nothing in the video called for violence against Muslims – and claiming that it “hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims” and “demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression”.
The effect was to reinforce the OIC’s goal to protect Islam from “defamation” instead of supporting the US Constitutional principle of free expression.
In her monograph, Ms. Weiss elucidates examples of the escalating assault on freedom of expression that the OIC has launched against the West and their implications. She describes the critical role freedom of speech plays in preserving religious freedom, human rights and national security efforts.  As she correctly points out, “If you look around the world, you will see that freedom is the exception, not the rule.”
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, observed that:
Deborah Weiss’ important new book is a clarion call to Americans and their federal representatives to end all cooperation with the Islamic supremacists of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, including cessation of participation in the anti-free speech “Istanbul Process” launched by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State.  Citizens and policy-makers alike should, instead, commit themselves vigorously and unapologetically to freedom of expression – including to its employment as an indispensable weapon in the execution of a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Global Jihad Movement.”
The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present Ms. Weiss’s monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.  The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech by Deborah Weiss, Esq. is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com  HERE.
For further information on the threats shariah poses to our foundational liberal democratic values, see more titles from the Center for Security Policy HERE.
Buy The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech in Kindle or paperback format on Amazon.For a free PDF of the newly released monograph by Deborah Weiss click HERE.

 
About Secure Freedom
Secure Freedom, is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org




How Islam Became a Privileged Religion

16 06 2015

This is quite possibly the best article defining how Islam works that I have ever read-

By Daniel Greenfield via Freedom Center

What is Islam? The obvious dictionary definition answer is that it’s a religion, but legally speaking it actually enjoys all of the advantages of race, religion and culture with none of the disadvantages.

Islam is a religion when mandating that employers accommodate the hijab, but when it comes time to bring it into the schools, places that are legally hostile to religion, American students are taught about Islam, visit mosques and even wear burkas and recite Islamic prayers to learn about another culture. Criticism of Islam is denounced as racist even though the one thing that Islam clearly isn’t is a race.

Islamist organizations have figured out how lock in every advantage of race, religion and culture, while expeditiously shifting from one to the other to avoid any of the disadvantages.

The biggest form of Muslim privilege has been to racialize Islam. The racialization of Islam has locked in all the advantages of racial status for a group that has no common race, only a common ideology.

Islam is the only religion that cannot be criticized. No other religion has a term in wide use that treats criticism of it as bigotry. Islamophobia is a unique term because it equates dislike of a religion with racism. Its usage makes it impossible to criticize that religion without being accused of bigotry.

By equating religion with race, Islam is treated not as a particular set of beliefs expressed in behaviors both good and bad, but as an innate trait that like race cannot be criticized without attacking the existence of an entire people. The idea that Islamic violence stems from its beliefs is denounced as racist.

Muslims are treated as a racial collective rather than a group that shares a set of views about the world.

That has made it impossible for the left to deal with ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or non-Muslims from Muslim families like Salman Rushdie. If Islam is more like skin color than an ideology, then ex-Muslims, like ex-Blacks, cannot and should not exist. Under such conditions, atheism is not a debate, but a hate crime. Challenging Islam does not question a creed; it attacks the existence of an entire people.

Muslim atheists, unlike all other atheists, are treated as race traitors both by Muslims and leftists. The left has accepted the Brotherhood’s premise that the only authentic Middle Easterner is a Muslim (not a Christian or a Jew) and that the only authentic Muslim is a Salafist (even if they don’t know the word).

The racialization of Islam has turned blasphemy prosecutions into an act of tolerance while making a cartoon of a religious figure racist even when it is drawn by ex-Muslims like Bosch Fawstin. The New York Times will run photos of Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” covered in dung and pornography, but refuses to run Mohammed cartoons because it deems one anti-religious and the other racist.

The equating of Islam with Arabs and Pakistanis has made it nearly impossible for the media to discuss violence against Christians in those parts of the world. The racialization of Islam has made Arab Christians, like Bangladeshi atheists, a contradiction in terms. The ethnic cleansing of the Yazidi could only be covered by giving them a clearly defined separate identity. Middle Eastern Christians are increasingly moving to avoid being categorized as Arabs because it is the only way to break through this wall of ignorance.

While racialization is the biggest Muslim privilege, race provides no protection for many Islamic religious practices. Muslims then seek religious discrimination laws to protect these practices even if it’s often a matter of debate whether their lawsuits protect their religious practices or impose them on others.

Islam is a theocracy. When it leaves the territories conquered by Islam, it seeks to replicate that theocracy through violence and by adapting the legal codes of the host society to suit its purposes.

Islamic blasphemy laws are duplicated using hate crime laws. Employers are obligated to make religious concessions to Muslim employees because of laws protecting religious practices, but many of these practices, such as refusing to carry out jobs involving pork, liquor or Seeing Eye dogs, are really ways of theocratically forcing behaviors that Islam forbids out of public life much as Saudi Arabia or Iran do.

Accusations of bigotry are used to outlaw ideas that Islam finds blasphemous and religious protection laws are used to banish behaviors that it disapproves of. By switching from race to religion and back again, Islamists construct a virtual theocracy by exploiting laws designed to protect different types of groups.

Religions in America traded theocracy for religious freedom. They gave up being able to impose their practices on others in exchange for being able to freely practice their own religions. Islam rejects religious freedom. It exploits it to remove the freedom of belief and practice of others. When it cannot do so through religious protection laws, it does so through claims of bigotry.

Religions were not meant to be immunized from blasphemy because that is theocracy. Instead religions are protected from restrictions, rather than from criticism. Islam insists on being protected from both. It makes no concessions to the freedom of others while demanding maximum religious accommodation.

While race and religion are used to create negative spaces in which Islam cannot be challenged, the creed is promoted positively as a culture. Presenting Islam as a culture allows it easier entry into schools and cultural institutions. Islamic missionary activity uses the Western longing for oriental exotica that its political activists loudly decry to inject it into secular spaces that would ordinarily be hostile to organized religion.

Leftists prefer to see Islam as a culture rather than a religion. Their worldview is not open to Islam’s clumsy photocopy of the deity that they have already rejected in their own watered down versions of Christianity and Judaism. But they are constantly seeking an aimless and undefined spirituality in non-Western cultures that they imagine are free of the materialism and hypocrisy of Western culture.

Viewing Islam as a culture allows the left to project its own ideology on a blank slate. That is why liberals remain passionately convinced that Islam is a religion of social justice. Their Islam is a mirror that reflects back their own views and ideas at them. They pretend to respect Islam as a culture without bothering to do any more than learn a few words and names so that they can seem like world travelers.

By morphing into a culture, Islam sheds its content and becomes a style, a form of dress, a drape of cloth, a style of beard, a curvature of script and a whiff of spices. It avoids uncomfortable questions about what the Koran actually says and instead sells the religion as a meaningful lifestyle. This approach has always had a great deal of appeal for African-Americans who were cut off from their own heritage through Islamic slavery, but it also enjoys success with white upper class college students.

The parents of those students often learn too late that Islam is not just another interchangeable monotheistic religion, that its mosques are not places where earnest grad students lecture elderly congregants about social justice and that its laws are not reducible to the importance of being nice to others.

Like a magician using misdirection, these transformations from religion to race, from race to culture and from culture to religion, distract Americans from asking what Islam really believes. By combining race, religion and culture, it replicates the building blocks of its theocracy within our legal and social spaces.

Separately each of these has its advantages and disadvantages. By combining them, Islam gains the advantages of all three, and by moving from one to the other, it escapes all of the disadvantages. The task of its critics is to deracialize Islam, to reduce it to an ideology and to ask what it really believes.

Islam is a privileged religion. And there’s a word for that. Theocracy.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. See original article here





Christians in Iraq utter desperate plea to the West: Destroy ISIS or open your doors and save us!

16 06 2015

From Ann Corcoran: Immigration is not just about our Souther Border.








%d bloggers like this: