Amillennialist

Archive for October, 2009|Monthly archive page

Wake up, America

In Barack Hussein Obama, Deceiving non-Muslims, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 25, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Pat Condell understands Islam (it’s too bad he wrongly equates Christianity with Islam and the freedom Christ gives with tyranny and violence. Pat, Western notions of Liberty have at its core the teachings of Christ.  “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1).)

If we do not defend our liberties against Islamic and Domestic Tyranny, we will lose them.

Wake up, America

In Barack Hussein Obama, Deceiving non-Muslims, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 25, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Pat Condell understands Islam (it’s too bad he wrongly equates Christianity with Islam and the freedom Christ gives with tyranny and violence. Pat, Western notions of Liberty have at its core the teachings of Christ.  “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1).)

If we do not defend our liberties against Islamic and Domestic Tyranny, we will lose them.

On the nature and name of the Triune God

In Christ vs. Allah, Holy Spirit, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The deity of Christ, Trustworthiness of Scripture on October 23, 2009 at 8:10 PM

On challenges from a decent Muslim to the nature and name of the Triune God:

As to “how often he is referred to as ‘YHWH’ in the Bible?”

Almost 6700 times.

It’s hard to find anything in the Bible about the ‘Holy Spirit.’

That’s funny, because “Holy Spirit” is found in 92 verses, and “Spirit of God” turns up in 26:

Psalms 51:11; Isaiah 63:10,11; Matthew 1:18,20; 3:11; 12:32; 28:19; Mark 1:8; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Luke 1:15,35,41,67; 2:25,26; 3:16,22; 4:1; 10:21; 11:13; 12:10,12; John 1:33; 14:26; 20:22; Acts 1:2,5,8,16; 2:4,33,38; 4:8,25,31; 5:3,32; 6:5; 7:51,55; 8:15,17,19; 9:17,31; 10:38,44,45,47; 11:15,16,24; 13:2,4,9,52; 15:8,28; 16:6; 19:2,6; 20:23,28; 21:11; 28:25; Romans 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13,16; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 12:3; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 13:14; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 1:5,6; 4:8; 2 Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8; 10:15; 1 Peter 1:12; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20

and

Genesis 1:2; 41:38; Exodus 31:3; 35:31; Numbers 24:2; 1 Samuel 10:10; 11:6; 19:20,23; 2 Chronicles 15:1; 24:20; Job 27:3; 33:4; Ezekiel 11:24; Matthew 3:16; 12:28; Romans 8:9,14; 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:11,14; 7:40; 12:3; Ephesians 4:30; Philippians 3:3; 1 John 4:2

And no, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are the direct words of Christ:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . .” (Matthew 28:19).

“We believe that Christ (Isa) was a prophet, not the Son of God. But again, that’s just an opinion.”

Jesus called Himself the “Son of God” and, “I AM,” the name by which YHWH revealed Himself to Moses.

Every Surah in the Koran starts with “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.” Sometimes it’s translated as “Most Merciful, Most Compassionate.”

Sura 9 does not.

Of the rest, several contain the commands for violence against non-Muslims, apostates, and women; Suras 4,5, and 8 come immediately to mind

In the ESV, NIV, and King James (at least; I haven’t looked at other translations), YHWH in the Old Testament is translated into English as “The LORD.” In the New Testament, which was written in Greek, rather than use “YHWH,” the authors used Kurios, which is also translated “LORD” (all caps).

No man can produce a chapter equal to Qur’an’s Sura 9

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The truth about Islam on October 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Not even Hitler, and I’m sure he would have if he could have.

No, the source of Sura 9 and its supporting texts is something more . . . diabolical.

(Notice the red herring introduced slyly by the Muslim below.)

akhter wrote:

produce a chapter similar to the one in the glorious,you say Mohammad wrote the book

No, Muhammad was illiterate.

And a chapter like Sura 9?

You’re right. I cannot produce anything approaching the level of “glory” to which Qur’an 9 descends.

No man can produce a chapter equal to Qur’an’s Sura 9

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The truth about Islam on October 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Not even Hitler, and I’m sure he would have if he could have.

No, the source of Sura 9 and its supporting texts is something more . . . diabolical.

(Notice the red herring introduced slyly by the Muslim below.)

akhter wrote:

produce a chapter similar to the one in the glorious,you say Mohammad wrote the book

No, Muhammad was illiterate.

And a chapter like Sura 9?

You’re right. I cannot produce anything approaching the level of “glory” to which Qur’an 9 descends.

Unlike Allah (and all other gods, in fact), YHWH’s miracles were done in plain sight, in history; no secret Moon-splitting, midnight flights, nor "divine revelations" on the word of one, utterly-depraved criminal

In Christ, Christ vs. Allah, Christianity, The deity of Christ, Trustworthiness of Scripture, Unbelieving not "doubting" Thomas on October 23, 2009 at 7:14 PM

A few thoughts on religious matters, offered to a friend . . .

It is wise to be skeptical.

Unlike Allah (and all other gods, in fact), YHWH’s miracles were done in plain sight, in history; no secret Moon-splitting, midnight flights, nor “divine revelations” on the word of one, utterly-depraved criminal.

From a plain reading of the Joshua passage you note (an historical account not necessarily devoid of symbolic meaning; when you’re the Author of the universe, you can have both), the day standing still was intended primarily to allow Israel to defeat its enemies.

On the other hand, YHWH’s defeating Egypt when He delivered Israel from slavery there and their preservation during forty years of wandering were intended to show His power and mercy.

Christ’s miracles too were intended as signs so that Israel (and we) would believe that He was (is) the Promised Messiah, but even those were considered by Him as secondary; His person and words should be enough:

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?

The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves” (John 14:8-11).

Unlike Muhammad’s self-serving fusion of the “religious” and the political, Christ made a careful distinction between the two.

Faith in Him has nothing to do with societal majorities or being acceptable to friends, neighbors, or countrymen.

Jesus came to make us sinners acceptable to God. He came to bear our sins and be our Savior, to reconcile us to His Father in His body on the cross.

Christ does not demand that anyone believe, “Because I said so,” or, “Believe, or else!”

He proved His power and love over and over again in public, in front of the whole world, in full view of multiple eyewitnesses (including hostile ones), in history.

As He did with Unbelieving (not “Doubting”) Thomas — who would not believe in the Resurrected Christ unless he saw and touched His wounds — so Jesus does with us:

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.”

But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:24-31).

Will he argue — as he did for Muhammad’s raping little, prepubescent Aisha beginning when she was only nine-years-old — that that camel liked it?

In Christ vs. Allah, Deceiving non-Muslims, Mohamed Fadly, Mohammed the pedophile, The deity of Christ, The truth about Islam on October 23, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Posted at a patriot’s site:

(Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794): Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of ‘Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

Hello, Mohamed.

I’ve had a lot of time to think over what I might have done wrong in order for you to forbid my posting at your site and to delete my comments quoting your allah and its prophet.

If what I was saying was false or in error or just plain nonsense, that should have been easy to demonstrate. You could have left up my words and your refutations of them in order to shame me publicly into perpetuity.

But you didn’t. Why not?

It’s a little ironic, isn’t it? I disallowed Underclassed’s comments for gratuitously and undeservedly insulting Reb and for his virulent use of profanity-as-argumentation, but you ban me for . . . telling the truth?

What does that say about you, Mohamed? Your arguments? Your god? Your prophet?

I have a question about Muhammad the Physician: Since he prescribed drinking camel urine for medicinal purposes, do you also drink camel urine (when the climate doesn’t suit you, that is. We mustn’t take anything out-of-context!)?

If not, how can you defend him as the Perfect Man, as Allah’s “beautiful pattern of conduct”?

If you do, will you argue that camel urine used to provide a health benefit, but that only Muslims, and not other civilizations, noticed?

Will you argue — as you did for Muhammad’s raping little, prepubescent Aisha beginning when she was only nine-years-old — that that camel liked it?

Or will you argue that infidel science has yet to determine the salutary effects of that magic elixir?

As far as convincing proofs go, Jesus did not turn clay into doves; that is an apocryphal story, not historical fact (as in the canonical books).

But if He had, Jesus would not have needed “the help of God,” as if He were not God Incarnate Himself, which is your implication, is it not?

Finally, since Christ spoke only the truth, committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world (including you and me) — and Himself resurrected and appeared to hundreds of eyewitnesses on many occasions over 40 days — why do you not believe Him?

Instead you defend as “holy” Muhammad, who blasphemed the Living God you claim to worship, lied, stole, destroyed, enslaved, raped, mutilated, and slaughtered gratuitously. You defend all of it as “divine,” going so far as to assert as scientific fact incidents that no one in the world ever witnessed.

What is it about Muhammad that convinces you to believe him? Is it the deceit? The genocide? The torture, The mutilation?

Is it his having assassinated poetesses while they nursed? His beheading prisoners of war? His murdering apostates?

Is it his anti-Semitism? His hatred for Christians? Animists? Hindus?

Is it the sex slaves? The rape?

Is it the Allah-ordained pedophilia that moves you so?

John and Ken’s contempt for Christianity aids Muslim obfuscation for jihad

In Ignorant and gullible Infidels, John and Ken, Neo-Darwinian creation myth on October 23, 2009 at 6:53 PM

A (now open) letter:

John and Ken,

I have been a listener for several years. I admire your vigor in exposing and condemning corruption in government.

Thank you.

On the matter of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and Islamic jihad, you hold yourselves to a lower burden-of-proof and demonstrate a profound lack of intellectual integrity, however.

During one show this week, you claimed that when a species needs to evolve, it does. Darwinism’s mechanism of change is only random, minor genetic mutations. What do such copying errors produce?

Usually, death or severe illness.

Random, minor genetic mutations are not only unable to modify existing genetic program into newer, more complex code, it can do nothing to produce it from scratch in the first place.

When the first miraculous “evolved” bird hatched from a reptile’s egg (how did that happen, again?) and soared up into the sky, what do you think went through its head when it realized it had no one with which to mate?

As for Islam, you asserted with regard to Muslim murder, “It doesn’t matter which book you read!” Such a claim reveals an embarrassing lack of either education or moral clarity.

“Which book you read” matters absolutely.

Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and Himself resurrected. He taught, “Love your neighbors as yourself,” and, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad and his allah commanded, practiced, and endorsed genocide, child-rape, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, extortion, blasphemy, religious and gender discrimination, and anti-Semitism. They demand, “kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya [oppressive poll-tax, part of the dhimma system] . . . Paradise [belongs] to those who slay and are slain fighting in Allah’s cause” (Qur’an 9).

Such nescient, false moral equivalences condemn souls to hell and perpetuate hell-on-earth for non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

You owe your listeners the facts . . . .

John and Ken’s contempt for Christianity aids Muslim obfuscation for jihad

In Ignorant and gullible Infidels, John and Ken, Neo-Darwinian creation myth on October 23, 2009 at 6:53 PM

A (now open) letter:

John and Ken,

I have been a listener for several years. I admire your vigor in exposing and condemning corruption in government.

Thank you.

On the matter of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and Islamic jihad, you hold yourselves to a lower burden-of-proof and demonstrate a profound lack of intellectual integrity, however.

During one show this week, you claimed that when a species needs to evolve, it does. Darwinism’s mechanism of change is only random, minor genetic mutations. What do such copying errors produce?

Usually, death or severe illness.

Random, minor genetic mutations are not only unable to modify existing genetic program into newer, more complex code, it can do nothing to produce it from scratch in the first place.

When the first miraculous “evolved” bird hatched from a reptile’s egg (how did that happen, again?) and soared up into the sky, what do you think went through its head when it realized it had no one with which to mate?

As for Islam, you asserted with regard to Muslim murder, “It doesn’t matter which book you read!” Such a claim reveals an embarrassing lack of either education or moral clarity.

“Which book you read” matters absolutely.

Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and Himself resurrected. He taught, “Love your neighbors as yourself,” and, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad and his allah commanded, practiced, and endorsed genocide, child-rape, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, extortion, blasphemy, religious and gender discrimination, and anti-Semitism. They demand, “kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya [oppressive poll-tax, part of the dhimma system] . . . Paradise [belongs] to those who slay and are slain fighting in Allah’s cause” (Qur’an 9).

Such nescient, false moral equivalences condemn souls to hell and perpetuate hell-on-earth for non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

You owe your listeners the facts . . . .

Ali Gomaa’s Common deception exploits non-Muslim ignorance and good will

In A Common Word, Ali Gomaa, Mohamed Fadly on October 23, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Some pertinent information regarding A Common Word, another of jihad’s weapons in exploiting Western ignorance and good will.

Review this.

This might also be helpful:

Certainly the “radicals” are recruiting among “traditional Muslims,” and using American immorality as one among other pretexts. But while this argument looks impressive on its face, it dissolves among closer inspection — chiefly because those “traditional Muslims” upon whom D’Souza places so much hope remain nebulous and elusive, even in his construction. Are they “moderates”? No: in his book he explains that they do not differ theologically or even politically from the jihadists. And in his book he doesn’t name even one. When I asked him to name one, he named Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt. Ali Gomaa, however, has expressed support for Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has led chants of “Death to America!” This is an actual or potential ally?

Ali Gomaa has also ruled that statues are un-Islamic; when I mentioned this to D’Souza, he was contemptuously dismissive. But in fact it is an important point. Cultural conservatives are supposed to ally, in his view, with “traditional Muslims” who allegedly share the same values. But what about when they don’t share the same values? What makes D’Souza think that “traditional Muslims” will ally with non-Muslims on cultural issues in opposition to the jihad being waged by their fellow Muslims — when they have no theological differences with those fellow Muslims, and fewer cultural differences with them than they have with those non-Muslims?

This doesn’t make sense. If they have no theological differences with the jihadists, then they believe in principle in the jihad, and also hold to the traditional Qur’anic prohibition against befriending non-Muslims. On what grounds will they set all this aside and join with non-Muslims against their fellow Muslims? D’Souza produces no evidence that the great majority of Muslims who are not waging jihad do not approve of that jihad, or that even if they don’t approve, they will do anything to oppose it.

More on Gomaa:

He’s a highly promoted champion of moderate Islam, but he supports Hizballah.

He is the kind of cleric the West longs for, because of his assurances that there is no conflict with democratic rule and no need for theocracy. Gomaa has also become an advocate for Muslim women, who he says should have equal standing with men.

He is an advocate for Muslim women who has spoken positively of wife-beating.

His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have made him an object of hatred among Islamists and an icon among progressives, whose voices have been overpowered by the thunder of the radicals.

His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have been accompanied by his denial of reports that he had rejected the traditional Islamic death sentence for apostates.

The door finally opened, and Gomaa emerged. He is fifty-five, tall and regal, with a round face and a trim beard. He wore a tan caftan and a white turban. He held a sprig of mint to his nose as an aide whispered to him my reasons for coming. On the wall behind his desk was a photograph of President Mubarak.

Gomaa was born in Beni Suef, the same town as Dr. Fadl. “I began going into the prisons in the nineteen-nineties,” he told me. “We had debates and dialogues with the prisoners, which continued for more than three years. Such debates became the nucleus for the revisionist thinking.”

Before the revisions were published, Gomaa reviewed them. “We accept the revisions conditionally, not as the true teachings of Islam but with the understanding that this process is like medicine for a particular time,” he said.

In other words, the true teachings of Islam include the mandate to wage violent jihad against unbelievers. But jihad violence can be set aside as “medicine for a particular time.” That is, different times call for different tactics, but the overall objective remains the same.

Ali Gomaa’s Common deception exploits non-Muslim ignorance and good will

In A Common Word, Ali Gomaa, Mohamed Fadly on October 23, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Some pertinent information regarding A Common Word, another of jihad’s weapons in exploiting Western ignorance and good will.

Review this.

This might also be helpful:

Certainly the “radicals” are recruiting among “traditional Muslims,” and using American immorality as one among other pretexts. But while this argument looks impressive on its face, it dissolves among closer inspection — chiefly because those “traditional Muslims” upon whom D’Souza places so much hope remain nebulous and elusive, even in his construction. Are they “moderates”? No: in his book he explains that they do not differ theologically or even politically from the jihadists. And in his book he doesn’t name even one. When I asked him to name one, he named Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt. Ali Gomaa, however, has expressed support for Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has led chants of “Death to America!” This is an actual or potential ally?

Ali Gomaa has also ruled that statues are un-Islamic; when I mentioned this to D’Souza, he was contemptuously dismissive. But in fact it is an important point. Cultural conservatives are supposed to ally, in his view, with “traditional Muslims” who allegedly share the same values. But what about when they don’t share the same values? What makes D’Souza think that “traditional Muslims” will ally with non-Muslims on cultural issues in opposition to the jihad being waged by their fellow Muslims — when they have no theological differences with those fellow Muslims, and fewer cultural differences with them than they have with those non-Muslims?

This doesn’t make sense. If they have no theological differences with the jihadists, then they believe in principle in the jihad, and also hold to the traditional Qur’anic prohibition against befriending non-Muslims. On what grounds will they set all this aside and join with non-Muslims against their fellow Muslims? D’Souza produces no evidence that the great majority of Muslims who are not waging jihad do not approve of that jihad, or that even if they don’t approve, they will do anything to oppose it.

More on Gomaa:

He’s a highly promoted champion of moderate Islam, but he supports Hizballah.

He is the kind of cleric the West longs for, because of his assurances that there is no conflict with democratic rule and no need for theocracy. Gomaa has also become an advocate for Muslim women, who he says should have equal standing with men.

He is an advocate for Muslim women who has spoken positively of wife-beating.

His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have made him an object of hatred among Islamists and an icon among progressives, whose voices have been overpowered by the thunder of the radicals.

His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have been accompanied by his denial of reports that he had rejected the traditional Islamic death sentence for apostates.

The door finally opened, and Gomaa emerged. He is fifty-five, tall and regal, with a round face and a trim beard. He wore a tan caftan and a white turban. He held a sprig of mint to his nose as an aide whispered to him my reasons for coming. On the wall behind his desk was a photograph of President Mubarak.

Gomaa was born in Beni Suef, the same town as Dr. Fadl. “I began going into the prisons in the nineteen-nineties,” he told me. “We had debates and dialogues with the prisoners, which continued for more than three years. Such debates became the nucleus for the revisionist thinking.”

Before the revisions were published, Gomaa reviewed them. “We accept the revisions conditionally, not as the true teachings of Islam but with the understanding that this process is like medicine for a particular time,” he said.

In other words, the true teachings of Islam include the mandate to wage violent jihad against unbelievers. But jihad violence can be set aside as “medicine for a particular time.” That is, different times call for different tactics, but the overall objective remains the same.

Americans are generous by nature. We respect diversity, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience. Islam does not.

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, CAIR, Council Rock School District, Non-violent jihad, Public Education, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Sent to the Council Rock School Board, in response to their surrender to Islamic intimidation:

Dear Mr. Abramson, Dr. Anagnostakos, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Grupp, Ms. Heenan, Mr. McKessy, Mr. McMenamin, Ms. Sexton, and Ms. Thomas,

I am distressed and alarmed to learn of your recent censorship of the films Obsession and The Third Jihad, succumbing to pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in rejecting them.

Americans are generous by nature. We respect diversity, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience.

Islam does not.

Perhaps you are unaware that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terrorism funding trial (and possesses many other links to terrorism, including being a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to bring down Western Civilization from within).

Why would you submit to any demands from such an organization?

In fact, wouldn’t their opposition to the films suggest to you that they should be viewed, as soon as possible, with the widest audience, and repeatedly?

You are, in effect, denying your students — your own children — the opportunity to learn about a threat not only to their lives and Liberty, but to Western Civilization itself. (Any real student of history knows that Islam has waged war against the non-Muslim world for fourteen hundred years. Nearly all of the societies which fell under its sword lost their lives, their freedoms, and their very identities.)

Ignorance of Islam’s texts, tenets, and history helps only whom?

Do you want your children blind to the motives, beliefs, strategies, and efforts of those who seek to convert, enslave, or butcher them?

Below my signature are just a few of the Islamic “sacred” texts requiring the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam.

I urge you: Educate yourselves. Then inform — and prepare — those in your charge.

I am happy to assist you in that critical work in any way I can . . . .

Hitler only a pretender to Muhammad’s throne

In Andrew Bostom, Hitler, Hitler's Mufti, Islamic Anti-Semitism, Omar Amin von Leers, The truth about Islam, World War II on October 17, 2009 at 11:06 AM

And what did it take to defeat Hitler?

Certainly not “talks without preconditions,” “overseas contingency operations,” bowing to der Fuhrer, betraying our allies, apologizing for our self-defense and the defense of others, or billions of dollars and thousands of lives to “win the hearts and minds” of those who hate us.

For the nescient, treasonous, and suicidal, comments on the nexus between Islam, Nazism, and Communism, from Bostom:

During an interview conducted in the late 1930s (published in 1939), Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychiatry, was asked “…had he any views on what was likely to be the next step in religious development?” Jung replied, in reference to the Nazi fervor that had gripped Germany,

We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.

Albert Speer, who was Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote a contrite memoir of his World War II experiences while serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed by the Nuremberg tribunal. Speer’s narrative includes this discussion, which captures Hitler’s racist views of Arabs on the one hand, and his effusive praise for Islam on the other:

Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament.

Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

A similar ambivalence characterized Nazi Germany’s support for Arab Muslim causes in the World War II era. For example, in December 1937, Hitler even proposed omitting his “racial ladder” theory – which denigrated the Arabs – from a forthcoming Arabic translation of Mein Kampf. And a Berlin Foreign Ministry spokesman, during a November, 1942 press conference reported in the New York Times, took “great pains” to assure Arabs that Nazi anti-Semitic policies were directed at Jews exclusively. The spokesman elaborated:

The difference between Germany’s attitude toward Jews and Arabs has been clearly shown in the exchange of letters between the former Prime Minister of Iraq, Rashid Ali, and the German Institute for Racial Problems. We have never said the Arabs were inferior as a race. On the contrary, we have always pointed out the glorious historic past of the Arab people.

Although now, inexplicably, almost ignored in their entirety, writings produced for 100 years between the mid-19th through mid-20th Centuries, by important scholars and intellectuals, in addition to Carl Jung – for example, the historians Jacob Burckhardt, Waldemar Gurian, and Stoyan Pribichevich, philosopher Bertrand Russell, Protestant theologian Karl Barth, sociologist Jules Monnerot, and most notably, the renowned 20th Century scholar of Islamic Law, G.H. Bousquet – referred to Islam as a despotic, or in 20th Century parlance, totalitarian ideology.

Being imbued with fanaticism was the ultimate source of Muhammad’s great strength, and led to his triumph as a despot, according to the 19th Century Swiss historian Burckhardt:

Muhammad is personally very fanatical; that is his basic strength. His fanaticism is that of a radical simplifier and to that extent is quite genuine. It is of the toughest variety, namely doctrinaire passion, and his victory is one of the greatest victories of fanaticism and triviality. All idolatry, everything mythical, everything free in religion, all the multifarious ramifications of the hitherto existing faith, transport him into a real rage, and he hits upon a moment when large strata of his nation were highly receptive to an extreme simplification of the religious.

Burckhardt emphasizes that the Arabs, Muhammad’s henchmen, were not barbarians and had their own ingenuities, and spiritual traditions. Muhammad’s successful preaching among them capitalized upon an apparent longing for supra-tribal unification, “an extreme simplification.” Muhammad’s genius “lies in divining this.” Utilizing portions of the most varied existing traditions and taking advantage of the fact that “the peoples who were now attacked may also have been somewhat tired of their existing theology and mythology,” Muhammad

…with the aid of at least ten people, looks over the faiths of the Jews, Christians, and Parsis [Zoroastrians], and steals from them any scraps that he can use, shaping these elements according to his imagination. Thus everyone found in Muhammad’s sermons some echo of his accustomed faith. The very extraordinary thing is that with all this Muhammad achieved not merely lifetime success, the homage of Arabia, but founded a world religion that is viable to this day and has a tremendously high opinion of itself.

Burckhardt concludes that despite this achievement, Muhammad was not a great man, although he accepts the understandable inclination,

…to deduce great causes from great effects, thus, from Muhammad’s achievement, greatness of the originator. At the very least, one wants to concede in Muhammad’s case that he was no fraud, was serious about things, etc. However, it is possible to be in error sometime with this deduction regarding greatness and to mistake mere might for greatness. In this instance it is rather the low qualities of human nature that have received a powerful presentation. Islam is a triumph of triviality, and the great majority of mankind is trivial…But triviality likes to be tyrannical and is fond of imposing its yoke upon nobler spirits. Islam wanted to deprive distinguished old nations of their myths, the Persians of their Book of Kings, and for 1200 years it has actually prohibited sculpture and painting to tremendously large populations.

University of Notre Dame historian Waldemar Gurian, a refugee, who witnessed first hand the Communist and Fascist totalitarian movements in Europe, concluded (circa 1945) that Hitler, in a manner analogous to the 7th Century precedent of Muhammad as described by Burckhardt, had been the simplifier of German nationalism.

A fanatical simplifier who appeared as the unifier of various German traditions in the service of simple national aims and who was seen by many differing German group – even by some people outside Germany – as the fulfiller of their wishes and sharer of their beliefs, with some distortions and exaggerations – such, as long as he had success, was Adolf Hitler.

Based upon the same clear understandings (and devoid of our era’s dulling, politically correct constraints), Karl Barth, like Carl Jung (cited earlier), offered this warning, also published in 1939:

Participation in this life, according to it the only worthy and blessed life, is what National Socialism, as a political experiment, promises to those who will of their own accord share in this experiment. And now it becomes understandable why, at the point where it meets with resistance, it can only crush and kill – with the might and right which belongs to Divinity! Islam of old as we know proceeded in this way. It is impossible to understand National Socialism unless we see it in fact as a new Islam [emphasis in original], its myth as a new Allah, and Hitler as this new Allah’s Prophet.

Both philosopher Bertrand Russell, in 1920, and sociologist Jules Monnerot three decades later (in 1953), viewed the 20th Century’s other major strain of totalitarianism, emergent Bolshevism and established Soviet-style Communism, as in Monnerot’s words, “The Twentieth-Century Islam.” Russell wrote presciently in his 1920, Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, that,

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.

By 1953, Monnerot (in his Sociology and Psychology of Communism) saw the “absolute tyranny” of Soviet Communism as “comparable to Islam,” for being both “a secular religion [emphasis in original] and as a universal State [emphasis in original].” He elaborated, in particular, on this concordance between the triumphal emergence of the Islamic and Soviet empires, as follows:

This merging of religion and politics was a major characteristic of the Islamic world in its victorious period. It allowed the head of State to operate beyond his own frontiers in the capacity of commander of the faithful (Amir-al-muminin); and in this way a Caliph was able to count upon his docile instruments, or captive souls, wherever there were men who recognized his authority. The territorial frontiers which seemed to remove some of his subjects from his jurisdiction were nothing more than material obstacles; armed force might compel him to feign respect for the frontier, but propaganda and subterranenan warfare could continue no less actively beyond it.

Religions of this kind acknowledge no frontiers. Soviet Russia is merely the geographical centre from which communist influence radiates; it is an ‘Islam’ on the march, and it regards its frontiers at any given moment as purely provisional and temporary. Communism, like victorious Islam, makes no distinction between politics and religion…

In a brilliant, dispassionate contemporary analysis, Ibn Warraq describes 14 characteristics of “Ur Fascism” as enumerated by Umberto Eco, analyzing their potential relationship to the major determinants of Islamic governance and aspirations, through the present. He adduces salient examples which reflect the key attributes discussed by Eco: the unique institution of Jihad war; the establishment of a Caliphate under “Allah’s vicegerent on earth,” the Caliph – ruled by Islamic Law, i.e., Sharia, a rigid system of subservience and sacralized discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim women, devoid of basic freedoms of conscience, and expression. Warraq’s assessment confirms what G.H. Bousquet concluded (in 1950) from his career studying the historical development and implementation of Islamic Law:

Islam first came before the world as a doubly totalitarian system. It claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law, by the principles of fiqh [jurisprudence], to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer… the study of Muhammadan Law (dry and forbidding though it may appear)… is of great importance to the world of today.

But already in the mid-19th Century, Burckhardt, expanding upon his characterization of Islam’s founder, Muhammad, as a despot, described the theocratic polity he created as a particularly extreme religious despotism, created (and expanded) via jihad, which sought to invalidate the pre-Islamic past of its new votaries, by shaming that heritage.

All religions are exclusive, but Islam is quite notably so, and immediately it developed into a state which seemed to be all of a piece with the religion. The Koran is its spiritual and secular book of law. Its statutes embrace all areas of life…and remain set and rigid; the very narrow Arab mind imposes this nature on many nationalities and thus remolds them for all time (a profound, extensive spiritual bondage!) This is the power of Islam in itself. At the same time, the form of the world empire as well as of the states gradually detaching themselves from it cannot be anything but a despotic monarchy. The very reason and excuse for existence, the holy war, and the possible world conquest, do not brook any other form.

The strongest proof of real, extremely despotic power in Islam is the fact that it has been able to invalidate, in such large measure, the entire history (customs, religion, previous way of looking at things, earlier imagination) of the peoples converted to it. It accomplished this only by instilling into them a new religious arrogance which was stronger than everything and induced them to be ashamed [emphasis in original] of their past.

Historian Stoyan Pribichevich’s 1938 study of the Balkans “World Without End” demonstrates how Burckhardt’s conception of Islamic despotism applied to Ottoman rule. Pribichevich provides these illustrations, beginning with his characterization of the Ottoman Sultans:

Each was a blood descendant of Osman [d. 1326, founder of the Ottoman dynasty]; the commander of all armed forces; the Caliph, the religious chief of all Moslems; the Padishah or King of Kings with the power of life and death over even his own cabinet ministers; the indisputable executor of the Prophet’s will – the Shadow of God on Earth

Although the Sultan had a Council composed of ranking dignitaries, headed by an erstwhile “Prime Minister,” the Grand Vizier who advised him, Pribichevich notes:

But like the Janissaries [military slaves taken from the families of the subjugated Christian populations while adolescents, and forcibly converted to Islam, as part of the Ottoman devshirme levy system] they were Kuls, slaves whose lives and properties belonged to the master. Cases occurred where a Grand Vizier was put to death at a mere whim of the Sultan.

Thus Pribichevich concludes, regarding the Ottoman Sultanate, “Of all known dictators the Sultans were the most dictatorial.”

And Pribichevich goes on to explain how this dictatorial Ottoman Sultanate operated within the overall context of Islam’s religio-political totalitarian system, consistent with Bousquet’s observation (from 1950), based upon the latter’s analysis of Islamic Law:

Then, Islam was a totalitarian religion. The Koran regulated not only the relationship of man to God, but all aspects of political organization, economics, and private conduct. Although the Sultan was the sole legislator, his laws, the sheri [Shari’a], were expected to conform to the sacred text. Now, for the proper interpretation of the Prophet’s phrases, there was a body of learned priests and jurists, the Ulemas. While no born Moslem could become a member of the Janissaries, no ex-Christian was ever allowed to enter the sacred corporation of the Ulemas. These theologians were not the slaves of the Sultan, but their opinions nevertheless were only advisory. So, the whole exotic structure of the Ottoman state can be summed up this way: the Koran was the empire’s Constitution; the Sultan, its absolute executor; the Janissaries, the soldiers and administrators; and the thinking Ulemas, a sort of Supreme Court.

Finally, investigative journalist John Roy Carlson’s 1948-1950 interviews of Arab Muslim religious and political leaders provide consummate independent validation of these Western assessments. Perhaps most revealing were the candid observations of Aboul Saud, whom Carlson described as a “pleasant English-speaking member of the Arab League Office.” Aboul Saud explained to Carlson that Islam was an authoritarian religio-political creed which encompassed all of a Muslim’s spiritual and temporal existence. He stated plainly,

You might describe Mohammedanism as a religious form of State Socialism…The Koran give the State the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate property. It grants the ruler of the State unlimited powers, so long as he does not go against the Koran. The Koran is our personal as well as our political constitution.

And after interviewing Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna himself, who “preached the doctrine of the Koran in one hand and the sword in the other,” Carlson observed:

It became clear to me why the average Egyptian worshipped the use of force. Terror was synonymous with power! This was one reason why most Egyptians, regardless of class or calling had admired Nazi Germany. It helped explain the sensational growth of the Ikhwan el Muslimin [Muslim Brotherhood]

[. . .]

34 years ago (1974), Bat Ye’or published a remarkably foresighted analysis of the Islamic anti-Semitism and resurgent Jihadism in her native Egypt, being packaged for dissemination throughout the Muslim world. The primary, core Antisemitic and Jihadist motifs were Islamic, derived from Islam’s foundational texts, on to which European, especially Nazi elements were grafted.

The pejorative characteristics of Jews as they are described in Muslim religious texts are applied to modern Jews. Anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism are equivalent – due to the inferior status of Jews in Islam, and because divine will dooms Jews to wandering and misery, the Jewish state appears to Muslims as an unbearable affront and a sin against Allah. Therefore it must be destroyed by Jihad.

Here the Pan-Arab and anti-Western theses that consider Israel as an advanced instrument of the West in the Islamic world, come to reinforce religious anti-Judaism. The religious and political fuse in a purely Islamic context onto which are grafted foreign elements. If, on the doctrinal level, Nazi influence is secondary to the Islamic base, the technique with which the Antisemitic material has been reworked, and the political purposes being pursued, present striking similarites with Hitler’s Germany. That anti-Jewish opinions have been widely spread in Arab nationalist circles since the 1930s is not in doubt. But their confirmation at [Al] Azhar [University] by the most important authorities of Islam enabled them to be definitively imposed, with the cachet of infallible authenticity, upon illiterate masses that were strongly attached to religious traditions.

Nazi academic and propagandist of extermination Johannes von Leers’ writings and personal career trajectory – as a favored contributor in Goebbel’s propaganda ministry, to his eventual adoption of Islam (as Omar Amin von Leers) while working as an anti-Western, and anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist propagandist under Nasser’s regime from the mid-1950s, until his death in 1965 – epitomizes this convergence of Jihad, Islamic anti-Semitism, and racist, Nazi anti-Semitism, as described by Bat Ye’or.

Leers – who was Goebbel’s favorite Nazi propagandist of annihilation – expressed two decades before eventually converting to Islam, in Blut und Rasse in der Gesetzgebung (Blood and Race in Legislation, 1936), his admiration for “the imperious and warlike Islam [of the peoples] who still had a clear Nordic racial component,” while also extolling in Der Kardinal und die Germanen (“The Cardinal and the Germans,” 1934) Islam’s ecumenical “tolerance.” In subsequent essays published during 1938 and 1942, von Leers produced analyses focused primarily on Muhammad’s interactions with the Jews of Medina. Collectively, these essays reveal his pious reverence for Islam and its prophet, and a thorough understanding of the sacralized Islamic sources for this narrative, i.e., the Koran, hadith, and sira, which is entirely consistent with standard Muslim apologetics.

Citing (or referring to) the relevant foundational text sources (i.e., Koran 13:36; 8:55-58; 59:1-15; the sira and canonical hadith descriptions of the fate of individual Jews such as Abu Afak and Ka’b ibn Ashraf, and the Jewish tribes Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayzah, as well as the Jews of the Khaybar oasis), von Leers in his 1942 essay “Judiasm and Islam as Opposites,” chronicles Muhammad’s successful campaigns which vanquished these Jews, killing and dispersing them, “…or at most allow[ing] them to remain in certain places if they paid a poll tax.” Von Leers further describes the accounts (from the hadith, and more elaborately, the sira) of Muhammad’s poisoning by a Khaybar Jewess, and also notes the canonical hadith which records Caliph Umar’s rationale for his putative expulsion from northern Arabia of those remaining Jews who survived Muhammad’s earlier campaigns:

On his deathbed Mohammed is supposed to have said: “There must not be two religions in Arabia.” One of his successors, the caliph Omar, resolutely drove the Jews out of Arabia.

And von Leers even invokes the apocalyptic canonical hadith which 46 years later became the keystone of Hamas’ 1988 charter sanctioning a Jihad genocide against the Jewish State of Israel:

Ibn Huraira even communicates to us the following assertion of the great man of God: “Judgment Day will come only when the Moslems have inflicted an annihilating defeat on the Jews, when every stone and every tree behind which a Jew has hidden says to believers: ‘Behind me stands a Jew, smite him.’”

Von Leers’ 1942 essay concludes by simultaneously extolling the “model” of oppression the Jews experienced under Islamic suzerainty, and the nobility of Muhammad, Islam, and the contemporary Muslims of the World War II era, foreshadowing his own conversion to Islam just over a decade later:

They [the Jews] were subjected to a very restrictive and oppressive special regulation that completely crippled Jewish activities. All reporters of the time when the Islamic lands still completely obeyed their own laws agree that the Jews were particularly despised… Mohammed’s opposition to the Jews undoubtedly had an effect – oriental Jewry was completely paralyzed by Islam. Its back was broken. Oriental Jewry has played almost no role in Judaism’s massive rise to power over the last two centuries. Scorned, the Jews vegetated in the dirty alleys of the mellah, and were subject to a special regulation that did not allow them to profiteer, as they did in Europe, or even to receive stolen goods, but instead kept them fearful and under pressure. Had the rest of the world adopted a similar method, today we would have no Jewish question – and here we must absolutely note that there were also Islamic rulers, among them especially the Spanish caliphs of the House of Muawiyah, who did not adhere to Islam’s traditional hostility to Jews – to their own disadvantage. However, as a religion Islam has performed the immortal service of preventing the Jews from carrying out their threatened conquest of Arabia and of defeating the dreadful doctrine of Jehovah through a pure faith that opened the way to higher culture for many peoples and gave them an education and humane training, so that still today a Moslem who takes his religion seriously is one of the most worthy phenomena in this world in turmoil.

And even earlier, in a 1938 essay, von Leers further sympathized with, “the leading role of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem [Hajj Amin el-Husseini] in the Arabians’ battles against the Jewish invasion in Palestine.” Von Leers observes that to the pious Muslim, “…the Jew is an enemy, not simply an ‘unbeliever’ who might perhaps be converted or, despite the fact that he does not belong to Islam, might still be a person of some estimation. Rather, the Jew is the predestined opponent of the Muslim, one who desired to bring down the work of the Prophet.”

Leers’ description of the origins of the Muslim “forename” (Omar Amin) that he adopted as part of his formal conversion to Islam in a November, 1957 letter to American Nazi H. Keith Thompson, highlights his personal and doctrinal connections to the Mufti, with whom he engaged in a longstanding collaboration:

I myself have embraced Islam and accepted the new forename Omar Amin, Omar according to the great Caliph Omar who was a grim enemy of the Jews, Amin in honor of my friend Hadj Amin el Husseini, the Grand Mufti.

Leers’ ceaseless efforts as a formal propagandist for the Nasser regime and Arab League were complemented by a staggering array of additional writing activities before and during this last decade of his life, including: translating modern Arabic treatises on Jihad and Islamic financing into German; writing the Foreword to an anti-Zionist analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict by an Egyptian scholar; and reviewing and promoting the works of neo-Nazi and Fascist ideologues as editor (while in Buenos Aires) of Der Weg (most prominently, his 1951 review of Francis Parker Yockey’s “Imperium”), while maintaining a prolific worldwide correspondence with individual Fascists, designed to garner their support for his global Jihad. Thus he wrote (again, to American Nazi H. Keith Thompson) in 1957 and 1958,

[1957] The Islamic bloc is today the only spiritual power in the world fighting for a real religion and human values and freedom. Besides that, it is a wonderful religion with a great philosophy and enormous richness of wisdom. I think sometime if my nation had got Islam instead of Christianity we should not have had all the traitors we had in World War II, two million women would not have been burnt as “witches” by the Christian churches, there would have been no Thirty Years War which destroyed Germany and killed more than half our nation.

[1958] One thing is clear – more and more patriot Germans join the great Arab revolution against beastly imperialism. In Algeria half a company of German soldiers, dragging with them two French officers and two non-commissioned officers, have cut their throats in the view of the Algerian revolutionaries and have gone on the side of the Algerians and have embraced Islam. That is good! To hell with Christianity, for in Christianity’s name Germany has been sold to our oppressors! Our place as an oppressed nation under the execrable Western colonialist Bonn government must be on the side of the Arab nationalist revolt against the West….I hamd ul Allah! (“Thanks be to Allah!”)

This recently declassified October 1957 U.S. intelligence report on von Leers’ writings and activities for Egypt and the Arab League independently confirms his complete adoption of the triumphalist Muslim worldview, desirous of nothing less than the destruction of Judeo-Christian civilization by Jihad:

He [Dr. Omar Amin von Leers] is becoming more and more a religious zealot, even to the extent of advocating an expansion of Islam in Europe in order to bring about stronger unity through a common religion. This expansion he believes can come not only from contact with the Arabs in the Near East and Africa but with Islamic elements in the USSR. The results he envisions as the formation of a political bloc against which neither East nor West could prevail.

Leers’ final vision of an Islamic supremacist hegemony – as formulated in the two decades after World War II – has had a profound influence on contemporary trends, now robust, from Morocco to Indonesia, and within Muslim communities living in Western, and other non-Muslim societies across the globe. All too prevalent today, numerous examples of this shared vision can be adduced, ranging from the activities and pronouncements of well-known jihad terror organizations (such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas), to the mainstream Organization of the Islamic Conference, and individuals, such as the profoundly influential Muslim cleric (“Spiritual adviser” to the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Jazeera television personality, and head of the European Fatwa Council) Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and the Mufti-Leers disciple, and Swiss convert to Islam, Ahmed Huber – a former manager of Al Taqwa financial institution, alleged to have laundered money for Osama bin Laden.

The extent to which Nazi convert to Islam Omar Amin von Leers’ ugly vision has been implemented over the past 50 years – his “successful” living legacy – supports a simple, profoundly disturbing conception articulated by writer Lawrence Auster. Oblivious to the firmly entrenched politically correct orthodoxy, Auster has termed Muhammad a “successful Hitler.” Auster argues that Muhammad, whom he also calls “one of the great geniuses of history,” conceived

… a highly flexible and therefore sustainable ideology and program of subversion, conquest, and domination (as well as a sustainable way of life), while Hitler’s ideology and program had no internal brakes. It was pedal to the metal, aiming at the instant and total destruction of other countries and of Western civilization as a whole, and thus making it necessary for other countries utterly to destroy Hitlerism

Perhaps this time everyone will notice that the Unindicted-Coconspirator-in-a-Federal-Terrorism-Funding-Trial-and-Front-for-the-Muslim-Brotherhood has no clothes

In CAIR, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Jihad in America, Liberals aid jihad, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Non-violent jihad on October 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM

CAIR exposed again!

As noted repeatedly by everyone paying attention, CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc., are either fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood or staffed by their agents.

Which organization has declared its goal of bringing down Western Civilization from within by using our own laws, generosity, and ignorance against us in order to establish shari’a.

In other words, they’re waging non-violent jihad.

And rather than doing their homework in defense of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness by investigating the texts, tenets, and time-lines of Islam, our self-appointed arbiters of truth and governmental lap watchdogs in the media run as fast as their treasonous, little feet can carry them to these groups’ spokesmen whenever a Muslim is caught butchering an infidel — or his own daughter — so that they can make charges of “Islamophobia!” “hate crime!” and “out-of-context! out-of-context!”

One of CAIR’s vile henchmen (I know, that’s redundant!) has been hovering like a vulture over Rifqa Bary’s trial in Florida.  There’s not an open microphone or human tragedy they won’t exploit for their own propaganda purposes.

So, all you America-hating, anti-Christian, socialist, anarchist, atheistic tyrants who think that by aiding jihad you’ll hurt America — you’re right — are missing one significant, little detail: Islam will destroy you too, and unless you’re a groveling, boot-licking coward who’s going to convert at the first flash of a scimitar, you’re going to be first on the chopping block.

At least Jews and Christians have the option to live in vile subjugation and humiliation.

For you godless, it’s “kill the pagans,” period.  You’ll be the first to go.

So, rather than forfeit the liberties and protections you have in this nation — liberties and protections founded on Christianity and developed and defended by Christians — start telling the truth about the jihad waged against us.

And stop lying for your Despot-in-Chief, whose only accomplishment more than giving a speech has been bankrupting and disarming the Republic.

Breaking America’s back helps only whom?

So stop listening to the Grima Wormtongues of the treacherous left and their natural allies among the Communists and Muslims.

You can always demonize and ostracize us bitter, racist, God-and-gun-clinging Americans later.  For now, let’s work together to preserve Western Civilization.

If we don’t fight together for this nation, there won’t be any nation left to fight over.

From WND:

Gaubatz, the son of “Muslim Mafia” co-author P. David Gaubatz, eventually wound up working as a volunteer at CAIR’s national office in Washington, D.C., alongside leaders Nihad Awad, Ibrahim Hooper and Corey Saylor.

The new book shows CAIR is not the benevolent Muslim civil-rights group it claims to be, with indisputable evidence documenting it and other “mainstream” Islamic groups are acting as fronts for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate and destroy the American system.

Duly-elected tyrants serve only themselves, not the public

In Barack Hussein Obama, Government is the problem, Harry Reid, Liberal tyranny, Nancy Pelosi, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 13, 2009 at 1:52 AM

Our federal and state politicians believe that you exist to provide them power and position, the fruit of your labor, authority over your children, and control over even your bodies, words, and thoughts.

Massive taxpayer-funded salaries, pensions, medical care (no Obamacare for them, that’s for the little people!), security, and vacation in the guise of “fact-finding missions” and “international relations.”

Confiscatory and oppressive taxation; politician-induced recessions, inflation, and economic crises “not seen since the Great Depression;” colossal, unpayable debt; stifling hyper-regulation of business; and laws punishing words and thoughts they find objectionable (aren’t all crimes “hateful”?).

Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are in jeopardy.

Our elected officials — there are a few exceptions — are not public servants seeking your betterment.  They are independent contractors who’ve learned how to manipulate the business of government to their own benefit, not yours.

They bankrupt and disarm the nation, endanger and enslave our children and grandchildren, and we reward them with . . . re-election.

Until and unless Americans stop voting for tyrants and instead choose people who’ll actually obey and defend the Constitution and our Rights, the Republic is doomed.

Obama’s Nobel Appeasement Prize

In Barack Hussein Obama, Liberal treason, Liberals aid jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 11, 2009 at 12:36 AM

A few quick observations on B. Hussein Obama’s recent Nobel Peace Prize:

He’s not a “peace” president, he’s an “appeasing” president.

The kind of “peace” the Europeans are looking for is the kind that comes when America is bankrupt and disarmed, only it won’t be what they expect.

Shari’a is no gentle master.

It is fitting that Obama joins fellow ignobles Jimmy Carter, a raging anti-Semite; Al Gore, a conniving, manipulative, enviro-charlatan; and Yasser Arafat, a two-faced Muslim terrorist as award recipients.

Will Neville Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler, and Muhammad be nominated posthumously?  They did a lot for peace, too.

As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide

In Abraham Lincoln, Barack Hussein Obama, Frederick Douglass, Liberal treason, Liberals aid jihad, Liberty, Ronald Reagan, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, Thomas Jefferson, Tom McClintock on October 10, 2009 at 5:11 AM

The election of B. Hussein Obama was a self-inflicted wound.

Both time and the courage of the American patriot will tell whether it’s mortal or not.

We have the Enemy Within, both the leftist who wants America crippled and disgraced, begging for scraps from foreign masters, and the Muslim — imported and homegrown — who seeks to usurp our Constitution and replace it with the most vile, totalitarian, and hellish ideology ever thrust upon the Earth.

In Obama, it looks like we got two-for-the-price-of-one.  What a deal!

Who applauds B. Hussein Obama’s Nobel Appeasement Prize? Those are not friends of America cheering his “achievements,” which so far have been bankrupting and disarming the Republic; bleeding our military by binding them with suicidal Rules of Engagement; eating ice cream while civilians protesting against Muslim tyranny in Iran are butchered in their streets; responding to our military’s request for more troops in order to avoid losing in Afghanistan by going to Denmark to beg for an Olympics that would divert billions in federal money to his fellow criminals in Chicago; and apologizing to, groveling at the feet of, and defiling the sacrifices of more than two centuries of free men in deference to every two-bit, tinpot leftist and Muslim tyrant on the globe.

Stop the bleeding, America. We need in positions of leadership informed and honest men. Tom McClintock understands what makes America great, and what must be done to save it.

From here:

When he was 28 years old, Abraham Lincoln posed this haunting question to the Young Mens Lyceum of Springfield:

He asked, “At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?– Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!–All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.[“]

Today, THIS generation of Americans has arrived at one of the great turning points of history. Upon the outcome of this struggle is nothing less than the question of whether America is to fade away as yet another failed socialist state, or whether this generation of Americans will rescue, redeem and restore the founding principles that made the American Republic the most prosperous and successful in the history of the world.

It has now been nine months since the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States – with all the hope and trust that the American people placed in him for our future.

Think about what has happened in these nine months. And think about how far our country has strayed from what Jefferson called the “sum of good government.” — what he described as “a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

Last year’s deficit of $450 billion has nearly quadrupled to $1.6 TRILLION.

Let’s put that in perspective. All of the debt accumulated by this nation from the very first day of the George Washington administration to the very last day of the George W. Bush administration, will now double over the next five years and nearly triple over the next ten under the budget that President Obama signed.
We all know that if you live well BEYOND your means today, you must live well BELOW your means tomorrow. And that is the tomorrow that our country is now facing unless his policies are quickly halted and reversed.

History cannot offer a single example of a nation that has spent and borrowed and taxed its way to economic prosperity. But it offers many, many examples of nations that have spent and borrowed and taxed their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. And history warns us that bankrupt nations don’t last very long.

This administration has set in motion conditions that threaten to destroy not only the solvency of our treasury but the very value of our currency itself. They have set the stage for a massive inflation not seen since the failed Presidency of Jimmy Carter.

They introduced the biggest single spending bill in the history of the country at 11:00 one night and adopted it by 2:00 the next afternoon. If you want to know how 4,000 stimulus checks could possibly be sent to prison inmates – there’s your answer.

We were promised this unprecedented spending would hold the nation’s unemployment rate to eight percent. Today, $787 billion later, the national unemployment rate is 9.7 percent.

They have seized control of automobile manufacturers and dealers, banks and financial service companies and last week voted to seize the student loan industry.

They have used our tax money to bail out failed corporations, paying out huge bonuses to the very people who created the mess on Wall Street in the first place.

They have taken one of the most despotic concepts in the history of bad government – the Russian concept of the Czar – and injected it into every aspect of what was once a constitutional government of limited and enumerated powers.

We have watched the President of the United States apologize for American “arrogance” to some of the most despicable tyrants on the planet. Just this week he looked out upon an audience that included Ahmadinejad and Qaddafi and condemned America for “torture.” (The President uses that word rather loosely – especially in that company — I might add — to describe a process that produced no physical injuries – but volumes of critical intelligence that saved American lives).

And while this administration conducts criminal investigations against intelligence officials who acted to keep our nation safe – it turns a blind eye to the utterly reprehensible enterprises of ACORN.

Now they want to take control of our families’ health care and 1/8 of our economy.

And we’re supposed to believe that the same government that pays $400 for hammers and $600 for toilet seats is somehow going to keep our health care costs down.

We’re supposed to believe that the same government that runs FEMA is going to make our doctor’s offices more efficient.

We are supposed to believe that the same government that runs the IRS is going to bring compassion and understanding to our health plans.

We know what will result because we’re watching the nightmare unfold in countries like Britain and Canada – massive cost overruns followed by the government rationing of care.

They tried to strong-arm it through the Congress so that the American people would have no chance to see it or to debate it. But they failed.

And when Americans across this country stood up to protest, they were called “un-American” by Nancy Pelosi; they were called “evil-mongers” by Harry Reid; and they were called “potential domestic terrorists” by the Department of Homeland Security.

But this isn’t happening in a vacuum. Something is stirring across our nation – something that we haven’t seen in many decades – something that the Obama Left doesn’t understand and cannot possibly comprehend.

It is called the American Spirit – and it’s back.

It’s right here in this hall tonight. It’s in every town hall forum and taxpayer rally across the country. It has appeared every time our freedom has been threatened and it has returned now in our time.

Ladies and gentlemen, the debates in our nation’s Capitol are merely a reflection of a much larger debate that is going on across the country – at coffee shops and town hall meetings – over backyard fences and family dinner tables — that will determine the fate of our nation for generations to come.

Many times a day I’m asked a simple question by folks who have never been involved in politics, who have never even attended a public meeting, but who sense their nation is in danger and who are rising to meet that danger. And the question simply is: “WHAT CAN I DO?”

There is only one answer to that question. It was first given by the great abolition leader, Frederick Douglass, to a young protégé who posed that question to him. He answered with three words: AGITATE, AGITATE and AGITATE.

There is only one way to meet the danger to our freedom from within and that is to rally the American people.

And that means taking an active role – every day – in the historic national debate that is raging around us.

Stand up at every public meeting you can get to and SPEAK OUT. Attend Town Hall Meetings. Call into talk shows. Write letters to the editor. Leave comments after every article that you read on line. E-Mail your friends. Link to information. Post on blogs, on Facebook and on Twitter. Support candidates and causes. AGITATE and AGITATE and AGITATE in every forum you can find.

People say, “What difference will that make? Obama and Pelosi and Reid won’t listen. And that’s true.

But the voters are listening.

Lincoln once said, “If the voters get their backsides too close to the fire, they’ll just have to sit on the blisters a while.” It’s a painful experience. But it’s a learning experience. And at the end of that process, they will emerge sadder but wiser – and in time for the next election.

And until then, remember what you have accomplished in just three months.

The Cap and Trade bill – which would impose a devastating hidden tax on virtually every product that we buy for our families – limped through the House but has stalled in the Senate.

The government takeover of our health system was supposed to have been passed and signed into law BEFORE the summer recess. They didn’t dare to take it to the floor for a vote. And now they’re talking about, “Well, maybe next month.”

And the polls reflect that debate. According to the Rasmussen poll, Barack Obama’s Presidential Popularity Index stood at PLUS-28 on Inauguration Day. Yesterday he was MINUS-7.

The Obama Left might have super-majorities in both houses. They might have the most left-wing President in the history of our country. They might have the media and the union bosses and ACORN.

BUT THEY HAVE LOST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Your voices in every forum that you can find – every day – have made the difference, and if you will just keep it up – keep doing what you are doing today every day – history guarantees this outcome – YOU will have saved our country.

We have the most powerful message in the history of mankind. It is freedom.

Nine years before he became Governor of California, Reagan put it this way during a commencement address to his alma mater. He said, “This is a simple struggle between those of us who believe that man has the dignity and sacred right and the ability to choose and shape his own destiny and those who do not so believe. This irreconcilable conflict is between those who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and those who believe in the supremacy of the state.”

Lincoln said much the same. He said, “That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other is the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”

And today, our country again faces this tyrannical principle in actual practice.

The Left would condemn our children to the failure of government schools run by teacher unions. We would liberate parents to select the school and the teacher that best meets their child’s needs and hold the school and the teacher accountable for the results.

The Left would condemn our families to sky-high energy prices; we would free America’s vast energy reserves and limitless supplies of clean, cheap electricity through nuclear power, hydro-electricity and clean coal.

The Left would condemn our health care to bureaucrats who’ll decide what treatments we may have and when we may have them. We would provide the tax credits to bring a basic health plan within the financial reach of every family – a health plan they could chose, they could own, and they could change if it failed to serve them.

The Left would deny union members the right to a secret ballot; we would free employers to pay bonuses to union members above and beyond their union contract.

The Left would plunder our children of their prosperity tomorrow to pay for the unprecedented expansion of government today. We insist on a government that does what families do every day: work hard, waste not and live within our means.

The Left offers stifling central planning to manage every aspect of our lives; they offer higher and higher taxes and more and more costly regulations. We offer freedom.

And to those who say we have no messengers – look around at each other. Yes, Ronald Reagan was a great communicator, but as William Saracino has said, “He wasn’t communicating cookie recipes.” And if we learned anything at all from that great man, it was that every one of us needs to be a messenger.

In February of 1861, Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural train paused in Indianapolis and he spoke these words: “Of the people when they rise in mass on behalf of the Union and the liberties of their country, it may be said ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against them’. I appeal to you constantly to bear in mind that not with the President, not with the office-seekers, but with you is the question, ‘Shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generation.’”

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is our clarion call. What has happened to our nation has happened on our generation’s watch, and it is our generation’s responsibility to set things right.

Does anyone here have any doubt how this battle will end as long as we stand firm? I think the Left is starting to figure that out too, and behind the smarmy smirks of condescension, their real sentiments are showing through.

The Department of Homeland Security refuses to use the word “terrorist” to describe Al Qaeda. It has replaced the term, “acts of terrorism” with the term, “man-made disaster” so as not to offend Islamic extremists. But it doesn’t hesitate to declare returning veterans and every American who believes in the second and tenth articles of our Bill of Rights to be “potential domestic terrorists.”

That offers real insight into the Left. Churchill put it this way: “They are afraid of words and thoughts. Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home – all the more powerful because forbidden – terrify them. A little mouse – a little tiny mouse – of thought enters the room and these mighty potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar out thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind.”

Think about what terrifies the Left: A silent majority no longer willing to remain silent. That means letters to the editor; calls to talk shows; blogs on the Internet; comments after newspaper editorials; taxpayer tea parties.

Why did they react so viscously to the tea parties? You remember the tale of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” – once the townspeople realized that there were many others who believed as they believed, the façade collapsed and the charlatans were run out of town.

Our opponents hope that we will vent our frustrations at events like this and then go home. And that will be the end of it.

I’ve got news for them. This is just the beginning. Yes, we’re going home. But we’re going home to organize and educate and agitate in every forum we can find.

When the American Founders adopted the Declaration of Independence, they pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. They were speaking quite literally. When they pledged their lives, they meant it. The King had already warned that a noose awaited every one of them. When they pledged their fortunes, they meant it. Lewis Morris had just received word that his estate in New York had been burned to the ground, that his family had become refugees and that his two sons had enlisted in the rag-tag army around General Washington.

How little history demands of our generation in defense of those same principles. We aren’t asked to pledge our entire fortunes – just a small portion of our earnings in support of the causes and candidates we believe in. We aren’t asked to pledge our lives – only a small portion of our lives until we have set things right.

But our sacred honor – that history demands of us in full: that we leave today highly resolved not to fail or falter until we have restored freedom as the cornerstone of our government. Because if we fail to do that, then what history will demand of our children and grandchildren is unthinkable.

So let us honor the memory of Reagan and Lincoln and Jefferson and all those placed freedom above security and principle above politics.

And then let us together write the next chapter of the American Republic: that just when it appeared that the principles of American freedom were faltering, this generation rediscovered them, rallied to them, revived them, restored them, polished them and passed them on shining and inviolate to the many succeeding generations that followed.”

Obama advancing Allah’s tyranny with shari’a apologist appointee Dalia Mogahed

In Barack Hussein Obama, Dalia Mohaged, Deceiving non-Muslims, Liberals aid jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 8, 2009 at 10:20 PM

What a sick, lying, murderous wretch.

Her too.

If Obama is such a smart guy, and he attended Qur’an classes as a Muslim in Indonesia, and he visited “Paw-kee-stawn” (as he likes to intone) as a college student when Americans were not allowed into that country, then how can he not know what shari’a is? What Al-Azhar is about? The meaning of jihad and Islam for non-Muslims?

America, you’re being deceived — and slow-cooked.

From here:

Obama First Female Veiled Islamist Appointee, Dalia Mogahed, Promotes Sharia, Says it’s “Misunderstood” – Atlas Shrugs:

Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood Telegraph (hat tip Andrew Bostom)

President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was ‘oversimplified’ and the majority of women around the world associate it with ‘gender justice’.

If by “justice” one means rape (including child-rape of victims as young as nine), wife-beating, polygamy, marital rape, starvation, stoning for suspected “lewdness,” and legal and economic discrimination, then yes, Islam is all about “gender justice.”

Here’s some of that justice:

VIII. MOHAMMED THE PEDOPHILE

Pedophilia as Muslim orthodoxy? In speaking of divorce:

“And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him” (Qur’an 65:4).

Why? Because Allah ordained it, and his apostle practiced it.

On Mohammed’s raping of his nine-year-old “wife”:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Narrated ‘Aisha [Mohammed’s six-year-old “bride” and nine-year-old sexual “partner”]: ‘Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, ‘She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

“Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age” (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234).

“A’isha . . . reported: Allah’s Apostle . . . married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old” (Muslim Book 8, Number 3310).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65).

“Narrated ‘Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88).

“Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consum[mat]ed that marriage when she was nine years old” (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236).

“Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: The Apostle of Allah . . . married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. According to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah . . . and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter” (Bukhari Book 41, Number 4915).

“Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah . . . and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine” (Bukhari Book 41, Number 4917).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)” (Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151).

“‘A’isha . . . reported that Allah’s Apostle . . . married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he [Mohammed] died she was eighteen years old” (Muslim Book 8, Number 3311).

IX. MOHAMMED THE MISOGYNIST, POLYGYNIST, AND WIFE-BEATER

‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715).

But feminists and other liberals love him.

On beating wives, “plowing the field,” the legal value of a woman’s testimony, polygamy (and raping your slaves), the penalty for “lewdness,” a daughter’s inheritance, and what to do with a woman caught in adultery:

“. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . ” (Qur’an 4:34).

“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (Qur’an 2:223).

“Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460).

“Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Qur’an 2:282).

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Qur’an 4:3).

“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way . . .” (Qur’an 4:15).

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Qur’an 4:11).

“There came to him [Mohammed] a woman from Ghamid and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He [Mohammed] turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma’iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child).

“‘When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him [Mohammed] with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He [Mohammed] entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Apostle [. . .] heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle . . . .'” (Muslim Book 17, 4206).

Why women must cover themselves (and why non-Muslim women are increasingly being targeted by Muslims for rape and other atrocities):

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

“Aisha used to say: ‘When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces‘” (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: “This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?”]

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

Mohammed on female leaders of state:

“Narrated Abu Bakra: ‘During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler“‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 219).

Where are all the feminists?  In bed with Allah?

Wait ’til you see him in the morning.  It won’t be what you expected.

B. Hussein Obama appoints a sexual deviant to keep your kids "safe"

In Barack Hussein Obama, GLSEN, Kevin Jennings, Liberal tyranny, NAMBLA on October 8, 2009 at 10:13 PM

From here:

President Obama has appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) —  which sponsored the conference that produced the notorious “Fistgate” scandal (in which young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions including “fisting”) —  to head up “Safe Schools” efforts at the Department of Education.

And he calls a supporter of NAMBLA (too vile and disgusting to explain; search for it) his “hero.”

Impeach now. Imprison later.

Impeach the treasonous Obama now

In Barack Hussein Obama, ICANN, Liberals aid jihad, Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, UN Human Rights Council on October 4, 2009 at 5:14 AM

In its ignorance, greed, and fear, the American people elected someone who was obviously an America-hating, racist, anti-Semitic, Islamosympathetic (if not covertly still Muslim), narcissistic despot.

No one who was paying attention before the election can be surprised by what the Illegal-Immigrant-in-Chief is doing to bankrupt and disarm the nation, rendering it helpless before our enemies, but I’ll bet all of us hoped it wouldn’t be this bad this quickly.

Obama is Delilah, and he’s just given Uncle Sam(son) a flat-top.

The one good thing about a Hillary/Obama victory last November would have been that the big-government tyranny that would have continued slowly eroding the Rule of Law under a President McCain is now flagrant, obvious, shameless, and accelerated.

Only three questions remain to be answered: First, will the American people wake up in time and with enough sustained patriotic rage to oppose successfully and then reverse not just the recent Statist advances in America, but also the slow descent into tyranny of the last eighty years?

Second, does an American leader exist who will not only obey the Constitution’s limits on his or her power, but also understands, can, and will articulate the actual nature of our enemy, which is the totalitarian ideology founded by Muhammad on Allah’s command and his own example?

Third, is the Stranger in the White House merely a typical suicidally-stupid Socialist tyrant doing what Hillary would have done (I would think she’d have been a little more protective of and a little less reckless with the welfare of the land of her birth), or is he a malevolent Muslim mole?

Either way, Obama has just this week alone undermined the Republic in these ways:

1) Legitimized the terrorist Organization of the Islamic Conference (including Guyana?) and advanced the global imposition of shari’a at the United Nations by cosponsoring with Egypt the OIC-backed UN Human Rights Council’s resolution criminalizing truth-telling about Islam.

2) Threatened to use Unconstitutional Executive Overreach to bypass the Congress — and the Constitution — in enacting his agenda.

3) Allowed the surrender of control of the Internet to other nations. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is now going to allow to other nations influence over the Internet making it — according to one article — a “virtual UN.”

That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, both Communist and Muslim tyrants will influence (to what degree remains to be seen) and perhaps censor your Freedom of Speech and the Individual’s last forum for the free exchange of information and ideas.

Imagine giving control of the Printing Press to the Ottoman Empire or the Moors of Spain.  It would have been the end of Western Civilization as we know it.

4) Despite the crocodile tears shed during the campaign over “taking our eye off the ball” by going after The Other Hussein’s WMD instead of pouring all our resources into Afghanistan, now, when our military leaders are stating publicly that without more troops we will lose to the Taliban and his allegedly-former coreligionists, what does Obama do?  Immediately give to our Best and Bravest the resources and manpower they need to crush satan’s spawn?  Rush to the theater to lend moral support to those defending our Life and Liberty?

No, he goes to Denmark to try to get billions in Olympic building-project money for his fellow anti-American cogs in the Chicago Political Machine and ends up shaming himself (again).

Treason.

Obama is bankrupting and disarming the nation.

He’s bleeding our military in Afghanistan.

The First Amendment has a scimitar to its neck.

And so do you, America.

Let your sins be strong, for God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners

In Christ, Christianity, Justification, Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Sanctification on October 3, 2009 at 1:23 AM

Be honest about just how bad your sins really are, because Christ paid for them all.

Great news for the wicked, from here:

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.

We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?

Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

–Martin Luther to Philip Melanchthon,
on the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521

The deceitful Salam Al-Marayati obfuscates for Rifqa Bary’s murder

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Rifqa Bary, Salam Al-Marayati, The truth about Islam on October 3, 2009 at 1:15 AM

And the Muslims at the site hosting the lie engage in false moral equivalences, ad hominem attacks, and false tu quoques rather than admit that their god and prophet are murderous, vile beasts.

Al-Marayati condescendingly, stupidly, and shamelessly lies regarding murder for apostasy:

“No it’s not, sweet little Rifqa. It’s not in the Quran. Whoever told you that is either ignorant or a liar. You should look it up yourself before claiming it’s in the Quran.”

Al-Marayati is going to hell.

His lie is two-faced, like he is: First, death for apostasy is in Qur’an. Second — and here is where Muslims are so successful at their diabolical, little half-truths — the ahadiths considered traditionally most reliable by Muslims record clearly that Muhammad commanded that apostates be murdered. Since Allah calls Muhammad a “beautiful pattern of conduct,” whatever he said and did “pleases” Allah:

Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

“They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them” (Qur’an 4:89).

It shouldn’t be surprising then when Muslims believe it is their duty to kill those who leave Islam.