The Stupidest Lie In All Human History: It Has Nothing To Do With Islam When Muslims Force You To Recite Qur’an Or Die

I am going to proceed to prove and document that if you are a Democrat, you are a demon-possessed fool of the most depraved sort imaginable.

The Los Angeles Times did a major investigative article on June 26, 2016.  It describes just one bloody month – in other words, just a typical month in our world today – of April in which there wasn’t a single day in which there was not a deadly terrorist attack somewhere in the world.  Interestingly, in this article a chart is featured labeling each group responsible for an attack and the number of casualties.  The groups dominating the top were Islamic State which killed 395 people, the Taliban, which killed 109, Boko Haram, which killed 68, Shabab, which killed 41, the Syrian rebels, who killed 23, Abu SAyyaf, which killed 19.  You have to really get into the WEEDS before you find a group that isn’t officially ISLAMIC.

NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of the murders committed by terrorists groups in this month were committed by MUSLIM GROUPS.  More than 800 people were butchered by Muslims claiming Allah and claiming Islamic theology as their primary motivating force to do what they do.

You cannot keep believing these Democrat Party lies that Islam and terrorism have no legitimate connection or relationship.

Of course, the Los Angles Times, being leftist propaganda drivel, doesn’t point that rather important fact out to you.  Nope.  You’ve got to look up the terrorist groups yourself, find out their ideology and do the tallies and then do the math.  Other than the Indian Maoists, the Kurdistan Workers Party (communist), the Lord’s Resistance Army, Renamo, the New People’s Army (communist),  and the New Irish Republican Army, they’ll all MUSLIM.   And these other terrorist groups are chicken feed compared to the real terrorist monsters who are murdering hundreds at a time.

Meanwhile, Democrats like Obama and like Hillary Clinton keep spouting that the Muslim world hates terrorism and is actually joining with us to fight it.  Bull crap.  Last year it was revealed that in spite of Obama’s ocean of lies, HALF A BILLION DOLLARS was committed to training “four or five” Syrian rebels.  Yeah, those Muslims just can’t WAIT to fight terror, can they?  And just in case you’re wondering, Obama just proved that Muslims are NOT going to fight terrorist Muslims YET AGAIN.  Obama blathers idiotically and demonically about Republicans causing terror by giving terrorists access to guns; the only problem with that is Obama believes that every single American who believes in the U.S. Constitution is a “terrorist” while he has put ALL KINDS of weapons including M1-Abrams main battle tanks into the hands of Islamic State again and again as his “good Muslims” drop their weapons and flee time and time and time again.  In fact, we find out that Obama gave $1 billion in military aid to Islamic State because he abandoned Iraq to the terrorists and they just walked up to Obama, bitch-slapped our weak coward in chief, and took his stuff having made sure there wasn’t so much as a single US soldier to say, “Hey, waitaminute.”

Obama has boasted and boasted and boasted about his “fifty nation coalition.”  It’s a joke.

So Obama and Hillary are out there dishonestly claiming that Islamic terrorism isn’t “Islamic” and that Muslims are our friends.  And they’re just lying right out of their anuses they call their mouths.  Muslims are OVERWHELMINGLY responsible for the vicious terrorism and they can’t even tell us who our enemy is.  And meanwhile they dishonestly pretending that we have allies that we very clearly do not have.

Obama and Hillary Clinton are claiming that their strategy to fight terrorism is somehow working when terrorism has exploded 800 percent under Obama and will have exploded by more than 1,700 percent by the time the disgraced fool leaves office.  Just look at the chart and do your own simple extrapolation of where the trend under Obama is headed:

Terrorism has doubled exponentially every single two year period while Obama has dishonestly claimed he’s been winning and succeeding.

Obama and Hillary Clinton are claiming that their strategy to contain terrorism is somehow working when more than 65 million Muslims have fled and it is only a matter of time before those 65 million Muslims become embittered wherever they end up and become our future “homegrown terrorists.”

The human race has never witnessed anything like this.  This is not merely “failure,” this is DEMONIC FAILURE.

But THE most dishonest media – even making Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda in the days of Nazi Germany and the TASS of the Soviet days look honest in comparison – are NOT telling the story and they are intentionally NOT connecting the dots so that people can see that Obama has failed them, failed America, failed the world, failed the entire human SPECIES.

Democrats and liberal Muslim contextualizers will stand there and tell us that most of the victims of terrorism are Muslims.  And that’s actually true.  But what does it prove?  Nothing, when Muslims have been the primary murderers of Muslims since Islam split into the two warring factions of Sunni and Shia at the moment that Muhammad died.  The Day of Ashura was a day of massacre in which the followers who became Sunnis massacred the grandson of Muhammad and his companions.  That violence has continued ever since.  During the Iran-Iraq War, more than a million Muslims were murdered by Muslims.  This notion that Muslims are somehow victims because the terrorists who murder also murder Muslims is a great big fat giant fraud.  Muslims will murder anyone they can murder and do so quite gleefully.

You cannot keep believing these Democrat Party lies that Obama has succeeded or that Hillary Clinton will succeed.

On the same day they did their study of the 180 attacks committed in April, the same Los Angeles Times published news of new major attacks on page A4, including a story about Muslim gunmen from Shabab murdering 14 people in Somalia and the Muslim-created “catastrophic humanitarian emergency” for Nigerians.  Tens out thousands of people have fled and are literally starving to death because – as the LA Times notes – “Violence in northern Nigeria fueled by the Islamic extremist group Boko Haram, has forced more than 2.5 million people to flee their homes, according to United Nations statistics.”  Those murders weren’t included in the big story titled “Diary of Terror” that the LA Times featured on the main page without every once singling out Islam for the vicious religion that it is.

And that month wasn’t ANYTHING compared to the month of June, the primary month of Ramadan which ends tomorrow.  We had the attack in Orlando.  But that was merely one bloody attack in one incredibly bloody stretch of Muslim holy month: Iraq just lost 2oo people to Islamic terrorists yesterday.  Islamic State claimed responsibility.  Immediately before that, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Muslim terrorists seized a restaurant and took hostages, killing at least 20 foreigners.  Those who could recite from the Qur’an were spared:

Dhaka: The attackers involved in the Dhaka restaurant siege had asked their victims to recite from the Quran before deciding on whom to spare, a leading Bangladeshi daily said on its website on Saturday.

“Those who could recite a verse from the Quran were spared, others were tortured,” the Daily Star quoted a rescued hostage as saying.

At least 20 foreigners, including an Indian, were killed in the 10-hour siege at the Holey Artisan Bakery in the diplomatic enclave of the Bangladeshi capital.

The siege ended after the Bangladeshi security forces gunned down six of the attackers and captured one of their associates.

Those who could not recite from the Quran were tortured by the gunmen, said Rezaul Karim, father of Hasnat Karim who was held hostage for over 10 hours.

Sounds exactly like something any card-carrying “religion of peace, charity and justice” would do, right, Barry Hussein???

The funny thing is that I think I could actually pull that one off and recite from the Holy Qur’an:

 And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (disbelief) is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.  But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.  And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). — Qur’an 2:191-193

Ah, yes, the religion of peace is so peaceful when everyone who would say anything to argue is DEAD.

But there, I recited the evil, hateful, vile, demonic Qur’an for you Muslim murderers, so let me go.

I welcome the Los Angeles Times to do a follow-up story over the months of June and July and see how Islam is faring in it’s Obamaesque version as “the religion of peace, charity and justice.”  And it’s quite a marvelous thing to listen to our Muslim-in-Chief praise Muhammad and his Islam while he insults Jesus Christ and His Christianity.  But then again, Obama actually said “my Muslim faith” and had to be officially corrected as to what his faith was supposed to be according to his previous dishonest blatherings about being a Christian.  I’ll give this to Obama: he isn’t any less Christian than Lucifer.  Or any more Christian, either.

In a previous article, I go into rather great detail comparing the Qur’an to the Holy Bible in terms of commandments to violence.  It’s not that hard, folks.  The Old Testament of the Holy Bible predates Islam by something on the order of 4,000 years.  By the time Muhammad had written the Qur’an, Jesus had appeared some six centuries previous – in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophets to fulfill Judaism – and Jesus taught peace as the Prince of Peace.  He told His followers to put away their swords and allowed Himself to be taken and tortured and crucified to death by violent, evil men.  Not exactly the path that Muhammad took when he took part in over thirty military campaigns of conquest, committed multiple acts of genocide, and had another thirty more planned at the time of his death.  Which by the way was the result of being poisoned by a Jewish woman vengeful over yet another murderous attack against Jews in which he killed the men and enslaved the women and children.

Jesus prophesied His own death; Muhammad turned out to be not so good at it.  But Jesus also prophesied that He would – as God’s powerful Son – be raised from the dead in proof of His deity and His divine message.  “The Prophet” really failed miserably at pulling off that feat.

I simply cannot stand it when an Obama or a Hillary Clinton or a CAIR representative or some other leftist Islamist contextualizer makes the ridiculous statement that “whoever did this terrible deed is not a true follower of Islam.”  Because I would just like to ask that fool one simple question: “Okay, do you think that the Prophet Muhammad was ‘a true follower of Islam’?”  Because it is a simple matter of history to document that the Prophet did all the same damn things that Obama and the leftist Muslim contextualizers today say is so against the teachings of Islam.  You can tell me that according to Islam killing and committing acts of genocide against your enemies is a good thing; but what you CANNOT tell me is that Muhammad didn’t do those things.  Because it is simply a fact of history that he did.

I keep hearing this insane crap about the Muslim terrorist murder of homosexuals and how tolerant Muhammad supposedly was to homosexuals according to these idiotic liberal contextualizers of Islam.  And so they’ll mindlessly quote Sura 5:32 that says, “the killing of an innocent life is like the killing of all mankind, the saving of an innocent life is the saving of all mankind.”  And yeah, Muhammad said that: WHEN HE WAS IN MECCA AND HE WAS THE UNDERDOG.  He said a lot of sweet stuff then when his adversaries were far more powerful than he was.   But when he went to Medina and became the strong man, the gates of hell opened.  And those liberal contextualizers of Islam refuse to quote the vicious stuff Muhammad wrote at the end of his life that according to Islam’s doctrine of abrogation supplants the sweet nice stuff he wrote early when he was afraid of his enemies.

The Qur’an and Islams other accepted holy sources actually are quite explicit how Islam should deal with homosexuals.  And it aint nice.

In any event, in that article of mine I link to four paragraphs above, I point out a very important fact: that while the OLD Testament contains commandments to violence (that were highly specific in that they were given to ONE people at ONE point in time for ONE single act whereas the commandments to violence in Islam are universal and given to every Muslim throughout the centuries), the NEW Testament contains NO commands to commit violence and actually teaches peace.  Just find me ONE command in the New Testament where Christians are commanded to commit murder or violence.  And understand that I point out and demonstrate that even the Old Testament of the Bible anticipates its own replacement, calling for “a New Covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31-34).  Which was fulfilled and inaugurated by Jesus of Nazareth who fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Old Testament (see Matthew 5:18).  As Jesus said in the preceding verse, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”  And Jesus DID fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and so everything in the Old Testament that isn’t specifically restated is considered fulfilled and done away with – which includes any and all teachings of VIOLENCE.  Compare that to Islam which must feature a doctrine called “abrogation.”  Look at how the reliably leftist Google puts it when you type in the words Islam and abrogation:

If Muhammad said two things that appear to be contradictory, you must heed the last command he gave.  And he did that a LOT, by the way.  There are a whole BUNCH of what I call “convenient suras” in which Muhammad contradicted something he had previously said in order to justify getting something he wanted.  And in the case of the history of Muhammad and the Islam he created, there is simply no question: when Muhammad started out in Medina, he was the underdog and even his own tribe refused to follow him and he preached during this phase peace and tolerance and co-existence.  Until he reached Medina and gained power and began to teach the violent subjugation of his enemies.

Let me simply copy and paste here from what I’ve already documented before:

Liberals completely fail to comprehend this: the Bible begins with violence and moves to peace.

Not so the Qur’an.  Not so Muhammad.  When you read a Qur’an, understand that “Muhammad was like two different persons at two different times and the Quran is like two contradictory books pasted together.”  Understand that in Islam you have 1390 Years of Violence and only 10 years of Peace.

When Mohammad first began to proselytize his new religion in Mecca and claim that he was receiving revelations from Allah, he was decidedly the underdog.  And correspondingly all of his revelations centered around peaceful coexistence and tolerance.

But then Mohammad went to Medina in what is today called “Al Hijra.”  He was able to garner followers and became militarily powerful.  And suddenly all of the revelations of his Qur’an took a decidedly violent turn.

The Qur’an was NOT organized in any kind of chronological order; rather, it was organized by length, from the longest to the shortest suras.

When you re-arrange the Qur’an by chronology, you get this order: and you get not violence to peace as the Holy Bible gives, but peace to VIOLENCE.

So, for example, do your own research.  Consider the very first violent Sura 2:191-193 found in the Qur’an which states, “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”.  And lo and behold, when you examine the chronological order and look to the right column to see where it was organized according to the tradition based on length of sura, you find that this edict found in Sura 2 to “kill them wherever you may find them” is the VERY FIRST sura Mohammad conveniently claimed he received from Allah when he arrived in Medina and became the dominant power. 

This is not merely a command for violence; it is a UNIVERSAL COMMAND for violence.  I’ll talk about that more.

Keep going down the list of violent suras and look at where they are found, whether they were written earlier in Mohammad’s Mecca phase or later when he arrived at Medina and became militarily powerful.

You will find that without any question, the vast overwhelming majority of violent sura that commanded violence and death were given in Medina just as the vast overwhelming majority of suras commanding any kind of “peace” was given in Mecca.

A simple historic statement of fact: Mohammad and the Qur’an takes us from peace to viciousness and hate and murder and death and slaughter.

Now, this is bad, but it actually gets WORSE.  Because Islam has a doctrine called “abrogation” by which later suras correct and supercede earlier ones.

In other words, if Mohammad first said “peace” and then he said “war,” the ONLY correct interpretation of the Qur’an MUST BE WAR.

Now, abrogation is not necessarily such a terrible thing; every parent has done it: your child may ask you if she can go to a party, and then you find out something you don’t like about the party that makes you change or mind, or your child misbehaves and you say, “Now you can’t go.”  You’ve abrogated your previous statement.  You’ve said yes and now you’re saying no to the same thing you’d said yes to.  So if your child comes to you and says, “You said on Monday I could go, so I went,” you are enraged as you point out, “But I said on TUESDAY you could NOT go, so you are in a heap of trouble!”

It’s different when it comes to a revelation from God, though: God isn’t supposed to be caught by surprise or change His mind with new information or be wrong and then correct Himself.  How did Mohammad respond to this dilemma?  It seems that Qur’an 2:106 was “revealed” in response to skepticism directed at Muhammad that Allah’s revelations were not entirely consistent over time. Muhammad’s rebuttal was that ”Allah is able to do all things” — even change his mind.

And hence we have examples of blatantly obvious abrogation in the Qur’an such as:

In Surah 58, Al Mujadilah, verse 12, the believers are commanded to give alms before a private consultation with the Messenger. In verse 13 they are told that it is no longer necessary.

In Surah 33, Al Ahzab, verses 50-51 Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is allowed to marry and divorce an unlimited number of women. In verse 52 he is prohibited to continue to do so.

In Surah 73, Al Muzzammil, verses 2-4, the prophet of Islam is commanded to spend about half of the night in prayer and reading of the Quran. In verse 20 of the same Surah this is changed into what is easy for him and those who followed his example.

But this Islamic view of Allah is in very direct contrast to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and so we have passages like Numbers 23:19: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?”

Sneering liberal pseudo-intellectuals claim that Christianity has the same issue of abrogation, BUT WE DON’T.  And they are frankly moral idiots of the very lowest order to make such a blatantly false claim.  Here’s why:

1. In every single example of violence in the Old Testament, it is ALWAYS in EVERY CASE a specific command by God to a specific people to do a specific thing at a specific time for a specific reason.  There is NO universalized commandment by God to always kill everyone the way we see in the Qur’an, no “kill them wherever you find them.”  There are no verses in the Bible that say “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you…” (Qur’an 2:216), no “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah” (Qur’an 4:76).  God never gives a universal command that He later has to take back.
2. If the Bible were given the same way the Qur’an is given, Moses would have commanded peace and Jesus would have come after Moses and subsequently taught, “But I tell you, hate your enemies and slaughter those who persecute you.”  When Jesus, in fulfillment of the New Covenant that even the Old Covenant itself anticipated hundreds of years before Jesus’ arrival on earth, as the Prince of Peace, actually taught, “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).  You need to comprehend how absolutely MASSIVE is the difference between a religion that begins with violence and then moves to peace (Christianity) verses a religion that begins with peace and then ends with commands to universalized violence.
3. The Old Testament of the Holy Bible pointedly “abrogates” ITSELF in terms of violence because it promises a New Covenant and then it DELIVERS one in the form of the Prince of Peace, Jesus.  The “abrogation” of violence was not for the sake of Jesus’ convenience, the way the abrogation of peace for a call to violence clearly was politically oh-so-very convenient for Mohammad.  Let me put it this way: Jesus told Peter, “Put away your sword” (Matthew 26:52) in order that He could be arrested and beaten and go to the cross where He would die a terrible, humiliating, agonizing death in our place for our sins.  Versus Mohammad who said let’s be peaceful when he was the underdog and then turned on a dime and ordered mass violence the moment his forces gained the upper hand.
4. The Bible doesn’t “abrogate” violence merely because times had changed and the world was no longer a violent place and the Bible was correcting a problem that was obviously out of step with the rest of the world.  Any such notion is simply FALSE.  The Romans at the time of Christ were as vicious and brutal as ANYONE ever had been; what they did to Jesus itself proves that.  And Jesus’ disciples wrote the New Testament not only in light of what Rome had done to Jesus, but in light of the fact that even as they were writing, Rome was treating Christians viciously.  St. Peter and St. Paul were both executed by Rome, as were many other disciples.
5. The God of the Bible is a God of wrath just as He is a God of love.  But all of His attributes are perfectly balanced, such that His wrath is manifested in the attribute of justice that ultimately flows from love.  And the toleration of evil results in a lack of justice.  And so God gave His people the sword and used them as an instrument in defined, limited circumstances and only in accordance with His command.  But ultimately He was always preparing for the arrival of His Son, the Prince of Peace.
6. Finally, the thing that changed in the Bible was this: “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship” (Galatians 4:4-5).  God prophesied a coming Messiah who would epitomize and usher in a “new covenant,” and Jesus came as foretold.
7. And so Jesus completely fulfilled the Old Covenant (Matthew 5:17).  The various laws and regulations and customs of the Old Testament weren’t “abrogated,” but rather they were fulfilled and served their purpose and were no longer necessary because the promised Messiah took their burden off our necks.  And so Christians have realized even in the time of St. Peter that unless a principle or a command from the Old Covenant is specifically repeated/restated in the New Covenant, it was fulfilled by Christ and no longer applies to New Covenant believers.  We can compare the Old Covenant and the New to the abacus vs. the computer or the horse vs. the automobile: the former things weren’t “abrogated” and declared wrong; rather they served their purpose and we now use the superior things.  Christ is the Superior which fulfilled the inferior and the inferior that served as a type or a shadow of the Superior (see for example Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8:5) is therefore no longer needed.

It is for this reason that I point out the fact and hereby state for the historical record that Penn State religious history professor Philip Jenkins is an abject moral idiot and the worst kind of intellectual fraud.  He is, as are all progressive liberals, a pathologically ignorant fool masquerading himself as someone who is wise and knowledgeable when he in fact teaches the precise opposite of wisdom and knowledge.  Jenkins is not only utterly blind to what is actually going on all around him in the real world as Muslim terrorists murder and bomb innocent people in the name of Allah, but as I have just proven he is just as utterly blind to the religious theology that he claims that he is an expert in.

A passage from Colossians sums these liberal fools up well: “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.” – Colossians 2:8.  Tragically, modern universities teach very little BUT “empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense.”

The fact that the Qur’an does NOT begin with violence and then end with peace, but rather the opposite, and the fact that abrogation forces true Muslims to accept that the later “revelations” to Mohammad supercede previous ones, puts Islam in a deep, dark pit of endless violence that is NOT true of Christianity.

Which is why Christianity and Christ are attacked all the damn TIME by liberals and Christians don’t unleash waves of violent hate the way Muslims routinely do the moment they even THINK their Prophet might be getting insulted.

We are left with a giant problem of Islam: we find that Islam, Mohammad and the Qur’an spent ten years deceiving people by preaching peace and tolerance in order to grow strong and powerful, and then the rest of history practicing force and violence and terror the moment they were able to gain the upper hand.

We find that Islam does NOT mean “peace” as liberals love to adoringly say; it means “submission.”  AND YOU WILL SUBMIT OR ELSE YOU WILL BE KILLED.

A historical study of Mohammad’s life reveals that the “Prophet of Peace” had fought in over thirty violent military campaigns and had at least another thirty campaigns planned at the time of his death in 632 AD.  In fact I can quote you Islamic sources that state, “that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina.”  But it is a fact of history that when Mohammad showed up at Medina, he became a violent terrorist warmonger who waged unrelenting war until he defeated and subjugated everyone around him.  What you will also find is that Islam did NOT practice peace after Mohammad’s death; in fact it split due to terrifying, graphic and vicious violence that continues to this very day as the viciousness created Sunni and Shiite Islam.  But within 100 years of Mohammad’s death, warring, violent Muslims were attacking Christian Europe and had killed an looted and pillaged their way all across the entirety of Europe before finally being crushed by Charles “the Hammer” Martel at the Battle of Tours in France in 732.  Preceding that, in the late 7th century, the most intolerant religion on earth built the Dome of the Rock directly on top of the most holy site of Judaism where the Jewish Temple had been built, where Abraham had been told to take his son Isaac as a sacrifice but God had provided a ram in place of Isaac.  By then, violent warring Muslims had already poured across Africa and seized the Christian realms established by St. Augustine.  All of the vast peaceful Christian provinces of North Africa had fallen to the bloody sword of Allah by 711.  Violent, warring Muslims poured into Christian Spain to be finally defeated by El Cid.  Violent, warring Muslims poured into the Christian Byzantine Empire and besieged Constantinople and the Christian Emperor pleaded with the Pope to send Christian warriors to defend a Christian realm from Muslim conquest in what became known as the Crusades.

As we celebrate our Declaration of Independence – which contains obvious references to the God of the Christian Bible that the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama repudiate and dishonestly claims has no bearing upon our nation that Abraham Lincoln called “this nation, under God,” understand that uor Founding Fathers were still dealing with Islam when the Barbary Pirates were committing acts of terror against our ships and our sailors in the late 18th century.

Again, it is so damn simple and Democrats are so damned, rabidly dishonest: our founding fathers in the Declaration of independence stated their reason to separate from England: namely that the King of England was usurping rights:

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

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence could not put the case much more clearly: 1) God ordained man with certain rights; 2) to secure these God-ordained rights, governments are instituted among men; 3) any government that violates or usurps these God-ordained rights can be overthrown; 4) the king of England has indeed violated these God-ordained rights; and therefore 5) we are separating from England.  And the Constitution that came after we successfully fought to separate from England proceeds to describe a government that does NOT violate the rights that God had ordained in mankind.  At least until Democrats came along, murdered sixty million innocent human beings in a vicious and vile process known as “abortion” in which every single father has the right to the life of his very own child stripped from him.  And homosexuality was erected in place of Christian morality and socialist human Government that has gone FAR BEYOND any damn thing the king of England ever did was imposed and worshiped in place of Christianity.

George Washington, the father of our country, put it this way:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

Founding father John Adams said:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

You simply cannot take the Christian out of America and keep America.  OR the Constitution that was itself based on morality and the true religion of Christianity.  Our nation will collapse and our founding fathers understood that.  And Democrats are traitors and fools for their pathological ignorance and frankly their pathological depravity.

But I digress from my primary message that Democrats are demon-possessed whackjobs who rabidly despise reality and are literally saying that the ninety-five percent of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Allah by Muslims according to the teachings of the Qur’an according to the life example of Muhammad somehow have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Islam could NOT be more clear: kill your enemy.  Kill him wherever you may find him.  Any so-called “peaceful sura” was abrogated and replaced with the command to violently kill.  Muhammad, the paradigm of Islam, proved that and demonstrated that and documented that in the blood of his victims throughout his wicked and vicious life.

Please stop denying simple reality.

If you want true peace, you turn to the religion that every single Democrat radically despises: biblical Christianity.

Democrats, as I’ve said again and again and again, are “DEMOnic bureuaCRATS.”  Democrats are demon-possessed worshipers of the human State that murders God’s babies to the tune of TEN TIMES MORE EVIL than the Nazi Holocaust while worshiping homosexual perversion as they strip away God’s ordained morality and replace it with immorality directly out of the depraved heart of the devil.  And they actually do so claiming they are doing God’s work!!!

Read Romans 1:18-32 and begin to understand the last-days horror of hell that is the Democratic Party:

Unbelief and Its Consequences

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth ^[a]in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because that which is known about God is evident ^[b]within them; for God made it evident to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ²¹ For even though they knew God, they did not ^[c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and ^[d]crawling creatures.

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. ²⁵ For they exchanged the truth of God for ^[e]a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed ^[f]forever. Amen.

²⁶ For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is ^[g]unnatural, ²⁷ and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing ^[h]indecent acts and receiving in ^[i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

²⁸ And just as they did not see fit ^[j]to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, ²⁹ being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, ^[k]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; ³² and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Number one, if you are a Democrat, you suppress the truth in unrighteousness.  That is what you are and that is what you do.  Don’t tell me that isn’t a fundamental fact about the Democratic Party.  Don’t tell me that Democrats have abandoned God as Creator.  You have replaced the truth about a Creator God with godless evolution.  You have replaced the truth that human beings are created from the womb in the image of a holy God and you have monstrously and wickedly replaced it with sixty million abortions.

And as a result, what is SELF-EVIDENT, such as recognizing a Creator God, such as recognizing obvious reality about the nature of Islam and the nature of Islamic terrorism, is denied and rejected no matter how damned beyond obvious it is.  And so every damn wicked thought you have is futile and false.

And because of that, GOD HAS GIVEN YOUR PARTY OVER TO WICKEDNESS.  It is amazing that every time in the Book of Romans that you see the phrase, “God gave them over,” you can trace the content of that phrase DIRECTLY to the Democratic Party platform.

The Democratic Party is the Party that God gave over to wrath.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 couldn’t make what has happened to the Democratic Party more plain:

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.

Stop believing the lie.  Stop believing the Democratic Party when they tell you lie after lie after LIE.

 

Islam’s ONLY Hope For True Reform Comes From A Surprising Source. And What Of America’s Only Hope For Reform?

I’ve recently been contemplating the Qur’an and the pathological tendency toward violence within Islam.  And I’ve been contemplating how morally idiotic liberals irrationally and continually pronounce Islam as “a peaceful religion” when they would NEVER say the same thing about biblical Christianity given the Bible’s blatantly clear stances of abortion, homosexuality and socialism.

Is Islam a religion of peace?  Is Mars a planet with breathable atmosphere?  No and no, with both deserving a “No, stupid” delivered with suitable incredulous and condescending stare.

I’ve made the points recently: both the Bible and the Qur’an contain commands to violence and death.  Here’s an article from a decidedly liberal (i.e., hostile to Judeo-Christianity) perspective about the Bible being even MORE violent than the Qur’an in the eyes of progressive liberalism.  Penn State religious history professor Philip Jenkins launched his own “investigation” of the Bible vis a vis the Qur’an and concluded, “”Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible.”

And of course everyone is agonizingly aware of the ten top Christian terrorist organizations inflicting mass death in tens of thousands of terror attacks.  Oh, wait, they’re not, BECAUSE THERE AREN’T ANY CHRISTIAN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS the way we’ve suffered al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Islamic State, Taliban,  al-Shabaab, Hezbollah, Hamas, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Nusra, Muslim Brotherhood, etc., etc.

It’s just a complete mystery to liberals why a “religion of peace” like Islam is inspiring so much terror and hate and violence.  When they believe with ever fiber of their being that it ought to be the Christianity that they so despise that is the true source of all the violence.

Let’s consider this leftist professor’s claims and see if they are actually true.  I’ll begin with the Bible and proceed to expose a critical fact that Jenkins leaves entirely out of his false comparison.

Yes, the God of the Bible, in judgment of sin, commands the Israelites to wipe out and exterminate the inhabitants of the land He is giving His people.  God gives Abraham’s descendants through Isaac the Promised Land.  Shortly before Abraham dies, God tells Abraham this:

 “As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.  Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” — Genesis 15:15-16.

Understand that God had already promised Abraham this land that belonged to another people in Genesis 12.  In the very passage I just quoted for you from Genesis 15, God immediately after verses 15-16 proceeds to specifically define the boundaries of the Promised Land that He just promised:

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates–the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” — Genesis 15:18-21

So God tells Abraham, “I am giving you THIS land, land that other peoples are currently on.  But not YET.  God’s promise unfolds throughout Genesis chapter 15. Look at the unfolding context:

• 7He also said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.”
• 13Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.
• 14But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.
• 15You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age.
• 16In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
• 18On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates–
• 19the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites,
• 20Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites,
• 21Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

The Book of Genesis records Israel being invited into Egypt by a grateful Pharaoh but ultimately being cruelly enslaved by a subsequent Pharaoh.  And just as God had foretold to Abraham, Israel would spend 400 years in bondage as slaves.  But the Israelites were finally delivered through Moses.  And they came in and took the land that God had promised them.  And God gave them this land after having given the wicked people who inhabited it 400 years to get their moral acts together.

God tells the Israelites under the command of Moses’ successor Joshua to wipe out these peoples (i.e., the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites).  In Deuteronomy 20:16-18 God commands:

16“Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. 17“But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, 18 so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God.…

This theme – and the reason behind it – is repeated several times by God in the Old Testament, as Numbers 33:55 demonstrates:

“‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live.

So in these passages we have the commandment and we also have the REASON FOR the commandment: if Israel destroys its enemies and wipes them out, they will not be corrupted.  If they refuse or fail to wipe out their enemies, then the very same evil that brought God’s judgment on their enemies will enter into Israel and God will have to bring judgment upon THEM.

Which, for the record, is ultimately precisely what happened to Israel as is declared in numerous biblical passages.  We find in 1 Samuel 15:17-24 a simple statement that Israel refused to obey God’s commands.  They didn’t drive out these wicked peoples, who ultimately morally contaminated them and perverted the righteous culture God commanded them to create where previously only the wicked cultures of the Amorite, Jebusite, etc. had been.

Because Israel did NOT drive out the wicked peoples who inhabited the land God gave them according to God’s command, Israel became just as wicked if not MORE wicked than those people as their evil ways contaminated Israel’s culture:

But the people did not listen. Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites. — 2 Kings 21:9

Habakkuk chapter one records the people becoming evil and the LORD raising up the Babylonians to judge them.

And so just as God used the Israelites as His weapon against the wicked peoples who inhabited the land that God gave to Israel, so God used the mighty Gentile nations such as the Egyptians, the Assyrians and the Babylonians against Israel.  God is sovereign over the nations, and He providentially uses them to ultimately accomplish His will.  And in His sovereign providence He uses the righteous and the wicked alike.

Israel was first subjugated by Gentile powers and ultimately after rejecting their Messiah ceased to exist for two millennia until God, in fulfillment of His word through Ezekiel, literally resurrected the nation back from the “dry bones” of the dead.  And in miraculous fulfillment of Isaiah 66:8 – “Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children” – Israel was born in a day when the United Nations officially and historically declared her existence on May 14, 1948.  This was in direct response out of international outrage over the world having allowed six million Jews to be slaughtered in the Holocaust.

Liberals may not like it because they hate the God of the Bible, His righteousness, and His sovereignty over the nations when they yearn for a totalitarian socialist global new world order that exalts itself far above the God of the Bible.

God is sovereign over the nations.  Liberals despise Him for that; they want a world where the nation – the totalitarian human government – is sovereign over God.  They want a world where they dictate to God and to mankind what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil.  But I digress.

We have seen up to this point that in a violent world, God not only condoned but actually commanded His people Israel to employ the same violence that all the other people were employing.

BUT… we ultimately come to a critical turning point in the Bible: we come to the promise of a New Covenant.  The Old Testament itself affirms a coming New Covenant:

³¹ “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, ³² not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. ³³ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ³⁴ And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” — Jeremiah 31:31-34

Hebrews 8:6-13 also affirms that this New Covenant has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

During the Last Supper Jesus said:

19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”  — Luke 22:19-21

Hebrews 9:15 states, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

So we have a progression in both Testaments of the Bible from the Old Covenant to a New Covenant.  And the New Covenant is literally and even physically embodied in the Word, Messiah Jesus.

And what is it that Jesus taught?  What did He command?  Violence?  No, the Virgin-born fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6 came to be “the Prince of peace.”  And Jesus taught even as He was being led away to be viciously flogged and then crucified, “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

Liberals completely fail to comprehend this: the Bible begins with violence and moves to peace.

Not so the Qur’an.  Not so Muhammad.  When you read a Qur’an, understand that “Muhammad was like two different persons at two different times and the Quran is like two contradictory books pasted together.”  Understand that in Islam you have 1390 Years of Violence and only 10 years of Peace.

When Mohammad first began to proselytize his new religion in Mecca and claim that he was receiving revelations from Allah, he was decidedly the underdog.  And correspondingly all of his revelations centered around peaceful coexistence and tolerance.

But then Mohammad went to Medina in what is today called “Al Hijra.”  He was able to garner followers and became militarily powerful.  And suddenly all of the revelations of his Qur’an took a decidedly violent turn.

The Qur’an was NOT organized in any kind of chronological order; rather, it was organized by length, from the longest to the shortest suras.

When you re-arrange the Qur’an by chronology, you get this order: and you get not violence to peace as the Holy Bible gives, but peace to VIOLENCE.

So, for example, do your own research.  Consider the very first violent Sura 2:191-193 found in the Qur’an which states, “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”.  And lo and behold, when you examine the chronological order and look to the right column to see where it was organized according to the tradition based on length of sura, you find that this edict found in Sura 2 to “kill them wherever you may find them” is the VERY FIRST sura Mohammad conveniently claimed he received from Allah when he arrived in Medina and became the dominant power. 

This is not merely a command for violence; it is a UNIVERSAL COMMAND for violence.  I’ll talk about that more.

Keep going down the list of violent suras and look at where they are found, whether they were written earlier in Mohammad’s Mecca phase or later when he arrived at Medina and became militarily powerful.

You will find that without any question, the vast overwhelming majority of violent sura that commanded violence and death were given in Medina just as the vast overwhelming majority of suras commanding any kind of “peace” was given in Mecca.

A simple historic statement of fact: Mohammad and the Qur’an takes us from peace to viciousness and hate and murder and death and slaughter.

Now, this is bad, but it actually gets WORSE.  Because Islam has a doctrine called “abrogation” by which later suras correct and supercede earlier ones.

In other words, if Mohammad first said “peace” and then he said “war,” the ONLY correct interpretation of the Qur’an MUST BE WAR.

Now, abrogation is not necessarily such a terrible thing; every parent has done it: your child may ask you if she can go to a party, and then you find out something you don’t like about the party that makes you change or mind, or your child misbehaves and you say, “Now you can’t go.”  You’ve abrogated your previous statement.  You’ve said yes and now you’re saying no to the same thing you’d said yes to.  So if your child comes to you and says, “You said on Monday I could go, so I went,” you are enraged as you point out, “But I said on TUESDAY you could NOT go, so you are in a heap of trouble!”

It’s different when it comes to a revelation from God, though: God isn’t supposed to be caught by surprise or change His mind with new information or be wrong and then correct Himself.  How did Mohammad respond to this dilemma?  It seems that Qur’an 2:106 was “revealed” in response to skepticism directed at Muhammad that Allah’s revelations were not entirely consistent over time. Muhammad’s rebuttal was that ”Allah is able to do all things” — even change his mind.

And hence we have examples of blatantly obvious abrogation in the Qur’an such as:

In Surah 58, Al Mujadilah, verse 12, the believers are commanded to give alms before a private consultation with the Messenger. In verse 13 they are told that it is no longer necessary.

In Surah 33, Al Ahzab, verses 50-51 Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is allowed to marry and divorce an unlimited number of women. In verse 52 he is prohibited to continue to do so.

In Surah 73, Al Muzzammil, verses 2-4, the prophet of Islam is commanded to spend about half of the night in prayer and reading of the Quran. In verse 20 of the same Surah this is changed into what is easy for him and those who followed his example.

But this Islamic view of Allah is in very direct contrast to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and so we have passages like Numbers 23:19: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?”

Sneering liberal pseudo-intellectuals claim that Christianity has the same issue of abrogation, BUT WE DON’T.  And they are frankly moral idiots of the very lowest order to make such a blatantly false claim.  Here’s why:

1. In every single example of violence in the Old Testament, it is ALWAYS in EVERY CASE a specific command by God to a specific people to do a specific thing at a specific time for a specific reason.  There is NO universalized commandment by God to always kill everyone the way we see in the Qur’an, no “kill them wherever you find them.”  There are no verses in the Bible that say “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you…” (Qur’an 2:216), no “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah” (Qur’an 4:76).  God never gives a universal command that He later has to take back.
2. If the Bible were given the same way the Qur’an is given, Moses would have commanded peace and Jesus would have come after Moses and subsequently taught, “But I tell you, hate your enemies and slaughter those who persecute you.”  When Jesus, in fulfillment of the New Covenant that even the Old Covenant itself anticipated hundreds of years before Jesus’ arrival on earth, as the Prince of Peace, actually taught, “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).  You need to comprehend how absolutely MASSIVE is the difference between a religion that begins with violence and then moves to peace (Christianity) verses a religion that begins with peace and then ends with commands to universalized violence.
3. The Bible pointedly “abrogates” ITSELF in terms of violence because it promises a New Covenant and then it DELIVERS one in the form of the Prince of Peace, Jesus.  The “abrogation” of violence was not for the sake of Jesus’ convenience, the way the abrogation of peace for a call to violence clearly was politically oh-so-very convenient for Mohammad.  Let me put it this way: Jesus told Peter, “Put away your sword” (Matthew 26:52) in order that He could be arrested and beaten and go to the cross where He would die a terrible, humiliating, agonizing death in our place for our sins.  Versus Mohammad who said let’s be peaceful when he was the underdog and then turned on a dime and ordered mass violence the moment his forces gained the upper hand.
4. The Bible doesn’t “abrogate” violence merely because times had changed and the world was no longer a violent place and the Bible was correcting a problem that was obviously out of step with the rest of the world.  Any such notion is simply FALSE.  The Romans at the time of Christ were as vicious and brutal as ANYONE ever had been; what they did to Jesus itself proves that.  And Jesus’ disciples wrote the New Testament not only in light of what Rome had done to Jesus, but in light of the fact that even as they were writing, Rome was treating Christians viciously.  St. Peter and St. Paul were both executed by Rome, as were many other disciples.
5. The God of the Bible is a God of wrath just as He is a God of love.  But all of His attributes are perfectly balanced, such that His wrath is manifested in the attribute of justice that ultimately flows from love.  And the toleration of evil results in a lack of justice.  And so God gave His people the sword and used them as an instrument in defined, limited circumstances and only in accordance with His command.  But ultimately He was always preparing for the arrival of His Son, the Prince of Peace.
6. Finally, the thing that changed in the Bible was this: “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship” (Galatians 4:4-5).  God prophesied a coming Messiah who would epitomize and usher in a “new covenant,” and Jesus came as foretold.
7. And so Jesus completely fulfilled the Old Covenant (Matthew 5:17).  The various laws and regulations and customs of the Old Testament weren’t “abrogated,” but rather they were fulfilled and served their purpose and were no longer necessary because the promised Messiah took their burden off our necks.  And so Christians have realized even in the time of St. Peter that unless a principle or a command from the Old Covenant is specifically repeated/restated in the New Covenant, it was fulfilled by Christ and no longer applies to New Covenant believers.  We can compare the Old Covenant and the New to the abacus vs. the computer or the horse vs. the automobile: the former things weren’t “abrogated” and declared wrong; rather they served their purpose and we now use the superior things.  Christ is the Superior which fulfilled the inferior and the inferior that served as a type or a shadow (see for example Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8:5) of the Superior is therefore no longer needed.

It is for this reason that I point out the fact and hereby state for the historical record that Penn State religious history professor Philip Jenkins is an abject moral idiot and the worst kind of intellectual fraud.  He is, as are all progressive liberals, a pathologically ignorant fool masquerading himself as someone who is wise and knowledgeable when he in fact teaches the precise opposite of wisdom and knowledge.  Jenkins is not only utterly blind to what is actually going on all around him in the real world as Muslim terrorists murder and bomb innocent people in the name of Allah, but as I have just proven he is just as utterly blind to the religious theology that he claims that he is an expert in.

A passage from Colossians sums these liberal fools up well: “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.” – Colossians 2:8.  Tragically, modern universities teach very little BUT “empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense.”

The fact that the Qur’an does NOT begin with violence and then end with peace, but rather the opposite, and the fact that abrogation forces true Muslims to accept that the later “revelations” to Mohammad supercede previous ones, puts Islam in a deep, dark pit of endless violence that is NOT true of Christianity.

Which is why Christianity and Christ are attacked all the damn TIME by liberals and Christians don’t unleash waves of violent hate the way Muslims routinely do the moment they even THINK their Prophet might be getting insulted.

We are left with a giant problem of Islam: we find that Islam, Mohammad and the Qur’an spent ten years deceiving people by preaching peace and tolerance in order to grow strong and powerful, and then the rest of history practicing force and violence and terror the moment they were able to gain the upper hand.

We find that Islam does NOT mean “peace” as liberals love to adoringly say; it means “submission.”  AND YOU WILL SUBMIT OR ELSE YOU WILL BE KILLED.

A historical study of Mohammad’s life reveals that the “Prophet of Peace” had fought in over thirty violent military campaigns and had at least another thirty campaigns planned at the time of his death in 632 AD.  In fact I can quote you Islamic sources that state, “that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina.”  But it is a fact of history that when Mohammad showed up at Medina, he became a violent terrorist warmonger who waged unrelenting war until he defeated and subjugated everyone around him.  What you will also find is that Islam did NOT practice peace after Mohammad’s death; in fact it split due to terrifying, graphic and vicious violence that continues to this very day as the viciousness created Sunni and Shiite Islam.  But within 100 years of Mohammad’s death, warring, violent Muslims were attacking Christian Europe and had killed an looted and pillaged their way all across the entirety of Europe before finally being crushed by Charles “the Hammer” Martel at the Battle of Tours in France in 732.  Violent warring Muslims had already poured across Africa and seized the Christian realms established by St. Augustine.  All of the vast peaceful Christian provinces of North Africa had fallen to the bloody sword of Allah by 711.  Violent, warring Muslims poured into Christian Spain to be finally defeated by El Cid.  Violent, warring Muslims poured into the Christian Byzantine Empire and besieged Constantinople and the Christian Emperor pleaded with the Pope to send Christian warriors to defend a Christian realm from Muslim conquest in what became known as the Crusades.

The United States of America, from its infancy, almost immediately came into contact with violent, warring Islam as the violent, warring Muslims from the Islamic Barbary States began a vicious campaign against the United States.  So we had ten years of “peace” and yes, fourteen centuries of violence and war.

The ONLY thing in history that has stopped Islam from violence against their “infidel” neighbors is raw military power and the Muslims’ naked fear of the “infidels'” willingness to use it.

The Muslims who are attacking us are doing nothing more than reading their Qur’ans in light of the life of their moral and spiritual paradigm, their Prophet, Mohammad.  Their lives are matching his teachings, and that is why they are “killing us wherever they may find us.”

Jesus, by contrast, never harmed anyone.  He was the Lamb of God who never harmed anyone or ever commanded anyone to ever harm anyone.  Jesus is the antithesis of Mohammad.

If you want peace, there is ultimately one one place and one Person to go to: to the foot of the Cross, to the feet of Jesus, who came to allow violence to prevail so He could ultimately prevail against all violence when He returns as King of kings and Lord of lords.

So, how then do you reform Islam?  If you have any honesty or intelligence, you ought to see the nearly insurmountable difficulty by now.

There is only one possible way and it is interesting where it is found:

It is found in the Qur’an itself.

What you have to do is go to one interesting and frankly incredibly embarrassing period for Muslims: when Mohammad received his “Satanic Verses.”

Here are a couple of links to understand what is going on from Answering Islam (another here) and from Muhammadanism.  But here’s what happened in a historic nutshell: while Mohammad was in Medina (his “peaceful” period), he was weak and had few followers.  He was estranged from even his own tribe.  And he had a “revelation” that it was okay for his followers to acknowledge and affirm the existence of three pagan goddesses alongside Allah: Lat, Uzza, and Manat.  When the inhabitants of Mecca heard Muhammad’s confession of the ancient goddesses inside the Ka’aba, they immediately revoked the ban they had placed on him and gave his movement political breathing room.  But the moment he was able to become strong enough to rescind his confession, he took it back by claiming that while he had believed it had come from Allah, it had actually come from Satan.  And so he went back on his confession because what he had put in the Qur’an as a revelation from Allah had actually come from Satan.  Hence the title, “the Satanic verses.”

I’m just going to say it: the ONLY hope for Islam in terms of any meaningful reform into a religion of actual peace is for Islam to affirm that the ENTIRE Medina portion of the Qur’an came from Satan.

It is a simple and undisputable fact of history that Mohammad HIMSELF took back part of his Qur’an and claimed it had actually been from Satan; ultimately, Muslims are going to have to take back a much bigger chunk of it and recognize that every violent sura came from the same Satan.

Mohammad himself acknowledged that Satan could enter into him and alter his revelation.  Run with it.

But what of the United States?  What is our only hope for reform?

Another fact of history to point out is that the United States actually has some powerful experience with dealing with fanatic death cults.  We faced one called “Imperial Japan.”  Believe it or not, Muslims were NOT the first people to fly planes loaded with bombs into human-inhabited structures: think “Kamikaze pilots” during World War II: not merely hundreds but THOUSANDS of them.  3,860 Japanese Kamikaze pilots died as their explosives-laden planes either crashed into American ships or were shot down trying to do so.

Oh, yes, America has dealt with “suicide bombers” and the ideology that sent them at us before.  Do you understand me?  WE’VE DEALT WITH THIS KIND OF VICIOUS MENTALITY BEFORE.  And we did not prevail over it by adopting any modern liberal pile of inane Obama blathering drivel.

How we defeated that existential threat to freedom and peace is a matter of history.

The Japanese Imperial fascists were every BIT as much of a national death cult as what we are confronting now with Islam: but the United States of America stopped being “a sleeping giant” and woke up enough to unleash a violent jihad of our OWN and we BROKE THE NECK of that national death cult.

I remember the quote from the Japanese admiral who had planned the Pearl Harbor attack and then realized what he had done as America began to rise up in righteous anger:

“I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” Japanese Admiral Yamamoto

Islam is NOT going to reform by itself.  Any more than the Japanese were going to reform by themselves.  They’re going to need some confrontation.  They are going to need to be confronted with reason and with truth and with fact and with their own history and they are going to need to be confronted with a terrible resolve to use all the power we can bring against them until they are forced to see reason as the Japanese were forced to see reason.

But that means that the United States needs to reform as well if it is going to survive.  We desperately need to manifest the same “terrible resolve” that we were able to find in the days of our greatness.

Pain can be an awesome tutor when it is combined with truth.  That is the only chance to drive even a fool to finally see reason and do the right thing.

Liberals are people with a pathological hatred of truth.  And so what they keep repeating in their condescending moral idiocy is that everyone ought to be just like them and ignore truth, ignore reason, ignore history, ignore reality and just follow the blatherings of Obama.

The TRUTH is that Islam has an inherent, intrinsic, pathological problem with violence.  Ultimately, the ONLY way through to any genuine peace is to make Islam recognize that truth and DEAL with it.  Any liberal notion that the path to peace is to ignore the truth, bury our head in the sand and hope the truth somehow goes away is another word for “suicide.”

Liberals tell us over and over again that to confront Islam, to associate it with terrorism, will “radicalize” the Islamic world.  But here’s the thing: every single time liberals affirm this proposition, what they are in fact acknowledging is their own belief that every single Muslim is hair-trigger psycho and all it will take is the slightest provocation, the littlest nudge, to send them over the edge of madness and into bloodbath jihad.  They acknowledge that the very Christianity they revile so is a FAR superior worldview to every other worldview including Islam, because it is only in Christianity that we can have peace even with our enemies as we follow the teachings of Jesus as true disciples.  Let’s get beyond “Piss Christ” (a crucifix of Christ placed in a jar of urine) and Ofili’s “Holy Virgin Mary” (a mockery of the Virgin Mary smearing her with dung and pornographic images); just imagine the response if a Barack Obama tried to impose homosexual marriage on a Muslim country and imagine every single Muslim willing to crawl over the dead bodies of their own family members so they could get to Obama and cut his head off for his blasphemy.  Or how about this one: why don’t you Democrats try forcing the American people to fund “Piss Prophet” with tax dollars the same way you imposed “Piss Christ” on us and see how crazy insane Muslims get?

You don’t DARE do that.  Why not? 

And the answer is: because the mere act of drawing a cartoon – and let me assure you that a cartoon is FAR less offensive than your filthy, vile, disgusting urine, liberal – is enough to set off the entire Islamic world into a murderous rage.

And the answer is: because you KNOW Christianity is the only true source of peace on earth – as much as you hate it.  Just as you KNOW Islam is the source of violence just waiting to explode regardless of your dishonest rhetoric about “the religion of peace.”

Every single time a liberal so much as mentions the possibility of “radicalizing” the Muslim community, they affirm the spirit of violent hate just waiting to be unleashed by a religion that is manifestly violent.  Nobody worries about “radicalizing” Christians because you know full bloody well we don’t act that way.  You fear Muslims “radicalizing” if you so much as breathe wrong because no matter how much you want to suppress reality, bury the truth, deep, deep down you know how very wrong you are.

Go ahead, be a good liberal and follow the liberal way of burying your head in the sand so you won’t have to deal with REALITY:

The Bible spoke of wicked Israel before its judgment.  Let it speak to us before ours as well:

You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave. The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.” — Isaiah 28:15

And we’ll see how long you keep your fool heads attached to your bodies the moment these people get to you:

If you bury your head in the sand to reality, you might as well lose your head, you deserve to lose your head – and we now live in an age where lose it you surely will.

We absolutely cannot continue to ignore the true reality – and yes, the terrifying reality – that is Islam.  We have to confront them with the truth and force them to acknowledge that truth and embrace the change they must embrace.  Or we will surely be fighting until the end of the planet in nuclear Armageddon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proof That Nuke Deal With Iran So Important To Malignant Narcissist-in-Chief That He Is Willing To Kill Every Single American In Coming Apocalypse

The Los Angeles Times – a major liberal newspaper of record – offered the following page one news story about Obama’s nuke deal and about how EVERY SINGLE MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY FROM ISRAEL TO SAUDI ARABIA, KUWAIT, BAHRAIN, QATAR, U.A.E. and OMAN, ETC. IS DEEPLY OPPOSED TO IT.

And it details the fact that Saudi Arabia among the other Middle Eastern Sunni countries are deeply aware that Obama essentially guarantees them the right to complete legally develop nuclear weapons merely by waiting ten years.  And that even IF Iran doesn’t cheat (fat chance given that they have cheated in EVERY deal they have ever made with us) they can obtain nukes under the deal merely by waiting ten years.  And how would we negotiate then when we gave them the right to build nukes ten years from now?

And it details the shenanigans that Obama and his treasonous White House is playing not only with Iran but with EVERYONE to shove this deal down our collectivists throats.  Those shenanigans include Obama guaranteeing the Saudis that he will guarantee a World War Three nuclear holocaust if Iran ever uses the bomb he is giving them by committing America to total war.

Do you like that part of the deal, liberal?  Do you like the fact that Obama’s wicked deal is pushing Sunni Arab countries to obtain their own nuclear weapons to the bomb that they all know Obama is giving Iran???  Do you like Obama creating a nuclear arms race in the craziest part of the world???  Do you like the part that guarantees that if any of these nations are ever attacked by Iran as backed by Russia, the United States will jeopardize every single life of every single American in an Armageddon-style nuclear holocaust???  Does it bother you that every single decent Middle Eastern ally is horrified by the details of this deal whose details Obama has prevented either Congress or the American people from seeing???  Does it bother you that Obama’s policy is to treat our historic allies as enemies and our historic enemies as allies???  Does it bother you that Obama is desperately trying – against ALL advice and ALL common sense – to make Iran the most economically powerful nation in the region so it can fund even more destabilizing war and terrorism across the world than it is already doing as we speak???  But it’s here in black-and-white:

U.S. promises to beef up defense aid to Persian Gulf allies
By Paul Richter and Alexandra Zavis
April 7, 2015, 6:30 PM|Reporting from WASHINGTON
▼ White House invites leaders of six Arab nations to the presidential retreat at Camp David
▼ Obama’s goal is to keep Arab monarchies from buying sensitive technology or a nuclear weapon from Pakistan
▼ The White House is weighing new security commitments to Israel

Obama administration officials are promising a major strengthening of U.S. defense commitments to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies, possibly including a nuclear commitment to their security, in an intensifying effort to win their support for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran.

Officials say they hope to reassure nervous gulf Arab states by providing more military aid and training to their defense forces, and by making more explicit commitments to help them repel external attacks.

The administration is studying whether to make any nuclear assurances, though officials emphasize no decision has been made.

The White House has invited leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council nations — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman — to the presidential retreat at Camp David in coming weeks, though the date is not confirmed. U.S. officials are expected to make public new security arrangements at the meeting.

The administration’s goal, officials said Tuesday, is to convince the Arab monarchies that U.S. security guarantees will make them safer than if they buy sensitive technology or a nuclear weapon from Pakistan, a Sunni Muslim ally, as the Saudis have privately threatened to do.

The White House is weighing separate new commitments to Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown no sign of tempering his fierce criticism of a deal that would ease economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for verifiable limits on its ability to enrich uranium or conduct most other nuclear work for at least 10 years.

Negotiators from six world powers and Iran have set a June 30 deadline to try to complete the proposed accord. But the details released when the framework for the agreement was announced Thursday unsettled the Persian Gulf monarchies that have been core U.S. allies for 70 years, as well as Israel.

The monarchies see themselves as Tehran’s chief regional rivals and fear that the nuclear deal signals an American “pivot to Persia” that would empower Shiite Muslim Iran and leave the Sunni Arab states at a disadvantage.

President Obama took pains in several interviews to try to allay those fears.

“We’re going to be there for our [Persian Gulf] friends,” Obama told columnist Thomas Friedman. “I want to see how we can formalize that a little bit more than we currently have, and also help build their capacity so that they feel more confident about their ability to protect themselves from external aggression.”

With much of the Middle East torn by civil war or other upheavals, the oil-rich gulf monarchies remain crucial U.S. allies.

Several have joined the U.S.-led airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. The U.S., in turn, has provided intelligence and logistic support to the Saudi-led coalition bombing rebel forces in Yemen who are backed by Iran.

Strengthening U.S. relations with the gulf states “is a big deal — it’s got to be one of the central components of the U.S. strategy after the Iran deal,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Obama administration official now at the Center for a New American Security, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.

Goldenberg compared the White House outreach to the way the Nixon administration worked to bolster security ties to Japan and Taiwan after opening relations with China, their main regional rival, in 1972.

But the Obama administration faces unique challenges.

The Saudis especially have been disappointed with Obama’s approach to the Middle East. They see themselves battling Iran in a sectarian war raging across Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria, and fear easing of the economic sanctions in a nuclear deal could reinvigorate Iran’s economy and make it even more of a regional threat.

Saudi officials have made clear that they don’t want a public battle with Washington, and on Monday issued cautious statements of support for the framework. “We hope there will be a deal based on the principles that the U.S. government has articulated to us,” Adel Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, told reporters.

But privately, many Saudi officials say they are skeptical that the deal will stop Tehran from eventually developing nuclear weapons because the restrictions it would impose are not permanent.

“The regime will sit and wait for 10 or 15 years to pass and it will restore its nuclear activities legally and legitimately,” said Mustafa Alani, a security studies scholar at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai who is close to the kingdom’s rulers.

Such concerns have been expressed privately to the Obama administration through the region’s embassies, Alani said. The aim isn’t to torpedo an eventual agreement. “We believe a diplomatic solution is better than any other solution, military or more economic sanctions,” he said.

One challenge for the White House is whether it can expand a defense relationship that already is enormous. Bahrain is home to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, and the Pentagon keeps 35,000 troops, two aircraft carrier task forces, cyber warfare specialists, drone aircraft units and more in the region. The United States and Saudi Arabia are in the middle of a 20-year, $60-billion arms deal.

It’s also not clear that U.S. nuclear security commitments would be useful or welcomed by the gulf states.

The administration would have a hard time trying to get Congress, which has been skeptical about the U.S.-Saudi relationship, to enact a treaty that put a U.S. nuclear “umbrella” over Arab Sunni nations, as the United States has over Japan and South Korea.

Such agreements aim to deter nuclear attack by warning foes that the United States would retaliate with overwhelming force if an ally is attacked with a nuclear weapon.

The administration might try to adopt the policy by administrative action to end-run Congress. But the gulf states might not welcome a public statement to guarantee their safety. Because of domestic anger at the United States, these governments have long been leery of being too publicly aligned with Washington.

“They want an American security blanket, but without us having to shout about it,” said Simon Henderson, a Persian Gulf specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a public policy group in Washington.

U.S. officials say they may try to persuade the Saudis to sign a so-called 1-2-3 agreement, which gives countries special U.S. help building a civilian nuclear power industry as long as they accept restrictions to prevent development of a nuclear weapons program. But analysts said the Saudis probably would not agree because, at least in theory, it would give them less freedom to pursue a nuclear program someday than the Iranians.

Another possible gesture would be to declare the gulf states “major non-NATO allies,” said Thomas Lippman, a Saudi specialist at the nonpartisan Middle East Institute in Washington. The designation, applied to close allies like Japan, Australia and Israel, provides special help in buying weapons and obtaining U.S. weapons.

Richter reported from Washington and Zavis from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Times staff writer Laura King in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

We’re so screwed it’s beyond unreal.  Obama doesn’t give a DAMN about you, your parents, your spouse, your children, your family, your friends, etc. etc.  He is a truly wicked and depraved man.  He is a malignant narcissist who cares only about himself.  And he wants to be able to posture himself as some historic “dealmaker” who – as he put it – “slowed the rise of the oceans and began to heal the planet” and “made the world better, safer and more peaceful than it has ever been.”  He is determined to leave office crowing about that and try to set up the next Democrat for election to the White House, and he frankly doesn’t CARE what happens three or four years from now because of his wicked deal.

When you examine how North Korea kept pushing and cheating and lying and playing us after Bill Clinton made his infamous nuclear deal with that dictatorship.  When you see how they kept cheating and working until they had the ballistic missiles they needed and then – POOF!!! – went nuclear, you should understand that Democrats are simply not capable of learning and will make the same mistakes over and over and over again.

I mean, holy crap, please look at the chronology from the time that Bill Clinton crowed about making the world wonderful and North Korea detonating a nuclear bomb armed with missiles to deliver it.  And try to prove to me that Obama has demonstrated and manifested the absolute hardness that he will go to war with Iran if that country doesn’t cross so much as one ‘t’ or dot one ‘i’ as that country follows North Korea’s example.

WATCH Bill Clinton make all the same damn false promises and provide all the same damn false assurances about his wicked North Korea deal that Obama is deceitfully making now:

For God’s sake, Democrat, please stop, think, learn from history and slow down in your mad rush to allow Obama to pave the way for Antichrist so you can take the mark of the beast and burn in hell forever and ever and ever.

Because right now, RIGHT NOW, Democrat, YOU are guaranteeing the rise of Antichrist and YOU are guaranteeing Armageddon.  God is one day going to hold YOU responsible for what YOUR leader whom YOU voted for did.  And hell will be eternal because even eternity will not be long enough for YOU to pay for YOUR crimes against the world that YOU are setting into motion right now.

Barack Obama is now not merely making all the same mistakes that led the world into World War II by appeasing our enemies and emboldening them with weakness; he is making the same mistakes that led the world into World War I by forming crazy alliances that will drag the United States into total global war.  This deal with Iran is the worst of all possible worlds.

And yes, it is WORSE than war with Iran, because if we went to war with Iran now, at least we wouldn’t be going to war with a country that can devastate several of our largest cities and kill millions of our people as they seek to cause the appearing of the Twelfth Imam by bathing the world in blood.

PLEASE understand that as evil and as insane as North Korea is, their goal is to survive and continue their regime at all cost, whereas Iran as ALL radical jihadist Muslims have demonstrated OVER AND OVER again that their goal is to die as martyrs in an ocean of blood at all costs.

PLEASE allow just one moment of sober thought that hasn’t been beamed directly into your brain matter by Satan to enter your head so you can comprehend REALITY.

But no, Democrat, YOU are hell-bent on hell.  The truth has been veiled to you because you are defiant of God, bent on depravity, such that your warped mind has been blinded by the god of this age.

Hell is coming for you, Democrat, every bit as much as destruction is coming upon the world because of you.  Because “YOU offered superficial treatments for God’s people’s mortal wound. YOU gave assurances of peace when there WAS no peace” per Jeremiah 6:14 and 8:11.

RIGHT NOW, Democrat, YOU are declaring to God, “If this is a bad deal that my messiah Obama is making with Iran, let it fall upon MY head and the heads of MY children.  Let my nation perish as we are forced by Obama into a full-fledged nuclear Armageddon.”

The very heavens are testifying against Obama and against YOU (and see also here), Democrat.

You whine about global warming on one hand for crises and then hypocritically cite “insufficient global warming” as your excuse for Obama’s failed economy on the other, but it is YOU who have brought “climate change” with your depraved shaking of your fist at God according to Romans chapter one verses 18-31 and according to Pslam 139 and now as you curse Israel by abandoning her in her hour of need.  And so God is fulfilling His Word to us according to Amos 4:7, “”I kept the rain from falling when your crops needed it the most. I sent rain on one town but withheld it from another. Rain fell on one field, while another field withered away.”

Because of your wickedness as God judges YOU and curses YOU for your wicked actions through him, you will inherit all the curses of Deuteronomy 28:22-26:

22“The LORD will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they will pursue you until you perish. 23“The heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron. 24“The LORD will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed.

25“The LORD shall cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you will go out one way against them, but you will flee seven ways before them, and you will be an example of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 26“Your carcasses will be food to all birds of the sky and to the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away.

THAT is precisely what you are negotiating for in your false messiah’s “deal” with Iran, Democrat.  Iran will get its wish as it bathes the world in blood to make the beast come.  Because, yes, what they call the Twelfth Imam is one of the beasts of Revelation according to Revelation chapter thirteen.  And notice that it is only AFTER Israel depicted as a woman pregnant with Child – is abandoned to her fate unless God Himself save her in Revelation chapter twelve that the beasts come in chapter thirteen.

Hell is coming for YOU, Democrat.  And it is coming because right now YOU are sowing to the wind and demanding that you reap the whirlwind.

Don’t think that YOU will escape from the hell that YOU are bringing, Democrat.

Jesus came into the world as the ultimate fulfillment of Psalm 139.  He was conceived by the Holy Spirit to be the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world.  But YOU and EVERY SINGLE Democrat saw only an unwed young girl and told her to have an abortion.  And so your baby Jesus was slaughtered in the womb just as YOU have slaughtered 60 MILLION babies in the womb.  And so Jesus never lived to live the perfect life that you would not live, wicked Democrat, and to take your place for you and die for your sins.

You don’t have much time, Democrat.  Soon the Rapture is coming, the moment when Jesus Christ meets every single true believer in the air before the coming divine judgment of the Tribulation.  You won’t be going with Jesus because you have long-since placed your faith in human government and in Obama, rather than in Jesus.

One way or another, we are watching in this Malignant Narcissist Fool-in-Chief – who can’t help but keep hating Christians because Obama hated Jesus first just as Jesus testified the wicked would do – bring about the very end of days just as the Bible foretold the end would come.

And that is because Barack Hussein Obama is an Antichrist who is now openly paving the way for THE Antichrist.

And every single Democrats is actively helping him to do it.

Don’t think for one second that YOU won’t share Obama’s fate, Democrat.  Obama is powerful only because YOU gave him power.  And he is using that power that YOU gave him to ultimately bring hell to earth.

Any ‘Moderate’ Reform Of Islam Is Impossible And The Religion Of The Prophet Muhammad Will Increasingly Embrace Violent Jihadism

Recently, Barack Obama demonized Christianity for the sin of religious violence – going back in time nearly a thousand years to do so – and cited the Crusades and the Inquisition as his proofs.  Mind you, all the violent things that Muslims are doing right now at this very moment aren’t being done by real Muslims and so hateful Christianity founded by that hateful man Jesus is evil whereas loving Islam founded by that loving man Muhammad is peaceful.

Well, Obama’s vile demagogic attack against Christianity and its Christ come about 700 years too late even as Obama is blind, deaf and stupid dumb when it comes to comprehending the reality of Islam today.  And this fact ought to be no surprise because – frankly – demons inhabit the soul of Barack Hussein Obama and his Democrat (as in “DEMOnic bureauCRAT”) Party.

Islam desperately needs to reform.  Because whether we’re talking about a religion murdering Jews, or Christians, or even Muslims themselves, there aint nothing CLOSE to Islam at being vicious these days.  Islam is a murderous religion and is in fact the most murderous religion in the history of the world.  Except, perhaps, of course, Obama’s true religion of state-atheistic socialism which murdered more than 100 million of its own citizens during peacetime alone.  Which is why I read atheists demagoguing religion and saying it’s responsible for all the violence in the world and I just laugh at the moral stupidity of these fools.  For the official factual historical record, the Bible is correct and there is something desperately flawed with human nature since the fall of Adam and Eve into sin – and the only thing more brutal and vicious than men acting in the name of their God or gods is men who have embraced the religion of atheism and made themselves gods in God’s place.

But we’re talking about the murderous nature of Islam today.  And given the fact that you name the top three terrorist organizations today – Islamic State, al Qaeda, Boko Haram – or you name the five top terrorist groups, or the ten top terrorist groups, or the twenty top terrorist groups, and what they invariably have in common is ISLAM – and we’re talking about Islamic terrorism.  And we’re talking about a viciousness that is literally OLD TESTAMENT in its ruthless, murderous viciousness.  In these last days, the very same sort of people from the very same ethnic stock have arisen in the very same region to carry out the very same barbaric terror that we saw from the vicious Assyrians.

So I’ve mentioned Islam and I’ve mentioned State Atheist Communism.  Are they poles apart?  Are they doing the opposite things or the same things, with the different ends producing the identical same means?

Let me try to connect the dots for you between Obama’s Stalinism and violent jihadist Islam by means of a few quotes about the forms of socialism (communism and fascism) that progressive liberalism embraces:

“Communism and fascism or Nazism, although poles apart in their intellectual content, are similar in this, that both have emotional appeal to the type of personality that takes pleasure in being submerged in a mass movement and submitting to superior authority.” — James A. C. Brown

“At the end of a century that has seen the evils of communism, Nazism and other modern tyrannies, the impulse to centralize power remains amazingly persistent.” — Joseph Sobran

“COMMUNISM: Liberation of the people from the burdens of liberty.” — Rick Bayan, The Cynic’s Dictionary

Ah, yes, the inhumanity of official state atheist socialism:

And they came to [Chairman Mao] after the first year [of the Great Leap Forward] and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

And:

Was it wisdom Mao Tse-Tong attained when – like Ted Bundy – the awakened to the long view?  “The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.  Does Mao’s reckoning shock me really? If sanctioning the death of strangers could save my daughter’s life, would I do it? Probably. How many others’ lives would I be willing to sacrifice? Three? Three hundred million? — Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s of January 1998

And let’s not forget good old Josef Stalin:

If the opposition disarms, all is well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. — The Political Report of the Central Committee, The Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.) (7 December 1927).

“Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society.” — Stalin

And something like sixty million dead (after being disarmed, of course) human beings murdered by socialism later…

But what’s sixty million human beings?  After all, Democrats have murdered that many human beings in America in our abortion mills.  All you’ve got to do is deny the humanity of the victim, the way Hitler did with Jews and the way Democrats did with their black slaves before they turned their hate on the unborn.

Versus Islam:

“The mullahs are going to rule now. We are going to have ten thousand years of the Islamic republic. The Marxists are going to go on with their Lenin. We are going to go on in the way of Khomeini.” — Ayatollah Khalkhali

“What he [Stalin] did in Russia we have to do in Iran.  We, too, have to do a lot of killing. A lot.” — Behzad, Iranian interpreter for Western journalist V.S. Naipaul

“There is no room for play in Islam… It is deadly serious about everything.” — Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in his speech at Qum as reported in Time magazine January 7, 1980

And for the record these are Shiites.  They’re the good Muslims these days, given the fact that the BAD Muslims are the Sunnis who are behind Islamic State and al Qaeda and the 200,000 dead Syrians at the hands of Bashar al-Assad (who pissed on Obama’s “red line” cowardice and proceeded to draw his own red line – in blood).

You look at these quotes, and tell me that the biggest problems created by our socialist friends isn’t also created by radical Islam.  You tell me that while Democrats want to strip away our personal liberty with mindboggling regulations and the determination to regulate what we eat, our healthcare, you name it they want to control it, that radical Islam has no desire to take away anyone’s liberty.  You tell me that while Obama has an impulse to increasingly centralize power, our radical Muslim friends have no such desire.  You tell me that while socialism has always had a dictator’s face and a cult of personality – Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Dear Leader Kim, Obama – that radical Islam has no desire toward mass movements featuring submission to superior authority.

One of the big problems in stopping radical Islam is that progressive liberals want pretty much the same exact authority the jihadists do.

But there are three OTHER reasons that there WILL BE no reform of Islam, such that violent jihadism will continue to take root and grow larger and uglier and more vicious.

The first reason is that moderate Muslims simply CAN NOT WIN any legitimate religious debate on Islam with the violent jihadists as long as the Qu’ran, the Ahadith and simple history have anything to do with the debate.

Why do I say that?  Well, let me put it this way, take the side of the “moderate” Muslim and answer these questions as posed by a member of the Islamic State: given the fact that the Prophet Muhammad beheaded his enemies, why shouldn’t we behead our enemies, why shouldn’t we behead our enemies?  Given that the Prophet Muhammad committed genocide on multiple occasions, why shouldn’t we commit genocide?  Given that the Prophet Muhammad, after having all the males killed, sold women and children into slavery, whey shouldn’t we kill and enslave?  Given the fact that the Prophet Muhammad was a man of war who had fought in more than twenty military campaigns of religious conquest and had another thirty planned at the time of his death, why shouldn’t we spread by force and violence?

All of these statements about the Prophet Muhammad are true.  He did all of the above, without any question whatsoever.

History makes it very crystal clear that Muhammad was a man of violence and forced conquest who had fought in over 20 military campaigns and who actually had more than thirty more planned at the time of his death.  In 624 AD Muhammad launched the Nakhla raid and officially began the spread of violence in the name of Islam.  Also in 624 Muhammad began the practice of ethnic cleansing against the Jewish Qaynuqa tribe.  He put that same tactic into practice again the following year in 625 against the Jewish Nadir tribe.  Yes, rather like what we saw Islamic State do in Iraq.  In 627 Muhammad beheaded all the males of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe and enslaved all the women and children.  Yes, rather like what the Islamic State is doing now.  And in 631 Muhammad began his warfare against the Christians.  Yes, rather like what the Islamic State is doing now.

Add to that, given the fact that in 722 – within ninety years of the death of Muhammad when the movement was still under the ideological stamp of its founder – Islam had violently spread across Christendom, all the way across Europe, all the way to France to finally be stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours.  Islam spread violently spread across Christian Africa to eradicate the substantial Christian community of St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo; it violently spread across Spain to be thwarted by El Cid.  And  given the historically-butchered fact that Islam ignited the Crusades by violently spreading to Christian Byzantium, why should the Islamic State NOT violently spread today?

The bottom line is this: either Muhammad was a false prophet of a demonic religion, or how he lived his life in his understanding of the religion that he founded is all-important.  And of course also important are how the first Muslims understood the religion that Muhammad passed on to them.

Are you going to condemn the Prophet Muhammad as a false prophet of genocide?  Are you going to condemn the entire history of Islam for the first several hundred years of its history?  Or are you going to be a liar, a hypocrite and a coward like Barack Obama and those who act as apologists for a violent and rabidly intolerant religion???

The Christ whom Obama attacks every time he slanders Christians was the Prince of Peace who specifically condemned all of the above, but the Prophet of Islam wallowed in it, oh yes, the way an unclean pig wallows in mud.  And the most faithful Muslims are the best murderers.

If you are a “moderate” Muslim, how do you take this debate on?  How do you deal with the fact that history and reality mock you and declare you a liar and a hypocrite and a fool?

You can see why Obama is terrified of it and simply will not say anything but lies about the nature of Islam and the nature of the Islamic State and al Qaeda and those devout Muslims who think the way they do.

The second reason that reform is impossible to Islam is because Islam is inherently, intrinsically and pathologically a political religion bent on spreading by conquest.  We can go back to the Catholic Church that Obama demonized by going back a thousand years to absolve Islam.  In 1095 AD, when Pope Urban II called for the Crusades, the Catholic Church was a profoundly political organization with a religious leader as powerful as any emperor.  One of the major things that the Reformation accomplished was to chop down the authority of the Catholic Church so that ultimately Catholicism lost its political power and its power of empire.

Try that with Islam and tell me how that works out for you.  I mean, go ahead and be the very first person in all of human history to establish a democracy guided by Islam.  It has never been done because it is every bit as impossible as is to draw a square circle.  Because for the record, “democracy” and “Islam” are every bit as incompatible as “square” and “circle.”  You cannot put them together unless one obliterates the other.

The third reason that Islam is impossible to reform in such a manner that respect for human life and autonomy is embraced is purely religious and is comprehended only when Islam is directly compared to Judeo-Christianity.  In the Judeo-Christian Bible, we have two doctrines that command Judeo-Christians to respect human life: the Imago Dei of human beings and the Incarnation of Christ.

God, according to the Bible, created man in His own image.  And specifically, male and female created He them.

That’s something of a problem for Islam, given that Allah is so transcendent and so otherly that human beings are like ants to him.  Consider rather that:

one must first recall a fundamental aspect of Islamic belief, namely the transcendence of Allah Most High and His complete dissimilitude from created things. This is decisively conveyed within the Qur’an itself when it states, “There is nothing whatsoever like Him,” (42: 11) and also by the foremost theological texts of our tradition.

And to the extent that a Muslim can somehow wriggle his/her way to say that words that Allah created man in his image (provide you only mean it as a pretty much purely rhetorical device), Muslims have a gargantuan problem indeed in the doctrine of Incarnation, whereby Allah did or ever could have become a mere human bug – oops, I mean being.

Consider one of, if not the very greatest, Christological passage in the Bible found in Philippians chapter two:

Philippians 2:3-11The Message (MSG)

He Took on the Status of a Slave

2 ^1-4 If you’ve gotten anything at all out of following Christ, if his love has made any difference in your life, if being in a community of the Spirit means anything to you, if you have a heart, if you care— then do me a favor: Agree with each other, love each other, be deep-spirited friends. Don’t push your way to the front; don’t sweet-talk your way to the top. Put yourself aside, and help others get ahead. Don’t be obsessed with getting your own advantage. Forget yourselves long enough to lend a helping hand.

^5-8 Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! Having become human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process. He didn’t claim special privileges. Instead, he lived a selfless, obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death—and the worst kind of death at that—a crucifixion.

^9-11 Because of that obedience, God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or anything, ever, so that all created beings in heaven and on earth—even those long ago dead and buried—will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ, and call out in praise that he is the Master of all, to the glorious honor of God the Father.

Walk around and do your own survey with Muslims and find out how many of them think that Allah did that.

There’s a saying that in Islam, believers die for Allah (e.g., as so-called “martyrs” in suicide bombings); whereas according to Christianity God died for humanity.  It is simply true.  And because of that Christianity provides the grounds for a divinely-ordained love of humanity that Islam can never possibly match.

If you’re a liberal, you’re fool enough, so go to Syria and Iraq and conduct your survey among members of the Islamic State.  I mean, go ahead, go nuts, lose your head over it.

According to Christianity, God not only created man in His own image – and hey kids, women too! – but He also Himself actually became a human being.  God created man in His image so that He could assume our image, and live a life among us, and love us enough to take His place with us and ultimately die for us, representing us.

Such a doctrine provides a rather massive correction to the inhumanity of Stalinism and the inhumanity of Islam both.

Again, let me point out the fact that men are bugs to Allah.  Allah most certainly did NOT become a man and live among us or die for us or represent us in any way, shape or form.

In Islam, the system is everything.  You know, just like in progressive liberal socialism.  And the individual is nothing.  You know, just like in progressive liberal socialism.

 

 

 

Why Do Liberals Hate ‘Intolerant’ Christianity But Embrace Viciously Intolerant Islam? Liberals Just Hate Jesus, Just As Jesus Said They Would.

I’ve been saying this over and over, and it’s always nice to be proven right (once again).

It has been said that Islam is a political system masquerading as a religion.  In many ways that’s true: Islam is a totalitarian political system; there has never once in all of history been an Islamic democracy and there never will be one, because democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible and in fact contradictions of one another.  The so-called “moderate” Muslims who want to claim otherwise can say whatever the hell they want; but the fact of the matter is that they have never ONCE in the entire history of Islam spoken for Islam.  Rather, it is the totalitarians who as a matter of historical FACT always spoken for Islam.

I submit that American liberalism is a religion masquerading as a political system.  But both fundamentalist Islam and liberal progressivism have the same ultimate end: to impose a State, a Government with all the power of God, on a society.

So we’ve got the organizations such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) that are frankly spouting a load of propaganda crap that has NOTHING to do with how Islam actually works in the two primary Islamic States of Iran (the center of the Shiite Islamic world) and Saudi Arabia (the center of the Sunni Islamic world).

In the REAL Islam, homosexuals are murdered and women are generally denied education, denied the right to drive, have to have at least four male witnesses willing to testify on their behalf that they were RAPED, and walk around like this:

So what does the religion of liberalism and the REAL party of the “war on women” do?  They impose this evil in our liberal universities, that’s what they do.

But hey, it’s even worse for homosexuals and women in Christian America, right?

No, of course not.  Christendom was the foundation for democracy and the respect for human dignity.

Jesus and Muhammad stand a world apart: Jesus had women disciples and preached true peace and true freedom; Muhammad was a child rapist who imposed slavery on women with the violence of the scimitar as his forces seized countries and imposed totalitarianism by government force.  And the only people who were arguably even WORSE were state atheists (otherwise known as communists).  Communists only murdered more than 100 million of their own citizens in peacetime alone, after all.

Mind you, the American Democrat Party is catching up astonishingly quickly, having murdered more than sixty million innocent human beings in their abortion mills.

That is precisely why liberals and Democrats as the inheritors of communism – who are every bit as fascist and totalitarian as any Shiite or Sunni Muslim but only lack the total power they desire to impose their radical theology on the rest of us – hate Christianity so much.  They falsely claim to fulfill what Jesus offered but in reality they hate Jesus up one side and down the other.

Just a matter of a couple of weeks ago, Duke University – founded as a Christian and specifically Methodist institution – was blocked from the leftist goal of broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer from their historically Christian chapel:

Saturday, January 17, 2015

DUKE UNIVERSITY WANTS TO EMBRACE ISLAM AWAY FROM ITS CHRISTIAN ORIGIN AS A METHODIST SCHOOL–BUT TODAY WITH 700 MUSLIMS IN ITS ATTENDANCE A CALL FOR MUSLIM PRAYER ATOP THE CHAPEL WAS ONLY STOPPED BY FRANKLIN GRAHAM–THE LEFTIST DRIVE FOR ISLAMIZING OF THE USA MOVES ON–AS IN THE REST OF THE WORLD CHRISTIANS ARE BEING POGROM FROM ISLAMIST COUNTRIES IN AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST

The Muslim call to prayer will not ring out from Duke University’s chapel tower after all.
The university announced that it has reconsidered its decision to allow the call for prayer from the iconic tower on Fridays.

The reversal came a day after evangelist Franklin Graham posted a scathing criticism on Facebook asking donors not to give to Duke until the policy was changed.
The university made no mention of the donations in their release but said that a move intended to bring unity clearly wasn’t.

The university said about 700 students claim Muslim affiliation and that they have been meeting in the chapel basement for many years.  The decision to not have a call for prayer brought praise from Rev. Graham who told Eyewitness News on Thursday that the chapel was built by donations from Christians when the university was a Methodist college and should continue to be used for Christian worship.
Graham also said there are millions of peaceful Muslims, but stood by his harsh words for Islam, warning that it is at war with Christianity.  “That violence is there and it’s coming and it’s going to come to this country. It has nothing to do with what I say. I’m just trying to warn this country about what’s coming. Islam is a violent religion.”

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/national/franklin-graham-calls-duke-alumni-withhold-support/njp46/?nmredir=true

Posted by HENRYPATRICK1736 at6:27 AM

The American political left are every bit as dishonest and deceitful as CAIR and are as disingenuous about the REAL goals of their totalitarian religious system as CAIR is.

Oh, liberals say, those Christians are so “intolerant.”

So let’s force Christians to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer from one of their own Christian sites.  Because everybody knows that Muslims ADORE gay marriage and can’t WAIT to let feminists run around with all their whackjob ideas.

Jesus summed up the real essence of the modern Democrat Party and the liberal progressives who today own the Democrat Party as follows:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.  If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.  Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.  But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.” — John 15:18-21

There’s the REAL reason the Democrat Party is always at odds with Christians and with biblical Christianity even as they open door after door to the most intolerant religious belief on the face of the earth: they rabidly despise Jesus of Nazareth and would invite anything or anyone that would replace Him.

The day liberal progressives demand that the Lord’s prayer be broadcast from Mecca, you can argue that I’m wrong.  But the simple fact of the matter is that liberal “tolerance” only works when it is every day in every way undermining Jesus and those who follow Him.

Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice” (John 10:27).

Not if liberals have anything to say about it as they are forced to instead hear the Muslim call to prayer in what used to be a Christian chapel.

 

Obama’s ISIL Speech And His Whole Foreign Policy: What A Giant Crock Of Crap

I can’t help but think back to the Jimmy Carter years and marvel at how history keeps repeating itself because we keep allowing the same sorts of fools to make the same sorts of idiotic mistakes.  So we go back to 1979, when the Soviet Union, realizing that Jimmy Carter as a liberal was a pathologically weak and cowardly disgrace, invaded Afghanistan.  And Carter’s “show of resolve” was to boycott their damn Olympic Games rather than actually DO anything.

It was as a direct result of the correctly perceived weakness of Jimmy Carter that the United States was forced to begin the process of intervening in Afghanistan.  It was Jimmy Carter who began to arm the Taliban, dumbasses.  It was Jimmy Carter who because of his failed presidency set up the crisis that has metastasized into the cancer that it is that still haunts the United States decades later.

And here we are, another liberal and another complete meltdown of foreign policy and national security that will have massive consequences on the United States until the day we collapse and miserably perish as a nation.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted to perish as a nation, pure and simple.

History is a terrible thing when you doom yourself with terrible leaders.

From the very beginning of Obama’s speech on September 10, it was obvious that the most documented liar in the entire history of the human race who has been seen by more people lying than any human being who ever lived was even more full of his special brand of fecal matter than usual.

Take when Obama said “Islamic State is neither Islamic, nor a state,” for instance.  Obama’s “argument” that Islamic State wasn’t “Islamic” because most of their victims have been Muslim runs afoul of this very simple historic reality: by his “reasoning” there haven’t been any “Muslims” or any “Islam” since at least 656 AD – when the very first Shi’ites murdered the very first Sunnis.

I actually have in my possession the hard article from uberleftist Time Magazine dated March 5, 2007.  Check out the title: “Why They Hate Each Other.”

Well, according to Obama, they hate each other because they’re not Muslim.  Or else they wouldn’t be killing Muslims, would they?

Take, for example, the Iran-Iraq War.  One-and-a-half million Muslims were killed – by other Muslims.

I mean, by Obama’s argument, the Sunnis aren’t “Islamic” because most of their victims have been Shi’ites and the Shi’ites aren’t Muslim because most of their victims have been Sunnis.  So there ARE no “Muslims” and there’s no such thing as “Islamic.”

But there you have it: Barry Hussein, in his demonic wisdom, has just solved the problem of Islam the same way he solved the problem of the war on terror that we are reeling from now: he just defined it away.  Because he is a liar without shame, without honor, without decency, without virtue and without integrity and because he is a true fool.

Obama says Islamic State isn’t a “state.”  Well, THAT’S convenient, given the fact that they BECAME a “state” under YOUR failed watch due to YOUR failed policies.

I remember as an example going against Republicans when George H.W. Bush said, “There’s no recession.”  Well, shoot, I had got out of the Army and graduated from college just in time to run full facial into that “no recession.”  But yes, there was TOO a recession.  And all denying facts does is make those who share your ideology look like FOOLS.  Which is precisely what everyone who share’s Obama’s ideology is right now.

Islamic State has seized territory the freaking size of the United Kingdom. It has trained, expert fighters who were part of Saddam Hussein’s officer corps.  And to make it even worse, it has FAR more and better funding available than Osama bin Laden’s pre-9/11 attackers ever dreamed of having to finance their operations.

We just learned that Obama’s dismantled “intelligence” service has underestimated the number of ISIL/ISIS fighters by a factor of three.  They are mustering THREE TIMES the number of fighters that we thought just a short time ago.

The problem with Obama is that reality refutes him:

ISIS can muster 20,000 to 31,500 fighters, triple previous estimates: CIA
A new CIA assessment reportedly shows that the Islamic State can gather many more fighters than was previously thought. A spokesman for the intelligence agency told CNN that their recruitment has been stronger since June, ‘following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate.’
BY  Michael Walsh / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS /
Published: Friday, September 12, 2014, 11:43 AM/ Updated: Friday, September 12, 2014, 11:49 AM

The CIA estimates that ISIS has more than three times the number of fighters it previously thought.

The Islamic State can call upon between 20,000 and 31,500 terrorists throughout Iraq and Syria, according to a spokesman for the intelligence agency.

“This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity and additional intelligence,” the spokesman told CNN.

Experts used to think the number of fighters for the jihadist group, whose savagery has been widely condemned, topped out at 10,000.

The CIA assessment’s new figure was revealed on the 13th anniversary of 9/11 — a day after President Obama outlined his plan to “dismantle and ultimately destroy” ISIS in an address to the nation.

Obama’s denial that “Islamic State is neither Islamic, nor a state” is an even MORE profoundly stupid misjudgment and dismissal than his infamous “JayVee” remark that the lying fool now denies making.  But again, as evidenced so many damn times it’s beyond unreal, Obama is a fool who believes that denying simple factual reality is the secret to success.

If you like your health care plan and your doctor you can keep your health care plan and your doctor; if you don’t like Islamic State let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist and maybe it will somehow go away.

And it doesn’t matter how much of a lie that is.

And yet that factual denial of reality is the quintessence of Obama’s “strategy” and his “speech.”

Here’s the Los Angeles Times – note, NOT Fox News because they don’t like Obama because they’re racists – assessment of Obama’s “plan”:

Analysis Obama strategy in Iraq, Syria hinges on long shots
By Patrick J. McDonnell
SHARELINES
▼Sunni-Shiite divisions in Iraq too profound for quick fix
▼U.S. envisions unity and an effective army in Iraq, and a reenergized ‘moderate’ rebel front in Syria
▼Iraq, not Syria, seen as key concern for U.S.
September 11, 2014, 7:10 PM|Reporting from Beirut

As the United States pivots back onto a war footing in the Middle East, President Obama’s strategy is rooted in at least three basic assumptions, all of them highly questionable.

In his prime-time speech Wednesday, Obama envisioned the emergence of a newly unified Iraqi government, an effective Iraqi fighting force and a reenergized, U.S.-backed “moderate” rebel front in Syria. Along with U.S. training and airstrikes, and help from international allies, those three factors would spell defeat for Islamic State militants who have made deep inroads in both Syria and Iraq.

All three goals seem long shots in a region where U.S. aims have often foundered amid harsh and intractable realities.

Well that’s just GREAT.

If you like your Islamic State, you can keep your Islamic State.  If you DON’T like Your Islamic State, you can get your head slowly and agonizingly cut off with a deliberately small and most likely intentionally dull knife.

Obama says he’s going to destroy ISIL in one breath and he denies the possibility of American boots on the ground in the next.  Those two statements are mutually exclusive and fundamentally incoherent: if your goal is actually to destroy ISIL, YOU WILL DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE DESTROYED.  That very much includes relying on the full panoply of US military force (at least the force that’s left after Obama dismantled it in the name of his fool’s “peace dividend” that was irrational and based on a demonic Obama lie to begin with).  Obama’s promise that he will not send troops is tantamount to a promise that he will not destroy ISIL.  As is painfully obvious to anybody who realizes that if the US doesn’t send troops, there won’t be anybody to fight ISIL with any backbone whatsoever:

(Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday Arab states would play a critical role in a coalition against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, but no country in the alliance was talking about sending ground troops to participate.

You know, versus the 37 countries that sent 26,000 troops into harm’s way that Barack Obama and his demonic Democrat Party slandered as “cowboy diplomacy.”

Allow me to pour something called “reality” on Obama’s “strategy”: SOMEBODY HAS TO SEND TROOPS OR PLEASE JUST SURRENDER TO THE TERRORISTS AND SUBMIT BY BARING YOUR THROAT TO THEIR KNIVES.

The ONLY ground force that is capable of defeating ISIL is US – US as in “U.S.”

I remember just a year ago when Obama and Kerry argued that their aitrstrikes would be “unbelievably small.”  And the attitude was, “Well, hell, don’t even bother, then.”  And here we are.

If all of the above isn’t frankly insanely idiotic enough, take John Kerry the day after Obama’s speech denying that the U.S. was at war with the Islamic State that Obama denies is Islamic and denies is a state:

“If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with [ISIS], they can do so, but the fact is that it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts,” Kerry said Thursday on CNN. “I don’t think people need to get into war fever on this,” he told CBS News’ Margaret Brennan.

Okay, nothing to see here, folks.  Don’t get all worked up just because this ISLAMIC STATE CALIPHATE my boss created just sawed two Americans’ heads off in a declaration of war against America.  Now please go back to sleep.

Fine.  If we’re not at war with these people, THEN WHY THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO BOMB THEM???

Don’t worry.  It will be “unbelievably small.”  Pinpricks, really.

Let’s just let history keep repeating itself until we’re all just shocked and appalled that we’re suddenly in ARMAGEDDON and there’s no way out because every path leading away from the end of the human species was long since eroded away by cowardly, dithering liberals.

There comes that point where you either show yourself to be serious or you show yourself to be a joke.  And Barack Obama is a joke and he is not to be taken seriously when it comes to anything other than his fascist domestic ideological agenda.

Obama’s “strategy” rests on refusing to ever send US troops back to the region that he himself acknowledged George W. Bush left safe and secure and stable and instead relying on fighters that he openly MOCKED just a short time ago.

I love this headline because it has the virtue of being so completely true:

Obama has a plan for ISIS in Syria. It’s the opposite of his old plan.

The article points out:

The administration’s longstanding position has been that ISIS’s Syria presence is a problem, but not one that the US can solve through military force. As recently as August 8, Obama downplayed the idea that arming supposedly moderate Syrian rebels — most notably those under the banner of the Free Syrian Army — would help to build a strong fighting force.

He told the New York Times that “there’s not as much capacity as you would hope” for molding an effective group out of “an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.” The administration actually did propose spending $500 million in late June to arm and train the rebels as a counterweight to ISIS, but very few people believed that would be enough help to make the rebels competent to destroy ISIS.

And as for airstrikes in Syria, he said in August that “we can run [ISIS] off for a certain period of time, but as soon as our planes are gone, they’re coming right back in” without an effective local partner…

Obama mocked arming these very same people his “strategy” now completely depends on as a FANTASY just ONE MONTH AGO:

Obama Admits Arming Moderate Syrian Rebels Has ‘Always Been A Fantasy’
By: DSWright Monday August 11, 2014 10:01 am

Though many have critiqued President Barack Obama’s strategy of bypassing a terrorism law to give weapons to so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels, few have touched the level of comprehensive disdain the president himself has with his own policy.

The weapons the Obama Administration sent to Syria famously ended up in the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Some of those weapons are likely being used now in Iraq against government forces and to commit the kind of massacres President Obama ordered American air power in to try and stop.

In an interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, Obama not only declined to defend his policy of giving weapons to the Syrian rebels but offered a withering critique of his policy and the reasoning behind it.

With “respect to Syria,” said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.”

Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding, training and arming a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels: “There’s not as much capacity as you would hope.”

Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the floor. It was President Obama who, despite warnings and protests from numerous groups, bypassed a law against arming terrorists to give weapons to the Syrian rebels. Now it was all a “fantasy” and had no hope of working?

Well, Mr. Wright, I suppose you can put either reset your jaw or just start stomping on it while it’s on the floor.  Because Obama just went back on the policy he had just went back on.

Barack Obama is demon-possessed, and that’s the moral equivalent of being completely INSANE.

You want more pretzel-twisted Obama “logic”???  Obama is now demanding that he can do what he wants based on a resolution that he demonized and later tried to repeal:

WASHINGTON (AP) – On the cusp of intensified airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, President Barack Obama is using the legal grounding of the congressional authorizations President George W. Bush relied on more than a decade ago to go to war. But Obama has made no effort to ask Congress to explicitly authorize his own conflict. […]

As a U.S. senator from Illinois running for president in 2007, Obama tried to prevent Bush’s administration from taking any military action against Iran unless it was explicitly authorized by Congress. A Senate resolution Obama sponsored died in committee. […]

The White House has cited the 2001 military authorization Congress gave Bush to attack any countries, groups or people who planned, authorized, committed or aided the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Earnest on Thursday described the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, generally known as the AUMF, as one that Obama “believes continues to apply to this terrorist organization that is operating in Iraq and Syria.” […]

The White House also finds authorization under the 2002 resolution that approved the invasion of Iraq to identify and destroy weapons of mass destruction…

Obama is using both authorizations as authority to act even though he publicly sought their repeal last year. In a key national security address at the National Defense University in May 2013, Obama said he wanted to scrap the 2001 order because “we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight.” Two months later, Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, asked House Speaker John Boehner to consider repealing the 2002 Iraq resolution, calling the document “outdated.”

This is the God-cursed, demon-possessed, dishonest, ignorant FOOL that you trusted your lives and the lives of your children with, America.

By the way, those two resolutions used the word “war” a total of nine different times.  Since Obama has refused to use the word “war,” they clearly don’t apply.

I don’t know about you, but I think about this dishonest, depraved fool who by his own rhetoric is the very worst kind of hypocrite, and I feel like vomiting until every piece of intestine I’ve got is lying on the floor in a bloody pile.

What Obama should ask for is for Congress to pass an “Irresolution to Surrender” rather than a resolution to fight a damn war.  Because he HAS no resolve and under his “leadership” America never will have any “resolution” to do anything other than bow down before his Muslim masters.

And ALL liberals are demon-possessed; it is as quintessential to being a progressive liberal as being a total hypocrite is to being a progressive liberal.  Thus Jay Carney helps CNN prove that they are a network of propagandists that make Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda look honest by comparison and claims that no one could have possible known that terrorism would be so resurgent if we abandoned Iraq.

Except for that reality thing again:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — George W. Bush, 2007

Everything Bush said would happen if we abandoned Iraq has happened.  Every single damn thing.  Anyone at this point who says Obama was right on Iraq is worse than a fool; he or she is demon-possessed.

Let me start with Syria and work my way back to Iran.  In Syria we had a unique situation as described by the UK Telegraph:

There’s a remarkable piece in the New Yorker about how President Obama is grappling with his wrenching dilemma over what to do about Syria. It’s one of those examples of American journalism that gives you a genuine feel for the atmosphere behind the scenes – and of how, in the words of one former US official, “all the options are horrible”.

That set me thinking about an incident that has been widely reported, but whose true significance might not have been fully appreciated. Last year, the entire US national security team came up with a unanimous recommendation. These people very rarely agree with one another, but they all told Obama that the time had come for America to arm the Syrian rebels. The degree of consensus was remarkable: Leon Panetta, then defence secretary, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, and General David Petraeus, then head of the CIA, all advised Obama to tip the balance of the war by sending weapons to carefully vetted units within Syria’s insurgency. And the President turned them down.

“There may be another time in history when a President’s entire national security team recommended a course of action and he overruled them, but if there is I’m not aware of it,” says Senator John McCain in the New Yorker.

If things had become better in Syria, then it could be said that Obama was right and everybody else was wrong.  But, you see, things are so much worse in Syria due to Obama’s dithering inaction it is beyond UNREAL.  And Obama’s foolishness will haunt us for years to come; we had a real opportunity to knock out Assad because there is no question his regime was teetering when literally even ALL his OWN advisors and John McCain and Lindsey Graham and all the conservative Republicans were urging him to arm the pro-democracy rebels.  We had a real chance – even Obama’s own top experts agreed on that – to have a pro-democracy government rise in Syria.  But because Obama refused to act decisively, the “pro-democracy rebels” – having no weapons and no support and no means to fight – were killed off by both Assad’s regime and by the better organized and better funded and better equipped terrorist organizations like ISIS/ISIL.  And our opportunity vanished.

And now if we bomb Syria, but refuse to put boots on the ground as Obama is insisting upon, who is going to benefit most from bombing ISIL in Syria?  Bashar al-Assad and his thug regime, that’s who.  Because rest assured HIS boots on the ground will be there to mop up and occupy what we refused to enter.

So now – thanks to Obama – we get to choose between a vicious terrorist army and a vicious dictator thug who has always supported terrorism.  Because when evil rules, there ARE no good choices.

And we’re also in the same sort of  horrible position in Iraq.  Because thanks to Obama’s total abject failure there, helping Iraq means helping Iran.  It didn’t have to be that way.

Obama LIES when he claims that it wasn’t his fault he pulled out of Iraq and that he tried but could not reach a status of forces agreement that we needed to keep our troops safe in Iraq.  Bullcrap: Obama was crystal clear from day one that he was abandoning Iraq.

As Obama abandoned Iraq, he took credit for the “victory” that Bush had won by fighting even as he claimed credit for getting us out.  Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq was “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  Barack Obama claimed that Iraq was and would remain “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

But the FACT is that General Petraeus was begging Obama NOT to abandon Iraq even in 2009 as Obama took office, but Obama was already overruling his key general back then.  And as Obama was actually announcing his pullout in 2011 that he’d already said he was going to follow through with in 2009, key generals who been the architects of the successful surge strategy were stating at that time that Obama’s fool strategy would end in DISASTER.

We would have had an Iraq that was free of ISIS/ISIL on the one hand, and significantly free of Iranian influence on the other.  But now, thanks again to Obama, we are cursed with both dominating Iraq.  And we have literally become the ally of the most dangerous and most poisonous regime on the face of the earth as we help IRAN drive out the Islamic State from the Iraqi territory they now dominate.

There are no good choices now.  Obama has made any good choice impossible.  There are only bad choices or even worse choices guaranteed down the road if we fear the death toll that will be caused by the bad choices.

You need to understand something: what is happening now is the result of a fundamental difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.

The Republican Party believes we have to confront evil and declare war on it and fight it and kill it.  The Democrat Party denies the existence of evil.  They simply do.  They view themselves a ubersophisticated, and able to see all the many nuances and shades of gray that they mock black-and-white- and right-and-wrong-seeing Republicans for not understanding.  And professing themselves to be wise, Democrats become fools and complete moral idiots.

And now we’re going to start paying in spades for our “No, no, NO!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America” president.

Why FDR Would Have Denounced The Modern Democrat Party As Un-American

Democrats and the Democrat Party they form have become truly despicable.

I can cite former Democrats such as Dennis Prager who has frequently called himself “a Kennedy liberal.”  He has pointed out, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat Party left me.”

I can cite Ronald Reagan himself as such a man:

Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies, but in the early 1950s he shifted to the right and, while remaining a Democrat, endorsed the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as Richard Nixon in 1960.[54] His many GE speeches—which he wrote himself—were non-partisan but carried a conservative, pro-business message; he was influenced by Lemuel Boulware, a senior GE executive. Boulware, known for his tough stance against unions and his innovative strategies to win over workers, championed the core tenets of modern American conservatism: free markets, anticommunism, lower taxes, and limited government.[55] Eventually, the ratings for Reagan’s show fell off and GE dropped Reagan in 1962.[56]  That year Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, stating, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”[57]

One of the things that undoubtedly resulted in these two brilliant political thinkers’ sense of abandonment was the fact that they clearly HAD BEEN abandoned by the Democrat Party as it continued to “evolve” (liberals love that word, worshiping it in place of a God who stays the same) into a degenerate spiral.  And it was that profound abandonment of key Democrat liberal views – the abandonment of classical liberalism into something that can only be described today as a hybrid of Marxism and fascism – that then led these men to question their entire political presuppositions that had resulted in their being Democrats in the first place.

Yes, I know, liberals always confidently assure us that Nazism and fascism are right wing.  But how, exactly?  If they say militarism, then how was it that the Soviet Union had the largest and most powerful military machine in the world?  If they say racism, then – apart from their own bigotry – how do they escape their own racism?  If you want to talk about anti-Semitism of the Nazis, it turns out that Democrats are actually far more anti-Semitic than Republicans.  And, again, the genocide of the leftwing Soviet Union dwarfs even that of the Nazis.

So, what exactly is it that makes Nazism “right wing”?  Well, maybe the left would say that the Nazis were “Christian” and left wing ideologies are secular.  But that is hardly true, either.  I document in a previous article (“Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism“) that Nazism and Christianity had virtually nothing to do with one another, and that in fact Hitler was an acknowledged atheist.

I did not know at the writing of that article that in fact Hitler actually wanted to kidnap Pope Pius XII, and that the SS officer placed in charge of the operation understood that Hitler would have murdered him following his capture.  I don’t see how that doesn’t do anything more than strengthen my case that Hitler was hardly a “Catholic.”

When it comes to Nazi ideology and Nazi policies (not the least of which was the sort of abortion and Darwinian eugenics that liberal progressive and modern-day Democrat Icon Margaret Sanger engaged in), Nazism was far more in line with liberal progressivism than anything remotely conservative.  A couple quick statements by Margaret Sanger, the patron saint of Hillary Clinton:

In Pivot of Civilization, Sanger referred to immigrants and poor folks as “human weeds,” “reckless breeders,” “spawning  … human beings who never should have been born.”

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)

In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. (Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107)

And I also show in a comment to that article that Nazism was far, FAR more in line with Democrat Party liberalism than it ever could be Republican Party conservatism when it came to big government and big government policies.

Jonah Goldberg points out that Nazism was in fact “far right.”  But only in the sense that the Nazi Party, i.e. the National Socialist German Workers Party, was the far right of the extreme left.

A good article I recently found on the subject of socialism and fascism is available here.  Basically, the latter is simply a particular species of the former.

American conservatism calls for a strong military defense, yes.  But as we shall see, so also did FDR.  And in every other aspect, consistent conservatism calls for limited and small national government.  Which was the diametric opposite of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi project, which controlled every sphere of life the same way the Democrat Party tried to do during the last two years when they had power.

If you think for so much as an instant that Adolf Hitler wanted less centralized power for himself and more control in the hands of the states/districts and the individual people – as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and conservatives constantly talk about – you simply couldn’t be any more ignorant.

That said, just what are the two fundamental issues I claim in my title that FDR would have denounced in the Democrat Party of today?

They are military power and the willingness to use it (i.e., the heart of any foreign policy) and government or public employee unions (i.e., the heart of Democrat’s domestic agenda).

These are no small matters: the former is central to any rational foreign policy and the latter has become central to Democrat domestic policy.

I describe FDR’s fundamental opposition to government unions and the reasons he was opposed to them here.  And I provide FDR’s very own words and his very own reasoning.  Suffice it to say that as pro-union as FDR was, he was profoundly opposed to government/public sector employees having the very sort of collective bargaining rights that Democrats today routinely demand for the public sector unions which constitute the bulk of union power today, and which massively contributes almost exclusively to the Democrat Party machine.  FDR realized that these employees were employees not of some unfair private company, but of the American people.  He also recognized that the government becomes a monopoly unto itself, and that government unions striking 1) exploited that monopoly power in an unfair and un-American way, and 2) was a defacto attack against the American people.

Please read the article above for more.

That leaves the other issue, the foreign policy issue of military power and the willingness to use it to deal with threats to the nation.

A speech by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill could have been given today to expose the American liberal views of Democrats basically since Lyndon Baines Johnson refused to seek re-election after liberals turned on him.  It certainly powerfully applies to the Democrat positions in the war on terror – that Obama once refused to even acknowledge – of today.  Churchill began:

I have but a short time to deal with this enormous subject and I beg you therefore to weigh my words with the attention and thought which I have given to them.

As we go to and fro in this peaceful country with its decent, orderly people going about their business under free institutions and with so much tolerance and fair play in their laws and customs, it is startling and fearful to realize that we are no longer safe in our island home.

For nearly a thousand years England has not seen the campfires of an invader. The stormy sea and our royal navy have been our sure defense. Not only have we preserved our life and freedom through the centuries, but gradually we have come to be the heart and center of an empire which surrounds the globe.

It is indeed with a pang of stabbing pain that we see all this in mortal danger. A thousand years has served to form a state; an hour may lay it in dust.

What shall we do? Many people think that the best way to escape war is to dwell upon its horrors and to imprint them vividly upon the minds of the younger generation. They flaunt the grisly photograph before their eyes. They fill their ears with tales of carnage. They dilate upon the ineptitude of generals and admirals. They denounce the crime as insensate folly of human strife. Now, all this teaching ought to be very useful in preventing us from attacking or invading any other country, if anyone outside a madhouse wished to do so, but how would it help us if we were attacked or invaded ourselves that is the question we have to ask.

Would the invaders consent to hear Lord Beaverbrook’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Mr. Lloyd George? Would they agree to meet that famous South African, General Smuts, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it. I have borne responsibility for the safety of this country in grievous times. I gravely doubt it.

But even if they did, I am not so sure we should convince them, and persuade them to go back quietly home. They might say, it seems to me, “you are rich; we are poor. You seem well fed; we are hungry. You have been victorious; we have been defeated. You have valuable colonies; we have none. You have your navy; where is ours? You have had the past; let us have the future.” Above all, I fear they would say, “you are weak and we are strong.”

Churchill gave that speech back in 1934.  Just imagine how much unparalleled human suffering would never have happened if only the weak and appeasing policies of the leftist bleeding hearts had not triumphed!  The left wrongly claim to stand for peace and compassion and every good thing.  But the exact opposite is true, as they have in fact murdered millions and millions of innocent human beings with their naive and morally stupid policies.  And to whatever extent liberals have good intentions, the road to hell is paved with liberal intentions.

Think back to Obama’s positions as a candidate in which he demonized Bush’s war in Iraq and his surge strategy.  Think of Obama’s incredibly naive and incredibly failed policy of talking to Iran without preconditions.

I could go on all day about Democrats taking on the views that Churchill condemned; that our enemies really aren’t that evil and how we can talk to them and reach some kind of accord short of fighting them.  It is as naive and morally idiotic today as it was in the era of Churchill and – yes – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I did not realize this until I watched a program I viewed on the Military History Channel called “Decisions That Shook the World.”  But FDR rapidly became what we would today call a neo-conservative.

In the late 1930s, FDR began to watch with growing horror as the Nazis began to take over Europe.  In secret letters to Winston Churchill, he offered his moral support to the Allies.  FDR knew that if the people – who did NOT want to become entangled in what they saw as a European war – were to find out about these letters, they would turn against him in outrage.  The American people in the 1930s and early 1940s were crystal clear that they did not want to become involved in another world war in Europe.  As it was, at the very time that the American people were the most worried about FDR secretly getting involved in the war behind their backs, FDR was in fact secretly corresponding with Churchill to do that very thing.  FDR also – again secretly – ordered his military commanders to devise a secret military plan with Great Britain for when FDR was able to involve America in the war against Hitler in Europe.

Now, today, it would be very easy to condemn FDR as duplicitous.  And he WAS incredibly duplicitous.  FDR was a man – we find out in the words of the historians who narrated the “Decisions” program – who had no problem saying and doing things in private that he very much did not want to be known in public.  As an example, FDR, in direct defiance of the United States Supreme Court – directed his Attorney General to wiretap suspected spies.  That was literally an impeachable offense.  FDR was breaking the law to deal with what he saw as a growing threat against America.

Rep. Wendell Wilkie, the Republican candidate for president in the 1940 election – warned the American people, “If you elect FDR, he will get you into a war you don’t want.”  And FDR, deceitfully, in a speech, said, “That charge is contrary to every fact, every purpose of the past eight years.”  It was, as history documents, a complete lie.

Another lie FDR told the people came on the eve of the 1940 election.  FDR told mothers, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”  And it is hard to imagine a more dishonest promise, given that he was at the moment he said those words doing everything he knew how to get America into the war in Europe.

One of the points the historians made clear is that, “If all of Roosevelt’s acts were publicly known, he likely would have been impeached.”  He most certainly would NOT have been re-elected in 1940.

FDR was reelected on the promise that he would not do what in fact he was determined to do.

In 1940, the “anti-war” candidate was the Republican, Wendell Wilkie.  He had the virtue of being honest, but likely on the wrong side of history (we can’t know for sure what would have happened had the United States not become involved in World War II, but it doesn’t look pretty).  Democrat FDR may have had the virtue of being right, but he was certainly profoundly dishonest.

Now, I could write how FDR was quite constant with other modern liberal presidents who say one thing and do the exact opposite (I’m speaking directly about Barack Obama, the examples of which are now already legion).  But that isn’t my project here.  My project is to point out that, when it came to being prepared for war and then fighting that war, FDR was fundamentally in opposition to the modern Democrat Party agenda.

That briefly stated, it was the Republican Party which ultimately came to realize that FDR was correct in his views of the military and the need to vigorously defend American national security.  And it was the Democrats who came to turn on FDR’s realization and abandon his views.

They didn’t do so all at once, or right away.  As much as modern liberals tried to attack Ronald Reagan as putting the world on the brink of nuclear war in his Cold War stand against the powerful Soviet Union, one President John F. Kennedy was every bit the cold warrior that Reagan ever was.  And, again, any liberal who doubts this is simply a fundamentally ignorant human being.  That said, it was during the Kennedy presidency that JFK cynically – and by executive fiat rather than any vote by Congress – allowed the government unions that came to own the Democrat Party lock, stock and barrel to collectively bargain as a means to help the Democrat Party.  And the moral collapse of the Democrat Party was incredibly precipitous after that.

At this point in time, anyone who doubts that radical Islam is easily capable of not only destabilizing the world, but plunging it into economic depression and global war is delusional.  The mere prospect of a collapse of the Libyan government alone could spell enormous problems in the likely event of a civil war in that country.  Oil prices could literally more than double, which would simply obliterate any potential global economic recovery.  If Iran is able to obtain the bomb – which is most assuredly will if it hasn’t already – we will see a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, jihadism and terrorism such that the world has never seen as the Iranian regime rightly sees itself as impervious to any meaningful international action against it.  If that isn’t bad enough, we would also see a nuclear arms race quickly escalate in the craziest region in the history of the planet as Sunni Muslim regimes tried to protect themselves against the Shiite Iranian threat.

For what it’s worth, even as mainstream liberals celebrate and rejoice in the overthrow of one Arab leader after another, it is IRAN which is most benefitting from the chaos.  From the New York Times:

MANAMA, Bahrain — The popular revolts shaking the Arab world have begun to shift the balance of power in the region, bolstering Iran’s position while weakening and unnerving its rival, Saudi Arabia, regional experts said.

I have been warning and warning about this.  But the world listens to Obama, not me.

But in light of Obama’s policy of appeasement, of asking for meetings of minds with no preconditions, allow me to rephrase Churchill’s words to suit our modern-day situation:

Would the invaders consent to hear Barack Obama’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Hillary Clinton? Would they agree to meet that famous African, Kofi Annan, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it.

Allow me to share with you the consensus view of liberalism today at one of its elite headquarters of Columbia University:

Columbia University is holding a series of public hearings on whether or not to allow ROTC back on campus now that DADT has been repealed. A wounded Iraq veteran who recently enrolled at Columbia took to the microphone and asked fellow students to support ROTC. He was booed, jeered, and called a racist.

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

“Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

The former soldier responded to the jeers with this awesome statement:

“It doesn’t matter how you feel about the war. It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting,” said Maschek. “There are bad men out there plotting to kill you.”

The despicable so-called “Americans” in the audience only laughed and jeered more.

Anthony Maschek was a staff sergeant with the Army’s 10th Mountain Division. He was shot 11 times and spent two years recovering at Walter Reed. He’s an American hero and those thugs at Columbia are a disgrace. This is no different than those pieces of crap who spit on veterans coming back from Vietnam. It’s disgusting that in 2011 our veterans should have to be heckled by cowards.

Read more: http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/02/21/wounded-veteran-booed-and-jeered-at-columbia-university/#ixzz1Evn0A8qL

FDR would have turned his back on this Democrat Party as a bunch of contemptible and despicable traitors to the United States of America.  He would have looked at the government unions that today are the sine qua non – the “that without which” – of the Democrat Party machine.  And he would have been disgusted that the entire Democrat Party rests today upon an inherently un-American foundation.  Then this president who risked so much to keep America and the world safe from tyranny would have looked upon the modern Democrat Party and its repeated denunciation of those who would fight America’s most terrifying enemies even as those enemies grew stronger and stronger while we have grown weaker and weaker, and he would have vomited in contempt for the party that he had such a profound role in shaping.

By the very standards of the figures that you cite as your greatest heroes, I denounce you as the pathetic, vile, un-American fools that you truly are, Democrats.

I would say that you should be ashamed of yourselves, but I doubt that you are capable of that virtue in this house-of-card world that you are building now.  And the problem with houses of cards is not merely that they fall; it is also that they tend to burn furiously when a match is struck.

And when the Antichrist warned of by the Scriptures for more than 2,600 years comes (as described in the Books of Daniel and Revelation), it will be Democrats, the quintessential fools, who welcome him with cheers and adoration.

Are You Ready For The Most Incompetent President EVER To Handle Armageddon Part I?

This is shaping up to get real scary.  We’ve got the biggest failure in US history wasting oxygen in our White House, and we might be seeing the most terrifying war in Middle Eastern history taking demonic form:

Accord­ing Kuwaiti news­pa­per Al-Dar: Diplo­matic sources in Cairo told the news­pa­per that the U.S. Sec­re­tary of State Hillary Clin­ton told her Egypt­ian coun­ter­part Ahmed Aboul Gheit and the Saudi intel­li­gence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz dur­ing a pri­vate meet­ing in the Nuclear Secu­rity sum­mit last week, that the Israeli-Iranian armed race is accel­er­ated towards a regional war in the Mid­dle East, dur­ing this year, at any time.

Clin­ton warned both Egypt­ian and Saudi offi­cials to take extra care and cau­tion, and define their strat­egy to for­mu­late the posi­tion of their coun­tries in the event of such a war.

Ear­lier this year, Joe Biden warned of a pos­si­ble Israeli attack this year, which involves Syria and Lebanon.

For the official record, Barry Hussein is a man who can’t even preside over his own dog’s potty training issues, let alone confront the nuclear threat posed by Iran.  Which is another way of saying that we are truly screwed.

During the campaign the same Hillary Clinton that advised Egypt that the fecal matter is about to hit the rotary oscillator very soon also said that Barack Obama was not even close to being ready to take that 3 AM phone call.  And nothing has changed.

The same president who’s utterly useless and asinine policy completely failed to even slow Iran’s nuclear program down is going to be an even more pathetic disgrace when Iran gets its nukes.

Joe Biden himself warned us that the US would face a massive foreign policy situation with Barack Obama as president.  He specifically warned that Obama wasn’t up to the job on the campaign trail:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Reaffirmed That Obama Was Not Ready To Be Commander In Chief. ABC‘s George Stephanopoulos: “You were asked is he ready. You said ‘I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.’” Sen. Biden: “I think that I stand by the statement.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 8/19/07)

Sen. Biden: “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.” (“Biden Lashes Out At Obama,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 8/2/07)

Well, we’re about to stare down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his mad Mullahs who believe that they need to start hell to force the appearance of their Twelfth Imam.

And if you don’t already agree with the following –

– You will before it’s all said and done.

Iran Sucessfully Launches Satellite: Ballistic Nuclear Missiles Not Far Off

As morally evil as the Iranian regime is, I have to hand it to them: they have been playing a naive and appeasing Barack Obama the way a master violinist plays a Stradivarius.  At every single turn, they have fooled him, blocked him, tricked him, or stalled him while they have just continued feverishly working on developing a full-blown nuclear capability.

And now here we are, on the verge of a truly dark and terrible development in world history:

Iran’s Satellite Launch a Signal of Missile Progress, Analysts Say
By Turner Brinton
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 12 February 2009

WASHINGTON – Iran’s launch of a satellite into orbit last week will likely give U.S. and European leaders greater cause for concern that the Islamic republic is approaching the ability to field long-range ballistic missiles while its nuclear program continues to progress, analysts here agreed.

The Iranian government-sponsored Islamic Republic News Agency reported Feb. 3 that Iran had launched a research satellite called Omid into orbit aboard a Safir-2 rocket. This is Iran’s first domestically produced satellite to reach orbit and the first to successfully launch on an Iranian-built launch vehicle, according to Press TV, an Iranian government-sponsored news outlet.

The U.S. government, while not explicitly confirming Iran has launched a satellite, has expressed concern that Iran’s development of a space launch vehicle establishes the technical basis to develop long-range ballistic missile systems.

“Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern,” U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said in a Feb. 3 statement. “Many of the technological building blocks involved in [space launch vehicles] are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles. … We will continue with our friends and allies in the region to address the threats posed by Iran, including those related to its missile and nuclear programs and its support of terrorism.”

Satellite watchers using orbital data provided from U.S. Strategic Command’s space surveillance network said the satellite is in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 242 kilometers to 382 kilometers in altitude, at an inclination of 55 degrees relative to the equator. Ted Molczan, an amateur satellite observer, said the satellite and part of the rocket that took it to space are both cataloged by Strategic Command and in similar orbits. The satellite appears to be tumbling, as its brightness in the sky changes rapidly, indicating the satellite’s likely lack of a stabilization or attitude control system. Both the satellite and rocket body are likely to begin to deorbit this summer, Molczan said.

“Dear people of Iran, your children have sent Iran’s first domestic satellite into orbit,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Press TV. “May this be a step toward justice and peace. Iran’s official presence in space has been added to the pages of history.”

Meanwhile, Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, which it says it has the right to develop for peaceful civil uses as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran argues it needs nuclear power and will not use the technology to make weapons. The United Nations Security Council, which includes permanent members China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, has urged Iran to suspend the program numerous times to no avail.

“This [Iranian satellite launch] I think highlights the dual-use issue again, just as the nuclear issue does, and that is technology can be used for peaceful purposes or for weapons that can threaten other countries,” said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a think tank here. “In terms of any kind of direct missile threat [to the United States], it’s likely to be many years before they could have that capability. The people worrying more are others in the Middle East and Europe.”

Carpenter said perhaps even more unsettling than the Iranian satellite launch are recent media reports that North Korea is again preparing to launch its three-stage Taepodong-2 missile, which some believe will have the range to reach U.S. territory. North Korea tested one of these missiles in 2006, but it failed shortly after launch and broke apart in the air.

“North Korea poses a much more direct threat to the United States because if it is true North Korea is planning to test an advanced version of the Taepodong-2, that could put Alaska and the U.S. west coast in range,” Carpenter said.

Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the United States and Europe ought to be concerned about the progression of Iranian technology. He argued that Iran is more of a threat to the United States than North Korea, based on Tehran’s backing of insurgents in Iraq.

“That has been a capability we have seen Iran developing, but the fact that it now has actually happened is a jarring punctuation mark,” Donnelly said. “Given what we believe about their nuclear program, it seems pretty clear they’re very close to having a complete, deliverable weapon that would have the ability to reach out to Europe.”

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution here, said though the Iranian satellite launch may not show an increase in the physical range of Iranian weapon systems, it is perhaps a more impressive display of technological prowess than a missile test launch would have been.

“That suggests a certain amount of control and guidance mastery,” O’Hanlon said. “You’ve got to hit a fairly narrow band to put something in orbit, and the simple act of firing a missile doesn’t tell you anything about how close the missile landed to its target.

“It demonstrates more sophistication than I would have assumed, but I am not surprised they did this.”

Too few Americans (and for that matter Europeans) comprehend the magnitude of this development.

Israel certainly does, given the fact that Iran has repeatedly vowed that “Israel is a cancer” which they one day intend to “wipe off the map.”

The fact that Ezekiel prophesied some 2600 years ago that Iran (Persia) would one day attack Israel in the last days along with a coalition that looks eerily like the one being assembled today.

About a quarter of Israelis have said that they would leave Israel if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, which would literally mean the death of the Jewish state.  Israeli leaders cannot possibly allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

And time is running out on them.

But it’s running out on the United States and Europe, also.

If Iran has nuclear weapons – and particularly if they have an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system – they will be immune to attack.  Do you believe that Barack Obama would attack a nuclear-armed Iran?  I submit that Obama won’t dare attack a NON-nuclear armed Iran.  And no American president would attack a nation at the cost of one or more major U.S. cities.

If Iran gets its nukes, it will be able to do a number of things: 1) attack Israel, assuring Israel that if it uses its nukes against Iran, Iran will use its nukes against Israel; 2) shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would immediately drive up oil.  The cost of gasoline in the U.S. would soar above $15 a gallon; 3) dramatically increase Iranian-sponsored terrorism worldwide.

If you don’t believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would pick a minimum of one of these options, you’re just nuts.

What we are seeing with Iran developing nuclear weapons and the means to project them is akin to the armament of Nazi Germany during the 1930s.  Many immediately recognized the threat the Nazis posed, but those in leadership were appeasing weaklings who were more interested in “transforming” their own societies than they were confronting genuine evil abroad.  The result was the Holocaust and the meat-grinder of World War II.

Democrats who are demagogues at heart will assert that George Bush allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons as will.  They are liars: George Bush TRIED to persuade the U.S. to strongly confront Iran, and Democrats in Congress shrilly attacked him for his prescient knowledge of the Iranian threat.  Democrats claimed that Iran had suspended its nuclear program, and that the regime no longer posed a threat.  They couldn’t have been more wrong.

I wrote something about Iran’s nuclear program in May of 2008, and I stand by it:

Finally, the dilemma of the Iranian nuclear program serves as a sober reinforcement of the rightness of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. As with Iraq, we have in Iran a closed, totalitarian society that our intelligence cannot reliably penetrate. How will we know for sure when and if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do we simply choose to allow them to do so? Are we willing to suffer the consequences of the world’s largest terrorist state and supporter of terrorism to have nukes? Are we willing to give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who has publicly described his belief in an apocalyptic figure known as the “Twelfth Imam” who will come into the world via an act of global catastrophe – a nuclear trigger to place his finger upon? Are we willing to put nuclear weapons into the hands of someone who has repeatedly vowed to “wipe Israel off the map“?

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, you can pretty much figure that World War III is coming soon. For one thing, the country is led by apocalyptic religious fanatics who will likely either use the bomb to attack Israel, or else will smuggle it into the hands of terrorists who will do the job for them. For another, a nuclear weapon in Shiite Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world, as Sunni states feverishly work to build their own bomb to balance the power.

Meanwhile, we find both Democratic presidential candidates vocalizing longstanding opposition to the Iraq war, and promising a swift pullout if elected. The question is this: how can a president who claimed that the United States was wrong in attacking Iraq over legitimate concerns that it possessed weapons of mass destruction proceed to threaten to attack Iran over legitimate concerns that IT possesses nuclear weapons? And conversely, as the United States attempts to prevent Sunni Arab nations from developing their own nuclear weapons programs to balance Shiite Iran, how will a president – who refused to honor the American commitment to stand by Iraq – proceed to succeed in convincing Sunni countries that we will stand by them against any threat posed by Iran?

If we say that the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, then we tacitly affirm that it will be wrong to attack Iran even as it feverishly works on creating enough centrifuges to have the type of refined uranium it needs for one and only one purpose.

I also repeatedly pointed out in that three part series that countries such as Russia and China had protected Saddam Hussein by blocking every single United Nations resolution that could have prevented the Iraq War:

There was a process that the United Nations ostensibly provided by which two nations in material disagreement could come to a fair resolution. But what should have been an honest process was interfered with and corrupted by powerful member nations and by the United Nations itself. If we are going to blame anyone for the invasion, then let us blame countries like France and Russia, as well as the corrupt and grossly incompetent and negligent United Nations. They made it impossible for any just solution to prevail. In Saddam Hussein’s own words and thoughts, their protection and interference gave him the idea that he could defy the United States and keep the inspectors at bay without any meaningful consequence.

Those same countries are now protecting Iran the SAME exact way.  They are opposing sanctions and resolutions against Iran the SAME WAY they did against Iraq.  Since both countries are permanent veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council, they can absolutely shield Iran from ANY resolution as they choose.  And Barack Obama would have no choice but to go it alone if he wants to stop Iran’s nuclear program the same way Bush had to choose to go it alone.

But Obama WON’T DO THAT.  Which means Iran will have its nuclear capability during his watch.

Iran, Iraq, and the Future in Bible Prophecy

The huge demonstrations protesting the election issues in Iran put that country on the front pages of every newspaper.

For nearly two weeks, demonstrations have raged.  Early on, some said that they didn’t know what would happen as to whether the protests would succeed in overthrowing the regime, but most recognized that the endgame was a foregone conclusion: the regime has the tanks, the guns, and the military.  It was only a question as to whether how far things might get before they used them.

As it stands, they won’t have to, as an AP article entitled “Intensified crackdown mutes protests in Iran” indicates.  While the demonstrations might well briefly flare up again (presidential candidate Mousavi has said he would appear at a demonstration on the 24th), there has never been any serious question that the theocratic regime would stand.

The serious question that remains is, stand as what?  Will it become a more open society, more willing to seriously interact with the Western world, or will it become more hostile and more determined to pursue a violent agenda in the coming months?

Based on the prophecies in the Bible, and based on my own belief that we are entering the last days, my view is that Iran will become more hostile and violent as it is increasingly isolated in the Western world.  Furthermore, my view is that it will engage in an increasingly close alliance/partnership with Russia and with other Islamic Arab and African states.

It is important to realize that the Iranian Constitution (Article Five) is inherently apocalyptic in nature.  The still-revered Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 proclaimed that the basis for Iran’s constitution and its government would be the authority of the Hidden (or Twelfth) Imam.  This apocalyptic figure has been called the ‘expected one,’ (al—Muntazar), the ‘promised one’ (al—Mahdi’), or the ‘hidden one,’ (al—Mustatir) in the Shi’a tradition.

The threats of impending destruction of Israel and even of war against the United States have been issued in the name of this Twelfth Imam who will (according to Iranian/Shi’a Islam) come in the last days.

According to the tradition, the Hidden Imam was taken into hiding by Allah and kept there until he reappears in the last days to purify the umma and take the world for Islam.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many others in the Iranian leadership passionately hold to the coming of the Hidden Imam.  That in itself is not necessarily frightening: Shi’ite orthodoxy has it that humans are powerless to encourage the Twelfth Imam to return.  However, in Iran a group called the Hojjatieh believe that humans can stir up chaos and violence to encourage him – even force him – to return.  And Ahmadinejad is at least a former member, and quite likely a current member of this sect.  When Ahmadinejad became president, $17 million was spent on the Jamkaran mosque, which is central to the Hojjatieh movement.  And it is even more frightening when such a man sitting as President of Iran claims to have a direct link to God.

And Dr. Serge Trifkovic has said this regarding Ahmadinejad’s theology/eschatology:

Ahmadinejad, by contrast, shares with Trotsky an apocalyptic world outlook. He favors direct action in pursuit of a permanent Islamic revolution that will pave the way for the return of the Hidden Imam, pave it with blood, sweat and tears. Indeed he’d like to speed things up, as you point out, and implicitly he hopes to achieve this by twisting the arm of the Almighty – no less so than the cloners of red heifers and would-be re-builders of the Temple hope to do as a means of speeding up the Rupture. The fact that he is more sincere in his beliefs and more earnest in his endeavors than the kleptocrats of the House of Saud are in theirs, is alarming but unsurprising. He is a visionary; they are Machiavellian cynics.

A much-more detailed analysis that comes to much the same conclusion about Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic vision is available via FrontPage Magazine.

Mind you, re-building the Temple or cloning a red heifer are scarcely the source of inherently cataclysmic activities that many too many Shiite Muslims are pursuing.

So when one considers Iran, under such leadership, to be dedicated to the acquisition of nuclear weapons after stating that Israel should be “wiped out from the map” – and with the current Ayatollah Khamenei stating that Israel is a “cancerous tumor” on the verge of collapse – well, one should be very worried.  Wiping out Israel in a fiery blaze of atomic glory would indeed be a way to create the holocaust that would prompt the return of the long-awaited Hidden Imam (if anything ever could).

Clearly Jews understand this, as 1 in 4 would seriously consider leaving the country if Iran succeeds in acquiring nuclear weapons.  Given that such an event would literally mean the end of the state of Israel even if Iran didn’t nuke them, Israel has little choice but to attack Iran’s nuclear capability (since – clearly – no one else will).

Would Israelis hold back from a planned attack of Iran if they believed the United States would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?  Probably.  But the problem is, they clearly don’t believe that any more.  And they certainly no longer believe that America under Barack Hussein Obama is on their side.  When George Bush was president, fully 88% of Israeli Jews believed the president was “pro-Israel”; today under Obama, only 31% of Israeli Jews think so.

Such an event, of hated Israel swooping into an Islamic country to destroy their Russian-built nuclear facilities, would itself be a likely cataclysmic event.  Do you even dare to imagine how the Islamic world would react?  And realize that just such an event is very likely coming – and coming all-too soon.

Now Vice President Joe Biden predicted that Barack Obama would be “tested” by an “international crisis” that would test his mettle.  He went on to say:

I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

Joe Biden quickly turned his discussion of this international crisis and Barack Obama’s seeming poor handling of said crisis to politics and the hopes of Democrats.  But Iran obtaining nuclear weapons won’t be about politics; it will be about Armageddon.

Frighteningly, Barack Obama’s very own VP has said that Barack Obama is most certainly not ready for what may very well prove to be the most terrifying crisis in human history:

“There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden,” McCain spokesman Ben Porritt said in a written statement, according to CNN. “Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be president.”

Biden frequently raised questions about Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience during the primaries. “I think he can be ready, but right now, I don’t believe he is,” Biden said during one debate. “The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

North Korea looms large, and may loom far larger in the days soon-to-come.  But a nuclear Iran is an even more terrifying prospect.  You’ll see.

As I turn to Iraq – and then to how Iraq relates to Iran in the context of Bible prophecy – allow me to first discuss Joel Rosenberg.

A Wikipedia article on Joel Rosenberg probably provides the most concise summary (accessed June 23, 2009):

Rosenberg’s novels have attracted those interested in Bible Prophecy, due to several of his fictional elements of his books that would occur after his writing of books. Nine months before the September 11th attacks, Rosenberg wrote a novel with a kamikaze plane attack on an American city. Five months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he wrote a novel about war with Saddam Hussein, the death of Yasser Arafat eight months before it occurred, a story with Russia, Iran, and Libya forming a military alliance against Israel occurring the date of publishing,^[7] the rebuilding of the city of Babylon,^[12] Iran vowing to have Israel “wiped off the face of the map forever” five months before Iranian President Ahmadinejad said the same,^[13] and the discovery of huge amounts of oil and natural gas in Israel (which happened in January 2009).^[14] The U.S. News & World Report have referred to him as a “Modern Nostradamus,”^[15] although Rosenberg tries to play down those proclamations, stating that “I am not a clairvoyant, a psychic, or a ‘Modern Nostradamus,’ as some have suggested.”^[16] He gives the credit for his accurate predictions to studying Biblical prophecy and applying to the modern world.^[16]

Why did Rosenberg predict that there would be a “kamikaze plane attack on an American city” by Islamic terrorists?  Because he accurately understood the evil at the heart of Islam.

Why did Rosenberg predict a war between Saddam Hussein and the United States resulting in the overthrow of Saddam and his brutal regime?  That’s where it gets interesting.

Joel Rosenberg had done a thorough study of the Book of Ezekiel and of the Bible (as a couple of overlapping articles summarize – Article 1; – Article 2).  He learned that one day, according to the Bible, a massive army under the leadership of Russia and many of its former republics (Magog) and Iran (Persia) and consisting of many countries that are today Islamic [e.g. “Cush” (modern-day Sudan and Ethiopia); “Put” (modern-day Libya); “Gomer” (modern-day Turkey); “Beth-togarmah” (modern-day Armenia); and many peoples “along the mountains of Israel” (modern-day Lebanon and possibly Syria)] would form an “exceedingly great army” that would one day attack Israel.

What Rosenberg noted was the absence of two countries: Egypt and Babylon (i.e. Iraq).  Egypt had been a perennial enemy of Israel until 1973, when Egypt alone in all the Arab/Muslim world forged a historic peace treaty with the state of Israel.  That left Iraq.  Rosenberg asked himself, “How could a nation like Iraq, under the leadership of someone like Saddam Hussein, NOT participate in this mega-colossal-last-days attack on Israel?

Rosenberg concluded that Saddam Hussein WOULDN’T refrain from such an attack.  And that meant that Saddam Hussein would have to go.

And so, NINE MONTHS before the 9/11 attack, Rosenberg in his “fiction” created a scenario in which terrorists flew a plane in a kamikaze attack, and the United States took out the Iraqi regime and replaced it with a stable Western-friendly government.

And because the Bible is the true Word of an all-knowing God who knows the end from the beginning as revealed through His prophets, the scenario laid out by Joel Rosenberg turned out to be eerily true.  It wasn’t a “lucky guess”; it was based upon the God who had revealed the last days to an inspired prophet named Ezekiel some 2,600 years ago.

Thus we have Iraq, its tyrant who had filled mass graves with the bodies of at least 400,000 of his own people, overthrown and a stable democracy growing in his place.  And we have Iran, a country strongly allied with Russia; a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons; a country that has announced its intent on the destruction of Israel; a country under the leadership of men who in all likelihood believe in establishing a future by an act of violent apocalypse.  Two countries on two very different paths.  And both paths known to God 2,600 years ago.