Posts Tagged ‘Islam’

Obama And His Liberal Fascists Want To Ban Guns. Why Don’t We Ban Anti-Christian Worldviews Instead?

March 28, 2013

Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, Newtown.  Liberals love to bring up these massacres as “evidence” that we need to ban guns.

But the thing is that, apart from some bizarre Hollywood film, there has NEVER been a single documented case of a gun EVER rising up by itself and deciding to start shooting people.

Liberals are free to try to refute me by documenting cases of guns developing independent consciousness and choosing to go on murderous rampages.  Until then, my statement stands as fact.

But now let’s briefly consider the worldviews of the people who actually pulled the damn trigger of those guns.  Let’s look at the belief systems of the PEOPLE who committed those murders.  You know, rather than contemplating the worldviews of guns that non-liberals understand DO NOT HAVE WORLDVIEWS.

The Columbine killers were atheists who glorified in their atheism.  One of their quotes haunts me to this day.  They recorded themselves claiming, “We are no longer human, for we have evolved beyond human morality.”  In one of their notes they scribbled – and pardon the language – “Why give a fuck what Jesus would do?”  And, “I blew off his head with one shot.  I am god.  He died.”

I welcome atheists to explain in detail how it would be impossible for mankind to ever “evolve” into the kind of alien cultures that wickedly prey on the weak and kill every sentient being they can get their tentacles on that we watched in movies like Independence Day.  Remember that signature line from the film:

President Thomas Whitmore: I saw… its thoughts. I saw what they’re planning to do. They’re like locusts. They’re moving from planet to planet… their whole civilization. After they’ve consumed every natural resource they move on… and we’re next. Nuke ’em. Let’s nuke the bastards.

Given that liberals love to demagogically and slanderously characterize conservatives in these terms, I demand that evolutionists explain to me how human beings could never so “evolve beyond human morality.”

I remember the exchange from the movie Alien:

Ash: You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.

Lambert: You admire it.

Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

I challenge the atheist with his implicit faith in evolution to demonstrate how it could never possibly happen that human beings could so “evolve beyond human morality” that we would likewise be “unclouded by conscience” and “delusions of morality.”  Especially given the sheer number of human beings who have clearly DONE so.

I submit that there is little question that we are in fact as a culture “evolving beyond human morality.”  Just take a look at the Supreme Court openly considering imposing sodomy in place of marriage while we re-elected the first openly pro-sodomite president.  Which openly flies in the face of the entirety of human civilization and all previous “human morality.”

Liberals WANT the morality that was based entirely on Judeo-Christianity and the Judeo-Christian worldview to “evolve.”  That is their most cherished goal.

Now, on my worldview of Judeo-Christianity, I have a very firm rebuttal to the Columbine killers.  You did NOT “evolve” beyond human morality.  Rather, you were created in the image of a holy God.  And you will be held accountable to the morality that God created you to live out.  What do you have in your moral arsenal to respond to this crisis, atheist?

Right now, according to Judeo-Christianity, the Columbine killers are screaming in hell.  In a trillion years, they will be screaming in hell as God imposes the justice upon them that they denied to their victims.  In a trillion times a trillion-trillion years, they will be viscerally screaming in hell in refutation of the vile atheist crap they believed that motivated their actions.  They were profoundly and wickedly wrong; and all eternity will attest to that FACT.  What punishment do YOU have to deter these moral monsters from committing these terrible crimes, atheist?

It is with this in mind that I recall the famous words of the liberal Supreme Court Justices expressed their opinion that the Ten Commandments – including the one about “Thou shalt not murder” – be forcibly taken down from shcools for the following reason:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all,  it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to  venerate and obey, the Commandments… [which] is not a permissible … objective.”

Was it worth it, liberals?  Was Columbine and all the other horrors that have followed worth your adventure into godlessness?  Are you glad that Eric Harris and Dyland Klebold were never allowed the opportunity to read, meditate upon, and yes, perhaps even to venerate and obey, the Ten Commandments?  Was it a good thing that disturbed people with an urge to mayhem were never exposed to the one reason NOT to indulge their murderous fantasies?  If you have a superior reason not to murder than the Judeo-Christian one that you purged from society, perhaps it is time to share your secret.

Let’s take Jared Lee Loughner and his massacre at Tucson, Arizona.

Jared Loughner was, according to those who knew him, an atheist and by consequent a nihilist:

As Loughner and Tierney grew closer, Tierney got used to spending the first ten minutes or so of every day together arguing with Loughner’s ”nihilist” view of the world. “By the time he was 19 or 20, he was really fascinated with semantics and how the world is really nothing—illusion,” Tierney says. Once, Tierney recalls, Loughner told him, “I’m pretty sure I’ve come to the conclusion that words mean nothing.” Loughner would also tell Tierney and his friends that life “means nothing,” and they’d reply, “If it means nothing, what you’re saying means nothing.”

And of course it DID mean nothing – expect to those famous secular humanist atheist thinkers who basically share in Loughner’s moral idiocy.

I’ve described precisely WHERE the belief system – that words mean nothing, that the world is really an illusion – of Jared Loughner originated from: it came from the philosophical systems and worldview of the left – from existentialism, from postmodernism, from secular humanism.  And I’ve pointed out that these leftist ideas have CONSEQUENCES.  These systems of thought don’t sit in the ivory towers of the secular humanist liberals who invent them.  They spread like the malignant thought cancers that they are.

I’ve similarly posted this refutation of this mindless atheist evolutionary nihilist crap by Dr. Gleason Archer many times, so it isn’t hard to find:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

Go ahead, secular humanist liberal.  Go ahead, atheist.  Show me how what Dr. Archer is saying doesn’t follow.  Show me how the more you scramble something with random and by definition arbitrary evolutionary “progress,” the more ORDER you’ll get.  Show me how you’re correct in asserting that mind necessarily comes from mindlessness rather than from Mind.  Show me how your drivel is anything other than pure degradation – as St. Paul so eloquently states in Romans chapter one (in which St. Paul also points out that some cultures can sink so low into the moral sewer that it will welcome sodomy just as we are doing RIGHT NOW).

Let us also, through the writing of Dinesh D’Souza, consider what would happen to two tribes if one was religious in worldview and the other was atheist:

The Reverend Randy Alcorn, founder of Eternal Perspective ministries in Oregon, sometimes presents his audience with two creation stories and asks them whether it matters which one is true.  In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell  of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago.  You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces.  You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance.  You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe.  You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba.  You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely.  In short, you came from nothing and are going nowhere.

In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God.  You are created in His image, with capacities to think, feel and worship that set you above all other life forms.  You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind.  Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind.  Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a perfect plan for your life.  In addition, God gave the life of His only Son that you might spend eternity with Him.  If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God.”

Now imagine the two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribe to these two worldviews.  Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply?  The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose.  The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all.  The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential.  The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. — Dinish D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity, pp. 15-16

We’ve actually seen this experiment played out in actual human history as we’ve seen the rise of an America founded upon the Judeo-Christian worldview versus the society of the godless French Revolution and its resulting Reign of Terror; versus the rise of godless Marxism and its degeneration into state atheist Stalinism with over forty million of its own people murdered during peacetime; versus the rise of state atheist Maoism and its murder of over sixty million of its own people during peacetime; versus the crushing of the human spirit in state atheist Cambodia where over a million were murdered in the Killing Fields; and versus the godless tyrant regime of state atheist North Korea and the fact that the entire nation is dark at night.

But since when did FACTS ever matter to the left?  Even when there have been more than 100 million “facts” murdered by their official state atheism.

“State atheism” equals “communism”:

State atheism has been defined as the official “promotion of atheism” by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice.[1]

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Only communist states and socialist states have done so since.

Which is precisely why we are moving in the direction of socialism and communism today.  Because the Democrat Party consists of secular humanists, liberals, atheists who all have the same agenda: to reshape society by reshaping the economies of the world in their image.

You want to ban something?  I suggest we ban a godless left-wing State that has all the guns versus a disarmed and oppressed people who were promised Utopia but have nothing but misery and the very sort of propaganda that we are seeing right now in America to feed them the manure of self-serving lies.

I would suggest banning that instead of going the opposite direction as Democrats demand.

Let’s continue our tour to Aurora, Colorado and the warped worldview that perpetrated it.  He went from murderer to Muslim.  Which given the rabid tendency of Islam to produce terrorists isn’t that far of a stretch.

Let’s look our show to Newtown/Sandy Hook and consider the worldview of the ghostly little creep who murdered 26 people in a school that had no armed security of any kind:

The Sandy Hook gunman worshiped the devil and  had an online page dedicated to Satan, a former classmate revealed, as his  childhood barber recalls Adam Lanza never spoke and would stare at the floor  every time he had his hair cut.

Lanza’s worshiping page had the word ‘Devil’  written in red, Gothic-style letters against a black background, Trevor L. Todd  told The National Enquirer, something which he said was ‘weird’ and ‘gave him  the chills’.

The FBI are trying to piece together his  smashed up hard drive to see if his online footprint will reveal any motive for  the killing, but they strongly believe he made use of devil-worshiping and  suicide sites and boasted of his murder plans on message forums.

I actually saw claims by atheists that this turd was a “Christian” because his desperate, troubled mother took him to church a few times.

You moral idiots, I can not only walk into a garage, but even lie down on the concrete and start calling myself a “car.”  If Adam Lanza was a “Christian” because somebody else took him to a church and he sat in the pew, I guess that makes me a “car.”  Let’s see four of you moral imbeciles climb into me and start driving me down the road on my nonexistent wheels.  I hope I’ll get really crappy gas mileage, just to irritate you.

Let’s get one thing straight.  Rather than banning guns, let’s try banning all these idiotic and depraved worldviews instead.

Now, some of you are shouting that that would violate the Constitution.  But that never stopped you leftists before.  Just as it’s not stopping you now as you stomp all over the 2nd Amendment.

The day that you secular humanist liberals manage to melt every gun down and turn it into ploughshares – as the Holy Bible declares that Messiah will one day do during the Millennium when He reigns as King of kings and as Lord of lords – then you won’t be a crazy fascist nutjob.  Until then, you are crazy fascist nutjobs.  Because the simple fact is that you CAN’T ban guns; you can only pass laws that prevent LAW-ABIDING citizens from being able to legally buy them as criminals couldn’t give less of a damn about your stupid laws.

I pointed out this inconvenient truth about other Dianne Feinstein attempts to stop crime by criminalizing legal products.  Thanks in large part to liberal Democrat Feinstein, it is now incredibly difficult for anyone to purchase pseudoephedrine – a prime ingredient of “meth” and “crank” – except for the criminals who have explodied meth production as a result.  Her proposed ban on assault weapons does little more than treat law-abiding citizens like criminals even as liberals treat criminals like law-abiding citizens.

Secular humanist liberals stupidly think that human nature is something infinitely malleable, something they can mold and shape by replacing God with “the State.”  They foolishly think that the GUN has the depraved worldview rather than the mind of the person who is pulling the trigger.  They think that they can control human behavior by controlling human environment.

In reality, they are the very ones who are producing these sick, evil minds.  In reality, when you criminalize guns you only allow the criminals who don’t give a damn about your stupid laws to possess them.  In reality, when you criminalize guns, you only keep law-abiding citizens from having the means to protect themselves.

By the way, Adam Lanza parked his vehicle in a fire lane.  I know that’s impossible, because it’s illegal to park in a fire lane.  But that’s what he did.  That’s the “respect” psychos have for your stupid laws.  That’s how successful all your stupid laws are in deterring crime.  And in the same way, NONE of the bans or regulations that Obama is proposing as he hypes and demagogues Newtown would have done ANYTHING to prevent the very mayhem that he is so cynically exploiting.

A pro-2nd Amendment rape victim asked the question, “How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?”  I demand that question be answered.

How does it?  How does abrogating the right and the ability of self-defense to the government – a government whose president literally fearmongered to take away the police as he deceitfully demagogued the sequester – do that?  Why should I surrender my own security and protection as a law-abiding citizen to a president who literally threatened to withhold the police protection that I would as a result of his policies depend on for my survival unless I agree to his massive tax hikes?  Why should the American people make themselves hostages to an incredibly cynical political agenda?

Under secular humanism, i.e., under liberalism, no one is responsible for their actions – just as no one is to be given any credit for their hard work or the wealth that they earn as a result of their efforts – and therefore ANYBODY can go nuts at any time and therefore NO ONE should be allowed to possess a gun even as no one should be allowed to work hard and keep the wealth they earned.  Except liberals and the government they erect to advance liberal fascism.  Society is to blame when murders murder; society is to be credited when rich people work hard and become rich.  Individual responsibility and individual credit alike are anathema to the left.  We are herd animals; only the herd matters.

And liberals – who invariably manage to exempt themselves from all their edicts – hypocritically view themselves as having some sole mandate to rule over all others and crush all opposition to their rule.  Society is all that matters; and they get to dominate that society.

We find that Obama has been the WORST president when it actually comes to enforcing the gun laws already on the books.  Just as his home city of libturd Chicago is the worst city in the nation at enforcing the laws already on the books.  These people don’t want to protect the defenseless; they want to exploit the tragedies that their policies create in order to impose more fascist control over the people and render them more and more and more powerless to defend themselves and defend their Constitution from government tyranny.

Every single tyrant regime on earth – whether it be Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Kim Jong-Un’s North Korea – seized guns from the people before they imposed their godless agenda.  Every single one.  And now we’re following the same path toward slavery and the ultimate crushing of the human spirit.

That was the whole point of the 2nd Amendment: it was to be the people’s protection against future government tyranny.

Since we’ve already seemingly decided that the Constitution isn’t worth its weight in bovine manure, why don’t we just cut to the heart of the matter and ban something that will actually stop the mayhem???  Why don’t we ban secular humanism?  Why don’t we ban atheism?  Why don’t we ban murderous political systems masquerading as religious systems like Islam does?

In reality, over 55 million innocent human beings have been murdered by Obama’s demonic abortion hell pits.  As opposed to the relatively miniscule number of children killed in gun homicides.  If you care about children, why do you smile sweetly at the millions of precious babies murdered by your abortion???  Why should anybody give one damn when holocaust baby murdering liberals demand children be “protected” by fascist gun laws?  And why is it that it is LIBERAL cities like Obama’s home city of Chicago – rather than the pro-gun conservative areas – where all the children are being murdered as law-abiding people are rendered defenseless and helpless?  Why is it that the murderous policies of liberalism become the basis for even more murderous policies of liberalism?

We’ve got a Democrat doctor right now on trial for delivering numerous babies alive so he could have an easier time slashing their little spines and throats with his scalpel.  Just as we have a Democrat professor demanding that his students stomp on Jesus and everything Jesus stood for.

Why don’t we ban Obama?  Why don’t we criminalize the Democrat Party?

But of course we’re not going to do those things, are we?

The beast will be celebrated, worshiped and praised by the Democrat Party that actually voted to remove God from its Party platform.  He will be celebrated, worshiped and praised by the same Party whose representatives demanded that the idiot youth whose morally-warped minds Democrats have captured stomped on the name of Jesus.  He will be celebrated, worshiped and praised by the same Party that is now exalting in the homosexual sodomy that God in His Word declared to be an abomination.

That’s why when the beast of the Book of Revelation comes, there will BE no guns for people to protect themselves with.  And every single Democrat will eagerly worship the beast and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.

You’ll get yours, Democrat.  In the exact same place where the Columbine killers are already getting theirs.  Your day is coming.

As a P.S. of how liberalism is to blame for these savage murders, it turns out that thirty years ago, a family could petition a court to declare a family member crazy and have him or her committed.  But guess who decided that was inhumane?  You guessed right: ACLU liberals.  Liberals, understanding that liberalism is a mental disease, figured that it was better to keep these psychotic lunatics outside where they could vote Democrat than locking them up and putting them in rubber rooms where they belong.

As a P.P.S. of how liberalism is to blame for these savage murders, it similiarly turns out that Hollywood liberalism is responsible for both the violent movies – which glorify violence – and the video games that literally teach kids how to kill while desensitizing them to the violence they commit.  And again, liberals, apparently understanding that they are entrenching a violence-laden culture, could do something about this problem they created if they wanted.  But they would rather cynically exploit their culture of violence by blaming it on guns.  And of course, on Republicans.

Should I add a P.P.P.S. about liberals and rap music that glorifies violence, hostility toward women and the lowest form of gang-banging nihilism???

Advertisements

Obama White House, State Department LIE Exposed: There Were NO Demonstrations Over Movie Clip Prior To Terrorist Attack On Consulate In Libya

September 18, 2012

An article ran on Yahoo News cuts right to the gist of the crucial issue about this story:

The Obama administration’s claim that the murderous Benghazi attack was a unpredictable byproduct of a spontaneous protest gives White House officials a short-term way to fend off media questions.

Any investigation may create a damaging pre-election scandal for the president, who touted his ability in 2008 to build peace between the United States and conflict-prone Muslim countries.

But accumulating media reports — and Libyans’ statements — suggest the administration severely underestimated the danger of jihadis in Libya, many of whom have seized weapons from the armory of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. (RELATED: Susan Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations: ‘We’re quite popular in Libya’)

It is frankly amazing that no matter how much information has come flooding out that proves the White House and the State Department completely wrong and in fact flat-out lying, they are holding to that same story nevertheless.  White House Press Spokesman Jay Carney had this to say:

JAKE TAPPER: [unintelligible] that the anniversary of 9-11 would be a time when you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, there, we, are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9-11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on the precautions being taken. [crosstalk] But let’s be clear. This, these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. [crosstalk] We don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned…attack.

More from Jay Carney:

 “This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.”

Obama’s handpicked U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice had this to say:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

The facts scream that these people and the administration itself are simply LIARS.

There were NO demonstrations going on prior to the attack on the US Consulate in Libya, as Obama’s “cover story” demands you believe.  Rather, the attack was a pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack that displayed command and control, coordinated movement, direct and indirect fire, all in a multi-pronged and well executed attack.  Oh, an attack that by “coincidence” just happened to occur on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says
Published September 17, 2012
FoxNews.com

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week’s attack — challenging the Obama administration’s claims that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam film.

“There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.”

The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG’s and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.

The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.

“There wasn’t a single ant outside,” the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview.

These details appear to conflict with accounts from the Obama administration that the attack spawned from an out-of-control protest. The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance.

U.S. officials, in response to the claim that there was no demonstration at the time of the attack, told Fox News there was a small protest earlier in the day — but they did not dispute that there was no significant or sizeable demonstration at the time.

But a senior Obama administration official told Fox News on Monday morning that the Libyan president’s comments are not consistent with “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community,” which has been investigating the incident, and are accordingly not credible.

“He doesn’t have the information we have,” the U.S. official said of Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif. “”He doesn’t have the (data) collection potential that we have.”

The Libyan leader told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the government in Tripoli harbors “no doubt” that the Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was “preplanned, predetermined.” That assessment conflicted directly with the preliminary conclusion offered on Sunday by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who appeared on all five Sunday morning talk shows.

There, Rice maintained that the Benghazi incident “was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video,” and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, “those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”

Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident – the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks — was simply a coincidence, the senior U.S. official said on Monday: “It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events. In all of the intel and traffic, there was no one out there saying, ‘Oh, it’s September 11th, we must avenge…'”

The senior U.S. official added that this is “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community at this point,” and that Rice “was not out there volunteering her own opinions.”

The official also discounted as “not accurate” reports that staff at U.S. embassy in Egypt warned the State Department — in a cable purportedly sent on the afternoon of Sept. 10 — about the effect the anti-Islam video was having, and the likelihood of violent protests in Cairo, but received no response from Washington.

“There was cable traffic, involving discussion of the video and the potential for protests, the Embassy was aware,” the U.S. official told Fox News. “There were discussions about protests between the relevant agencies — intel and State — but the idea that there was no response from State is false.”

Officials at the State Department and the White House continue to express satisfaction with the cooperation they are receiving from foreign governments in the protection of American diplomats and their families. This is said to be especially the case in those instances where President Obama has reached out to foreign heads of state, namely Egypt, Yemen and Libya.

Still, the State Department over the weekend — in a shift of plans that occurred sometime after Friday evening — announced the evacuation of diplomats’ family members and “non-essential” personnel from U.S. Embassies in Tunisia and Sudan, sites of some of the most violent scenes on Friday.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, James Rosen and Pamela Browne contributed to this report.

The president of Libya – who as president of his country would probably be surprised to learn that he has nowhere near the knowledge of what is happening in his own country than the CIA has – couldn’t have been much more clear:

“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told the liberal National Public Radio network.

Instead, the killing was a military-style attack, he said.

And if that isn’t clear enough:

On Sunday, Libya’s president refuted the White House’s claim that the Benghazi attack was a simple anti-video protest that went berserk.
 
“We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate,” el-Megarif said.

There are now anti-American protests going on in 33 different Muslim countries.

Anti-Obama?  Yep.  The mobs of demonstrators in Cairo, Egupt chanted, “Obama, Obama, there are still one billion Osamas.”

And they burned pictures of Barack Obama in effigy in cities like Karachi, Pakistan.  While Obama watched lots of football.  And tweeted about Beyonce and Jay-Z, you know, to show “he was in touch.” 

In fact, they burned American flags and pictures of Obama pretty much all over everywhere.

It would be inappropriate for me to suggest that all Obama did while the Middle East burned was to watch football games and tweet about Beyonce and Jay-Z.  He did more than that.

He also squeezed in an interview with a radio host who calls himself “Pimp with a Limp” (although he had to skip some more of those silly Daily Intelligence Briefings) to do so.

As was the phrase, “Death to America!”

I’d say that Jay Carney is about as documented a liar as you can get with his “not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.”  And both he and Susan Rice are just so full of crap and so dishonest when it comes to declaring that an obviously preplanned attack was “spontaneous” that it is beyond unreal.

Caught in so many transparent, documented lies that its beyond belief, Obama has now instructed his State Department to play his “Fast and Furious” game and refuse to answer any more questions.

The mainstream media have a plan, though: cover for their failed messiah at all costs and make sure to demonize Mitt Romney at every single opportunity.

What Is There To Fear About Islam (Besides Its 1,400 Year Record Of Terrorism)

September 17, 2012

Dr. Bill Warner, founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI), answers the 1,400-year-old question why we are and should be afraid of Islam:

Transcript:

00:09 As I told you on 9/11, I suddenly realized it was my task to make difficult books readable,
00:14 which is what I have done on the back table.
00:17 I sometimes describe myself as a man who reads big, thick, old books
00:21 and writes modern small books that anyone can understand.
00:24 And actually, I rather enjoy it. I don’t surf the web.
00:27 People are disappointed when they run into me sometime, and some other counter jihadist asks,
00:30 ‘Have you seen my website?’ No.
00:33 I don’t even go to my own website.
00:37 I have very little interest in the web, except for ‘Craig’s List’, yahoo headlines and Drudge. That’s it.
00:43 So, I like reading big, thick, old books. I really do.
00:48 I thought when I got my books written in which the Qur’an was easy to understand,
00:53 here’s Mohammed easy to understand, all these books on shariah and everything were easy to understand.
00:59 I thought, ‘we win’.
01:01 No. We don’t even have game.
01:03 Cause, what I discovered was, other than a minority few – and trust me you are so minor.
01:09 Everyone else’s reaction to the knowledge, to the answer to the question,
01:14 ‘What is the true nature of Islam?’ – react in fear, hatred and anger.
01:22 When I try to explain to people something about Islam, they are terrified.
01:27 So, I thought people would run when I got my books published.
01:29 And, indeed, they did run – away from me.
01:34 So, I thought there was just one great question. . .’what is the true nature of Islam?’
01:38 But, I found there was a second question, more important.
01:42 Why are we afraid to know Islam?
01:46 Now, remember when I told you about stories?
01:50 Here’s the thing. My books are factual.
01:54 They work here. [Dr. Warner points to his forehead at the temple.]
01:56 But in dealing with human beings, you are going to make a sale.
01:59 Any salesman will tell you this.
02:00 Facts are secondary to feelings.
02:04 And where you get the feelings is from stories, amongst other places.
02:08 I begin to think about ‘why is everyone so afraid, even though they don’t know anything.
02:14 Well, it turns out, they do know little figments of stories about Islam, that involve violence.
02:20 And the knowledge that they were into the slave trade does not come as a shock, really.
02:25 So, remember that I told you about the house of Sufism was a palace with a smell coming up from the basement?
02:33 Everyone smelled that smell.
02:35 They just don’t want to talk about it.
02:38 But it’s somewhere deep in the back, almost primordial mind.
02:45 So, the problem is we don’t know the history of Islam.
02:49 We don’t know the answer to this question. . .[Dr. Warner points to screen]
02:56 This is the World of Islam. How did it happen?
03:00 You can ask very intelligent people, and they will not be able to give you the answer to this question.
03:05 How did North Africa go from being European and Christian to being Arab and Muslim?
03:11 How did that happen? And is that an important question?
03:18 How did the Middle East go from being Christian to Muslim? And is that an important question?
03:24 I think it’s an overwhelmingly important question.
03:29 All right. Now to understand how the Islamic World came about, we are going to
03:32 have to go about and see how Islam entered our world.
03:35 Now, to do that, Islam entered the world of the Byzantine Empire.
03:41 We know that in the Sira [Mohammed’s life] his last days were spent
03:45 killing Christians and subjugating them.
03:50 After he died, that process continued.
03:55 So, let’s describe the world that Islam invaded.
04:02 Now, we are told that the Roman Empire collapsed when the German Barbarians invaded Rome.
04:05 You all heard that story?
04:08 Well, that’s false. That is not true. It is wrong.
04:12 What happened was, after the German Barbarian tribes invaded Rome,
04:16 they set up their own version of the Roman Empire.
04:19 They retained classical culture. They spoke Roman.
04:23 They hired Roman philosophers and Roman attorneys to teach their children and run their schools.
04:31 They came into the Roman Empire, not to destroy the Empire but just to get the goods for themselves.
04:40 The eastern part of the Empire, called the Byzantine Empire is over here.
04:45 Now this is after the German invasion. The important point is this –
04:49 THEY WERE STILL A CLASSICAL EMPIRE. IT’S NOT COLLAPSED.
04:55 Then, after the fall of Rome, the Byzantines gradually exerted their political influence,
04:59 so now this was the new form of the Roman Empire.
05:03 This is the Byzantine Empire and it is about to be invaded. This is the classical world that Islam invaded.
05:11 Notice that the classical world is still up and running.
05:17 It’s critical to remember that. It had not – it was now weak but it was still up and running.
05:23 We are going to see what caused it’s collapse.
05:25 Here we see in twenty five years, three stages of development of the spread of Islam.
05:31 This is twenty five years work. How is it that the Arabs were able
05:35 to do to the Byzantine Empire what the Persians could not do in Iran?
05:45 Here is the answer to that question. It has to do with Iran, actually.
05:49 The Greeks and the Persians were having wars since forever.
05:53 The 300 at Thermopylae, that was about the Persians.
06:05 Alexander the Great defeated the Persians.
06:08 The Persians kept hammering on the Romans and Byzantines and 25 years before Islam invaded
06:12 there was one massive series of battles that left Persia weak and the Byzantine Empire very weak.
06:22 Then comes along the Black Plague. One person in three dies.
06:28 So the Byzantine Empire, when Islam invaded had been weakened
06:32 by a long war with Persia and the loss of a third of it’s population.
06:37 The economy had collapsed by two thirds. You think the Obama economy is bad? Try two thirds.
06:45 So, we had an empire that was weak invaded by a people with a mission.
06:53 Now what’s important here is, these three different shades of green represent the different Caliphs.
07:00 This Empire is beginning to build here, came from people who could be described as the apostles of Mohammed.
07:08 Why is it important to know that?
07:11 They knew Mohammed. They held his hand. One of them, Ali married his daughter.
07:16 Abu Bakr was his father-in-law. These people are not just brothers in the religious sense.
07:24 They are brothers in the family sense.
07:28 They knew Mohammed like I know my wife. And what did they do?
07:34 Did they go out preaching the qur’an? No they didn’t.
07:38 They picked up their swords, got on their camels and horses and went out attacking Christians and Persians.
07:49 That is, this is the true nature of Islam.
07:55 There you see it. This is the fruit on the tree. Massive destruction.
08:00 Now, notice something else that has happened here.
08:04 Egypt is the bread basket of the Mediterranean.
08:09 Syria, the heart of the intellectual world in the Classical Empire.
08:15 In twenty-five years, the Classical civilization lost it’s ability to feed itself and lost it’s biggest brain trust.
08:23 This destroys classical Christianity.
08:29 Christianity that we have today is a bloody stump of the original Christianity.
08:37 Why? This destroyed the heart of it. Transformed it.
08:42 The first stage of the annihilation of the Classical empire – gone. The heart of it is gone.
08:53 OK, a century later, notice over here in Spain, 750 AD, Spain is already Muslim.
09:03 This is rapid fire conquest. This is going to become very important – because this was not –
09:07 this happened, as it were, in the life of a nation – overnight.
09:12 This brutal assault is the key as to why we fear Islam.
09:20 Now then, you are next going to see history that have not heard before.
09:24 I’m not a historian, but I am a scientist and I can reason from data.
09:32 I knew once I read the story of Mohammed that I had been fed a pack of lies
09:36 about what caused the Dark Ages.
09:41 Roman Barbarians didn’t cause the Dark Ages.
09:44 You tell me they were too stupid to learn how to do Roman law and stuff? Of course not.
09:48 First off, why would – these Barbarians were Germans. These were the same people who made Germany.
09:56 They were very intelligent people. They didn’t cause the collapse.
10:00 But that is the classical theory. You go to Vanderbilt, that is what they will teach you.
10:07 Here we go with the data. There has recently been a lot of ancient classical works
10:10 translated into a database format, so it can be accessed.
10:19 There has been massive archaeological research under the ocean and at the edge of the Mediterranean.
10:23 From this archaeological research, we are able to track history and economies. That figure
10:27 that I gave you about how the economy collapsed, that came from the study of sunken vessels.
10:35 Because, if you’re not buying much – Let’s say one in ten ships is sunk –
10:39 that figure is not that high – but whatever.
10:44 If you see a lot of sunken ships, there was a lot of ships sailing around.
10:47 When they go down, the economy goes down.
10:50 So, from this data, we know a lot, and this in particular,
10:54 the database of ancient documents gives us 548 battles that Islam fought against the Classical world.
11:05 This is all new information. I have talked with people who consider themselves history buffs,
11:09 and they go, ‘let’s see, battles of Islam against Europe, let’s see we’ve got invasion at Tours,
11:13 we’ve got the invasion at Gibraltar, we’ve got Lepanto, Gates of Vienna – ok, that’s five.
11:25 You talk to a historian and those are the five battles they can scratch up.
11:33 And I remind you – you can have all of these slides if you send me an e-mail for it.
11:38 OK, what does this new data show us? It shows us this. See the white spots,
11:42 they are brand new battles and are going to change to red. The white, these are new.
11:47 Every time, I’m going to show you this all over again. Every tic is twenty years. The new battles
11:51 for that twenty year period come up in white, then they fade to red to show you the history.
12:02 So, whites are what’s happening right now, red has happened. Let’s see how these 548 battles act out.
12:14 We are going to watch in seventy seconds we’ll see twelve hundred years of conquest.
12:18 Look how fast this is happening.
12:23 Bam. You didn’t know France was hammered that hard, did you? You heard of Tours.
12:29 Watch what is happening in Spain, in the islands. Now, many of these raids and battles,
12:33 if they are at the coast line are slave raids.
12:37 The slaving that took place here was extensive and went on and on. All of this work was now. . .
12:41 we’re into the Golden Age of Baghdad. This is the punishment that
12:45 is being handed out to Christians everywhere.
12:54 In Spain, after one battle, there were, knights heads were cut off
12:58 and they made a pile so high that a man on horseback could not see over them.
13:08 All of the European civilization in North Africa is now gone.
13:16 Question from audience: ‘I have a question, have you read the thirteenth tribe?’ Reply: ‘No’.
13:22 Now pretty soon, and by the way, there will be a period of time – you can see the clock running up
13:26 here – there will be a brief blip of five battles that occur in North Africa – The Barbary Pirate Wars.
13:34 We’re on there. OK? Now then, Byzantium has fallen as Eastern Europe is being hammered.
13:38 Notice that it is relentless, it doesn’t stop:
13:54 This is the history that you are never told about.
13:58 This is the history that explains how all of this came about.
14:02 Now they are getting slower because Islam is becoming weaker.
14:19 Question from the audience: ‘Why was it becoming weaker?’ Reply:
14:24 ‘Corruption. All empires collapse from the inside, ultimately.’ OK.
14:31 I say that what caused the collapse of classical civilization was not a result of the invading
14:35 German Barbarian tribes. I say that classical civilization was destroyed by Islam.
14:45 Now comes a question. Why do we not want to know that? We are going to answer that question.
14:55 Now let me give you the headlines. With all those little dots, basically what I’ve showed you
14:58 is just ‘quantity’. OK? Relentless, but quantity.
15:02 We’ve given you twelve hundred years of battles in seventy seconds, now we’re going to go through,
15:06 in about four minutes, I’m going to give you the headlines from each century
15:10 so you’ll know the emotional tone of what is happening.
15:19 All right – seventh century. Mohammed sent Khalid out and the sword of Allah
15:23 to the Jazima tribe to offer Islam, they refused, he annihilated every one of them.
15:30 At the battle of Olayis in Iraq for two days he spent out rounding up the losers,
15:34 put them in a dry stream bed and cut off their heads until the stream ran with blood.
15:40 He then took the captain of the Zoroastrian Persian tribe, his wife was there.
15:44 He cut off the man’s head, let the blood drain into the soil and raped his wife in the bloody soil.
15:48 That was one of the companions of Mohammed.
15:55 This is the nature of jihad.
15:58 Where did Khalid learn how to do that? From Mohammed. From Mohammed at the Battle of Khaybar.
16:06 Umar conquered Jerusalem, and every Jew and Christian became a dhimmi
16:10 which is a third-class semi-slave.
16:15 For the next few centuries you are going to see ‘THE GOLDEN AGE’.
16:19 We’re taught this myth of ‘THE GOLDEN AGE’ – how wonderful Islam is.
16:23 So here is what is happening here in ‘THE GOLDEN AGE’.
16:27 They started attacking the Sind, which is the Hindus, 26,000 Hindus died.
16:33 Armenian nobles were herded into a church after a debate
16:38 and the building burned down on top of them. At Ephesus, 7000 Greeks are enslaved.
16:41 We’re still in ‘THE GOLDEN AGE’.
16:42 All new churches were ordered destroyed.
16:45 At Amorium, there was massive enslavement of all the Christians. The Egyptian Christians revolt
16:49 over the jizyah which is the dhimmi tax based on the shariah. Churches are burned, villages destroyed.
16:56 Tenth Century, we are still in ‘THE GOLDEN AGE’.
16:57 In Thessalonica, 22,000 Christians were enslaved. Christians massacred in Seville.
17:01 In Egypt and Syria, 30,000 churches destroyed. You have your religion, I have mine.
17:12 Still in THE GOLDEN AGE.
17:14 6,000 Jews of Morocco killed. Hundreds of Jews in Cordoba killed. 4000 Jews of Granada killed.
17:18 Georgia and Armenia invaded. In Hindustan 15,000 killed, a half million are enslaved.
17:22 A GOLDEN AGE is still upon us.
17:28 In Yemen, the Jews are given the choice of convert or die. Christians of Granada
17:32 are deported to Morocco. In India, many cities are destroyed under the order to convert or die.
17:36 In one town, 20,000 Hindus became slaves.
17:40 Still THE GOLDEN AGE.
17:43 50,000 Hindu slaves decided to get freedom by converting to Islam.
17:48 A new 20 year campaign created 400,000 new Muslims out of Hindus.
17:51 Buddhist monks butchered, nuns raped.
17:54 In Damascus and Safed, mass murder of Christians. Jews of Marrakesh massacred.
17:59 Tabriz – Forced conversions of Jews.
18:03 Still, we’re in THE GOLDEN AGE.
18:04 There are riots in Cairo. Churches are burned. Jews of Tabriz are forced to convert.
18:09 Tamerlane, one of the most evil men who ever lived massacred 90,000 Hindus in one day.
18:16 30,000 in another battle massacred in India in cold blood.
18:19 Another Muslim leader takes 180,000 Hindu slaves.
18:25 Oooops, we’re out of THE GOLDEN AGE. See if you can notice any change in tenor.
18:27 Tamerlane destroys another 700 villages in India. He then turned to Iraq
18:31 and destroyed the Nestorian and Jacobite Christians.
18:42 The Nestorian Christians – half of the silk trade from China was Nestorian Christian.
18:46 The Nestorian Christians had emissaries and missionaries in the Court of China.
18:50 Afghanistan was partly Christian. All right? Gone.
19:01 This is part of the destruction of the church that no one knows about.
19:07 Seven hundred years of attack, they finally destroy Constantinople.
19:10 Sixteenth Century
19:12 The son of Tamerlane destroys temples, forced conversions.
19:15 Two of his generals built two towers of human heads. Once again, you couldn’t see over them.
19:19 And then noble women, Hindu women started the practice of suttee
19:23 which was mass suicide in order not to become sex slaves inside of the sultans harem.
19:30 17th Century Jews of Yemen and Persia forced to convert. Forced conversion
19:34 of Greeks and Zoroastrian are persecuted in Persia and over half million Hindus killed.
19:44 18th Century, more Zoroastrian persecution, Jews of Jedda are expelled,
19:48 Jews of Morocco are massacred, Hindu persecution continues.
19:51 19th Century
19:53 More forced conversion of Jews in Iran, Jews of Baghdad massacred.
19:58 Oooops, quarter million Armenian Christians are slaughtered in Turkey.
20:02 Now then, in Persia, the Zoroastrians are completely annihilated.
20:03 Twentieth Century
20:07 Over one million Armenian Christians are killed. One million.
20:15 So, you now not only know the number of battles, you now see the tenor of what’s going on.
20:19 You now know quality and quantity.
20:26 Do you get the drift on how bad this was?
20:32 Now then, the establishment doctrine holds that classical collapse had nothing to do with Islam
20:36 and indeed, Islam was a source of good because the hillbilly Europeans lost their classical learning
20:40 and the shrewd, smart Arab Muslims preserved all the knowledge in THE GOLDEN AGE.
20:49 This is what is taught in our schools.
20:55 I maintain that it was annihilated by Islam.
21:00 OK, we now need – we’ve been talking about land here.
21:04 I now want to talk about water because classical civilization was based upon the Mediterranean Sea.
21:14 Egypt was part of the Mediterranean world. It was not part of the African world. OK?
21:23 Because to go from Alexandria, Egypt to Nigeria was a lifetime.
21:27 But you get on a ship and can be there in ten days.
21:32 Does this make sense? It was cheap transportation.
21:36 You could haul a ton of grain from Egypt to Rome for as much as it cost to send 75 miles by ox cart.
21:44 This is important. I’m going to be driving back on the interstate after I finish talking here.
21:48 I do not expect to be attacked or shot at, on the way. I presume that the interstate is safe travel.
21:57 It used to be that way under the Roman peace. That ended.
22:03 The importance of naval work, as many as 500 boats could be in the harbor at Constantinople.
22:07 The collapse of the freedom at sea.
22:13 Let me show you something. We know this from history. The data.
22:17 Rome used to communicate with France by boat. After Islam,
22:21 they went over land through the Alps. Why did they do that?
22:25 There was no longer freedom of the sea.
22:33 Here’s interesting – the black plague was a known problem in the Mediterranean. It used to take
22:37 four months to get from here to Constantinople because there was sea trade going back and forth.
22:45 Well, that was eliminated. So now when there was an outbreak of the black plague,
22:49 it went from harbor to harbor to harbor all around here and it took four years to get to here.
22:58 Do you see the point that I’m making? It was that little freedom of trade. As a merchant striking out to
23:02 do business, you could wind up with your ship gone, your goods gone, and you’re in chains/enslaved.
23:13 By the way, this cuts down a lot on commerce.
23:20 A brag . . . the Christians couldn’t float a plank on the inland sea.
23:25 What did this do? It isolated Europe. It impoverished Europe.
23:30 So, you know the business of the Barbary pirates? Same – Same.
23:42 It is the Sunna. ‘The Sunna’, ‘The Way of Mohammed’
23:46 There is a famous hadith which is repeated endlessly in which Mohammed awakes in a dream
23:50 and he sees his jihadists sailing the inland sea.
23:57 Islam always practices, where possible, economic warfare. Mohammed attacked caravans.
24:07 What was attacked in New York? Oooo, World Trade Center. This [Dr. Warner points to screen]
24:15 Economic warfare. I am an admirer of Islamic civilizational war methods.
24:22 They are superior to everyone else’s thinking in war. They use everything for war.
24:25 Everything, including the womb.
24:27 This was an economic jihad.
24:31 There were three. . .remember the Dark Ages? Well, there were three Dark Ages.
24:39 One in Europe – One in Turkey – One in North Africa.
24:45 You weren’t told that, were you? I wonder why?
24:49 Here we see some ruins
24:51 What is the importance of these ruins? Well, they are up and standing.
24:54 What happened to all the ruins in Rome?
24:57 Well, the people that were still living there were using them as quarries.
25:00 They harvested them. The Coliseum remained simply because it was so big.
25:05 What does this tell us here? If all this stone is still stacked up. There were no people.
25:11 The invasion of North Africa was so brutal and so fast that it actually left in the harbor a layer of silt.
25:19 Here’s how that happened.
25:22 North Africa used to be farmland, irrigated farmland.
25:26 The Romans, clever men that they were – put along the roads in North Africa,
25:30 olive trees for shade and for keeping the roads fixed for free.
25:35 Because all that happened is, you would bid on buying a lease for a stretch of Roman road
25:39 in North Africa. You maintain the olive trees and the road, and you got to keep the olives.
25:47 So, the Romans got money from selling the lease and then they got the road fixed for free,
25:51 and someone has a business making money.
25:55 Is this clever, or what?
25:59 That all ended. The invading Arabs were not farmers. They were herdsmen.
26:02 The people there were Christian, and so therefore, the goat –
26:06 the average Arab family would own fifty goats.
26:12 They put their goats out into the fields of the Christians. The Christians,
26:16 as dhimmis would have no right to protest.
26:19 Between death and the erosion of crops, there was produced a layer of silt in the harbors.
26:29 That’s how brutal, hard and fast came this collapse of the economy in North Africa.
26:35 What was left for the European economy? Furs, lumber, swords and slaves.
26:43 We’re now really getting to one of the points where we don’t want to know this history.
26:49 Anybody here, all real proud about how some of your ancestors were taken off a coast in Italy
26:53 and then put into a harem in North Africa?
26:56 And now you have children from that? Distant relations?
27:01 You see, you may have distant relations in the Arab world you don’t know about
27:05 because a million Christians were sold into slavery.
27:10 And, by the way, the Venetians helped to do that.
27:16 And another embarrassing piece of news is this, the Jews were very big
27:19 in the trans-Mediterranean slave trade.
27:22 Nobody comes out of this looking good. No one looks good.
27:26 You also begin to say, I don’t really want to know anything about this history at all.
27:32 OK? Are you catching on here?
27:37 The other thing we are told is so bad about Christianity and so pitiful
27:41 about those poor Muslims are The Crusades.
27:46 Who’s ever heard this? Well, the Christian Crusades, that’s so embarrassing. Gosh, we went out
27:50 of Europe and went over there and invaded the Arab lands and then we killed them and hurt them.
27:55 I’ve heard preachers wallow in pity about how drastically bad The Crusades were.
28:05 All right.
28:08 Islam destroyed 30,000 churches. The Jews and Christians were dhimmis.
28:11 There was infinite brutality against Christians. Christians were fleeing the Middle East.
28:15 The Byzantine emperor appealed to the Pope, ‘Help us, please.’
28:23 Now this was a big thing to do because the Byzantine emperor and the Pope
28:27 did not get along at all. But these were desperate people.
28:31 What did the Pope look out and see?
28:35 This is the world that he saw in 1100, the time of the first Crusade.
28:40 Well, let’s see, there’s much of Spain is Muslim and we’re getting our behind kicked
28:44 on a regular basis. Oh, well, this Christianity is gone. Whoops, this Christianity is gone.
28:55 And look at all the battles in the areas that are still Christian.
29:01 Do you see the geopolitical problem the Pope was facing here?
29:06 This was not just some, you know we’ll just saddle up our horses and go steal from them Arabs –
29:10 which is what you are told.
29:12 This is the political picture.
29:16 Now then, let’s look at a battle map for the Crusades. Let’s be fair,
29:20 I’ve showed you the jihad map. Now here comes the Crusade Battle map.
29:32 We’re almost done. . .that’s it.
29:39 Now we’re told that the Crusades are the moral equivalent of jihad
29:43 and therefore we need to be ashamed and whine and cry.
29:48 The Crusades were defensive. They lasted three hundred years.
29:51 The last one was over eight hundred years ago.
29:54 All the jihad was offensive, lasted fourteen hundred years and is still happening right now.
30:00 In all probability, there are Christians being slaughtered in Nigeria today.
30:07 Now, is this moral equivalence?
30:14 Why, why, why won’t they teach this in a church school?
30:20 So, the ministers will stump ‘Oh, the Crusades were just so terrible’.
30:24 No. The Crusades were one of the few times the church put steel in its spine.
30:29 Then we apologized for it.
30:32 Now then, let’s go to ‘the great benefits of Islam’.
30:36 We’re told about two different ‘Golden Ages’.
30:39 We’re told about al Andalus, the wonderful empire in Spain in which there was multicultural peace.
30:47 Jew and Christian and Muslim all lived together in a ‘Golden Age in Europe’.
30:51 You ever heard that?
30:56 This is the battle map of the ‘Golden Age in Andalus’.
31:03 Now while all this is going on, orders for slaves are being filled.
31:07 The first slave order out of Spain was the Caliph ordered up three thousand blonde virgins.
31:15 They were shipped out of Spain. Battles are going on in which Christian Knights die.
31:24 But notice something here, the Christians won’t quit fighting.
31:30 This is going to take seven hundred years and is going to be nearly two hundred –
31:34 over a hundred fifty battles fought.
31:37 A question from the audience: ‘Where was this Caliph located?’
31:40 Reply: ‘There was more than one Caliph at the time. This was a Caliph in North Africa.
31:50 Now then, looking at this, do you understand why when Isabelle and Ferdinand
31:54 were finally in full power, they told every Muslim in Spain to get out of here?
32:00 They drove everyone out.
32:05 OK. My question to you is this. Was Andalus a multicultural ‘Golden Age’ or ‘Reign of Terror’?
32:13 I claim it was a ‘Reign of Terror’ and it was not a ‘Golden Age’ at all.
32:17 And yes, there were a few people who had it good.
32:21 The elites had it good. There were some rich Jews and rich Christians that had it good.
32:27 Otherwise there was constant war and slavery.
32:29 Christians had to wear robes so that you could tell a Christian from a block away.
32:33 And a Christian couldn’t carry a sword and paid special taxes.
32:38 Then we come to the question, ‘why are we told this story?’
32:41 Now we have the Baghdad Golden Age.
32:47 Here we go. This is all the battles that were fought during the period of ‘The Golden Age in Baghdad.
32:56 Now, not only are they being as busy as they can in killing Christians, but they are
33:00 also busy establishing the shariah doctrine. They are also busy establishing the hadith doctrine.
33:04 And they are also busy doing things like slave trading. You know all those exotic photo pictures
33:08 you’ve seen of the harem. The sort of pre-Playboy sexy? Beautiful women wearing gauzy outfits.
33:20 All of those women were Christians. Less romantic sounding, isn’t it?
33:26 The other thing that is happening in Baghdad is this, a new philosophy is being generated
33:30 in which there is no cause and no effect.
33:35 This turns out to paralyze the mind.
33:41 OK. Those were all the battles that were fought during the mythical ‘Golden Age’
33:48 During the ’Golden Age’, Christians and Jews were dhimmis. Christians were sex slaves.
33:52 Here’s one that gets me. During this Baghdad ‘Golden Age’ there evolved a philosophy
33:56 in which there were no laws of nature and there was no cause and effect.
34:04 I’m a scientist. We work off of two laws. The law of contradiction – does the data contradict the data?
34:12 And the law of cause and effect.
34:15 I’ve just explained to you why in the ‘Golden Age’ you don’t find
34:18 Muslims getting Nobel prizes in science.
34:21 You cannot be a scientist and not believe in cause and effect! You just can’t. It won’t work.
34:32 Now then, the Christians did all the translation of the vaunted ‘Golden Age’ texts and, get this,
34:36 we’re told that this was such a great peak of learning? They destroyed 90% of the books.
34:40 And we’re told the remaining ten percent they preserved is like. . .
34:43 ‘Oh, this was the ‘Golden Age’. Oh, we live in eternal gratitude to the Muslims.’
34:47 If they hadn’t come along, we’d have had 100% of them!
34:55 Presented with the library in India, the largest library in the world was a Buddhist library in Nalanda.
35:04 They came to him and reported they exist after they conquered and they said,
35:07 ‘What should we do with the library?’
35:10 The order from the general was this. . .’if it contains any information that is in the Qur’an –
35:14 we already have it, burn it. If it contains any information that is not in the qur’an, it is false, burn it.’
35:24 The same was done with most all of the libraries.
35:28 Why are we told this was some wonderful ‘Golden Age’ that preserved knowledge for us?
35:33 Ottoman Empire 1683. The reason I have this up here is Islam in Europe.
35:43 That’s the world today. I’ve now explained to you how this world came about.
35:46 It came about through relentless, brutal persecution of everyone who was not a Muslim.
35:54 Now then, let’s change to modern times. All of that work stops in 1922.
35:58 This works off of a data base of 19,000 jihad attacks since 9/11.
36:03 Things like this, the date/the country/the city/how many killed/injured/and a description.
36:11 Now, when you present a guy like me with 19,000 pieces of data, I start asking questions.
36:14 How do we make this make sense? So let’s make it make sense.
36:19 By the way, you did hear about all these 19,000 attacks in the Tennessean and the local paper,
36:23 didn’t you? (audience chuckles loudly in the background)
36:25 You did hear about this, it was on the nightly news?
36:28 [A male audience member mentions he heard about Fort Hood
36:30 and a female audience member reminds him: ‘the workplace incident’.]
36:33 Oh, the workplace incident, yeah, I got that.
36:35 All right. OK. Moving along here.
36:37 This, by the way, is where all these took place, if you think that is interesting.
36:41 You’ll notice something.
36:45 This is the Islamic world and it all centers around it. But notice how much is happening in Europe?
36:50 I take the data and I parse it and I divide it. I use Islamic doctrine to analyze this data.
36:58 What does Islamic doctrine insist on?
36:59 Well, in my first lecture, I told you they are fixated on the kafir. Right?
37:03 So, I use the kafir to analyze this data from the Islamic standpoint.
37:07 See I’m the ultimate multi-culturalist. No, really. (audience chuckles)
37:13 I’m the only person you’ve ever met that analyzes Islam on the basis of Islam. Here we go.
37:18 Here we have, in the last ten years, the total number of attacks.
37:23 In the green we have Muslim-on-Muslim violence. You mean a Muslim will kill a Muslim?
37:27 (audible audience reaction) Really? They’re doing this is Syria as we speak, right?
37:34 Remember Iran and Iraq? OK.
37:37 Then we have the only one I care about. I mean, my motto here is
37:41 ‘sell weapons and intelligence to the loser.’ [audience chuckles]
37:47 I’m very serious. You think I’m joking. [audience collective response, ‘no’].
37:51 OK. Here’s our story, right here. . .it stays pretty level. That’s interesting.
37:58 By the way, there is hardly a day in which there is not a jihad attack.
38:01 Modern jihad is relentless and classical. Oh, by the way, one of the things
38:05 this curve proves right here, Islam is bad for kafirs, Islam is bad for Muslims.
38:13 Islam is bad to Muslim and non-Muslim. That’s what this data shows us. You want to argue with that?
38:20 OK. Modern jihad is relentless but what did we see in the other battle map? It was relentless.
38:26 There are two types of jihad – against kafir and against Muslim. You see, evidently to kill a Muslim –
38:30 the reason in Syria they are killing other Muslims – they are not ‘real’ Muslims. OK?
38:37 Now then, we’ve introduced however, a new phenomenon – the mom & pop,
38:41 non-state jihadi shop. OK?
38:46 All those battles up until 1922 were out of the Caliph. OK?
38:52 We now have non-state jihad. That is all that is different.
38:59 OK. Jihad attacks per year, I just chose the top four nations, but this doesn’t really give us
39:03 what we want because Israel is teeny weeny and India is great big. . .so let’s do this on per capita:
39:11 Now then, Israel? I bet you were surprised about Thailand.
39:15 You didn’t know that Thailand was getting whacked on a regular basis, did you?
39:20 And look, here’s a Christian nation, the Philippines ranks number three. In India it was Hindu.
39:24 Oooops, do you know what? I just told you jihad was against the Jew, the Buddhist,
39:28 the Christian and the Hindu.
39:32 This is the data. Now you go to these dialogues these multi-cultural snoozes
39:36 that they have with the preacher and the rabbi and the imam show up.
39:45 The preacher and the rabbi show up to tie, the Muslim shows up to win.
39:48 And then what does the Muslim tell them? ‘Oh, the Christians and the Jews,
39:52 they are the people of the book. Oh, we have – we’re brothers in the religion of Abraham
39:56 with the Christian and the Jew. You know, we’re practically the same. We’re brothers in Abraham.
40:00 How’s that stuff work out? Well, here’s one of your people of the book. Here’s another people of the
40:04 book. Turns out they’ll kill a Jew, a Buddhist, a Christian, or a Hindu just as fast as they will another.
40:14 So much for being ‘brothers in the religion of Abraham’.
40:18 The data does not support the theory, therefore the theory is wrong.
40:22 There is no brotherhood of Abraham except in the minds of the people who occupy pulpits.
40:31 The jihad is against the Jew, the Buddhist, the Christian and the Hindu and the Secularists,
40:35 by the way. The Secularists are the worst of all.
40:39 Well, maybe worse than the Hindu, well it’s hard to know. I mean really.
40:43 It’s against ALL kafirs. That’s what the jihad is against.
40:48 The Religion of Peace. Here we go:
40:50 548 battles, 19,000 jihad attacks, in twelve decades in 1400 years that are jihad free.
41:00 Therefore, Islam is 91% violence and 9% peace.
41:04 So, George Bush was 9% right when he declared Islam a religion of peace.
41:08 Constant violence is why. There is a doctrine.
41:11 The doctrine of jihad is found in the Sira, Koran and Hadith
41:14 We’ve already been over this. They don’t like kafirs.
41:19 We have a whole doctrine of jihad written in the text.
41:23 Islam was only successful through jihad, therefore, we have a doctrine
41:27 which produces jihad and it produces this effect in the collapse of civilizations.
41:34 Here we go. . .Tears of Jihad
41:37 270 million dead over fourteen hundred years. Read them and weep. The doctrine drives history.
41:44 History shows the true nature of political Islam. Political Islam is the enemy of all Kafir civilizations.
41:51 Here’s an intellectual history in fourteen hundred years. I’ve read a lot of old documents.
41:55 They never talk about the Muslim. They talk about the Arab, the Turk, the Moor,
41:59 al Qaeda, Asian. . .and it’s always been by specialists.
42:05 And today, all the establishment specialists are apologists for Islam.
42:10 Why was the qur’an code not cracked until recently? How come we don’t teach Mohammed
42:14 and why is the ‘Golden Age’ propaganda taught?
42:17 Why do we remain ignorant and keep suffering? I maintain there is a reason for this.
42:24 I maintain that this constant brutality over the centuries has produced in the Western mind
42:28 the equivalent of the abused dog, the beaten wife and the raped child.
42:33 We do not think correctly. Anybody seen the beaten dog cower when you approach it.
42:38 That is the Western mind.
42:42 We deny the attacks. How much jihad is ever reported?
42:46 The churches will not even admit that a Christian suffers anywhere.
42:50 Fear. Mohammed used fear. Any public critic of Islam, has a certain fear element there.
42:56 Guilt. ‘Oh, we haven’t treated Islam right. If we treated them better, everything would be good.’
43:02 We don’t teach the history.
43:05 We’re humiliated. Who here is going to go home to brag about how your ancestors were slaves,
43:09 how your history was annihilated and that all we teach is the lie of ‘The Golden Age’?
43:16 Have you not noticed since 9/11 how bitter and angry politics has gotten?
43:20 The reason is, we are not allowed to get angry at the enemy.
43:25 We get angry with each other.
43:27 We’re powerless. Anybody want to debate about this?
43:34 The Abuser. Muslims will not admit they sold a single slave or ever killed a person.
43:38 They are arrogant and self confident. Islam is perfect.
43:42 Islam means ‘submit’. They expect submission out of us and they get it.
43:48 Islam is the victim. After 9/11 I heard this. The real victims of 9/11 were the Muslims.
43:52 You heard that anywhere?
43:56 After fourteen hundred years of jihad brutality and slavery, theft, deception,
43:60 rape, annihilation and insults the kafir mind has become identical to that of the abused victim.
44:05 Our only solution is to face our history and welcome it and embrace it. This is exactly
44:09 the way we will heal our nation is the way we heal a person who has been brutalized.
44:20 You have to go back to the original event. And this is why we are afraid. Thank you.

Obama’s ‘New Beginning’ Chickens Finally Coming Home To Roost As More Than 20 Muslim Countries Violently Riot Against America

September 15, 2012

Here are some things Messiah Obama said in his grand “Apologize for America” speech in Cairo back in 2009:

  • I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect…
  • So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
  • Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country.  The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.  We are taking concrete actions to change course.  I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

Obama ordered Gitmo to be closed by early next year, he said in June 2009.  But it’s kind of weird; here it is September 2012 and APPARENTLY SOMEHOW NOBODY BOTHERED TO LISTEN TO HIS STUPID ORDER.

That and the fact that our hoity-toity, self-righteous, sanctimonious little weasel-in-chief proclaimed America an evil nation of torturers and hypocrites who threw our traditions and ideals in the garbage can until Mr. Messiah the Magnificent came along as the “better angel of our nature.”  And of course Obama is very sorry for the evil torturer nation of reprobate hypocrites that America was before it traded Jesus for him but as our new messiah Obama promises we’ll never be evil or torturers or throw away our traditions and ideals ever again.

We’re so very sorry for getting angry that you attacked us and murdered 3,000 of us.  It was very un-American for us to get pissed and rise up, just as it was un-American when we responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by spending the next four tradition- and ideal-shattering years  kicking Japan’s ass across the Pacific.  But don’t you worry, Muslim world, under my magnificence, America will take concrete actions to change course so we never ever try to defend ourselves ever again.

Obama tells us that he was UNIQUELY qualified (which I suppose is why he’s such a messiah) by his own personal wonderfulness to bridge the gulf between Western Civilization and Muhammad and between Christianity and Islam.  He promised to give the world a “new beginning.”

And it’s just so damn wonderful.  I can’t tell you how many warm fuzzies I have.

Until I think about the fact that it was and is and will always be a projectile-vomiting joke.

More than 20 Muslim countries are violently rioting against the Great Satan right now.  Which can only mean that George W. Bush must still be president, I suppose.

If you would like to understand what is happening in the Middle East and why it is happening, watch this: you’ll learn more in 2 minutes than you’ve learned from Obama in four years.

Given the sheer audacity of arrogance that characterized Obama’s “Bush broke the world and I’m here to fix it” bovine feces, it’s actually kind of funny that Muslims actually have a higher approval of George W. Bush than they do of Barack Hussein Obama:

Perceptions of the U.S. and President Barack Obama have nosedived in the Arab World to levels lower than during the Bush administration, a remarkable reversal for Obama, who made a speech vowing a new era of relations with the Arab world shortly after being elected.

Russian Journalist Stabbed 20 Times For Insulting Islam (Which Is Precisely Why American Journalists Will Only Insult Christianity)

May 31, 2012

Poor  Sergei. If he’d only stuck with the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., etc. script and only attacked Christianity, he’d be fine now.

Fox News, of course, is very much hated by Allah for playing by a different script.

Journalist Assaulted In Moscow
11:39 29/05/2012
MOSCOW, May 29 (RIA Novosti)

Famous journalist and radio presenter Sergei Aslanyan has been assaulted late Monday night, Moscow police reported.

According to police, an unknown man called Aslanyan at 11.30 pm and asked him to come out for a talk. As soon as the Aslanyan left his house the man attacked him, hitting the journalist on the head and stabbing him on the chest, neck and an arm, before disappearing.

Aslanyan himself managed to call police and was later hospitalized at a major Moscow clinic where he was operated on. “The patient was brought last night to the operating room, now he is in intensive care,” said at the hospital.

Moscow police initiated an investigation over assault and seized CCTV footage hoping to establish the identity of the attacker.

It is believed the crime may be related to Aslanyan’s work. Newspaper Izvestia suggested it may be connected with provocative remarks by the journalist on religious themes

On May 14 on a live radio show on Radio Mayak, Aslanyan discussed the question of choosing a new car, and used the expression, “from rags to riches,” in the context of a discussion about the biography of the Prophet Muhammad, in a manner which has drawn condemnation from some parts of the Muslim community, with some pro-Islamic media publishing negative articles referring to the remarks.

The imam and the congregation of Kazan Zakaban Mosque and the Tatarstan community wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General of Russia, in which they stated that they were offended by Aslanyan’s comments.

The Islamic community is sensitive about perceived attacks on Islam, and its founder. The 2005 publication in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad led to a wave of protests and threats directed towards the newspaper.

In Russia, the November 2009 murder of Moscow priest Daniil Sysoev, who had been converting Muslims to Christianity, in St. Thomas’ church in southern Moscow has also heightened religious tensions in some sections of the community.

Sergey Aslanyan, who previously worked with liberal radio station Ekho Moskvy, has been with Radio Mayak since 2008, taking part in a range of programs. Radio Mayak confirmed that Aslanyan had been assaulted.

If 43 Muslim organizations had sued the George Bush administration, you can damn well bet that every mainstream media “journalist” in America would have “courageously” devoted their lives to making sure every voter knew what a horrible human being Bush was.

Cardinal Wuerl expressed the essence of the story the media are refusing to cover in a way that helps you to understand why the media is refusing to cove it:

WUERL: This lawsuit isn’t about contraception. It is about religious freedom. Embedded in the mandate is a radically new definition of what institutes a religious community, what constitutes religious ministry — brand new and never fortified in the federal level. That’s what we are arguing about.
 
The lawsuit said we have every right to serve in this community as we have served for decades and decades. The new definition says you are not really religious if you serve people other than your own and if you hire people other than your own. That wipes out all of the things that we have been doing, all the things that we contribute to the common good — our schools, our health care services, our Catholic charity and even parish soup kitchens and pantries. All that’s wiped out.
 
WALLACE: Let me pick up on that, because the White House says — the famous accommodation by President Obama, that they changed the mandates so that the insurance companies that you are dealing with, to provide health insurance coverage to your employees have to provide the birth control for free and that the charities and the schools and the hospitals, don’t have to do anything.
 
WUERL: This is one of the reasons why we say the accommodation didn’t change anything, because so many of our institutions, certainly the archdiocese, is self insured. We are the insurer.
 
So, when you say, don’t worry, we changed this and only the insurer has to pay. And we are the insurer, there is no accommodation.
 
WALLACE: But they’re saying, well, over the next year, we are taking public comment on this. And we will tweak that regulation so that the self insurers will not have to provide the birth control.
 
WUERL: Last time the government said we are going to hear from you, 200,000 suggestions went in and not one of them was accepted.
 
What was in the presentation before the request for suggestions was exactly what the administration reported out. By the way, it’s a law. It’s a law right now.
 
All of this conversation about we’ll find a way around it, that’s conversation. What’s law right now, is that that definition is what we are going to have to live with. And that’s why we went to court, because in the United States, if there is an impasse on the individual rights, we’re going to court and that way you scrape away all of the politics.
 
WALLACE: I don’t know if you’ve heard about this. But if you haven’t, I’ll inform you. What do you make of the fact that the broadcast network spent grand total of 19 seconds on their evening newscast — 19 seconds — covering the lawsuits by the 43 Catholic organizations; what do you make of that?
 
WUERL: Well, it is puzzling because they are focusing so much attention on the pope’s butler. It seems to me that somehow they missed the boat. And they missed the story.
 
And that’s why it is so important that we have a moment like this.
 
WALLACE: You think it’s political bias on the part of the networks?
 
 […]

 WALLACE: Meanwhile, Mitt Romney came out this week for allowing federal funds to be used by low income parents to send their kids to any public school or even to some private school and parochial schools. You support that idea, don’t you?
 
WUERL: The idea that money should follow the child, we all pay the taxes. We are all paying taxes for education. Why doesn’t that money follow the parents of the kids?
 
For example, here, if you live in the District of Columbia, if you are very wealth or have a lot of support, you can send your child to a very exclusive private school. But if you live in this inner city, if you live in some of the poorest neighborhoods, you don’t get an option.
 
That’s why the Catholic Church is there, that’s why we have our schools in the inner city saying we’ll give you a chance to get a decent education and we’ll pay for it. But wouldn’t it be fair, wouldn’t be just, wouldn’t be really honest if every child a chance at a real, true, academically excellent education. And one way to do that is to let the parents have a choice.

Archbishop Wenski put the essence of the gigantic story that the mainstream media has steadfastly refesued to cover thusly:

“As Catholics, we help people not because they’re Catholic, but because we’re Catholic. And so our schools, our universities, our Catholic charities, organizations, our hospitals admit people regardless of their faith. What the government is saying to us is that then, we’re going to have to operate hospitals for Catholics only?”

What does the mainstream media scream in place of covering such a story from such a perspective?

Of course, American “journalists” are also pretty much okay if they attack American servicemen, too.  Those bastard troops should obviously all die for protecting the Great Satan America and for supporting Mitt Romney by 24 points over the mainstream media messiah Obama.

Reflecting On 9/11 As An Islamic Religious Act

September 11, 2011

That’s what I said yesterday to a firefighter who was wearing a T-shirt that said, “9/11: We will never forget”: “Never forget?  I’m still not over being completely pissed off yet.”

And I’m not.

A friend in church basically said that we should get past 9/11 the way we have largely gotten past the Pearl Harbor attack.  The difference, I tried to correct him, was that a nation-state attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the U.S. rose up in vengeance and completely defeated that nation – bringing the same hell to the Japanese as the Japanese brought to us – and then transformed the defeated ruins into an ally.

That hasn’t happened yet with this virulent – and vicious – form of Islam.  Nor can we truly expect it to ever happen.  Because it wasn’t a nation-state that attacked us on 9/11; it was an ideology, a worldview, a religious system.  Both the worldview and the millions who adhere to that worldview are not defeated.  They continue to plot and to act.  And until they truly ARE defeated, there can be no rest from our vigilance as we seek to defend our freedom.

We have responded to 9/11 in terms of military, political and economic actions.  But at its core, 9/11 was a religious act.  And we have never responded to the religion that attacked us and dealt with it on the terms of religion.

There are a couple of distinctions that I would like to make to those who compare Islamic terrorism to the Christian Crusades.  After merely pointing out the historical fact that Muslims attacked and endangered the Christian Byzantine Empire first, and the emperor beseeched the Pope for assistance that in turn led to the Crusades.  One has to wonder why the side that fought back should be blamed for the war.

The distinctions that I make go beyond arguing over what happened in the past and hit right at the present.  Namely one, that the Qur’an demands violence in a way that the Christian Bible simply does not; and two, that Islam is an intrinsically political religion in a way that Christianity is not.

We all know of the passages that fundamentalist Muslims can recite to justify attacking the “infidels” of the West.  I don’t feel any need to recite them.  But Muslims point to a few passages in the Old Testament and say that Christians have the same problem with calls for divinely-sanctioned violence.

But the problem with that is that we don’t have a problem.

You see, there’s something called “The New Testament.”  It is actually anticipated in the Old Testament:

31Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” —Jeremiah 31:31-34

The New Testament book of Hebrews chapter 8 verses 7 through 13 references this passage to point out that Christianity is this New Covenant which was established by and in the Person of Jesus Christ and inaugerated in his last supper: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20).

And this same Jesus, when Peter cut off the ear of a servant with a sword when the mob came to arrest Jesus, said, “Stop! No more of this!” (Luke 22:51).  Jesus said, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

There is a vast difference between Jesus and Muhammad.  Where Muhammad was a man of violence who had been in more than thirty military campaigns in his life and who had another thirty planned at the time of his death, Jesus was not only a man of peace but the “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).  Given that Muhammad is the paradigm of Islam and that Jesus is the paradigm of Christianity, I argue that if you seek peace, it can ultimately be found only at the feet of the Prince of Peace.

Even other great inspirational figures representing entirely different religious systems have found this peace uniquely in the Person of Jesus.  Take Gandhi:

Gandhi found the supreme example of satyagraha within Jesus Christ. [Satyagraha is a Sanskrit word that Gandhi coined in 1920 meaning peace with persistance; it was the essence of Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance that liberated India].  Christ was the “Prince of satyagrahis,” according to GandhiGandhi wrote in his autobiography, “It was the New Testament which really awakened me to the value of passive resistance.  When I read in the Sermon on the Mount such passages such as, ‘Resist not him that is evil: he who smiteth thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also, and love your enemies, pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father which is in heaven’, I was overjoyed.”

People who understand history need to make an important distinction between the Bible and the Qur’an: whereas the Bible was written by more than forty authors over more than 1,500 years in a period of progressively unfolding divine revelation, the Qur’an was written by and within the lifetime of one single man.  In the case of the Bible, God inaugurated a covenant and in the context of that covenant promised that He would inaugurate a NEW covenant – which He did in the Person and work of His Son Jesus Christ in fulfillment of the old covenant.  And that is why when Christians read the Old Testament, they know that they are NOT to interpret the Old Testament passages calling for divinely-sanctioned violence in a literal way – but ONLY in a spiritual context as that same Jesus Christ taught us.  Whereas in the case of the Qur’an a man who committed savage acts of violence and even acts of outright genocide gives the same commands calling for divinely-sanctioned violence – and there is simply no avoiding the fact that Muhammad demanded, “Kill the enemies of Islam even as I taught you how to kill the enemies of Islam.”

To argue that there is any form of moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam when it comes to violence is simply not only fallacious but in fact asinine.

The second distinction that I shall proceed to make is the one between Islam (and Judaism) as a temporal and geographically-bound religion versus Christianity.

Muslims have have always had Mecca.  Jews have always had Jerusalem – which became a problem when Muslims decided to also take over Jerusalem.  What do Christians have?  Heaven.

Christians do not have a “Promised Land.”  There is no geographical location where Christians are promised a reward for occupying.

Thus, to the extent that CATHOLIC (not Protestant) Christians were to blame for the Crusades, it was in this confusion of trying to make “the Holy Land” some kind of “Kingdom of God on earth.”  It is a place of great historical significance where many historic events happened, but it is NOT the Christians’ “kingdom.”  It never was.

Jerusalem belongs to the Jews.  It always has, and it always will.  And any Christian who tries to take it from the Jews is committing a sin, not a holy act.

The reward of Christians is IN Christ and THROUGH Christ and WITH Christ.  There is no place on this earth that compares to His significance or to His glory.

As a Christian, I understand that ultimately, the Jews will recognized Jesus as their Messiah, and they will mourn for He whom they pierced – and will embrace their Messiah as their Lord and Savior – and Jesus will fulfill every promise that He made to His people the Jews as He sits upon the throne of David and reigns in Jerusalem as King of kings and Lord of lords.  I also understand that I as a Christian am not called upon to fight to secure Jerusalem for Jesus; but that HE WILL DO SO ENTIRELY BY HIMSELF.

This is the dilemma for Islam: it IS a militant religion.  It seizes and conquers by force, just as Muhammad taught and practiced.

Within one hundred years of the death of Muhammad, the armies of Islam had poured across Christian Europe and Africa.  Charles Martel – also known as Charles the Hammer – stopped the vast Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in France on the other side of the continent.  They also put to the sword everyone who would not embrace Allah in the very seat from which St. Augustine had taught in Africa.  They poured into Spain by the sword, ultimately to be stopped by El Cid.

Today, not dozens, not hundreds, not thousands, BUT MILLIONS of Muslims demand that Israel be wiped off the map and that Jerusalem be taken by force in the name of Islam.

For the record, I have never heard voices, nor heard a prophet, nor read it in my Bible, to seize Mecca in the name of Christ.

Osama bin Laden routinely called Christians “Crusaders,” but the sick fact was that no one was more of a “Crusader” in the pejorative sense of the word than he was; he went on a “Crusade” that brought him to New York City where he imposed his religion on nearly three thousand innocent Americans who had nothing to do with him or his “Crusade.”

My challenge for Muslims who acknowledge that Osama bin Laden does not speak for them, or for Islam, is to truly repudiate him IN PUBLIC IN FRONT OF OTHER MUSLIMS.  And to not only do this, but to explain in religious terms using the Qur’an to explain why Osama bin Laden was an infidel or unbeliever.  And why he is burning in hell right now for all eternity.

Because of the freedoms created by Christianity and recognized in Christendom, a Muslim is free to come to America and Europe and Spain and Africa and wave his Qur’an and preach that everyone should believe in Allah and that Muhammad is His prophet.  When ONE BILLION MUSLIMS demand that any Christian be equally free to go into ANY Muslim land and wave their Bibles and preach that everyone should believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God as their Savior and Lord, only then will Muslims have a valid point in claiming that Islam is not a religion of terror.

For what it’s worth, I recently received “the other side” in the form of a self-described fundamentalist Muslim named Germán who in fact renounces Osama bin Laden.  He left a couple of comments that would be appropriate here to an article I wrote entitled, “WHY Does Mainstream Media Propaganda Brand Norway Killer Breivik As A ‘Christian’ And A ‘Right-Wing Radical’?”

Jesus, The Glorious Conqueror Of Death, Also Conquered Circular Reasoning And Pseudo-History

May 2, 2011

I wrote an article on “liberal religion,” and how said religion was utterly empty of any meaning.  And pointed out that the total lack of liberalism to stand for anything outside of itself was the reason it is going the way of the Dodo bird.  And why militant Islam is growing in the void created by the emptiness of Western secular humanism.

Somone responded to that article by sneering:

“The only true religion is the Napkin Religion. It says so right here on this napkin.”

Sound like anyone you know?

Obviously this is a rather pathetic way of accusing me of circular reasoning.  The claim is being made, however poorly, that I believe the Bible because the Bible tells me to believe the Bible.

Aside from St Peter’s words –

“Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”  For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.  But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:3-7)

– Here was my response:

Actually it doesn’t.

We know more about Jesus’ death than virtually anyone else in humany history. And history has had this record to contemplate  for 2,000 years.

As a result of something amazing that happened, Jesus’ disciples went from cowardly men who only wanted to hide to bold proclaimers that they had seen Him alive even at the direct risk to their own lives. These one-time cowards then proceeded to go all over the known world, with all but one dying as martyrs testifying that Jesus was the glorious living Savior just as Jesus Himself had proclaimed Himself to be.

Look into the “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” argument. Was Jesus a cynical liar from hell? Or was Jesus mentally deranged? Or was He whom He said He was? Lord and God? It is a FACT that Jesus gave the most sublime moral teaching the world has evern heard. Even Gandhi would testify to this truth about Christ:

In the cross of Christ, Gandhi found the supreme example of satyagraha: Christ was the ‘Prince of satyagrahis’. “It was the New Testament”, wrote Gandhi [on page 92 of his autobiography], which really awakened me to the value of passive resistance. When I read in the Sermon on the Mount such passages such as, ‘Resist not him that is evil: he who smiteth thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also, and love your enemies, pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father which is in heaven’, I was overjoyed.”

Do you believe that the greatest moral teaching ever heard in this world came from a demonic liar or a deranged lunatic? I don’t.

Another question: given that the disciples of Jesus were in a unique position to KNOW FOR CERTAIN that Jesus was who He claimed, and that He truly rose from the dead; and given that they basically all died testifying to His Resurrection, let me ask you this: how many people do you know who would WILLINGLY DIE FOR SOMETHING YOU KNEW FOR CERTAIN WAS A COMPLETE LIE???

Muslim terrorists die for lies that they sincerely believe to be true. But the disciples were uniquely able to know for certain whether Jesus was standing before them or not, whether He could speak to them or not, whether they could touch Him or not. And they went out and proclaimed the Resurrection until they were killed for proclaiming it.

History also records that Christians in the hundreds of thousands or even in the millions died during the persecutions of the Roman emperors. History clearly records as reported by the BBC (when again, these first Christians were in a unique position of being able to verify the truth, to actually talk to actual witnesses of the Resurrection):

Christians were first, and horribly, targeted for persecution as a group by the emperor Nero in 64 AD. A colossal fire broke out at Rome, and destroyed much of the city. Rumours abounded that Nero himself was responsible. He certainly took advantage of the resulting devastation of the city, building a lavish private palace on part of the site of the fire.

Perhaps to divert attention from the rumours, Nero ordered that Christians should be rounded up and killed. Some were torn apart by dogs, others burnt alive as human torches.

Over the next hundred years or so, Christians were sporadically persecuted. It was not until the mid-third century that emperors initiated intensive persecutions.

Which means the persecutions against Christianity actually went from terrible to even worse. And while Islam grew by the spread of violence and threat of death, Christianity flourished under the reality of some of the worst and most murderous persecutions in human history.

The book of Hebrews recites some of the great past martyrs of God’s Word, and says that which we also proclaim of these martyrs soon to come:

“They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated, men of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground” (Hebrews 11:37-38).

And yet, because of the ROCK of Jesus’ testimony to the truth, Christianity flourished in spite of the worst efforts of the devil to stop it. It triumphed over the Roman Empire. It has triumphed over the world, with 2.3 billion followers today, according to the statistics that I show in my article above.

And with all that said, all I have to do is look at my calender. When I see it is “2011,” I know that it is 2011 Anno Domini, “In the year of our Lord 2011.” Because the very calender that you look at every single day testifies to the power of Jesus. And while some peoples maintain separate calenders, they have to know the one that testifies to Jesus Christ.

None of this is stuff I have to depend on my Bible to know: they are all documented facts of history. I put the record of history together, and then I read my Bible, and I see that the Bible teaches the Truth that Jesus came to testify to (see John 18:37).

Good luck with your worship of napkins. I’ll stick with my Jesus who confirmed who He was in human history by rising from the dead, just as He told His disciples He would do, just as His disciples proclaimed, and just as the Word of God teaches.

The bottom line is that 1) virtually all of the basic claims of Christianity are testified to in the works of ancient historians and 2) the Bible itself has been proven over and over again to be reliable history.  And while a devout  Jew has other reasons for affirming the reliability of Scripture, I myself begin with the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and the transformed lives of the witnesses of His Resurrection from the dead, and then proceed to believe the testimony of the risen Christ about just Whose Word the Bible is.

The fellow proceeds to post back, saying:

“documented facts of history” Ludicrous…actually, just plain silly. It’s sad really, as you seem so lucid but for these self-corroborating delusions. Not a crumb of proof. Not a scintilla of documentation.

The holy napkins are just as likely to be true as your ancient books and prehistoric god-man.

I’m happy for you that you have found something that works for you, but the venom and vitriol you direct at others compelled me to respond.

If you really want to come off as erudite, you might want to spend a few minutes with a sixth-grade science book. Study the part about the scientific method, and someday you might come to understand why reality has such a strong “liberal” bias.

Or just ignore my advice and continue to scream obscenities in your empirical darkness. Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

I’m left wondering just which of my “documented facts of history” aren’t documented facts of history.  It’s not 2011 AD?  Or what evidence there possibly is to make such an assertion that what I say in that response above isn’t true.  “Not a scintilla of documentation”???  The life and the teaching of Christ.  The record of the very well historically attested lives and martydoms of Jesus’ disciples.  The history of the early Christian church and the intense persecution it not only survived but thrived under – until Rome itself embraced the faith it had tried and failed to destroy for three centuries.  The calender that has dominated both Western Civilization and the entire world that was the result of this demonstrable triumph of Christianity.  Nope; not a scintilla of documentation.  One begins to wonder about the point of offering substantial arguments to someone who refuses to even acknowledge that you offered any argument at all.

And yet this sneering liberal who merely dismissively waves his hand in contempt at the clear record of history thinks he is the “objective” one.

This liberal (both secular and theological) doesn’t seem to need to acknowledge arguments.  He doesn’t need to present any facts.  His opinions are all he needs for his self-contained bubble.  But this particular liberal proceeds to offer an assertion that the “scientific method” somehow proves his secular humanist liberal worldview to be the correct one.

That assertion runs into one small problem: it entirely lacks the virtue of having any truth whatsoever to justify it.  He depends on a pure myth that somehow science erupted entirely free of Christianity, and that science somehow proceeded to replace, correct and refute Christianity.

So what is there to say about the assertion that if I just knew anything at all about the “scientific method” I would see the light?  I respond to this drive-by claim as follows:

I wish you yourself would study the “scientific method” without the bias that consumes you.

I write an article titled, “The Intolerance Of Academia Creating Modern-Day “Galileos” I end that article pointing out:

106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions. It was these colleges that shaped the minds of our founding fathers, who in turn produced the foundational principles and values that enabled this country to become the greatest nation in the history of the world. And in a similar but even earlier vein, the first universities in Western Europe were founded under the aegis of the Church, and emerged from the monasteries. The scientific method itself emerged from the mind of a publicly-confessed Christian: Roger Bacon joined the Franciscan Order in 1247, and argued that a more accurate experimental knowledge of nature would be of great value in confirming the Christian faith. Sir Isaac Newton – almost universally regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived – actually wrote more on Christian theology than he did on science. And the founders of every single major branch of science were confessing Christians.

The fact is that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the essential worldview foundations necessary and essential for the birth of science: The earth was not the illusion of Eastern religion and philosophy, but a physical, tangible place. And the material world was not the corrupt and lower realm of Greek religion and philosophy, but God created it and called it “good.” And God endowed the capstone of His creation, man – as the bearer of His divine image – with the reason, the curiosity, and the desire to know the truth. And God – who made the universe and the earth for man – made man the caretaker of His creation. And thus the great astronomer Johannes Kepler described his project as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

And yet today, amazingly, against all history and against all truth, we are assured that science must be officially and completely atheist in order to have any legitimacy, and that God – or even the possibility of God (or even a far more intellectually neutral “Intelligent Designer” – must be purged from every element and aspect of “science.”

Tragically, genuine science has been perverted and undermined by ideologues who are attempting to impose their atheistic worldviews upon society and remake the scientific enterprise in their own image. And in their efforts, they are using the very worst and most oppressive of tactics to destroy, intimidate, and silence their opposition. Such academics cite Galileo (another confessing Christian, by the way) and the largely propagandized tale of his persecution by the Church as an example of religion being hostile to science. But how is their own behavior any different from the worst intellectual intolerance exhibited by the Church? In their overarching zeal to persecute and expunge any meaningful sign of God from the ranks of academia, they have themselves become even worse than their caricature of religion which they so despise.

The facts are that the universities from which the scientific method came themselves came from Christianity. The facts are that the “scientific method” that you point to actually came from Christians who were thinking and reasoning out of a uniquely Christian world view. We wouldn’t HAVE a scientific method if it weren’t for Christianity; nor would we have virtually any significant branch of science had it not been all those Christians who laid the foundation. Versus you, who have as your foundation your feet planted firmly in midair.

I have written before why this is: science is limited. It must necessarily depend on something greater than itself to have any foundation or offer any valid conclusion.

It’s actually funny that you speak the way you do. I offer fact after fact. You express your useless opinions, and like a fool ignore the facts.

Then you speak of “my venom and vitriol,” but again, the record of academia today – with the above article being merely one of many I can cite (here’s just one example) – is one of people who think like me being rabidly attacked and persecuted and fired by people who think just like you.

Now begone. I won’t continue to argue with someone who spews worthless opinions in a drive-by attack. Two such comments were enough.

Why do I block him?  Am I disinterested in having debate?  Well, when someone doesn’t even bother to respond to your argument, and proceeds to offer assertions in place of facts, there is little point to a “debate.”

I point out:

Mark Twain said, “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can put it’s boots on.”

One of the problems with lies versus the truth is that any fool with an opinion can tell a lie. And tell it very quickly. But it takes knowledge and careful argument to present the truth and refute the lies.

I don’t have any intention of spending all my time on my blog. But if I allowed liberals to post these 3-4 sentence fact-free dismissals, and then worked on refuting them, I would end up spending ALL my time on my blog.

The book of Proverbs chapter 26 verses 4-5 teaches that one needs to respond to a fool, lest the fool become wise in his own esteem. In the same breath, it teaches that if one spends too much time arguing with a fool, others won’t be able to tell the difference between the fool and the one trying to correct the fool.

I try to strike a balance.

And I do.

The fellow posts back to my spam file to inform me that boy did he ever wipe the floor with me, and that just as my hobby is whatever he wants to imagine it, his hobby is “destroying Christians” or somesuch.  I’ll let you be the judge as to whose arguments prevail, and whose are rather trivial assertions with no basis in fact.  I don’t doubt for a second that unbelievers will see whatever they want to see.  The question is, as Jesus Himself asked, is what do YOU think about Jesus?  Who do YOU say He is?

I thought the above discussion was illustrative due to a) the facts I present and b) the galling absence of facts or truth or even the perception of the need for them by my attacker.  It’s interesting that secular humanists only see the Christian’s need to win the argument, but never feel that their worldview should ever be questioned or need to be defended.

There is an interesting story that illustrates how the world thinks when it comes to Jesus and the Bible that I heard in a sermon on John 15:18-16:4:

 When missionaries were first going to inland Africa, the wife of an African chief visited a missionary station.  Hanging outside the missionary’s cabin, on a tree, was a little mirror.  The chief’s wife had never seen her hardened features and hideous paintings on her face.  (She was want we would call “one ugly momma!)” She gazed at her own terrifying countenance and then jumped back in horror, exclaiming, “who is that horrible person inside the tree?” 

Oh,” the missionary explained, “it is not the tree.  The glass is reflecting your own face.” 

She wouldn’t believe it until she was holding the mirror in her hand.  When she understood, she said to the missionary, “I must have the glass.  How much will you sell it for?”  The missionary really didn’t want to sell his only mirror, but the African insisted so strongly that the missionary didn’t want to cause trouble, and so finally capitulated and sold the mirror. 

The chief’s wife took the mirror, exclaiming, “I will never have it making faces at me again!”  And with that she threw it down, breaking it to pieces.

And the fact of the matter is that people hate to see what they really are and hate God’s Word because it reveals their true selves.  The mirror never changes.  Every human being must choose how he or she will react when we take a good look at Jesus as revealed in God’s Word.  Either we will repent of our sin and turn to him, or we will reject and hate him.

Given that communism is state atheism, and given that state atheism has been documented to be responsible for more than 100 million murders during the 20th century alone and during peacetime alone, one would think that secular humanists and atheists should also have to give an account for why what they believe should be accepted as true.  But in our elite mainstream media culture, that challenge is never given.  Meanwhile, the Bible and the historic resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead stand like twin anvils no matter who pounds on it or for how many centuries successive generations of unbelievers continue pounding.

Jesus conquered death.  We know more about that death (in which Jesus gave His life to take the blame for our sins) than any other death in antiquity.  And people have had two millennia to examine that perfect life and the details and results produced by that death.

We also know that more people celebrate that death than have ever celebrated the life of any other human being who ever lived.  Because of the testimonies of the witnesses to that death – and the glorious Resurrection that followed – which was sealed in the blood of these martyrs – Christianity stands confirmed by history.  The tomb of every other great religious leader is venerated by the followers of those religions.

We have stories like this one that fittingly came out on the day that Christians celebrate the Ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead:

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – Indian spiritual guru Sri Sathya Sai Baba, revered by millions of followers as a living god, died Sunday in a hospital in southern India. He was 86.

Sai Baba, who was admitted to hospital in his hometown of Puttaparti a month ago, died of multiple organ failure, media said.

His followers, estimated to number six million, included top Indian politicians, business tycoons and Bollywoods stars.

Soon we will be able to visit Sri Sathya Sai Baba’s tomb, just as we can go and see the tomb of the prophet Muhammad.  The same is true of Buddha, and Confucious, and everyone else.  The tomb of Jesus alone is empty.

And because of Jesus’ life, and death, and glorious Resurrection to resurrection life as the firstfruits of all who call upon His name, the world changed.  And, myths and lies aside, the very science that secular humanists point to as a replacement for the ultimate Truth of the Christian Life is itself  a powerful testimony to the incredible change that Christianity brought to the world.

A sermon by John Piper points out that ultimately – and I believe one day very soon – the scoffers will receive all the proof that they have always demanded.  But by the time they receive the evidence their refusal to believe demands, it will already be too late.  And their eternal destiny will already be decided.

I pray you don’t share their fate.

Maranatha, my glorious King of kings.

Liberal Religions Forced To Confront The Dodo-Bird Effect Of Progressivism

April 18, 2011

There was a “Far Side” cartoon that makes all the more sense to me now.  A dinosaur was standing at the podium in front of a large auditorium full of dinosaurs.  And he was explaining, “We’re facing a serious crisis, gentlemen.  The world’s climates are changing, mammals are eating our eggs, and we have brains the size of a walnut.”

The religious side of liberalism is every bit as bankrupt as the political side, and the constantly shrinking membership bears that spiritual, moral and intellectual bankruptcy out.

I saw an article in the Los Angeles Times about liberal Judaism that brought out the fact that liberal “Judaism” was as much a Dodo bird as liberal “Christianity.”  During the same week I spoke to a “Catholic” I frequently chatted with who – after telling me he was a “radical liberal” who believed in abortion and socialized medicine – proceeded to tell me that he utterly rejected the virgin birth of Christ.  Which is of course a central defining belief of orthodox/traditional Catholicism.  And that prompted me to do some thinking about these so-called “mainline” liberal religious movements, and just how utterly meaningless they are.

I better nip one objection in the bud immediately, realizing as I do that many liberals either can’t read very well or can’t understand what they read.  The following article is about the astounding decline of “Conservative” Judaism.  But “conservative” here has nothing to do with politics or even with theology.  “Conservative Judaism” is every bit as liberal as any liberal mainline “Christian” denomination.  It embraces homosexuality; it embraces the notion that the Bible is basically a meaningless book that can be interpreted and then reinterpreted according to constantly changing societal norms.  Which is to say, Conservative Judaism ultimately stands for nothing, and isn’t “conserving” anything remotely important.

That said, “Conservative rabbis” met in Las Vegas to try to deal with a crisis: they are going extinct.  What came out of the meeting is all the more hilarious:

Leaders of Conservative Judaism press for change as movement’s numbers drop
Leading Conservative rabbis gather in Las Vegas to ‘rebrand’ the movement, but there is little agreement about how to draw people back into synagogues.
April 12, 2011|By Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times

Three hundred rabbis walk into a Las Vegas martini lounge. Bartenders scramble to handle the crowd — the rabbis are thirsty. Suddenly, an Elvis impersonator takes the stage.

We are faced with two possibilities.

One, this is the beginning of a joke.

Two, they don’t make rabbis the way they used to.

The Rabbinical Assembly, the clerical arm of Conservative Judaism, would have you believe the second message, or something like it. That’s why it launched its 2011 convention with a martini reception at a Las Vegas synagogue. The gathering was billed as an attempt to “rebrand” the Conservative movement, which has seen alarming declines in membership in recent years.

“We are in deep trouble,” Rabbi Edward Feinstein of congregation Valley Beth Shalom in Encino told the convention the next day. “There isn’t a single demographic that is encouraging for the future of Conservative Judaism. Not one.”

Those words could apply equally to a number of U.S. religious denominations, especially liberal Protestant and Jewish faiths. Membership is falling; churches and synagogues are struggling financially; and surveys show robust growth among the ranks of those who declare no religious affiliation.

The situation may be especially alarming to the Conservative movement because it was, for many years, the largest denomination in American Judaism. It was the solid center, more traditional than Reform, more open to change than Orthodoxy.

A decade ago, roughly one of every three American Jews identified as Conservative. Since then, Conservative synagogue membership has declined by 14% — and by 30% in the Northeast, the traditional stronghold of American Judaism.

By 2010, only about one in five Jews in the U.S. identified as Conservative, according to the American Jewish Congress.

The Reform and Orthodox movements also saw declines, although not nearly as steep. Reform Judaism for a time claimed the most adherents, but today that distinction goes to people who identify themselves as “just Jewish,” meaning they don’t associate with any of the traditional denominations. Many are entirely secular.

“We’re all in trouble,” said Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly and one of those trying to save the Conservative movement. Correcting herself, she said, “We’re not in trouble, but we’re in urgent need of rethinking the institutions of Jewish life.”

[…]

The movement’s problems, many agree, begin with its name, which has nothing to do with political conservatism and doesn’t accurately describe a denomination that accepts openly gay and lesbian rabbis and believes the Bible is open to interpretation. But that’s just for starters.

Deep dissatisfaction with the organizations that lead Conservative Judaism prompted a number of influential rabbis in 2009 to demand urgent change, warning, “Time is not on our side.” The group won promises of substantial change from the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents Conservative congregations, and helped prompt reforms in the institutions that train and represent rabbis.

A similar revolt by prominent Reform rabbis preceded that denomination’s continuing effort to reinvent itself, a project launched at L.A.’s Hebrew Union College last November.

So what does it mean for a religious movement to reinvent or rebrand itself?

“It’s one thing for a corporation to say ‘We’re going to reinvent ourselves,'” said David Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research.

“Sometimes they get into another business,” he said. “A religion … can evolve, it can be reinterpreted, you can express it in a slightly different style, but you can’t just be doing Judaism one day and say ‘I’m going to sell cars’ the next.”

The Conservative rabbis won’t become car salesmen, but they batted around some fairly radical ideas and predictably stirred up some opposition.

There was talk of eliminating membership dues for synagogues or switching to a la carte “fee-for-service” plans — so that a parent who wants only to send his or her child to religious school won’t also be paying to support the congregation’s other programs. But some said dues give congregants a vital sense of ownership.

Wolpe, the Sinai Temple rabbi, said the movement needs a slogan, one that’s short enough to fit on a bumper sticker. He suggested “A Judaism of Relationships.”

“We don’t have a coherent ideology,” he told his fellow rabbis. “If you ask everybody in this room ‘What does Conservative Judaism stand for?’ my guess is that you’d get 100 different answers…. That may be religiously a beautiful thing, but if you want a movement, that’s not such a hot result.”

[…]

And then there was the name. Some prefer Conservative, which was adopted when the movement began in the 19th century. It denotes the founders’ determination to conserve the best of Jewish tradition while being open to prudent change. But others said it is one reason the movement is seen by young people as being hopelessly uncool.

One suggestion: Change it to Masorti, a Hebrew word meaning “traditional” that is used by Conservative Jews in Israel and Europe.

“If we really want to appeal to the new generation, if you want to create a real worldwide movement … we need a common name, and I think it needs to be a Hebrew name,” said Rabbi Felipe Goodman of Temple Beth Sholom in Las Vegas.

As the meeting ended, there were pledges to work toward meaningful change. One example of what that might look like is an effort to employ a new definition of kosher food that would require ethical treatment of the workers who produce it —something that is being called magen tzedek, or “seal of justice.”

“This is an answer for Conservative Judaism because it’s about the marketplace, it’s about the public square,” said Rabbi Morris Allen of Mendota Heights, Minn., who is leading the effort. Magen tzedek “shifts the entire message of who we are as a religious community. Suddenly, it’s about more than just what is said at the prayer service on Saturday morning.”

Let me begin my analysis by means of a contrast.  Rabbi Morris Allen says, “This is an answer for Conservative Judaism because it’s about the marketplace, it’s about the public square.”  By radical, radical contrast, Christianity is about Jesus Christ, who He is—God incarnate—and what He accomplished—the redemption of sinners who embrace His atoning death for the sin of humanity.

“Conservative Judaism … [is]… about the marketplace.”  That is so sad.  “We need to sell more widgets, or rebrand our widgets, or maybe produce a different kind of widget.”

One of the reasons that Judaism is so swiftly disappearing is because of atheism and a virulent form of Jewish secular humanism which basically holds that it’s perfectly okay to not believe in God as long as you act as though you did.

Dinesh D’Souza points out why precisely why this phenomenon would occur – given the enormous influence of liberalism in Judaism – in his examination of why liberal “Christian” churches are losing membership in droves:

“Unfortunately the central themes of some of the liberal churches have become indistinguishable from those of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, and the homosexual rights movement.  Why listen to Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong drone on when you can get the same message and much more interesting visuals at San Francisco’s gay pride parade?”

And D’Souza provides a sizable pile of statistics to show that the traditional (i.e. evangelical) denominations and churches are growing leaps and bounds even as the liberal mainline churches are going the way of the Dodo bird.

His point, of course, is that these liberal religionists are dying out because they don’t stand for anything that has any spiritual power whatsoever.

Here is the story of Christian growth in the world today:

Compared to the world’s 2.3 billion Christians, there are 1.6 billion Muslims, 951 million Hindus, 468 million Buddhists, 458 million Chinese folk-religionists, and 137 million atheists, whose numbers have actually dropped over the past decade, despite the caterwauling of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Co. One cluster of comparative growth statistics is striking: As of mid-2011, there will be an average of 80,000 new Christians per day (of whom 31,000 will be Catholics) and 79,000 new Muslims per day, but 300 fewer atheists every 24 hours.

Africa has been the most stunning area of Christian growth over the past century. There were 8.7 million African Christians in 1900 (primarily in Egypt, Ethiopia, and South Africa); there are 475 million African Christians today, and their numbers are projected to reach 670 million by 2025. Another astonishing growth spurt, measured typologically, has been among Pentecostals and charismatics: 981,000 in 1900; 612,472,000 in 2011, with an average of 37,000 new adherents every day – the fastest growth in two millennia of Christian history.

Christianity – which views itself (and which I personally believe is) the fulfillment of the Jewish Scripture – is the fastest growing religion on the planet.  Christianity is the world’s only universal religion; the only religion with a global reach.  It is particularly spreading in the third world and in Asia.  Soon, China will be the largest “Christian country” in the world.  There may very well already be more Christians in China than there are in America.  In Korea, Christians already outnumber Buddhists.

While mainline liberal Protestant and (mainline liberal) Catholic “Christianity” withers on the vine, evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity is exploding.  And while Western Europe and America increasingly deny the Christendom that brought them to greatness in the first place – even as they increasingly become less and less great as a result – Christianity is taking deep abiding root in cultures whose transformation can only be described as “miraculous.”

Meanwhile, as the statistics prove and as Dinesh D’Souza explains, atheism is shrinking in spite of all its grandiose claims to represent the fulfillment of modernity and knowledge.  “Nietzsche’s proclamation that ‘God is dead’ is now proven false,” D’Souza writes.  “Nietzsche is dead.  The ranks of the unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population…  God is very much alive.”  Secular humanists have long self-servingly claimed that the progression of “reason” and “science” would conquer religion, but this is now demonstrated to be a lie, a fairy tale of secularism.

Christianity stands for something.  And as much as I may personally despise Islam, it too at least takes a powerful stand – even if it relies primarily on force and terrorism to make that stand.  Atheism and secular humanism are only parisites hanging on to Christianity and its superior moral values, and the political liberalism that theological liberalism invariably leads to is the nihilism of objective moral truth all together.

Allow me to provide a concrete example of the empty nexus of liberal politics and liberal theology.  Barack Obama, a quintessential theological and political liberal, has repeatedly stripped God out of the Declaration of Independence and its profound establishment of Creator God as the only and ultimate grounds for legitimate human dignity, freedom and rights.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” our founders assured mankind, and “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Not so with Obama.  On his repeatedly stated version, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

But just what created us (random mutation or perhaps benevolent fairies?) and exactly how did we become endowed with these rights that most cultures and most worldviews and in fact most political systems throughout human history have denied?  And further, why did the Judeo-Christian worldview which inspired these founding fathers be dumped on its head, such that its antithesis in the form of the radical homosexual agenda and abortion on demand be enthroned in its place?

Basically, the Judeo-Christian worldview – “Christendom,” if you like – has been treated like a salad bar in the Western Civilization that had been forged by Christianity, and secular humanists can pick out the parts that they like and throw away the rest.  But it’s not a salad bar; Judeo-Christianity as both a religion and a worldview is far more like the foundations of a great building.  And what these secular humanists have been doing is pulling out the foundational pillars one block at a time until there is nothing left to sustain the surrounding structure.

Which is precisely why the West – which used to be called “Christendom” – is now on the verge of complete collapse on virtually every level.

I see the war on terror, and from the start I have seen the glaring flaw in our strategy (yes, even when George Bush was waging it).  Basically, we have confronted totalitarian Islam on the military, political and economic fronts.  But we have utterly ignored the religious front – which is precisely the major front by which totalitiarian Islam has been attacking us.  Like it or not, 9/11 was a religious act.  And there has been no major movement whatsoever – either by the Western powers or by the movements within Islam itself – to confront the religious grounds of the totalitarian Islamists.

And the reason is because we have nothing to confront them with.  Secular humanists/atheists have undermined public religious expression at every turn, while cultural relativists have contextualized religion in such a way to strip it of any spiritual power whatsoever.  Now when we truly need true spiritual power to confront the demonic power motivating radical Islam, basically all we’ve got is allegorical dirt clods.

In the sphere of Islam, jihadists have the superior Qu’ranic argument that it is THEY who are carrying out Muhammad’s vision for Islam, not the liberal Westernized contextualizers who want to make very clear claims of Muhammad into metaphors and allegories representing something else.  Muhammad was a man of genuine violence; he had been in some thirty military campaigns in his life; he had committed numerous genocidal campaigns against “infidels”; and he had another thirty military campaigns planned at the time of his death, including the conquest of Western Europe as the means to spread Islam (“submission”) and the call of Allahu Akbar (a comparative which means “Allah is greater”).  If Muhammad is in any way, shape or form a representative paradigm of what it means to be “Muslim,” then the jihadists are right.

And liberalism – whether it be religious/theological or political/cultural liberalism – has exactly what to answer that?  Other than mocking or trivializing it?

Did political liberals – like the liberal rabbis from the LA Times article above – truly believe that we overcome the threat of terrorism by simply changing the name to “overseas contingency operation” from “war on terror”?

As bad as the religion of Allah may be for a free society, it has a great deal of force when the competition is cultural nothingness, the decaying leftovers of “salad bar pseudo-Judeo-Christianity.”

2 Timothy 3:5 says of such “Christians”:

“They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!” (New Living Translation)

St. Paul told us, “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.” (2 Timothy 3:1).  The risen and glorified Jesus told St. John of the seventh and final church age, “But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!” (Revelation 3:16).
of my mouth!

And it is with this final age of de-spiritualized, unglodly lukewarm “Christianity” and “Judaism” that makes God literally puke that staggering Western Civilization rises to the bell.

If anyone wants to know why I come across as angry from time to time in my blogging, it is because when I look around, I keep seeing the series of morally and even rationally terrible and despicable choices we have made right here in America that will invariably end with Antichrist, the Tribulation and Armageddon.  And it will not have been God that made this happen, or God who chose this end for mankind; but rather mankind that chose this end for itself.

C.S. Lewis said:

“We can always say we have been the victims of an illusion; if we disbelieve in the supernatural this is what we always shall say.  Hence, whether miracles have really ceased or not, they would certainly appear to cease in Western Europe as materialism became the popular creed.  For let us make no mistake.  If the end of the world appeared in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse, if the modern materialist saw with his own eyes the heavens rolled up and the great white throne appearing, if he had the sensation of being himself hurled into the Lake of Fire, he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psycho-analysis, or cerebral pathology.  Experience by itself proves nothing.  If a man doubts whether he is dreaming or waking, no experiment can solve his doubt, since every experiment may itself be part of the dream.  Experience proves this, or that, or nothing, according to the preconceptions we bring to it.” (God in the Dock, “Miracles,” pp. 25-26).

The problem with liberalism is that it “fundamentally transforms” whatever it touches – whether Christianity, Judaism or fiscal and economic reality – into a game of make-believe pretend.

Margaret Thatcher put the end-state of econimic liberalism succinctly: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  And then comes the collapse.

When radical Islamist jihadists attack, you can’t answer or fight with make-believe.  Any more than you can fight massive debt with make-believe mass-printed dollars.

My one consolation is this: I’ve cheated; I’ve skipped ahead and read the last pages of Revelation.  God – and most definitely not Allah or secular humanism or liberal mainline pseudo religiousity – wins in the end.  And when God wins in the end, via the return of Jesus Christ as true King of kings and Lord of lords, He will win in a very literal way indeed.

School Bus Attacked With Missile In Gaza: Muslims CONTINUE To Target Israel’s Children

April 7, 2011

Please see my previous post here to see that this is no abberation, but a continuance of an incredibly longstanding strategy by Muslims to murder innocent Israeli children:

Missile from Gaza hits Israeli school bus; 2 hurt
By ARON HELLER, Associated Press Aron Heller, Associated Press – 1 hr 53 mins ago

JERUSALEM – An anti-tank missile fired from the Gaza Strip struck a school bus in southern Israel Thursday, wounding two people, one of them critically, and prompting fierce Israeli retaliation that killed five Palestinians.

Israel unleashed airstrikes and tank fire against Hamas targets across the border. It was the heaviest assault on the coastal territory since a broad military offensive two years ago. Besides the dead, more than 30 Palestinians were wounded, said Palestinian health official Adham Abu Salmiya.

He said one of the dead was a 50-year-old civilian who was sitting outside his home when he was struck by tank fire. Three others were militants killed near the southern Gaza town of Rafah. The fifth man was a Hamas policeman.

The sudden outbreak of violence illustrated the fragile situation along the Israel-Gaza border, where small bouts of fighting can quickly escalate into heavy-scale warfare.

After two years of relative calm, tensions have been rising between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza over the past few weeks. For Israel, Thursday’s attack was the most serious of this period.

But it also laid the groundwork for a major strategic breakthrough. The Israeli military activated a new cutting-edge missile-defense system for the first time, saying that the Iron Dome scored a direct hit on an incoming Palestinian rocket.

The escalation has also spilled beyond Israel’s borders.

In the past month, Israel has intercepted a cargo ship that it said was carrying arms bound for Gaza, jailed an alleged Hamas rocket mastermind believed to have been captured in Ukraine and been accused of carrying out a mysterious airstrike that killed two people in Sudan. Israel has not commented on this week’s airstrike, but officials have said they believe Sudan is a transit point for arms bound for Gaza.

Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, ordered the army to respond quickly to the attack on the school bus and said he held the Hamas militant group, which rules Gaza, responsible for the violence.

“We will respond until it will become clear that the Hamas fully understand that we cannot accept and we will not accept such events,” he said at a military base in southern Israel.

Hamas issued a rare claim of responsibility for the bus attack, saying it was in response to the killing of three of its leaders earlier in the week. Usually, smaller militant factions claim responsibility.

Palestinian officials said Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was making calls to leaders in Egypt, Turkey and Qatar appealing for their intervention.

Israeli defense officials said the incident marked a significant moment that would warrant a severe response. But there were no immediate indications that the violence would devolve into all-out war.

Israeli medical services said the bus was nearly empty after dropping off school children and was carrying only the driver and a lone passenger at the time of the attack. A 16-year-old boy with a serious head wound was evacuated from the scene and undergoing surgery at a hospital. The driver was moderately wounded.

TV footage showed a yellow bus with its windows blown out and its rear charred.

Israeli President Shimon Peres condemned the attack from New York, where he was holding meetings at the United Nations.

“This is another example of Gaza becoming a terror state,” he said in a statement. “Hundreds of thousands of mothers and children in southern Israel cannot sleep quietly at night as a result of the rocket fire from Gaza.”

The American and British governments condemned the attack.

Israel usually responds with tough reprisals to Palestinian attacks. It launched an airstrike on a Hamas training facility in northern Gaza.

Later Thursday, Israeli aircraft and tanks attacked Hamas facilities in northern and central Gaza Strip. A tank shell also struck a fuel depot in northern Gaza, sending a plume of smoke above the area.

“Israel will not frighten us and will not terrorize us,” said Hamas spokesman  Ismail Radwan. “We call on the Arab masses and the Arab revolution to stand by the Palestinian people in Gaza and to urge their regimes and their governments to stop this escalation, which aims to create a new pool of blood in Gaza Strip and Israel should be held responsible for the consequences of this.”

The missile attack came hours after Israel carried out airstrikes against tunnels it says are used by militants to smuggle weapons under the Egyptian border and carry out attacks.

Hamas and other Gaza militants have fired thousands of projectiles toward southern Israel in previous years. Israel launched a massive offensive in late 2008 to counter the near-daily barrage.

Israel recently deployed its first system to defend its tanks from anti-tank missiles. As a result, Gaza militants may be turning the weapons on new targets, since the attack on the bus appears to be the first time such a missile has been fired at a civilian Israeli target.

The military said that after the missile attack, about 45 rockets and mortar shells were fired from Gaza toward Israel, including one that struck a home, causing damage but no injuries.

In a separate incident, Israel said it had arrested five Hamas militants in east Jerusalem and charged them in a pipe bomb attack that wounded a sanitation worker last month.

In the West Bank, Israeli troops rounded up dozens of Palestinian women overnight in a massive sweep as part of a search for the killer of five Israelis in a nearby settlement last month.

Residents in Awarta said that between 100 and 200 women were taken into custody and that Israeli troops took their fingerprints and DNA samples from them. By midafternoon, all the women were believed to have been released. 

Israel has been carrying out arrests in Awarta since a young Israeli couple and three of their children were stabbed to death as they slept in their home in the neighboring Jewish settlement of Itamar.

___

Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City, Dalia Nammari in Ramallah, West Bank, and Ariel David in Tel Aviv contributed to this report.

Tens of thousands of rockets have been fired at Israel by Muslims who would only rejoice if they were to strike a Jewish child.  For the record, 10,237 rockets were fired by Muslims at Israel in just a one month period in 2008.

The LORD (Jehovah), the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Living God, the Lord God Almighty who was, and is and is to come, is protecting Israel.

Islam is a religion of hatred.  That “Islam” means “peace” is a lie of the devil; “Islam” means “submission”; as in submission by force.

Today, we see that the United Nations is immorally siding with the terrorist Muslims against democratic Israel.  One day, the Bible teaches, the entire world will gather their forces in a valley called Armageddon (Rev 16:12-16).  And they will say, “Come and let us wipe them out as a nation. Let the name of Israel be remembered no more” (Psalms 83:4).

And it will be Messiah Jesus, coming again as He promised as King of kings and as Lord of lords (Revelation 19:11-16).

The story that will begin with undying hate will end in unending beauty and glory:

“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn” (Zechariah 12:10).

God is protecting Israel.  The Jews are His covenant people, the apple of His eye (Zechariah 2:8).  And one day soon Messiah Jesus will come to His own and this time finally be welcomed.

You touch Jewish children at the peril of your immortal souls, Muslims.  One day soon you will be called upon to account for your evil.

And you stand against Israel at the peril of your souls, you “united” nations that likewise gather against her. 

As for me and my house, we pray every single day for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6).  We love and support Israel and we eagerly await the Jews’ embrace of the same Messiah that we also embrace as Savior and as Lord.

Crisis In Egypt Underscores The Problem Of Islam – AND LIBERALISM

February 2, 2011

It has rightly been said that Islam is a murderous totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion.

That fact makes an “Islamic democracy” a contradiction in terms.  You simply cannot have both.  If you want a democracy, you cannot have Islam; if you want Islam, you cannot have a democracy.

If you have a large population of Muslims living in a country, there are only two alternatives for governing that state: a totalitarian dictatorship, which is what we essentially have seen in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, or a religious theocracy such as we see in Iran today.

Even alleged counterexamples, such as Turkey, are transforming.  Turkey is steadily becoming “less Europe, and more Islam.”  And I believe – primarily as a student of Bible prophecy – that Turkey will ultimately end up in the Islamic column.  It will ultimately be one of the Islamic nations that attacks Israel in the last days.

Jordan, which is at least less thuggish than most other Islamic countries, is reaping the whirlwind of Islamic unrest just as Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Algeria.

Democracy becomes nothing but a tool for radical Islam – which itself utterly despises democracy.  Tayyip Erdogan compared democracy to a bus, saying, “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”

Other Muslims are even more crystal clear: Tarek Ramadan states:

“We must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals.  Our Prophet Muhammad … and the Quran teach us that we must use every conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah.  Tell the infidels in public, we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on.  The only law we must respect and apply is the Sharia’s.”

Imams in England say, “You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.”  And Mohamed Akram says of America, Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”  While Omar Ahmad says, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant … The Quran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

For the record, I found all the above quotes from Tulsaworld.com.  And of course there are a million more where those came from.

We have a problem.  We want the world to benefit from democracy.  We want to spread the superiority of democracy as a political system.  We want to benefit from the fact that no democracy has ever once attacked another democracy.

But Muslims take our democracy, pervert it and exploit it for their own ideological advantage with a very radically different political system in mind.  And we tolerate this why?

One of the things that makes Islam so dangerous is that it puts itself and it’s prophet Muhammad above and beyond questioning or criticism.  As a case in point, the Danish cartoons revealed that the entire Muslim world will go berserk and literally become murderous over even the slightest “slights.”  Compare the Danish cartoons to the routine insults suffered by Christianity, such as placing a crucifix bearing an image of Christ in a jar of urine and calling it “art.”  That mindset represents the death of even the possibility of a free society.

Liberalism and secular humanism merely weakens our own society and makes us more ripe for the picking: to begin with, liberals react through their cultural relativism (e.g., “pluralism,” “multiculturalism”) by essentially saying, “We must not offend.”  And they proceed to actually help the radical Muslim extremists impose their system.  Liberal media routinely attack Jesus Christ and Christianity, but they are only all too willing to self-censor themselves when it comes to Muhammad and Islam.

And yet Christianity brought us the democracy liberals claim to love, while Islam is antithetical to it.  Liberals are literally helping radical Muslims poison the tree of democracy and freedom.

There’s more.  One of the reasons we so frequently see liberals enabling radical Islam is because it turns out that liberals and the sorts of radical Muslims I have already introduced share the same tactics.

Case in point: three quotes from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

  • The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37
  • …The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.  Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
  • …the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

You look at what the Muslims are saying above, and you look at what liberal Saul Alinsky is saying here, and they are advocating identical tactics, with basically the same goal in mind: Muslims want sharia, with total power over a government that itself has total power; and liberals want control over a big government system which extends over every sphere of life.  And both say, “make the enemy live up to their own rules.”  Let’s take advantage of their morality and use it against them as a weapon.

And, of course, when Muhammad was weak (e.g., his Mecca phase), Islam was tolerant and peaceful; when Muhammad’s forces became strong (his Medina phase), Islam suddenly became profoundly intolerant, determined to impose itself and determined to use as much force as was necessary to attain its ends.  That is exactly what the American political left says.  And the only thing that that American liberals are truly intolerant of is Christianity and political conservatism.

And what is even more frightening is that America today actually has a president who actually lectured and taught from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as a community organizer.  As Discover The Networks points out, “For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley‘s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).”

Part of this idea of using your opponent’s own morality against them turns into the strength of radical Islam and the weakness of liberalism when the two confront one another.  As one example, think of Jimmy Carter undermining the Shah of Iran – who clearly was a dictator, but a pro-American dictator.  Carter allowed the Shah to be deposed, and got as his reward the Ayatollah and an Iranian theocratic regime that undermined and ultimately deposed Carter via the hostage crisis that played out day after day through the Carter presidency.

And here Obama is apparently doing much the same thing: we find out that Obama has secretly been backing rebels of the Mubarak regime from the Wikileaks papers.

Barack Obama invited the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood when he gave his speech in Cairo – the very same group that is poised to wreak havoc in that same city today.  And Obama – who is on the record siding with the Egyptian demonstrators against secular tyrant Mubarak – was pointedly absent from siding with the Iranian demonstrators against theocratic tyrant Ahmadinejad.  That contrasted with Obama making statements against Mubarak’s regime such that the Egyptian foreign ministry says  Obama’s words actually “inflame the internal situation in Egypt”  as the situation turns increasingly deadly and more and more signs are being written in English for American media consumption.  Bizarrely, it is almost as if liberals prefer Islamic theocratic tyrants over secular Muslim leaders.

It’s very easy to pooh-pooh thugs like Mubarak or the Shah and denounce their despotism.  But if you take away the thug, what else is there to control a people who will ultimately insist upon an Islamic theocracy?  You roll the dice and take your chances.  And in Islam, the “chances” have a pronounced historic tendency to become anti-American theocracies.  Which become even worse dictatorships then the ones that bleeding-heart liberals decried in the first place.

Liberals decry religion as being anti-democratic, never realizing that it is they – rather than religion – who are profoundly anti-democratic.  A few quotes from the founding fathers whose vision created the first sustained democracy:

“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.”

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
– George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”
– Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”
– Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”
– Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry, November 4, 1800

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”
– Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III

The Egyptian crisis reveals the problem of Islam:  You cannot have a nation of Muslims without tyranny.  It is only a matter of which form of tyranny you prefer.  Conversely, the same crisis is also revealing the problem of liberalism.  Because as they weaken our Christian religious foundations, the same liberals who would undermine Hosni Mubarak also undermine the very pillars that would enable us to resist the conquest of democracy by Islam.  And they further erode our once great democratic system by employing the very same tactics that our Muslim enemies are using against us.