Once again we see our Congress, the Media, the intellectually challenged, and the politically correct, if that isn’t a redundancy – merrily leading us into a catastrophe while they insist on believing that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who are attacking us (the infidels) worldwide are really a minority. THESE ARE NOT A MINORITY—this is mainstream Islam. We (Christendom) are in a fight to the death with Islam. This is a fight that began in the seventh century and has not abated since that time. The objective of Islam is world domination, the installation of a theocratic government, the suppression of freedom, democracy, law, and all religion other than Islam.
This is a violent religion and the Qur’an is NOT a book that preaches love, forgiveness, or tolerance but it focuses on hate, violence, killing, deception and instructs the true believer to kill all infidels. The beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl were simply following the Qur’an (47:4). It promises victory and states that all of the Persian and Roman Empires (think Europe), is theirs according to Allah (33:27). The Muslim is under no obligation to treat prisoners kindly or even to take prisoners (8:67) unless they have won a solid victory. Furthermore, in 5:33 the Muslim is charged with executing all who make war against Islam.
We continue to view Islam and Muslims in Western terms, which are leading us step by step to destruction. The secular governments that we continue to treat with are hollow and have little to no control over the people because for the true Muslim Islam is the church and the church is the state. In effect the Mullahs are the ones with the power and any elected person is subordinate to the Mullahs and this is very evident in Iraq. In the Qur’an (5:51) the Muslim is told that he cannot take Jews or Christians as allies because they are enemies of Islam, this means that any sincere Muslim in America or in any non-Muslim country cannot be loyal to the government because his loyalty is only to Islam and the Imam in his Mosque. Yet we are electing these people into our government on the false assumption that when they take the oath of loyalty they are in fact loyal. This is totally false.
It is also worth noting that a Muslim can take an oath on the Qur’an and still lie (5:89) if it furthers the objectives of Islam, which is the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments. This means that any practicing Muslim elected to any government office can take the oath of office without committing a sin and is under no obligation to remain loyal to the government that he serves, because his first loyalty is to Islam – meaning people like Al Sadr, Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden, etc. The Qur’an specifically states (5:14) that Christians are the specific enemies of Islam and this is the word of God.
In spite of what is clearly written in the Qur’an the Media, the Congress, and the politically correct continue to view the “insurgents” and “freedom fighters’ not as Muslims on Jihad against Christendom, but as Muslim “extremists” who can be handled if we just tried to understand them and treat “mainstream” Islam with kindness and understanding. This shows an almost childlike naiveté because these so called “extremists” ARE mainstream Islam and they are reading the Qur’an just as it is written. They feed on hate, they are dedicated to the destruction of all infidels, the elimination of everything not found in the Qur’an, which includes virtually all science, education, freedom, and democracy plus the subjugation of women.
Why can our troops not gain the support of the average Iraqi? Because if they are true Muslims then the Qur’an 4:89 specifically forbids them to befriend any non-Muslim and to kill them if they are aggressive – read soldiers.
The time has long past for the West – not just America – to abandon these illogical politically correct beliefs about Islam and begin to take positive action. This means deportation of anyone in a country illegally. Monitor all Mosques for seditious talk and when discovered to charge the Imams with treason and close the Mosque and to install profiling so that these Muslims can be watched. Watch all financial transactions and to suppress Hamas and all Muslim charities who send money overseas to any country. To tell any country that harbors anyone who attacks the US that we regard that as an act of war and to take action against them on that basis. This means an immediate action against Syria, Iran, and Gaza. We are engaged in another Crusade, we are at war with Islam and the Muslims have said so, it is about time that we actually listen to what they are saying and take appropriate action.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Obama
It seems the party of white guilt has caught Obama Fever – apparently in the vain hope this is a remedy for the Bush Disorder Syndrome, which is characterized by irrational thinking and sometimes by hallucinations regarding facts. Dan Rather succumbed to BDS, so clearly the remainder of the Democratic Party is attempting to recover their sanity by pushing Obama – the fact that he has virtually no qualifications other than his race, seems to be lost in the rush for a cure to BDS.
From the time of his announcement that he was a candidate for President the media has showered him with fulsome praise to the point that one would think he was the second coming of Jesus, but then the radical left doesn’t believe in God much less Jesus, so Obama must be viewed as simply the hero of the hour. Of course hero here is a relative term because the Presidential wannabe has no military experience and is calling for a complete surrender to Al Qaeda, so his heroism seems to be restricted to waving the white flag. So what precisely makes Obama so popular with the left – other than his color and Muslim roots?
Well the media fawn over Obama because of his eloquence, but eloquence really only describes the quality of the delivery not the content, and Obama is certainly slick in his delivery. In his announcement speech Obama stated without hesitation that he firmly believes in “the basic decency of the American People”. Very heady and controversial stuff which certainly sets him apart from most of the Liberals who are rushing to prove how tolerant they are by supporting a black (semi) Muslim.. Unfortunately, while this controversial stand regarding the decency of the American people may distinguish him from the other Democratic candidates, it sort of places him right in the middle of the Republicans, who generally – and I’m not making this up—believe America and Americans are good and decent people.
But Senator Obama went on to condemn the “smallness” in our politics, but precisely what he meant by that isn’t clear. Perhaps this was his eloquent way of saying those people who believe in “small government” shouldn’t vote for me because I am firmly convinced that government should be big and the bigger the better. Of course, he may have meant that there is a certain “pettiness” in contemporary politics, which is certainly true but since most of his Liberal constituency is directly responsible for all of the sniping and mud slinging, he prudently left this a little vague. Courage requires honesty, nevertheless Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" -- deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")
Continuing in his forthright and controversial vein, he took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary! But he didn’t stop there, no-siree bob – he underscored his courageous stand by continuing with "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this -- a certain audacity -- to this announcement." Naturally this was a stunning statement that truly impressed the media who are hungry for any controversial morsel, but those of us who are harder to impress were also stunned by Obama’s courageous stand in favor of hope. What stunned the less gullible was what is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president and many do. Dennis Kucinich is perpetually running for president as is Ralph Nader. Even John Kerry ran for president and Al Gore aka the Goreacle actually got elected Vice President, proving that anyone can be elected. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters, who were mostly the reporters. However, to be fair one or two of these reporters actually attended Mitt Romney’s announcement, but they were more interested in seeing a live Mormon and interviewing his wives, who unfortunately turned out be just one wife. But Mormonism lacks the cachet that the controversial Barrack Hussein Obama brings with his Muslim roots, his blackness, and his penchant for saying penetrating and moving statements as he endorses the American People and takes a firm stand in favor of decency. He electrifies the crowd of adoring reporters and other Democratic loyalists by telling us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president and if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. However, to prove that he is really a serious candidate and in an effort to turn his inexperience into an asset, he went on to say: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." The reporters all swooned at this so they missed the great tagline delivered by Jesse Jackson “What did he say?”
From the time of his announcement that he was a candidate for President the media has showered him with fulsome praise to the point that one would think he was the second coming of Jesus, but then the radical left doesn’t believe in God much less Jesus, so Obama must be viewed as simply the hero of the hour. Of course hero here is a relative term because the Presidential wannabe has no military experience and is calling for a complete surrender to Al Qaeda, so his heroism seems to be restricted to waving the white flag. So what precisely makes Obama so popular with the left – other than his color and Muslim roots?
Well the media fawn over Obama because of his eloquence, but eloquence really only describes the quality of the delivery not the content, and Obama is certainly slick in his delivery. In his announcement speech Obama stated without hesitation that he firmly believes in “the basic decency of the American People”. Very heady and controversial stuff which certainly sets him apart from most of the Liberals who are rushing to prove how tolerant they are by supporting a black (semi) Muslim.. Unfortunately, while this controversial stand regarding the decency of the American people may distinguish him from the other Democratic candidates, it sort of places him right in the middle of the Republicans, who generally – and I’m not making this up—believe America and Americans are good and decent people.
But Senator Obama went on to condemn the “smallness” in our politics, but precisely what he meant by that isn’t clear. Perhaps this was his eloquent way of saying those people who believe in “small government” shouldn’t vote for me because I am firmly convinced that government should be big and the bigger the better. Of course, he may have meant that there is a certain “pettiness” in contemporary politics, which is certainly true but since most of his Liberal constituency is directly responsible for all of the sniping and mud slinging, he prudently left this a little vague. Courage requires honesty, nevertheless Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" -- deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")
Continuing in his forthright and controversial vein, he took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary! But he didn’t stop there, no-siree bob – he underscored his courageous stand by continuing with "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this -- a certain audacity -- to this announcement." Naturally this was a stunning statement that truly impressed the media who are hungry for any controversial morsel, but those of us who are harder to impress were also stunned by Obama’s courageous stand in favor of hope. What stunned the less gullible was what is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president and many do. Dennis Kucinich is perpetually running for president as is Ralph Nader. Even John Kerry ran for president and Al Gore aka the Goreacle actually got elected Vice President, proving that anyone can be elected. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters, who were mostly the reporters. However, to be fair one or two of these reporters actually attended Mitt Romney’s announcement, but they were more interested in seeing a live Mormon and interviewing his wives, who unfortunately turned out be just one wife. But Mormonism lacks the cachet that the controversial Barrack Hussein Obama brings with his Muslim roots, his blackness, and his penchant for saying penetrating and moving statements as he endorses the American People and takes a firm stand in favor of decency. He electrifies the crowd of adoring reporters and other Democratic loyalists by telling us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president and if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. However, to prove that he is really a serious candidate and in an effort to turn his inexperience into an asset, he went on to say: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." The reporters all swooned at this so they missed the great tagline delivered by Jesse Jackson “What did he say?”
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Dawkins Delusion
The rise of militant atheism is getting a great deal of press and Richard Dawkins who has authored the book “The God Delusion” is rapidly achieving the position as the spokesman for this movement. In the interest of full disclosure I have not read his book but a summary of his comments appear on this WEB page: http://horizonspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/81/
In his interview Dawkins is asked “Why are you against faith?” His response is that he is a person who cares about the truth and that religion is virtually impervious from criticism in our politically correct society. It is his opinion that religion – any religion – is illogical. What goes unsaid here is that his total rejection of any idea of a supreme being requires the same level of faith as the believing and perhaps more. Science has only been able to speculate on the origins of life much less the origin of the species. Evolution is a theory that is on increasingly shaky ground and any belief in it as stated by Darwin requires an increasing level of faith. Even if you believe in the "Big Bang” which in itself requires some level of faith, you are still left with the question of where did it come from and what was the initiating force. The current scientific beliefs on this subject are just as illogical as believing in God.
Certainly Dawkins is correct in his position that certain topics seem to be immune in today’s politically correct society from criticism, but he neglects to point out that one of those forbidden topics is Evolution, the Magical Creation of Life, and that multi-culturalism is bad.
When asked how he describes the billions of people who believe in God, he responds in the most condescending way. Dawkins feels they are “harmless” but that they carry the “virus” of faith. He classifies faith as a virus because it cannot be demonstrated through the scientific methodology. However, he once again neglects to point out that the effects of side smoke, Evolution, and the origin of life have never been scientifically demonstrated either so his belief in “science” requires the same level of blind faith as a belief in God.
Of course there are many scientists today are coming to the conclusion that God cannot be denied, but Dawkins simply dismisses them as being wrong, illogically religious, and people capable of compartmentalizing their life. Perhaps he should look into a mirror because he offers no real answer to this question and once again demonstrates the shallowness of his own position.
Dawkins then goes on to reject religion as the basis for morality in our society and states that atheists like everyone else including those who believe in God, derive their morality from the environment in which we live, not any religion. Morality is derived from newspapers, movies, novels, and parents but Dawkins does graciously admit that religion “might have a minor role to play in it”. Dawkins overlooks the Ten Commandments which certainly are older than the New York Times. He equates morality to equality of women, anti-slavery and points out that these moral grounds are recent. What relevance that has is not obvious because morality is indeed driven by society but then there is a moral foundation that is found in all societies and this universality of belief is ignored by Dawkins – primarily that murder is wrong.
When this point about not killing your neighbors is raised to Dawkins he responds by shifting to an attack on Christianity and both the Old and New Testaments, with a glancing blow to the Qur’an. He really doesn’t answer this question but instead points out that the God described in the Old Testament isn’t a “good” God, but the God in the New Testament is better and that the Qur’an (which he doesn’t mention by name) calls for the killing of Infidels. In effect Dawkins seems to say that the scriptures themselves violate the very moral principles they are supposed to advocate. An interesting point but then its relevance isn’t clear because the morality taught by all religions is practiced every day by billions who accept God as he identifies Himself in many ways.
The supreme irony here is that Dawkins when pressed does admit that while God “almost certainly does not exist” he would accept his existence given scientific proof. The irony of course is that he is willing to accept Evolution, the origination of life by chance, and the creation of the universe without any scientific proof but denies God’s existence on that same basis. The ridiculousness of his argument is highlighted by his statement that “to believe in an unlikely event or a deity only because we cannot disprove it sounds foolish”, which of course is his precise position with his blind faith in science, which has yet to prove Evolution (as opposed to adaptation) or even the effects of side smoke, of the source of global warming, much less the Permian Explosion of life. None of these is supported by any scientific proof other than scientific specultion.
Dawkins then raises the point that if you believe in a God capable of creating the Universe, then THAT God would have had to have a creator. Of course this is a good point and it is addressed in the Jewish Kabbalah, but it is too complex of a response to address here. But he goes on to say that Darwin explains how simple life forms evolve into complex ones. Of course Darwin never addressed how species come to be but only addressed how a species adapts to its environment. Neither Darwin nor Evolution can explain the Permian Explosion nor how a species develops, other to call on the magic of mutation, but no scientific evidence is provided -- just faith. In fact the Law of Entropy is another point that goes unaddressed when talking about how simple things become complex.
In the end it would seem that Dawkins real motivation is power. He appears to be attempting to organize atheists into a group as large as any other religious group who can then lobby on behalf of a “God-Neutral political view" for a better balanced world. How not believing in God would help society is not addressed or how it would bring it into “balance” is not noted. In fact, in listening to Dawkins it becomes very clear that he is just as religious in his blind faith in science as most people are in their belief in God. Dawkins search for the truth seems to be determined by his personal opinion regarding what is true and what is not – in short he has as much faith in faith based science as those who believe in a God have in God based science.
In his interview Dawkins is asked “Why are you against faith?” His response is that he is a person who cares about the truth and that religion is virtually impervious from criticism in our politically correct society. It is his opinion that religion – any religion – is illogical. What goes unsaid here is that his total rejection of any idea of a supreme being requires the same level of faith as the believing and perhaps more. Science has only been able to speculate on the origins of life much less the origin of the species. Evolution is a theory that is on increasingly shaky ground and any belief in it as stated by Darwin requires an increasing level of faith. Even if you believe in the "Big Bang” which in itself requires some level of faith, you are still left with the question of where did it come from and what was the initiating force. The current scientific beliefs on this subject are just as illogical as believing in God.
Certainly Dawkins is correct in his position that certain topics seem to be immune in today’s politically correct society from criticism, but he neglects to point out that one of those forbidden topics is Evolution, the Magical Creation of Life, and that multi-culturalism is bad.
When asked how he describes the billions of people who believe in God, he responds in the most condescending way. Dawkins feels they are “harmless” but that they carry the “virus” of faith. He classifies faith as a virus because it cannot be demonstrated through the scientific methodology. However, he once again neglects to point out that the effects of side smoke, Evolution, and the origin of life have never been scientifically demonstrated either so his belief in “science” requires the same level of blind faith as a belief in God.
Of course there are many scientists today are coming to the conclusion that God cannot be denied, but Dawkins simply dismisses them as being wrong, illogically religious, and people capable of compartmentalizing their life. Perhaps he should look into a mirror because he offers no real answer to this question and once again demonstrates the shallowness of his own position.
Dawkins then goes on to reject religion as the basis for morality in our society and states that atheists like everyone else including those who believe in God, derive their morality from the environment in which we live, not any religion. Morality is derived from newspapers, movies, novels, and parents but Dawkins does graciously admit that religion “might have a minor role to play in it”. Dawkins overlooks the Ten Commandments which certainly are older than the New York Times. He equates morality to equality of women, anti-slavery and points out that these moral grounds are recent. What relevance that has is not obvious because morality is indeed driven by society but then there is a moral foundation that is found in all societies and this universality of belief is ignored by Dawkins – primarily that murder is wrong.
When this point about not killing your neighbors is raised to Dawkins he responds by shifting to an attack on Christianity and both the Old and New Testaments, with a glancing blow to the Qur’an. He really doesn’t answer this question but instead points out that the God described in the Old Testament isn’t a “good” God, but the God in the New Testament is better and that the Qur’an (which he doesn’t mention by name) calls for the killing of Infidels. In effect Dawkins seems to say that the scriptures themselves violate the very moral principles they are supposed to advocate. An interesting point but then its relevance isn’t clear because the morality taught by all religions is practiced every day by billions who accept God as he identifies Himself in many ways.
The supreme irony here is that Dawkins when pressed does admit that while God “almost certainly does not exist” he would accept his existence given scientific proof. The irony of course is that he is willing to accept Evolution, the origination of life by chance, and the creation of the universe without any scientific proof but denies God’s existence on that same basis. The ridiculousness of his argument is highlighted by his statement that “to believe in an unlikely event or a deity only because we cannot disprove it sounds foolish”, which of course is his precise position with his blind faith in science, which has yet to prove Evolution (as opposed to adaptation) or even the effects of side smoke, of the source of global warming, much less the Permian Explosion of life. None of these is supported by any scientific proof other than scientific specultion.
Dawkins then raises the point that if you believe in a God capable of creating the Universe, then THAT God would have had to have a creator. Of course this is a good point and it is addressed in the Jewish Kabbalah, but it is too complex of a response to address here. But he goes on to say that Darwin explains how simple life forms evolve into complex ones. Of course Darwin never addressed how species come to be but only addressed how a species adapts to its environment. Neither Darwin nor Evolution can explain the Permian Explosion nor how a species develops, other to call on the magic of mutation, but no scientific evidence is provided -- just faith. In fact the Law of Entropy is another point that goes unaddressed when talking about how simple things become complex.
In the end it would seem that Dawkins real motivation is power. He appears to be attempting to organize atheists into a group as large as any other religious group who can then lobby on behalf of a “God-Neutral political view" for a better balanced world. How not believing in God would help society is not addressed or how it would bring it into “balance” is not noted. In fact, in listening to Dawkins it becomes very clear that he is just as religious in his blind faith in science as most people are in their belief in God. Dawkins search for the truth seems to be determined by his personal opinion regarding what is true and what is not – in short he has as much faith in faith based science as those who believe in a God have in God based science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)