Thursday, September 30, 2010

Ignorant Elites Trash Mosque Opponents

The issue of the Cordoba mosque planned for construction at the site of “Ground Zero” has temporarily dropped off the news pages, but it will return. Meanwhile talking heads with smirks on their faces continue to discuss the ‘ignorance’ and the ‘prejudice’ of its opponents.

I submit that they are the one who are ignorant.

Unlike them, I still have tears in my eyes when videos of 9/11 occasionally appear on the TV screen. Unlike them, I am well aware of the significance to the world’s Muslims of the ‘victory’ mosque placed on the site where a piece of a plane hit that destroyed the Twin Towers and thousands of innocent lives that day. Unlike them I am well aware of the massive conflict that exists between Islam and the ideals, laws and traditions of this country.

It is inexplicable to me why the left seems to want to stamp out Christianity in America while always advancing the cause of Islam, a religion that violates every aspect of liberalism in its inhuman forms of punishment, its cruel treatment of women and homosexuals and its intolerance of non-Muslims.

Nothing could be more revealing of the ignorance or of the hidden goals of the left and of the Obama administration than the promotion of Imam Rauf as a “moderate” spokeman for moderate and peaceful Muslims. When Rauf says that Americans have blood on their hands and are also responsible for 9/11 and other terror attacks against us, what he really means is that we support Israel in its efforts not to be exterminated by the hundreds of millions of Muslims who surround them.

To those who still remain ignorant of Muslim history and teachings, and think that the establishment of a mosque at “Ground Zero” is much ado about nothing, and not a deliberate provocation, I invite you to review the proposed questionnaire reproduced below:

Questionnaire for Muslims seeking U.S. Citizenship[1]

(1) The Constitution of the United States requires equal legal rights for men and women. This means that the testimony of one woman counts exactly the same as that for one man in a court of law. There are no possible exceptions to this rule for any American citizen.

Qur'an 2:282 says, in part: "call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses..." This is the basis for Shariah law which holds that in all cases of law the testimony of two women is necessary to equal that of one man.

Do you repudiate the principle in the Qur'an which requires that it takes the testimony of two women to equal the testimony of one man in a law court? YES / NO

(2) US Law does not tolerate wife beating and regards it as a crime.

Qur'an 4:34 says: " Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded. But as to those women on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great "

Do you repudiate the teaching in the Qur'an which approves wife beating? YES / NO

(3) Cruel and unusual punishment is illegal by provisions of the US Constitution. This includes such retribution as physical mutilation and injury to the body.

Qur'an 5:38 "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise." Qur'an 5:33 "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: "

Do you repudiate all verses in the Qur'an which demand cruel and unusual punishment? YES / NO

(4) The age of marriage varies by state, but in all cases requires that a wife should be of child bearing age, that is, she should be post-pubescent, generally 15 or 16 years of age minimum, 17 or 18 in other jurisdictions.

Qur'an 65:4 "As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, then their waiting period is three months as well as those who have not yet menstruated. As for those who are pregnant, their term shall be the time they deliver their burden. Allah will ease (matters) by His order for whosoever fears Him." As a Muslim scholar named Maududi has said in his official interpretation of this verse: "Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible."

Do you repudiate this verse in the Qur'an which regards child marriage as approved, which American law regards as a form of child molestation? YES / NO

(5) The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly outlaws slavery in all forms, male or female.

Qur'an 4:92 " And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid, but he who cannot find a slave should fast for two months successively." As scholars have pointed out, this verse assumes that Muslims will own slaves, or a significant number will, as did Muhammad, who owned slaves and bought and sold them. This is just one verse out of dozens that approve the institution of slavery and present in as an eternal condition of humanity.

Do you repudiate all verses in the Qur'an which approve slavery? YES / NO

(6) Hate speech is objectionable in American culture, and federal law regards such language as legally actionable, deserving punishment. While there are various categories of hate speech, general agreement is that anti-Semitism is the worst such offense.

Qur'an 5:60-65 says in part, speaking specifically of Jews as verse 59 makes clear: "Those whom God has cursed and with whom He has been angry, he has transformed them into apes and pigs, and those who serve the devil" This is the source of Muslim demonstrators' signs and chants that Jews are apes and pigs --the Qur'an itself. There are still other passages in Muhammad's book which also are anti-Semitic --as the term is generally used in America to refer to anti-Jewish bigotry.

Do you repudiate all anti-Semitic hate speech in the Qur'an, especially verse 60 of Surah 5? YES / NO

(7) War or any acts of physical violence, or threat of violence, with the intention of forcing people to convert to a religion is utterly abhorrent to American law and is explicitly outlawed by the First Amendment.

Qur'an 8:12 "Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Muslims, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite them on their necks and cut all their fingers off."

This is one of 164 jihad verses in Muhammad's book. Of this number approximately 100 are commandments to able-bodied Muslim men to physically fight against non-Muslims. The remaining 64 verses deal with inner struggle, etc, and are not the subject here.

Generations of Muslim authorities leave zero room to doubt that war or other forms of physical violence on behalf of Islam, with the objective being forced conversion of non-Muslims, is commanded and is not an option. In most cases the "cover" --rationalization-- for such aggression is the pretext that these should be defensive campaigns. Except that, from the outset, while Muhammad was still alive and a leader in jihad, few if any jihads were defensive at all and were only claimed to be, because Muslims were offended that other people would not willingly surrender to their armies when invaded. That is, there is no reasonable doubt that the meaning of the 100 jihad verses in question all promote violence against people of other faiths. The main objective is conversion but also important is terrorizing others so that they fear the wrath of Muslims.

Do you repudiate all jihad verses in the Qur'an which command Muslims to fight against non-Muslims with the objective of converting other people to Islam? YES / NO

(8) The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion to all US citizens. No-one may prohibit someone from changing religion, or ceasing to belong to a religion. No-one may prohibit someone, in any appropriate setting, from seeking to convince someone else of the rightness of his or her faith and seeking to win converts. No believers of any faith are exempt from this provision of the First Amendment.

Qur'an 4:88-89 "Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief)... Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made go astray? ... They wish that you reject (Islam), and thus that you all become equal (like any other faith). So, take not... (friends) from them, till they emigrate in the way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn away (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them ." One of several verses which deal with what Muslims characterize as apostasy. The penalty for what Americans insist is a God-given right, to free choice in religion, is death in an Islamic context.

Do you repudiate all apostasy verses in the Qur'an and uphold the principle of free choice in religion? YES / NO

(9) In America, free speech is sacrosanct and, while a people have the right to object to criticisms of their beliefs, and while others must obey libel or slander laws, everyone who so desires is free to make any criticisms of religion he or she wishes to make. This is considered a moral good when one's motivation is making the truth widely known. It does not matter if a truth is popular or unpopular; honesty is the higher virtue by far, indeed, there is no real contest.

Qur'an 4:140 "Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - and put them in Hell." This is one verse which is foundational to Shariah law penalizing all forms of what Muslims characterize as "blasphemy." Depending on the "offense" and what country such law is enforced in, the punishment may be anything from jail time or banishment, to death.

What qualifies as blasphemy ? A few examples: criticizing Islam making jokes about Muhammad or the Qur'an, criticizing the Qur'an, which is regarded by Muslims as Allah's exact words incarnate on Earth asserting that the Qur'an was written by Muhammad rather than a transcription of Allah's words, for example, calling the Qur'an "Muhammad's book." criticizing Muhammad, especially perceived insults of Muhammad criticizing such Muslim practices as saying prayers 5 times a day, prostrate on the floor reporting objective facts that embarrass Muslims, such as the fact that Muhammad married Aisha, a girl of 6 and consummated the "marriage" when she was 9. creating an image of Muhammad or portraying him with an actor in a movie or stage play claiming to be a prophet.

The last item makes all Mormons guilty of blasphemy since all male Mormons are considered prophets by their church and all Mormon women accept this belief. One or more items make Christian missionaries who express honest opinions about the Qur'an or Muhammad guilty of the "crime" of blasphemy who, in some countries, with Pakistan being especially notorious, are killed. Indeed, considering these types of "blasphemy" alone, each, by American law, is a form of protected speech to which all US citizens are entitled.

Do you repudiate all anti-blasphemy laws in Shariah, those derived directly from the Quran as well as those derived from Hadith traditions? YES / NO

(10) The First Amendment guarantees freedom to worship any deity of your choice. Or freedom to be an Agnostic or Atheist. You may worship 100 Gods or Goddesses, or just one, or none at all. All US citizens accept this principle but are free to express their opinions if they think someone else's beliefs are wrong.

Qur'an 4:116 "Verily Allah does not forgive setting up partners in worship with Him. But He forgives whom he pleases, sins other than that." To be devoted to a Goddess, in other words, is, in Islam, the unforgivable sin. Also extremely serious is Qur'an 2:28, "How do you disbelieve in Allah, seeing that you were dead and he gave you life! Then he will cause you to die..."

In other words, Goddess worship deserves death according to Islam, and Atheists also deserve death. In some Muslim lands capital punishment for these "offenses" are de jure carried out.

Almost all Hindus are devotees of one or more Goddesses, so are most Mahayana Buddhists in Japan and elsewhere. Taoists venerate a Goddess, as do Zoroastrians (Anahita) and traditional Pagans such as those in the Baltic states and rural Russia. So do Wiccans and most other neo-Pagans. Islam considers Catholics and the Greek Orthodox as Goddess worshippers for their devotion to Mary, and the Mormons worship the Heavenly Mother as well as the Heavenly Father. Plus there are normative Christian groups, like Assyrian Christians, who adhere formally to usual Church doctrine but who informally venerate the Goddess Ishtar .Altogether, about 2 billion people in the world can be classified as Goddess devotees, closer to 3 billion if you add Catholics and the Orthodox. A reasonable estimate is that, including Mormons, about 15 or 20 million Americans are Goddess devotees of one kind or another. And all deserve the full protection of American law as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Do you repudiate all passages in the Qur'an that demand death or other extreme punishment for Atheists and Goddess devotees? YES / NO

There are numerous other morally reprehensible passages in the Qur'an, all of which contravene American law and the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. These ten examples are sufficient to make the criminality of Islam crystal clear, however, and to argue the point that Islam in any orthodox form should be criminalized in the United States. In other words, Islam should be outlawed in much the same way as Communism and Nazism were outlawed in the mid 20th century.

There might be exceptions for some Sufi schools or some Ahmadiyya groups, to speak of people who have already rejected objectionable parts of the Qur'an, and it is not surprising to learn that many of these smaller groups are themselves persecuted and rejected by mainstream Islam.[2] As for MINOs, Muslims In Name Only, there is no real objection, but otherwise Islam should be recognized for what it is, a subversive and criminal religion that functions in outright defiance of American law and which is based on principles which are totally incompatible with the US Constitution.

Islam, to discuss people who actually believe in the Qur'an, promotes physical violence against non-Muslims, it seeks to intimidate others through threats of violence, it promotes hate speech, and generally can be thought of as an organized mental illness. As we all know, from daily news stories in the press and TV, this is a matter of actions that kill people, that threaten citizens of many countries that simply wish to live in peace, and that incite outrages against "unbelievers" through hate speech.

To be very sure, Muslims may deny each and every fact about their travesty of a religion presented here
About which there are two basic rejoinders,


Anyone familiar with the fact that the Qur'an is really two books in one, the Mecca Surahs and the Medina Surahs, can tell you, if he or she is honest, that most of the "good" teachings in the Qur'an date to Muhammad's years in Mecca, when he preached tolerance and a form of morality which resembled that of Judaism or Christianity. However, in the Medina years, partly by use of the doctrine of abrogation, which nullified earlier verses at will, of which well over a hundred Mecca verses were repudiated as obsolete, what resulted was a religion that some scholars compare with Bolshevism and others consider to be an early form of Nazism.

Personally the comparison with Nazism seems most accurate given the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem spent the WWII years in the Third Reich and organized regiments of Bosnian Muslims to fight in the ranks of the SS, and considering the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, the "parent" of Al Qaeda and still other terrorist groups, was funded by the Nazis and was their political inspiration.


There is a "slight detail" called the doctrine of taqiyya -- lying in order to further the interests of Islam. At least two Qur'an verses are fairly explicit about this, Qur'an 3:28 and Qur'an 16:106, and this doctrine is not limited to the Shia sect. The gist of things is that Muslims are free to tell others falsehoods about Islam if they think it will protect Muslims or their property, are free to misrepresent Islam, are free to camouflage their actual purposes behind a cloak of good works, etc. In other words, Muslims simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth about their religion.

Islam is a criminal religion and it really doesn't matter if someone who is famous lies about this painful reality. As a criminal religion it has no legitimate place in the United States of America

About the Questionnaire:

No-one who answers even one question with a "NO" should be eligible for US citizenship. For a Muslim to become a citizen all questions should require a "YES" answer.

Clearly this presents a dilemma for any believing Muslim. He or she cannot deny the perceived "truth" of even one verse in the Qur'an since all verses, according to the Qur'an's own words, are the presumed actual words of Allah, and are inviolate and holy.

For a Muslim to give even one "YES" answer is to commit apostasy via blasphemy in belief and condemn himself --or herself-- to death.

This is the exact intent of the Questionnaire, to show everyone exactly how unethical and criminal the core text of Islam actually is, how evil the religion of Islam actually is, and how antithetical to most or close to all values which Americans regard as absolutely essential --or even divinely sanctioned.

Billy Rojas[3]
Eugene / Oregon
1. ↑ Qur'an verses may not have the identical Surah (chapter) number in different translations of Muhammad's book. There is no standard numbering system. However, all translations include the same verses, and if a passage is not found in one place it exists elsewhere in the text. Surahs are always numbered exactly the same. Different translations will make use of somewhat different word choice in the English language, but the meaning is always the same or very close to exactly the same.
2. ↑ Khan, Naveeda. "Trespasses of the State: Ministering to Theological Dilemmas through the Copyright/Trademark". Sarai Reader 2005: Bare Acts. p. 184.
3. ↑ Originally written by Billy Rojas; former teacher of Comparative Religion, history and social science. Alice Lloyd College, Phoenix College, Lower Columbia College, City Colleges of Chicago assigned to the US Navy PACE Program to provide college course instruction to military personnel on board the aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise . Also a lecturer at the University of Oregon, Pacifica Forum, 2008 - early 2010.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The Tenth Inning by Ken Burns

Last night I DVR'd PBS's "The Tenth Inning (Part 1)" by Ken Burns. This morning I sat down to watch it. When one of the country's most despicable people, Keith Olbermann, came on at the beginning, I almost shut it off and didn't watch it, but it turned out he only had a tiny role. I'm glad I stayed with it. If you are a baseball fan, this special is for you. Part 2 will be aired tonight. If you missed Part 1, watch for reruns.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Preview of Movie About Tea Parties & More

This is a preview of a movie coming out shortly that explains the basis for the Tea Party movement. It is called, "I Want Your Money".

And here is a great new Republican commercial:


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Obamacare Even Worse Than We Thought

There was a puff piece in this morning's paper about Obamacare and all the good things it has for us coming due today. Nowhere in the piece were the cost increases, the exclusions or the restrictions mentioned. As this poll shows, Americans are not being fooled by this PR campaign:

The Most Important Issue to Independents

Jeffrey H. Anderson 9/22/10 Weekly Standard (Excerpts)

"What’s the one issue that independent voters most strongly demand that a candidate get right? According to a survey of 1,000 independents (and likely voters) recently conducted by Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen and commissioned by Independent Women’s Voice, the answer isn’t “national security,” “taxes,” “immigration,” “the size of government and its level of spending,” “putting a mosque near Ground Zero,” “the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” or “the stimulus and bailouts” — all of which were listed as options. Rather, the answer is “health care reform.”
Nearly half (48 percent) of all independent voters said that even if a candidate otherwise held perfect views (in the eyes of the voter) — even if they “agreed with him on all other issues” (italics added) — they still couldn’t vote for him “if [they] disagreed with him on health care reform
(Another 13 percent weren’t sure whether they could abide such a costly error in judgment or not.)..."

"For the record, here’s how independent voters ordered the eight issues in question (listed from least to most essential that candidates get them right):

8. Taxes (69% could forgive disagreements; 18% couldn’t)
7. Afghanistan and Iraq (60% could forgive; 26% couldn’t)
6. The Stimulus and Bailouts (60% could forgive; 27% couldn’t)
5. Immigration (54% could forgive; 32% couldn’t)
4. National Security (48% could forgive; 33% couldn’t)
3. Government Spending and Size (44% could forgive; 41% couldn’t)
2. The Ground Zero Mosque (41% could forgive; 46% couldn’t)
1. Obamacare (39% could forgive; 48% couldn’t)" Weekly Standard

So why do thoughtful Americans hate Obamacare?
Obamacare is even worse than critics thought

September 22, 2010 Washington Examiner

Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» ?Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» ?As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» ?Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» ?Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» ?Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.

» ?Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.

» ?Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.

» ?Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.

If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

The Nexus of O’Donnell and Palin

I really don’t know what has gotten into Karl Rove where Christine O’Donnell is concerned. He trashed her before the primary, which she won; then he trashed her again AFTER she won the Republican nomination. Tonight he appeared on Hannity, damned O’Donnell with faint praise and then put the worst possible light on some of her personal issues, while pretending to be on her side.

Meanwhile, O’Donnell has put on her website detailed explanations and rebuttals of the slimes against her. She has reproduced documents which provide ample evidence for her positions.

Go to to read her comments and see the documents.

When Sarah Palin appeared on the national scene we were told that her son was really her grandson; we were told that she caused her son’s Down Syndrome; we were told that her son was the product of her husband’s incestuous relationship with her daughter, etc., etc., etc.

What is important with both Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell is that we can trust both of them to stand up for traditional values, smaller government and lower taxes. We all know what O’Donnell’s opponent, Coons, stands for. We have witnessed those policies in action for the last year and a half.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, September 19, 2010

O'Donnell the Witch?

This is the video clip that is driving all the left-wing blogs to hysteria. I guess if O'Donnell wins the Senate seat against the radical socialist, Chris Coons, there will be two witches in Congress. Who can guess who the other one is?

I think someone should point out to those blogs and to the media that O'Donnell, who made lots of mistakes earlier in life, aspired to be an actress at one time, and that Wikipedia has the following entry on her life:

"Following college, O'Donnell went to work for Enough is Enough, a Washington, D.C.-based anti-pornography group.[19] She then spent two years working in conservative issue advocacy and for the Republican National Committee.[20] She served as a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America, a Conservative Christian political action group which opposes abortion,[21] and which seeks to apply biblical principles to other issues of public policy, as well.[19][22] In 1996, she attended the 1996 Republican National Convention in San Diego, California.[19]

O'Donnell then founded the Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT) in 1996 and served as its president.[19] The organization lobbied the U.S. Congress on moral issues[4] and focused on advocating chastity and other Christian values in the college-age generation.[23] O'Donnell made a number of high profile television appearances as a representative of SALT. In 1996 she appeared on MTV's show, Sex In The 90's, and advocated "sexual purity" when dealing with our "God given sexual desires".[24] O'Donnell was a regular guest panelist on on Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect, appearing in a total of 22 episodes."

Who would you rather have in the US Senate at this time when Obama is bankrupting and destroying our nation - O'Donnell or Chris Coons?
I think someone should also point out to Karl Rove that Christine O'Donnell is now the duly-elected Republican nominee for the Senate in Delaware, and he should stop trying to destroy her candidacy over his sour grapes.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, September 17, 2010

O'Donnell and the Founding Fathers

As I was pondering the unexpected primary win of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, and whether or not to donate to her campaign, I was reminded of what the signers of the Declaration of Independence had risked.

They actually risked, as they put it, a “pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor”. They really meant that because, if the British won, these signers would all be hung. What am I risking by making a donation to O’Donnell? That she will lose, or that she will not carry out her pledge to the Tea Parties to be a real conservative and vote to reduce government and reduce taxes?

The Republican she beat in the primary voted for Cap and Tax. Who needs him in the Senate? Her Democrat opponent is a died-in-the-wool radical socialist. I decided the risk wasn’t very great, especially in the course of history. I decided to make a large (for me) donation and I did.

Her website ( is a little slow, but I was able to use a credit card to make my donation. I hope that donations will allow her people to power up the website.

As an aside, I have really lost a lot of respect for Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer in all of this. It is the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party. It is time to beat back the Obama attempts to ruin this country or go down in flames.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, September 12, 2010

A Scar in the Earth Has Healed

9/11/10 Rally For America

At the Shanksville, PA memorial to the incredibly brave United Flight 93 passengers and crew, the same memorial that was changed from a Muslim crescent to a large bowl when thousands protested this added outrage, Michelle Obama said yesterday, “a scar in the earth has healed”. She is wrong.

There will be no healing until Muslims stop murdering and harassing Americans and other Christians here and around the world.

There will be no healing until American Muslim leaders stop excusing atrocities and blaming the victim, America, for them.

There will be no healing until American Muslim leaders stop trying to make America “sharia-compliant”, a religion that is really a political and judicial system that is totally inconsistent with American ideals, laws and traditions.

There will be no healing until American liberals stop favoring and promoting a religion that brutalizes and terrorizes women and homosexuals. Liberals need to explain how they can do this when they profess to care so much about their fellow human beings.

There will never be a healing if the Cordoba “victory” mosque is built near the hallowed ground of Ground Zero.

Labels: , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Obama Partly to Blame for Jones' Anger

The reaction of the Florida pastor to 9/11 and to the proposed “victory” mosque at “Ground Zero” is idiotic, but understandable. As I have said before, the anger of ordinary Americans at Muslims is increasing daily due not only to Muslim atrocities, and to outrageous statements by American Muslim leaders, but due also to the stupid policies of the Obama administration favoring Islam over Christianity.

This is not a Muslim country, as Obama has implied, and we do not take kindly to bowing and kow-towing to Muslims here and abroad. We do not take kindly to granting American citizenship rights to the Christmas bomber, nor to denying that the Fort Hood massacre was an act of Muslim terrorism.

We also do not take kindly to liberal judges stamping out all vestiges of our Christian heritage while approving the installation of special sinks at taxpayer expense at American airports for Muslims to use. The Detroit and Kansas City airports now double as tax-payer funded mosques, while crosses erected decades ago are torn down.

Obama’s policies and actions are exacerbating relations between ordinary Americans and Muslims (and between whites and blacks) – just the opposite of his expressed intentions.

What to do on 9/11: Instead of burning the Koran, tell the world about Muslim persecution of Christians

By James Corum September 11th, 2010 Telegraph

We must not fuel Islam's victim mentality (Photo: Reuters)

The news has been full of groups of idiotic evangelical Protestant groups who want to commemorate the anniversary of the mass murder of 9/11 by burning copies of the Koran. This is a really dumb idea. First of all, burning the Koran will ignite fury in parts of the Muslim world and will lead to Americans being targeted for murder.

Also, Christians living in Muslim countries will be endangered by the actions of this fringe of American Christians.

Secondly, burning the Koran will only fuel the propaganda that Islam is a victimised, endangered religion – a faith that struck out at America on September 11 in self-defence. If you want to create fertile ground for more radical Islamists, more suicide bombers and more terrorism, this is a good way to do it.

Yet the events of September 11 2001 deserve to be commemorated in a way that will serve a positive end. Congregations of American Christians would serve humanity if, instead of burning Korans to win the attention of the media and public, they staged memorials and placed advertisements illustrating the routine abuse and suffering of millions of Christians who live in Muslim majority nations.

In many Islamic countries, Christian minorities – including the descendants of the earliest Christian communities in the Middle East – suffer under laws that make them second-class citizens. Not only do they have fewer legal rights, but the exercise of their faith is cruelly regulated by governments in the name of Sharia. In America, we criticise the plan to build a mosque near the 9/11 murder site even while agreeing that American law provides the clear right of Muslims to do such a thing.

But in many Muslim nations no Christian can build or even repair a church without approval (usually not forthcoming) from a hostile government ministry.

Much worse, murder, kidnappings, forced conversions and attacks against Christians by radical Muslims are common in the Islamic world, especially in the Middle East and in Pakistan. Every year, hundreds of Christians are murdered by religious fanatics. Even when a Muslim government disapproves of such violence, officials and police often stand aside and allow the attacks rather than confront a politically powerful radical Islam.

In short, Christians are today living in one of the great eras of persecution. That persecution comes from a minority of Muslims – but an influential minority.

Christians should use this day to educate the Western public about the suffering of fellow Christians, and to confront peacefully the rulers and populations of Muslim nations with their failure to maintain rights supposedly guaranteed by the UN Charter.

Christians and Muslims need to talk. And the first item on the agenda ought to be the treatment of Christians in majority Muslim nations. As a Christian, I cannot believe that Christ would approve of deliberately insulting and angering others to the point of violence. But He would approve of Christians standing up for the basic human rights of their oppressed brothers and sisters.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Two Videos We All Need To See

Somehow we have let liberals convince us that belief in God is uncool, and that our Founding Fathers did not really want God involved in the course of our great nation. What the Constitution really says is that government must not impose a particular religion on our people. Liberal judges have been twisting this simple prohibition to suit their own beliefs. We are not going to solve our problems unless we understand again that there is something greater than ouselves.

Thanks to Mason and Tony for these videos.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

The Obama Approach Comes Full Circle

The disastrous, unintended consequences of almost everything that liberals try to do when they occasionally gain hold of the levers of government never cease to amaze me. Maybe Obama is a Muslim as some people say, but I’m not convinced of that. I think what is really going on is a crazy notion that if we are especially nice to Muslims, and bend over backwards for them, they will stop trying to kill Americans.

The effect of all this is that radical Muslims abroad now think we are spineless weaklings, while non-Muslim Americans (like me) have become furious with all Muslims as they move to build their victory mosque at “Ground Zero”, and more instances of Muslim terrorism at home are treated by the Obama team like parking tickets.

Now the final irony: enraged by the Obama approach, the members of a church in Florida are planning to burn the Quran - inciting Muslims in other countries to respond with their customary violence and probably kill some more Americans.

The Obama approach has come full circle.

Like almost everything else Obama has done, this policy has backfired badly.

It Pays To Be Crazed

September 6, 2010 PowerLine

A church in Florida is planning to burn copies of the Koran on September 11. That proposal has been widely condemned, and now General Petraeus has entered the fray, warning that such a protest by the church could endanger American servicemen:

The top US commander in Afghanistan said Monday the planned burning of Korans on Sept. 11 by a Florida church could put the lives of American troops in danger and damage the war effort.

Gen. David Petraeus said the Taliban would exploit the demonstration for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S. and making it harder for allied troops to carry out their mission of protecting Afghan civilians.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort," Gen. Petraeus said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community."

This strikes me as troubling. Not because Petraeus is wrong; on the contrary, I think he is probably right. Already, mobs in Pakistan have demonstrated against the planned Koran burning by, among other things, burning American flags. History, e.g. the homicidal response to the Danish cartoons and the false report, circulated by the American press, that U.S. soldiers had flushed a Koran down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay, suggest that Petraeus' fears are well founded.

Moreover, I personally am not in favor of burning Korans. My advice to the Florida church would be, don't do it.

Still, is it not highly problematic when a senior military officer warns American citizens against exercising their undoubted First Amendment rights? This situation is different from the Koran-down-the-toilet story. We criticized news outlets at the time for endangering American troops, but that was mostly because the story was false. Presumably we can all agree that newspapers and magazines should not circulate false reports that endanger our troops. But what about accurate stories of Americans exercising their constitutional right to criticize Islam by burning Korans?

What gives rise to this dilemma, of course, is the fanaticism of radical Muslims, who have, indeed, responded violently to real or perceived slights to their religion. There is no parallel phenomenon with other religions. The Taliban blew up ancient statues of Buddha without worrying for a moment that Buddhists would react violently. Saudi Arabia destroys Bibles as a matter of policy, but it never occurs to the Saudis to fear mobs of rampaging Christians--or even Congressional disfavor in this mostly-Christian nation.

Perversely, the crazier radical Muslims behave, the more it benefits them. Today it is burning Korans, but the broader objective is to outlaw, de facto, any criticism of Islam. Radical Muslims want to establish a zone of protection around Islam that insulates it against the critiques to which everything else--not just other religions--is subject. If that isn't the laying of an important foundation stone of sharia, what is it? And if there is one religion that is uniquely exempted from scrutiny or criticism, is it absurd to say that that religion is "established" in the constitutional sense?

Of course, the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a religion by government. Which is where we came in--there is a fundamental difference between my telling Terry Jones, senior minister at the Dove World Outreach Center, that a mass Koran-burning is a bad idea, and General Petraeus saying the same thing. Especially when Petraeus, probably the most respected person in the federal government, warns that the likely effect is to endanger our troops. In many contexts, taking actions that endanger the troops would be regarded as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, a concept that Petraeus came uncomfortably close to endorsing.

Petraeus didn't mean to step over the line, I'm sure, and other military officers have tried to disclaim any intent to chill Americans' free speech rights:
Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, who oversees the effort to train Afghan security forces said he was informed of the planned Florida protests several days ago by a senior minister in the Afghan government.

Gen. Caldwell said many Afghans do not understand either the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment or the fact that President Barack Obama can't simply issue a decree to stop Mr. Jones from his demonstration. Military officials said they were not trying to deny Mr. Jones his right to free speech, but feared he was not thinking about the consequences of his actions.

"There is no question about First Amendment rights; that is not the issue," Gen. Caldwell said. "The question is: What is the implication over here? It is going to jeopardize the men and women serving in Afghanistan."

The question is a delicate one, and it is easy to sympathize with military leaders' giving priority to the safety of men and women under their command. But what are we to make of the fact that many Afghans do not understand the First Amendment? Should that be a cause of government officials' calling on American citizens to refrain from exercising their rights? I don't think so.

In the end, our way of life is simply incompatible with the precepts of radical Islam. There is no way to reconcile the two. Rather than start down the road of self-censorship, our government officials, including the military, should stand up for American freedoms.

Finally, an interesting question: how is this controversy similar to, and different from, that over the Ground Zero Mosque? Both involve actions that private citizens have a right to take, but arguably shouldn't. It is a worthwhile comparison, but that is a post for another day

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Saturday, September 04, 2010

A Confession

I’m sure you have all noticed how many articles I have published lately about Muslims and the proposed “Ground Zero” mosque. The reason is that the attempt to build this mosque there – plus the clearly different treatment given to Muslims over Christians by the liberal media and by the Obama administration have had a major effect on my thinking.

Like many of you I was greatly shocked and outraged that 19 Muslims would create such mayhem and murder on 9/11, but for years I accepted and agreed with President Bush’s attempts to shield American Muslims from criticism and anger. After all, I also have two Muslim friends who are gentle people and loyal Americans, but all these years of Muslim atrocities, disgusting displays of whining by American Muslim spokesmen and now the push to shove our noses into the sacred ground of “Ground Zero” have really affected me and my attitude. It has taken a toll. They can all go to Hell.

Backer of NYC mosque gave to Hamas-linked charity

By DAVID B. CARUSO September 3, 2010 (Excerpt)

NEW YORK (AP) – “One of the investors in a proposed Islamic center near ground zero is a Long Island medical clinic owner whose expressions of sympathy for Palestinians included a donation to a charity later shut down for links to Hamas.

The developer leading the project confirmed Friday that Hisham Elzanaty, 51, is among the members of a real estate partnership that paid $4.8 million last year for the vacant clothing store that is to be torn down and replaced by a cultural center and mosque.

The partnership's general manager, Sharif El-Gamal, confirmed Elzanaty's role in response to a media report about his reputed involvement.

"All of these investors are committed, as I am, not to receive funding from any organization that supports terrorism or is hostile to America," El-Gamal said in a statement.

Reached by telephone, Elzanaty declined to speak immediately with The Associated Press on Friday, but said he may have something to say later.

El-Gamal has so-far declined to reveal the names of his other financial backers, but has said the eight-member group is diverse and includes Jews and Christians, Polish-Americans, Italian-Americans, and others. El-Gamal, who was born in Brooklyn, and Elzanaty are the only Muslims.

Those involved with the Islamic Center proposal have come under intense scrutiny from groups opposed to the project, and critics point to a donation Elzanaty made to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development a decade ago as evidence that its backers secretly harbor extremist views.

Tax records show that Elzanaty gave $6,050 to the foundation in 1999. At the time, it was the largest Islamic charity in the U.S. It raised millions of dollars from Americans in the 1990s, telling donors the money would fund schools, orphanages and social welfare programs.

Two years after Elzanaty made the donation, the U.S. government froze the foundation's assets and accused it of acting as a fundraiser for Hamas, which was labeled a terrorist organization by President Clinton in 1995.

The foundation and some of its leaders were indicted in 2004 on charges of supporting Hamas. Five were ultimately convicted.

A New York television station, Fox affiliate WNYW, was the first to report Elzanaty's investment in the Islamic center project and his donation to the Holy Land Foundation. The tax filing listing the donation was provided to The Associated Press by The Investigative Project on Terrorism, a nonprofit group headed by Steven Emerson.” AP

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Important Fact Left Out of Speech on Iraq

There were quite a few important points that Obama failed to mention in his speech the other night about the Iraq War. Many have commented about his opposition to that war and to the “surge”; others have commented about Harry Reid’s, “the war is lost”; John Kerry’s, “our soldiers are terrorists”; Dick Durban’s, “we are no better than Hitler or Pol Pot"; John Murtha’s, “our Marines are murderers”; and other outrageous comments from the left.

But little has been said about the fact that the entire Iraq War cost less than Obama’s “stimulus” (porkulus) bill.

Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the entire Iraq war.

By: Mark Tapscott 08/23/10 Wahington Examiner

Expect to hear a lot about how much the Iraq war cost in the days ahead from Democrats worried about voter wrath against their unprecedented spending excesses.

The meme is simple: The economy is in a shambles because of Bush's economic policies and his war in Iraq. As American Thinker's Randall Hoven points out, that's the message being peddled by lefties as diverse as former Clinton political strategist James Carville, economist Joseph Stiglitz, and The Nation's Washington editor, Christopher Hayes.

The key point in the mantra is an alleged $3 trillion cost for the war. Well, it was expensive to be sure, in both blood and treasure, but, as Hoven notes, the CBO puts the total cost at $709 billion. To put that figure in the proper context of overall spending since the war began in 2003, Hoven provides this handy CBO chart showing the portion of the annual deficit attributable to the conflict:

But there is much more to be said of this data and Hoven does an admirable job of summarizing the highlights of such an analysis:

* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.

* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.

* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.

* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).

* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

Just some handy facts to recall during coming weeks as Obama and his congressional Democratic buddies get more desperate to put the blame for their spending policies on Bush and the war in Iraq. For more from Hoven, go here.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button