About Me

Name: Sidney Allen Johnson
Email: info@babylonmysteryorchestra.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

WHEN TOLERANCE KILLS

Political correctness is in the air, and fear of the truth is everywhere. In the aftermath of the recent attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, President Obama went out of his way not to use the word “terrorism” to describe the massacre. And for good reason, the fantasy that there is no “war on terror” is one of the quintessential cogs in the left’s governing apparatus. Without which, all the other gears in their machine will not turn. It shall be interesting to watch the president and his administration scramble to blame the military and the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for this incident. They will blame everyone…except those responsible.

In fact, the Fort Hood shooting is the first successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. But Obama, his hands soiled with the responsibility of dis-assembling Bush era protections against such attacks, is attempting make it look like a run-of-the-mill maniac with a gun shooting. The politicization of the massacre was swift and sure as the FBI, within hours of the shootings, decried that this was not terrorist related even before FBI agents arrived at the scene.

Ever the loyal sycophants, the media too has been downplaying any relationship to the attacker, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, to organized terror groups. But alas, not only do such connections exist, they are damning:

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations. -The London Telegraph

It is a shame that one has to consult foreign journalists to get an honest assessment of such critical elements of this story. This man was a follower of the same Imam as several of the 9/11 attackers. Some would say this alone qualifies as a reason to look for a possible terrorist link. Yet, as always, there is more:

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree. As investigators look at Hasan’s motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.

Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists. Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen”.

Last night Hasan remained in a coma under guard at a military hospital in San Antonio, Texas, and was said to be in a “stable” condition. Born in America to a Palestinian family, Hasan, 39, was an army psychiatrist who had chosen to sign up for the US military against his parents’ wishes. But he turned into an angry critic of the wars America was waging in Iraq and Afghanistan and had tried in vain to negotiate his discharge.

He counselled soldiers returning from the front line and told relatives that he was horrified at the prospect of a deployment to Afghanistan later this year – his first time in a combat zone. Whether due to his personal convictions, his stress over his deployment or other reasons, Hasan is alleged to have snapped and gone on a murderous rampage with a powerful semi-automatic handgun after shouting “Allahu Akhbar” (“God is great”), according to survivors. He had earlier given away copies of the Koran to neighbours. -The London Telegraph

Major Nidal Malik Hasan screamed “Allahu Akhbar” and began a shooting massacre that killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 more. The fact that he acted alone would not make him any less of a terrorist. Lone suicide bombers are the norm in most Islamic terrorist attacks. That Hasan was a trained soldier would certainly make the use of firearms a somewhat more reasonable method of operation. The difference between a stressed out or delusional psychopath and a terrorist is political motivation and the political motivation is certain. Also certain is the unfortunate fact that Major Hasan had been communicating recently with his former Imam, Anwar al-Awlahi who currently resides in Yemen and acts as a recruiter for…Al-Qaeda!

His “Allahu Akhbar” declarations would certainly indicate that he was motivated by the Islamic fanatacism that Obama and his media bootlickers are bending over backwards to deny. This, of course, recalls President Clinton’s deliberate and misleading response to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Like all democrats, he viewed the bombing as a merely a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them. We have come full circle to the delusional world of leftist fools who act as though 9/11 never happened. Which, of course, only guarantees something equally disastrous will happen again.

Many people, including myself, have lamented and warned that the the weakening of Bush administration anti-terrorist policies would leave us vulnerable to be attacked again. Now it has happened and our president, fully believing that the only enemy to the United States is the American people, is doing everything he can to delegitimize the terrorist threat in order keep his domestic political agenda front and center. Depriving Americans of their liberties through the confiscation of the health care system and redistributing U.S. sovereignty and wealth through a fraudulent carbon-tax scheme supercedes defending the nation and its antiquated constitution in his eyes.

Lets face it, when the U.S. military is targeted within our own borders, our enemies do NOT fear us. As certainly as the October 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole was a warning that our Islamic enemies were not impressed with America’s ability to thwart their actions, so too is Major Hasan’s attack on Fort Hood a precursor to an even greater and imminent attack. They our watching our for our response. What will it be?

The soldiers killed in this vicious attack were murdered by the president and his follower’s allegiance to the myths of tolerance, diversity and political correctness. As I have documented in previous writings, many of our soldiers are killed by people masquerading as their friends and allies. It is perhaps an unavoidable reality when an Iraqi soldier who goes into battle with Americans suddenly reveals his true allegiance by turning and firing on our soldiers. You cannot tell who is a jihadist just by looking at them. Al Qaeda has long encouraged infiltration into the foolishly politically correct West. However, this killer was no surprise:

In the months leading to Thursday’s shooting spree that left 13 people dead and 29 others wounded, Hasan raised eyebrows with comments that the war on terror was “a war on Islam” and wrestled with what to tell fellow Muslim solders who had their doubts about fighting in Islamic countries. “The system is not doing what it’s supposed to do,” said Dr. Val Finnell, who complained to administrators at a military university about what he considered Hasan’s “anti-American” rants. “He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out.”

Finnell studied with Hasan from 2007-2008 in the master’s program in public health at the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., where Hasan persistently complained about perceived anti-Muslim sentiment in the military and injected his politics into courses where they had no place. “In retrospect, I’m not surprised he did it,” Finnell said of the shootings. “I had real questions about what his priorities were, what his beliefs were.” -Associated Press

It’s called “discrimination,” and it is exactly what was called for here. Too many people hold onto foolish ideas of tolerance and political correctness and those are the very things that led to this massacre. The saddest part of this story is the revelation that many soldiers who heard the rantings of this Islamic supremacist dared not report what they knew in fear of being labeled a bigot and accused of discrimination. Even worse the Secretary of the Army had this to say after the tragedy:

“I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. There are about 3,000 Muslims on active duty military service or in the National Guard or reserve forces, They remain a small minority within the U.S. military.” -General George Casey

WHAT!!!!! A fully indoctrinated Islamic supremacist infiltrates the United States Army and kills American soldiers and the army’s top general goes on every major Sunday news show to say he fears a “backlash” against the one thousand Muslim soldiers who currently serve? If there is one group of people who have shown they can keep a level head in these situations it is those serving in our military. We need to stick to the issue at hand instead of fabricating a “backlash” that has not and will not happen. In fact, we need to act in a way that will protect our soldiers from the “backlashes” of future turncoats.

In WW II our ancestors had the wisdom to disallow American’s of Japanese descent from serving in the Japanese theater, and even went so far as to imprison many until their backgrounds could be investigated during the early stages of the war. Obama and his ilk look down on these decisions as discriminatory and bigoted, yet it was entirely reasonable given the suddenness of the Japanese attack and the problems inherent with diverse and multicultural societies.

I tell you we are NOT better than our ancestors. We are weakened by political correctness because we haven’t had the courage to question Muslims in our society…and we are paying for it. It may be true that not every Muslim is a terrorist in waiting, and many are perfectly loyal Americans. But Major Hasan wasn’t, and it doesn’t take a psychological degree to see that he was a threat. What more could he have done to draw attention to himself? Declare war on America? Obama has done that!

Major Hasan was definitely wrong about one thing. Presidents Bush and Obama have gone out of their way to make it clear that the “War on Terror” was NOT a war on Islam. That is why it is doomed to fail. Too many ignorant people inflate their opinion of themselves and their intellect by accepting a foolish moral equivalency of Islam with other religions, particularly Christianity. It is a fool’s lie. Islam is at war with us and has been for 1200 years. It only understands dominance and submission. Tolerance to Islam is dangerous. Thanks to Nadal Hasan, we have learned that lesson yet again. Therefore, what we need is an open declaration of “War on Islam.” Political correctness be damned! Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization. Muslims know this, why do we insist on accepting tolerance, diversity, equality and political correctness mythology? They are all false gods.

“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what [Hasan] has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.” -Anwar al-Awlaki’s response to the massacre

Discrimination. Its what people do…when they KNOW better. How long does it take for some people to learn?

Photobucket

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THIS MEANS WAR

“This is a dangerous world, and this cat isn’t remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you.” – Former President G.W. Bush speaking about then Democratic Presidential nominee Barack H. Obama

War is coming soon. Count on it. I am not talking about the kind of war such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which inconveniences no one beyond the deployed soldiers and their families. No, you are soon going to get the real deal. A conflict that will involve every thought of every moment of your waking lives. President Obama’s announcement that he will not fulfil the United States’ commitment to install an anti-ballistic missile defense system in Eastern Europe has provided further proof, as if any were needed, that so called “progressives,” in spite of all their pseudo-intellectual arrogance, never learn from their mistakes.

VIENNA (AP) - Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press. The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency’s leaders share Washington’s views on Iran’s weapon-making capabilities.

It appears to be the so-called “secret annex” on Iran’s nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA’s chief. The document says Iran has “sufficient information” to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to “overcome problems” on developing a delivery system.

The failure to follow through on the previous administration’s promise, combined with Iran’s continued, and now possibly completed, development of nuclear weapons is an invitation for war…and a big one at that. If you count the cold war as World War Three then gird your loins for World War 4. It’s coming.

You have to work very hard to make as many mistakes as fast as this administration has in just nine months. Fear matters in a dangerous world, and make no mistake about it, no-one is afraid of Barack H. Obama. So far he has alienated all of America’s traditional allies while encouraging those countries hostile to us.

Obama failed to stand with Iranians protesting the pre-ordained election results that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to office. He is so determined that he can negotiate with this maniacal lunatic that he has acted to keep him in power just so he can prove it to us. He likewise has sided with the Hugo Chavez backed president of Honduras who was rightly ousted by the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress for trying to illegally alter their constitution. Even now, this administration is insisting that Chavez’s man be put back into power or the U.S. will not recognize this government or ANY future elected government! Thats insane.

He has also been pressing Israel for more concessions while authorizing money for Palestinians. Such financial aid has historically been returned to Israel in the form of unprovoked rocket attacks. Throw in an ill-conceived investigation into the CIA’s interrogation of terrorist detainees, and even our own people see no reason to trust this administration. What’s next, granting terrorists captured on the battlefield as prisoners of war rights of Habeas Corpus?

BAGRAM, Afghanistan – Afghan inmates held in the US’s Bagram military custody center will soon have their first opportunity to exercise expanded rights to challenge indefinite detention. The Obama administration has prepared a new set of guidelines regarding the legal rights of over 600 Afghan inmates detained at Bagram air-base.  The administration hopes to implement the new system during this week.  The new system will also grant extended rights to an unknown number of captive nationals from numerous other Middle Eastern states. - Impunity Watch, Asia

The “Blame America First” people are now in charge and they are on an appeasement crusade. The decision not to deploy the missile defense system was part of the Obama administration’s “reset” negotiating policy with Russia. Although he was willing to make this concession to Russia, alienating still more U.S. allies in Poland and Czechoslovakia, he apparently got nothing in return other than the possibility that Russia might assist in future negotiations with Iran. This is not what one would call savvy negotiating. The only thing less comforting than this administration’s weak negotiating skills is its apparent tactlessness. How do you announce you are backing out of a defense deal with Poland on the 70th anniversary of the day that the Russians and Germans invaded the country to start the second world war? Are they really this callous, or worse, ignorant? These arrogant people pride themselves on their intellectual superiority…where is it?

For their part the government of Poland reacted as you should well expect they would. They refused to to take Secretary Of State Hilliary Clinton’s calls. The Czech and Polish governments put themselves out on a limb to be supportive of the United States, and this is their reward? Interestingly, although this decision is an offense to the governments of these countries, the people themselves actually approve of this decision. It is their fear that allowing such a system to be deployed on their territory would make them a desirable target for terrorists.

If there is one thing you can count on, it is the consistency of European cowardice. We have seen their willingness to appease aggressors lead to disaster time and again in the last century. Yet they not only fail to learn from those disasters, they also fail to remember the lesson of Ronald Reagan. In the 1980’s, at the peak of the cold war, he deployed medium range nuclear missiles in West Germany…and oh how the people did complain. Once again, they argued it would increase the likelihood of war. What happened? Ten years later both the missiles AND the Soviet Union were gone, without a shot being fired. Peace through strength is the only thing that will prevent a war. Weakness will always provoke an aggressor to strike. Unfortunately cowardice comes too easily to the European. Too bad.

Our “Appeaser in Chief’” should have insisted on one very important concession from Russia. His failure to do so has guaranteed war. The Russians have agreed to sell Iran anti-aircraft missiles. Obama should have insisted that the sale be canceled in exchange for betraying our allies. He insisted on nothing and bowed to the Kremlin’s wishes. Those anti-aircraft missiles are for the purpose of defending Iran from a potential strike by Israel on their nuclear facilities. Failure to get that sale stopped, combined with the IAEA report claiming Iran can now build an atomic weapon, makes it imperative that Israel strike sooner rather than later. Rhetoric like this doesn’t help either:

“The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false … It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim. Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty. This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it … This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end.” – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Sept. 18, 2009

Israel knows those weapons have but one purpose, their annihilation. They will strike, and they will strike first. They must. But that will present several problems. Last year the Democratically controlled Congress blocked the sale of several “bunker buster” bombs to Israel. They thought that, by depriving Israel of these deep penetrating conventional weapons, they could discourage a war with Iran. However, for Israel, this is about survival. Denying Israel the use of these weapons does not reduce the likelihood of military action. It just forces them to use different munitions. Israel dares not risk a failed attack, or one that does not significantly disable Iran’s nuclear capability. With hardened facilities buried deep underground, you need devastating firepower. Thanks to the shortsighted actions of the Democrats in Congress, Israel may be forced to use nuclear weapons to destroy their targets. Consider the ramifications of that.

In any event, an Israeli attack will lead to worldwide condemnation of Israel, and likely, a worldwide counter-attack via terrorism. Decades of acquiescence to Islamic immigration will envelope Europe in a firestorm of internally delivered attacks. Perhaps it is the just reward for their perpetual cowardice. Such attacks will certainly find their way to the United States as well. After all, the President has been in a rush to dismantle the apparatus that the previous administration built to protect us after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Fortunately, this time, the terrorists will have adequate legal representation in the event they get caught.

Israel has the capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, but can they, or will they, attempt to destroy all of Iran’s military assets? Almost certainly not. The consequences of an Israeli attack will be the certainty that the Iranian navy will close the Persian Gulf, shutting off the oil supply to the West. Welcome to world war. Oil prices will spike the world over from the instantaneous shortages this will create. Someone will have to reopen the Persian Gulf. Conventional wisdom says that “someone” will have to be the United States.

But in the Obama administration there is no place for either convention or wisdom. The crisis that will occur when the oil spigot is cut off will have spectacularly useful repercussions to an administration that doesn’t believe a crisis should be allowed to go to waste. Therefore, there is no guarantee that Obama will give the order to reopen the Persian Gulf. Failure to do so will definitely prolong the crisis and almost certainly will have the effect of suffocating every Western economy. If the crisis can be prolonged long enough, it may prove fatal. Not a bad days work if you are not only the president of the most powerful economy on earth, but also the president of the Karl Marx/Che Guevara fan club. Considering the economic decisions this administration has made thus far, such a crisis could be irresistible. For a man with Obama’s ego, the opportunity to rebuild the world in his own image may be too much of a temptation. To hell with the rest of us.

GENESIS 27:29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.

And yet there is another possibility. One that may be the most diabolical of them all. For Israel to have any chance of succeeding in its’ primary objective of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, it must have the element of surprise on its’ side. If it trusts the Obama administration, and there is no reason that it should, Israel may, as a courtesy, notify Washington of its’ intentions. Israel may, however, choose not to tell Washington in advance since the Obama administration, unlike Bush’s, is not likely to offer any assistance.

In either event, the United States has plenty of military assets in the region that will be able to detect that such a strike is underway. I propose that, given this administration’s tendency to cater to the Muslim world, it is very possible Obama will tip off the Iranian’s that such an attack is coming and from where. After all, have you ever seen a nation more determined to switch sides in all of its commitments, both internationally and domestically, than this one? This will guarantee that the Israeli attack fails. Perhaps, in return, Obama will extract a promise from Iran not to close the Persian Gulf…but only by betraying one of our our closest allies. Of course, who but a naive negotiator like Obama could trust the government in Tehran to keep such an agreement? Muslim history is full of backstabbing.

If you think I am just an alarmist and talking out of my hat consider this conversation with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama’s top foreign policy adviser United States National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, and notorious anti-Semite in an interview with the Daily Beast:

Daily Beast: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

Daily Beast: What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

To the contrary, there are plenty on the far left, particularly among Reverend Wright style Black Liberationists, who would be delighted to see a battle between the United States and Israel. This is the conversation happening in the White House right now. Obama’s top adviser in this very matter is encouraging a military confrontation against our ally Israel in defense of our enemy Iran. And you thought it couldn’t get worse. If you voted for change in the last election, you certainly got it!

“Under section 370 of the House Of Representatives Rules and Manual it has been held that a member of the house cannot refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” Yet, as he alienates our allies and coddles our enemies, it would appear he is doing just that. And you know what that means…WAR!

But whose side are we on? Ask Poland and Czechoslovakia. They know…and Israel is soon going to find out.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

“But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.” -2 Chronicles 36:16

Where were you when the line was crossed? Do you know what you were doing when the man who calls himself the President of the United States elevated himself to the status of God? Did you even notice or were you too busy with some other menial task to allow yourself to appreciate this monumental moment? This kind of thing used to happen a lot in ancient times when entire populations were believers in many gods. It’s not so much of an occurrence in the age of reason and monotheism. Declaring yourself to be a god, however, is not quite the same as elevating yourself to the status of THE God. Although, to be fair, the ambition is the same whether you are Caligula or Obama. Behold, the most preposterous, and blasphemous, statement ever made by a President of the United States:

“We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.” – President Barack Obama

 

It doesn’t take many words to condemn an entire society. Perhaps President Obama has shown himself to be be as intellectual and eloquent as his propagandists would have us to believe by showing such brevity in his ascension to god status. Surely these words, and the incredible lack of public outrage to them, condemn all of us. Have you ever heard a believer (remember, this man claims to be a Christian) be so presumptuous as to say we’re “partners” with God on ANY question? Yet he dares utter this in defense of a government program that’s got people worried about “death panels” and taxpayer supported abortions.

In truth, a partnership is actually a nice framework for “The Anointed One’s” position on both abortion and bureaucratic panels that will determine who gets treatment and who does not in the fantasy land of “universal health care.” Unfortunately “I Am” is relegated to the status of junior partner in this relationship as only “The Anointed One” has the legal power to exercise a veto or sign a law. The godless press may have to reconsider their atheism in light of Obama’s new status. I would imagine Lucifer must be so envious of Obama succeeding where he failed!

You have to give Obama and the Democrats credit for their predictability. Once Health Care Reform lost favor with the public on its merits, or rather its lack of them, they resorted to every childish trick in their toy-box to demonize their opponents. They were quick to accuse opponents of Health Care Reform of being purveyors of false information, even as, time and again, the opponents were shown to be justified. In fact, time and again, it has been shown that supporters of Health Care Reform, especially lawmakers in congress, are the ones who have been guilty of misrepresenting the facts. Unfortunately, for them, the town hall meetings across America have shown that the public is better informed on the details of the various proposals than their legislators.

Of course, every child knows that when he is confronted with an idea he doesn’t like he must ridicule the bearers of such ideas by calling them every bad name he can think of. The law of the sandbox has been on display as opponents of Health Care Reform have been derided as “astroturf” in an attempt to degrade the sincerity of their opposition. This, in spite of the fact that supporters of Health Care Reform arrive in buses, wearing uniforms and carrying professionally made signs! There just hasn’t been enough of them to counter the ever growing number of opponents to Health Care Reform. Hypocrisy is, of course, another indicator of the underdeveloped minds of children. When criticized, you can also accuse your opponents of being “Brownshirts,” as our illustrious Speaker of The House Of Representatives chose to do. You’ve got to enjoy a good Nazi metaphor. This likewise has a certain hypocritical flair to it as you come to see how much the Health Care Reform proposals resemble those of a certain central European Nation circa the 1930’s. I’ll let you guess which one.

If your opposition still fails to wither from these initial confrontations you can always go to the tried and true formula of racial racketeering. Since the President is a black man, anyone who would dare oppose his policies must be a racist. You’ve got to love the consistency of these people. Unfortunately the profitability of racial racketeering may be coming to an end. It reached its zenith with the election, as the vast majority of white Americans gave themselves a “feel good” moment by electing a black president and, in their minds, signaling the beginning of a post-racial America. Apparently the Democrats didn’t view things the same way. To them it was the triumphant moment of their greatest exploitation of a black man to serve their own political ends. It really doesn’t matter who was right. The parasites that have been feeding off of white America’s guilt have killed their host, as parasites are prone to do. There is no more guilt left to consume. Americans turn on their Presidents often. Calling opponents of Health Care Reform racists has only made their opposition stronger.

So who wouldn’t turn to God when all else failed? The President, in his desperation, went to play the morality card that was once the first one that progressives would play back in the first half of the twentieth century. In those times, people actually believed in God without question. Modern progressives find playing the “God” card leaves a bad taste in their atheistic mouths. But hey, these are desperate times. So out comes Obama rehashing his usual arguments about being our brother’s keeper (which begs the question: what is Obama doing for his own brother?) and taking care of “the least among us.” Predictable rhetoric from a predictably adolescent mind…but then he got carried away:

“We are God’s partner in matters of life and death” – President Obama

Wow! I think he misunderstood his instructions. Instead of turning to God, he turned into one. It doesn’t get any better the more times you hear it but, before you simply dismiss our president as pompous, an idiot or the anti-christ, consider this: God seems to be holding up his end of the partnership! How else to you explain the “coincidence” of senator Ted Kennedy, champion of Health Care as a “right” of every citizen, being called home just the next week? Certainly that had to be “divine intervention”…didn’t it? The Senator’s body was still warm when less than an hour from his passing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were, all too predictably, attempting to use his death to inspire Democrats to rally around the deflating debacle of Health Care Reform. Naturally they suggested naming the bill in honor of the fallen Senator…all to no avail. Still the American people refuse to buy into a government run system for health care. And like Children, the progressives that have infested and consumed the Democratic party just won’t accept “no” as an answer.

Alas, what the President needs is a distraction. Something to divert the public’s attention away from Health Care Reform while they retool their message and try again. I know, lets launch an investigation into detainee abuse by the CIA. That worked really well the first time they suggested it back in April…oh wait…that didn’t work so well did it? It kind of made former Vice President Cheney look like the man we should have elected as President instead of the Marxist teenager we’re stuck with now. Well, at least it will keep the far left wackos occupied while he figures out how to sneak a government controlled public option for health care past a public that doesn’t want it.

So where does our glorious leader go from here? Like a reprobate teenager he will just change the wording of the bill slightly and repackage it as something new…which it won’t be. The President and his advisers are convinced that Health Care Reform’s lack of popularity is a communication failure, rather than a problem of substance, so expect a barrage of new and improved propaganda…but the same old bill.

Senator John Kerry got things rolling in a big way with his appearance on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopolous. Over the last year Democrats have claimed the number of uninsured Americans to be 47 million. Of course this  dubious number is a lie that includes not only 12 million illegal aliens but also wealthy people who choose not to be insured as well as those who are qualified to get insurance but CHOOSE not to get it. Since this number of uninsured Americans failed to persuade the insured majority of the country to see the need to sabotage their health insurance in favor of the new proposals, Senator Kerry “improved” the number of uninsured Americans to 87 million! So there you have it. The new improved message is simply to tell bigger lies.

It stands to reason that bigger lies would also include stepping up the more aggressive elements of the Obama persuasion campaign. Hence this wonderful statement from Organizing For America:

STAY HOME FOR THIS EVENT! DO NOT GO ANYWHERE!
—* The Event consists of ALL OF US Making Two Phone Calls on one particular, single day.
—* We call each of our State Senators (phone numbers are below) on that day.

What day? Our US Senators return to DC the Tues after Labor Day. That next FRIDAY, Sep 11, is Patriot Day, designated in memory of the nearly three thousand who died in the 9/11 attacks.

All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.

DO YOU WANT to ensure passage of the Public Plan? Since 75% of Americans support it, I guess it’s time for us Seventy-Five Percenters to be heard. Why Public Plan? = Because It’s American To Take Care Of Our Own!

So 75% of Americans support a public plan? Like Senator Kerry, they are simply telling a bigger lie. And what of the name calling? Right Wing Domestic Terrorists? Treacherous leaders? Most people recognize a tantrum when they see one. We shouldn’t fail to recognize the hypocrisy of calling Fox News a propaganda network when all of the rest of the media fawn over and worship the President and his socialist sycophants. They invested everything in Obama, and his failure will be their doom. The only capital a news agency has is its credibility, and virtually every media outlet in this country cast its pearls before the swine that is this President and his administration. Neither Obama the President, nor Obama the God can save this cast of unsavory characters from the growing wrath of the American people.

During the election, Pastor Rick Warren asked our future President when he thought life began. After he thought about it, Obama decided it was above his pay grade to answer the question. Perhaps the Pastor ought to give Obama a call. I would think one of the fringe benefits of a partnership with God would be knowing exactly when life begins. Especially considering that this partnership is based on matters of life and death.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HOMOSEXUALS AND HUGUENOTS

Well, it has happened again. In spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of citizens throughout the country disapprove of the legalization of homosexual marriage, those who know better have forced it upon us by judicial fiat. This time it was in Iowa, the veritable heart of America, where homosexuals were rescued from the oppression of unsanctioned marriages. Couple this with the Obama administration’s desire to declare homosexuals to be a superior and protected class of citizens through new and expanded hate crimes legislation, and you have the makings of a disaster the likes of which we have seen before. Yes, we have seen this before. You see, our homosexual friends are guilty of behaving like…Christians! I bet you weren’t expecting that, huh? Read on that you may understand that being “right” always comes with a price…

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, says his state’s Supreme Court actually confessed to being guilty of “activism” in its opinion today paving the way for same-sex “marriage” in the state. Iowa’s high court said same-sex marriages “could begin” in as little as three weeks, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut as the three states formally recognizing homosexual duos. King was interviewed by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND about the decision. “The opinion strikes me as very much an activist reach to overturn the will of the people of the state of Iowa,” King said. “This turns on its head the entire composition of human history and law.” He called it the “most activist opinion that I have every read.”

Citing the court’s boasts about how it had led in the fight against slavery and for women’s rights, and equating same-sex “marriage” with those issues, King called the statement “a self-assigned confession of activists. It’s the will of the people that’s supposed to lead the way,” he said. “The constitution is not supposed to change unless it’s changed by the people. The ruling should “infuriate” every Iowan, he said. “I don’t think Iowans have changed their opinions. If they did they would have changed the law.”

Once again we see a minority group using the courts to tyrannically impose its will on a population that would otherwise never accede to their demands. In fact a poll released at the same time of this ruling shows that more than 62 percent of Iowans oppose homosexual marriage, and fewer than 30 percent support it, though about half of those opposed would support civil unions. Unfortunately the court ruled that civil unions weren’t an acceptable alternative. Why? Because this is about being “right,” and these activist courts are convinced it is their job to make things “right.” Never mind that it is their job to interpret the law, not “fix” it. By linking homosexual marriage to the fight against slavery the court is claiming to be operating on some higher moral authority that seems to exist above the law. One could make the argument that this higher moral authority could come from God except for the fact that we know his feelings on homosexuality.

Nevertheless, in spite of all this, as always, the Obama administration stands poised to make things even worse:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section. - White House Website

Yes, the infamous Matthew Shepherd Act, whereby homosexuals are granted status as a “protected” class of citizen as though there was something that was innately special about being a homosexual. Worse still is the implication that protecting them is something of a priority over protecting the rest of us.

All hate crimes legislation is a direct threat to both our religious liberties and our right to free speech. In other countries where these kind of laws have been implemented, pastors and Christians have been arrested and fined for speaking what the Biblical scriptures teach about homosexuality. There is even a recently passed state law in Colorado that makes it a crime to hand out Christian literature that speaks against this lifestyle. It can happen here. It is happening here.

I cannot help but recognize the similarity between the radical agenda that is driving the push to legalize homosexual marriage, and a previous time of “manufactured” intolerance. As you will see, we have been here before. Journey back in time to sixteenth century France and the conflict between the Protestants (called Huguenots) and the dominant Roman Catholic Church. You will find that those driving the homosexual agenda have learned a lot from their Huguenot brothers about how to force themselves, and their agenda, on an unwilling   majority. However, they seem to be oblivious to the consequences of those actions. There is a price to be paid for being “right.”

The Protestant Reformation was fueled by the unprecedented access to Biblical scriptures that resulted from both the invention of the printing press and the translating of the Bible into the various languages of the European Christians. “Sola Scriptura” (by Scripture alone) was one of the mantras of the Reformation. This doctrine maintains that Scripture, as contained in the Bible, is the only authority for the Christian in matters of faith, life and conduct. According to this doctrine, the teachings and traditions of the church are to be completely subordinate to the Scriptures. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, holds Scripture and Tradition to be of the same inspired Deposit of Faith. Men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin began espousing interpretations of the Bible that clashed with the traditional teachings of Roman Catholicism.

Because the societies of the time were built around monarchist governments that were dominated by Roman Catholics, the Huguenots did not enjoy many, if any, privileges to freely express their religious beliefs. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church the Huguenots were heretics and were regularly punished as such. As a result the Huguenots felt they were forced to pursue a course of violence in order to obtain the privilege to worship as they wished. This manifested itself through several “wars of religion” throughout the first half of the sixteenth century. These wars led to many concessions that earned both the right to worship in their own establishments and to freely be recognized for their beliefs without fear of reprisals for heresy. However, once the Huguenots had earned tolerance for their belief system, tolerance soon was not enough. Why? Because they knew they were “right.” As I’m sure our homosexual friends would agree, being “right” entitles you to more than just tolerance. So more was sought.

These were very religious people in a very religious time. They felt that the scriptures validated their belief system over the more “pagan” traditions of the Roman Catholicism, therefore they felt it was their Christian duty to impose their beliefs on the Catholics and force them to admit the error of their ways. And so it was that the Huguenots, always in the minority, attacked Roman Catholicism with both words and violence. The Huguenots took to the practice of Iconoclasm, the deliberate destruction of Catholic symbols, statues and churches. Does this remind you of any behavior you have been seeing out of the aggressive homosexual advocates? They too have been trespassing into church services to disrupt them with their agenda as well as pursuing vandalism against their property in the wake of their failure to win enough votes to legalize homosexual marriage in California. Quite blatant behavior for minorities wouldn’t you say?

The Catholics of the sixteenth century were, of course, enraged at this violation of their establishments and the defacing of their sacred symbols. Their traditions were being trampled upon even as the monarchy insisted they show “tolerance” and resist the temptation to strike back. However this was an untenable situation. The Huguenots were no longer content to seek tolerance for their belief system and the right to practice it. Their arrogance demanded that the Catholics acknowledge that they were “right.”

Positions hardened on both sides of the religious divide. Catholic militants began urging the king to outlaw any expression of Protestant faith. Many wanted the Huguenots to pay for the trouble they caused with their lives. Meanwhile, the Huguenots proudly justified their actions by claiming they had the right to resist “illegitimate authority.” Many of you will immediately recognize that as the primary justification for the later American Revolution. In both instances the king rightly recognized a threat to his authority. Unlike in the American Revolution however, the Huguenots were clearly a minority who was wearing out its welcome.

The monarchy, for its part, was still attempting to moderate the dispute. Though largely dominated by Catholics, it was official policy to show tolerance to the Huguenots in hopes of trying to maintain some influence with their leaders in the hope they could reign in the radicals. Contrary to how history has portrayed her, Catherine De Medici was very much in favor of granting Huguenots concessions in hopes of maintaining the social order. Unfortunately she would end up receiving much of the blame for the event that was about to unfold.

Tensions were raised to a fever pitch when the King Charles IX indicated he would consider sending military aid to a Huguenot army that was invading the Netherlands. In May of 1572 Dutch Protestants were in revolt against Catholic King Philip II of Spain. The majority of the French population naturally despised the idea of allying with heretics against a Catholic King. Worse still, was Charles’ plan to marry his sister to a Protestant Prince, Henry of Bourbon. In the age of monarchies marriages between to conflicting factions were often used to ease the tensions between warring parties. This could in many ways be seen as the equivalent of homosexuals today using the courts to circumvent the will of the people. For the Catholics of sixteenth century France, this mixed marriage would turn out to be that one straw of tolerance more than the camel’s back could bear. There would be no more.

The wedding was to be a very public affair. All the more enraging to those who valued their Catholic traditions. It drew huge numbers of Huguenots to Paris to celebrate what the Catholics viewed as legitimizing heresy. Like a modern day gay pride parade, the Huguenots would be intolerably arrogant and flagrantly flaunting themselves through the streets. Unlike a modern day gay pride parade however, almost no Huguenots left Paris alive.

August 25, 1572 was one of the bloodiest days in Western history. Perhaps the bloodiest one to not involve a military engagement. Forever known as the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the death toll remains a matter of dispute. Many claim it was in the neighborhood of 30,000 but some claim as many as 100,000 were murdered. This was largely due to the fact that the killings went on for months. I will leave the details of the massacre to some other essay. An attempted assassination of Protestant Admiral Coligny is alleged to have sparked it. Rumors of a Huguenot army outside of Paris were prevalent at the time leading to a belief the King ordered a pre-emptive strike. Of course the Huguenots claim that the massacre was initiated on the Kings orders and many allege an ambush was planned all along.

What was unique about it was how enthusiastically the general population of France took to violence in a manner almost resembling a festival. As word spread of the massacre, the population considered itself to have permission, if not a duty, to rid themselves of the infestation of heresy. The Huguenots paid for their arrogance. Many of the victims were forced to recant their faith or recite Catholic prayers. Infants were “baptized” in the blood of their parents. Pregnant women had their babies cut from their wombs. Looting and Pillaging were common. In a word…anarchy.

Now before anyone gets the wrong idea let me state I would in no way argue the massacre in 1572 was justified, and though I am making a connection between the arrogance of the Huguenots and the arrogance of modern day homosexuals, I am not suggesting that such a response is in order today. American society allows a lot more options for people to express their displeasures than sixteenth century France. However I would contend that a minority that does not enjoy widespread popular acceptance ought not to try to bully a majority that  values its traditional way of life.

Homosexuals often try to link their “efforts” to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. But unlike homosexuals, Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement always enjoyed the popular support of the majority of Americans. That is not now, nor has it ever been, true of the movement to legalize homosexual marriage. Remember the poll that showed only 30% of Iowans would support such a thing. Yet the homosexuals found a way around them. In 1572 The Catholics stood in support of “traditional” values and the Huguenots stood against an “illegitimate authority.” Both were convinced they were “right.” Now the citizens of Iowa can see their traditional values trampled on BY an “illegitimate authority.” Homosexuals enjoy all the rights and protections of every other American citizen. That homosexuals are some sort of persecuted minority is nothing more than a fabrication of their own making. They pursue the legalization of homosexual marriage out of an arrogant desire to make all of us acknowledge they are “right.” They pursue “hate crimes” legislation merely to put criticism of their lifestyle out of reach.

The problem with the advocates of homosexual marriage is that they demand the dissolution of the standard of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and replace it with…nothing! The absence of a standard definition for marriage will only lead to further insistence on toleration for the intolerable on down the line. What the homosexuals are advocating is anarchy. Anarchy always breeds violence. The movement for the legalization of homosexual marriage can’t claim any higher motivation than selfishness. They have manufactured an issue where there should be none, and have the audacity to claim their critics to be “haters” and “intolerant.” The arrogance of this minority, in demanding that the rest of us bow down and accept that they are “right,” is astounding. This cannot possibly end well for them.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FOR THE LOVE OF HATE: The Prosecution Of Geert Wilders

And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” [John 8:32].

There is a belief that permeates our legal system. It is the idea that the truth is an absolute defense in all things. Well, it turns out this old judicial truth may not be true after all. “The times they are a changin,” and not for the better! The greatest test Western Civilization will face is happening now in the Netherlands as the truth is actually on trial. The mere fact that this trial is happening is a great victory for all those who oppose freedom, let alone what the consequences will be for the outcome…

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged (BBC News)
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
“In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line,” the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an “attack on the freedom of expression. Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted,” he said. Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the “Islamisation” of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned. “Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?” he added.

Who indeed? In March of 2008 Geert Wilders posted a short film that he made called “Fitna.” Fitna is an Islamic term meaning “strife.” Predictably this film was called an abomination and an offense to Islam even though there is not one false statement presented. The film featured quotes from the Qu’ran dubbed over video of actual scenes of these verses being brought to their full and violent fruition. Mr Wilders even had the audacity to compare the Qu’ran to Hitler’s famous book “Mein Kampf” and likened Islam to Nazism. Gee, I wonder where he got that idea…

“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all — Our Fuehrer.” - Heinrich Himmler

“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” - Adolf Hitler

That truth stuff sure does get in the way of a good hate crimes prosecution doesn’t it? One might even call it…”inconvenient!” The two leading Nazi’s of the Third Reich are not only endorsing Islam with all of its Jew-hating consistencies with their own regime, but also, as clearly pointed out by Himmler, noting the fact that Islamic nations did ally themselves with the Nazi cause. So how are they going to prosecute Mr. Wilders for telling the truth? Well, obviously there has to be a higher authority. Something, or someone, whose interests outweigh the value of spreading TRUE information throughout a society. Reckon what that could be?

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders’s “one-sided generalisations…which can amount to inciting hatred” against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians. The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs.”
The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders,” it added.

“This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism - Gerard Spong, lawyer

So there you have it. “Offensive” speech is now a prosecutable offense. Never mind that the offending speech is all true or the offended are all guilty. The complaint alleges it is “one sided,” and of course, it just happens to be the provably true side. Nevertheless Muslims have been offended and everything must be done to ease their inability to handle the truth. Offensive speech a.k.a. “hate speech” is the natural and necessary by-product of the foolish concept known as a hate crime. The idea of punishing people for “insulting” religious beliefs is exactly what Islamic countries have been practicing within their own societies and have long been clamouring for similar laws in the West. They desire that Western nations adopt blasphemy laws and stop the “defamation” of Islam. Defamation being defined as saying anything they decide they don’t like, which can and often does, include the simple act of repeating their own words.

There are, of course, limits to free speech, such as calls for violence but one doesn’t have to agree with Mr. Wilders to realize that he hasn’t even approached that line. In fact, he is only guilty of reporting the violent actions of Muslims. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements, but why are they not equally outraged by the violence done in the name of Islam? It seems their outrage would be better spent persecuting the actions of their own people rather than wasting it on the righteous condemnation of those act by others. They make a controversial issue about the speech while ignoring the action that is the subject of that speech. Nonetheless, if freedom of speech has any meaning, it must apply to the freedom of controversial speech. Non-controversial speech needs no protection. Without the right of free speech, all the other freedoms we cherish will soon perish.

For his part, Geert Wilders is convinced he has already been convicted and will go to prison:

“The decision of the court today was so strong that there is a real chance unfortunately that there will be a guilty verdict. In fact, it was so bluntly motivated that it already looks like a verdict instead of just ordering the public prosecutor to start a trial. I lost my freedom already four and a half years ago in October 2004, when my 24-hour police protection started because of threats by Muslims in Holland and abroad to kill me. So of course I don’t want to go to jail as a criminal, but I don’t fear losing my freedom since I already lost my freedom in 2004.” - Geert Wilders

And yet, this is not an isolated incident:

Vienna - Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam’s prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter’s home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported.

The politician, who took a seat in parliament last fall for the Freedom Party (FPOe), made the anti-Islamic remarks in January 2008. She also proposed in a discussion with students that Muslim men should commit bestiality rather than making “indecent advances” on girls. The politician had pleaded innocent Thursday, claiming that she “did not want to insult anyone, but only to point out problems.” The verdict is not yet legally binding.

Once again the truth was not allowed to be a defense. Muhammad’s consummation of his marriage with his wife Aisha is in the Hadith collection, Bukhari, several times. Of course you will remember that the girl was NINE YEARS OLD at the time of this consummation. Muslims consider Muhammad to be their “perfect example” and take emulating his behavior very seriously. How seriously you ask? Well consider the case of the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini. The leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran married a ten year old girl when he was twenty eight. Of course he didn’t call it pedophilia. No, he referred to it as a “Divine Blessing.”

“Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” - Ayatolla Khomeini

It will probably come as no surprise to learn that the the legal age for marriage in Iran is nine for girls and fourteen for boys. Where do you suppose that magic number of nine years old came from? One could call Iran a pedophiles paradise. Certainly a Westerner speaking in a Western country should not be convicted of “incitement” for pointing out that the values of Islamic civilization are in conflict with the values of our own, especially when the “incitement” consists of citing examples from Islam’s own accepted traditional writings. Yet here it stands as another example of Western culture bending over and grabbing our ankles while the ever uncompromising ambassadors of Islam proudly mount us saying: “who’s your daddy?” Is our only response always going to be the infamous Kevin Bacon line from the Animal House movie? (Thank you sir, may I have another)

You are probably thinking to yourselves that this could never happen here. Perhaps President Obama would even be willing to grant Geert Wilders political asylum in America. After all, do we in America not have an absolute right to free speech as granted by the first amendment to the Constitution? Well don’t be so sure about that. Our new president is a “sensitive” sort of fellow to the feelings of certain groups of people, particularly those who like to fabricate the illusion of their own victim-hood, as is evidenced by the official White House website:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.

Uh oh. There are those words again. Hate Crimes. As if there are any other kind. This is the kind of nonsense that leads to “incitement” laws prohibiting offensive speech. Slowly but surely, every group of people who perceives themselves as having been aggrieved by someone else seeks to have themselves added to the list of those “protected” classes of citizens who shall not be offended. You might as well call them “blasphemy laws” because Muslims will use them to stifle all criticism of their religion just as surely as the homosexuals will use them to repulse the condemnation of their deviant lifestyle. However you can be certain that speech offending Christians and Jews will somehow find a way to be excluded from such protections. We wouldn’t want to stifle all the “artistic creativity” in Hollywood now would we? Their freedom to mock all things decent, traditional and Judeo-Christian must not be infringed!

How is it you can be charged with offending someone’s beliefs, even as those very beliefs insult you and everything you stand for? Whenever we hear the words ‘human rights’ in connection with Islam, we are repeatedly confronted with ugly opportunism that spits in the face of real and genuine human rights and insults everyone’s intelligence. They get away with saying one thing to us while saying something entirely different and considerably more unsavory amongst themselves. We should not be expected to respect an ideology that doesn’t respect us. Be very clear about this: Islam respects nobody. It claims the right to dominate. Our portion is OBEDIANCE. They have not been shy about making that clear:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth” - Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations)

It could be fairly said that I have a somewhat biased view on the issues of free/hate speech. After all, I am guilty of exactly the same crime as Geert Wilders. The Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD essentially does the same thing as Mr. Wilders movie Fitna. There are direct quotes from Muslims and the Qu’ran and an intentional linking of Muslim words to violent Muslim actions. I even went as far as to construct the lyrics of one song, God Given Right, entirely out of very offensive statements made by very offensive Muslims. However if Fitna or BMO’s “Axis Of Evil” are to be considered “hate speech” and guilty of the crime of “incitement,” might the same also be said of the Qu’ran itself or Muslim clerics like Omar Ahmed? Isn’t it amusing how much you can get away with if you simply claim yourself to be oppressed?

It does worry me that the first major interview our new President has done was with Al Arabiya, where he went out of his way to pacify the sensitivities of the Islamic world. It makes me wonder how far he is willing to go to placate them. These are dark days for the West if we don’t stand against Islam’s desire to remain beyond criticism. “Tolerance” and “multiculturalism” may seem like noble pursuits to some people but there is one group of people who have never and will never acquiesce to such ideas…Muslims. They can’t. Although the very act of saying that may soon be a prosecutable offense here too! Incitement crimes are coming to America! Still don’t believe me? Observe this:

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill. The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations”.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse. Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.

With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real. (PrisonPlanet.com)

There is coming a time when Americans will be locking away people who say things that incite others in the name of “crowd control.” Freedom of speech is a dying principle. Such “emergency centers” are an ideal place to locate the incorrigible dissenters who fail to quietly follow the edicts of this, or any, administration. Dissent, which we were told was patriotic when Bush was President can now be seen as “incitement.” A wonderful method for making sure that everyone accedes to the will of the new Socialist Godhead that is Messiah Obama. It begins by failing to uphold the right of someone to offend someone else with simple words. It ends with the incarceration, or worse, of all those who dare oppose the all powerful state. What is happening to Geert Wilders in The Netherlands is going to come here.

Perhaps there is a place being prepared for me in one of President Obama’s new gulags. Guantonemo Bay may not be closed down after all. We will just change the kind of people we incarcerate there! If we do not act to restrain the coming speech codes soon, there are going to be a lot of you in there with me. But hey, at least we will get to meet Rush Limbaugh! The President has actually went so far as mentioning him by name. How long will it be before he decides he has to do something about all of us who won’t go along with his social engineering ideas. Hate speech and incitement laws are a fine way to get rid of us.

support Geert

Fitna Pictures, Images and Photos

Photobucket


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE LAND OF MISFIT LOINS

It is becoming increasingly clear that a certain, extremely vocal, portion of the public defines freedom and equality entirely on how much “tolerance” they can extort from the general public for their lascivious desire to promote the unrestricted exhibition and exploitation of their’s, and other’s, loins in and out of the public sphere. It is the classic example of mistaking immorality for freedom, and in their belligerent ignorance they see modesty, piety and bigotry as essentially the same. Our failure to endorse their increasingly ludicrous demands for approval of their “lifestyles” often leads to a display of some of the most pathetic adolescent behavior imaginable. In fact such behavior was unimaginable just a generation ago. When it comes to boorish behavior, nobody, and I mean NOBODY tops the advocates for the homosexual agenda in this country.

When most of us were children we were given a simple test to determine our basic cognitive skills. It was a simple one that I am sure most of you remember. It almost qualified as a toy. You had several pegs of varying shapes and a board with holes in it that likewise consisted of the same varying shapes. You simply had to match the pegs to their appropriate holes. For most of us putting the square peg in the square hole was not a monumental accomplishment. There were, of course, many of our fellow children who could not accomplish this feat however, and they insisted on trying to mismatch the pegs and the holes. Although trying to put a square peg into a round hole was not something that should stigmatize a child for life, we reasonably expect that an attempt should be made to correct the child. Perhaps we would even dare to “teach” the child to recognize the shapes and to look carefully to match them. How many of you remember your teachers telling you it was equally correct to mismatch a square peg into a round hole as to match a round peg into a round hole? It didn’t happen, and for good reason. It would be foolish. Well, we’ve got there now. Not only are we being forced accept this kind of foolishness, we are told it is a noble cause to promote such nonsense. In fact if we don’t support it we are bigots.

The successful passage of the Proposition 8 amendment banning homosexual marriages in California has awakened the “enfant terrible” in a wide range of people who assure us that they are the “enlightened” ones that know what is best for all of us. Unable to accept that, yet again, one of the most liberal states in the country has failed to endorse square peg to round hole marriages, homosexuals have taken to the streets protesting and attacking people and businesses who supported the amendment and, in their most ill-mannered demonstrations, they have even trespassed into churches to deliver vulgar rants against those who fail to acknowledge the nobility of their demands. This proves once and for all that tolerance really is a one way street. And guess which way its going…(insert obvious AC/DC song here).

Apparently when it comes to the issue of homosexual marriage, the issue is already decided, at least according to the advocates of this preposterousness. The vote was just supposed to be a formality as, of course, there was always only ONE right answer. Six thousand years of human history be damned, these people have figured out that everyone who came before them was mistaken and there is absolutely nothing wrong with these mismatched unions. In fact, they tell us we are depriving them of their RIGHT to be married. Where did this “right” materialize from? Well, one argument stems from the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s-60’s.

While attempting to equate their struggle with that of the African-American people may have seemed like a good idea, they have in fact offended the black community. One’s sexual identity isn’t so identifiable as one’s race. Black people, once enslaved and declared less than human, were still being deprived of basic human dignities such as access to education and other services as well as fair treatment in almost every area of society. It was not something they could have avoided or hidden, even if they had wished to. Homosexuals have never been enslaved or declared less than human, nor are they being being legally discriminated against for their particular sexual preferences. Even if such things were to occur, they have legal remedies available to them. The lack of those legal remedies were at the heart of the Civil Rights struggle all along. The African-American community is rightfully offended that homosexuals would dare equate the quest for same sex marriage with their struggle for Civil Rights. Is it any wonder that 7 out of 10 African-Americans voted against homosexual marriage? They have every right to be offended! It is no surprise that this backfired on on the supporters of homosexual marriage.

Opponents of Proposition 8 like to bring up the court case of  Loving v. Virginia. This was a 1967 decision finding that marriage was a basic human right and that there was no legitimate state interest in banning interracial marriage. Let us also remember this is still a square peg to square hole relationship, the colors do not alter the fact that all the working parts fit together naturally as they were intended by God or nature. Take your pick. Therefore the arguments for interracial marriages CANNOT be applied to homosexual marriages because you are still dealing with a man and a woman marriage. This is the basic relationship that results in traditionally accepted families that produce children. It is the tried and true foundation of every successful society. Certainly our society has an interest in the upbringing of children, as this process produces new citizens, and guides them to maturity. Therefore our society can, and has, decided that the traditional family is the proven successful model for raising a family. The foundation of that family being a marriage between a man and a woman. It is for that reason that we have chosen to honor these traditional marriages with special status.

In the aftermath of the successful win for Proposition 8, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said he would fight to uphold the initiative, even though he personally voted against it. This, of course, was before the adolescent tantrums of Proposition 8 opponents went into high gear in an attempt to extort their will, over that of California’s voters, through intimidation. We have all seen the pictures of protesters attacking churches, demonstrating outside the homes, and even attempting to destroy the businesses of those known to have supported Proposition 8. They seem to have taken particular interest in both Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church as well as the Mormon Church. Protest is a healthy thing for the democratic process, but this has long since crossed the line into violent intimidation. Trespassing onto the property, and into the services, of these churches is unacceptable behavior reminiscent of Nazi brown-shirts. The Nazi’s laid a fine blueprint for a minority group wishing to impose it’s will on others.

To be sure, the churches have handled these situations with remarkable grace and tolerance given the fact that these attacks represent a textbook example of intolerance on the part of homosexuals. In their eyes, there was only one right way to view this issue, and the voters of California failed to get it right. They therefore see it as their right to extract a certain amount of revenge against Christians for opposing them. As always, opponents of homosexual marriage are portrayed as bigots that are totally undeserving of respect. Their point of view is constantly and falsely being equated with racism. The media, as always, seems willingly pliable to promote wishes of the homosexual agenda.

The tantrums of the advocates for homosexual marriage may not be particularly effective against Christians and other adults, but they have apparently worked on the California Attorney General. After initially insisting he would enforce the will of the people, he has apparently had a change of heart:

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification. The courts have previously said the right of a person to marry is protected as one of those inalienable rights. The question at the center of the gay marriage cases is whether rights secured under the state Constitution’s safeguard of liberty as an ‘inalienable’ right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.”

“Although voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, to use the ballot box to take away an “inalienable” right would establish a “tyranny of the majority,” which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, he wrote. “For we are talking, necessarily, about rights of individuals or groups against the larger community, and against the majority, even an overwhelming majority, of the society as a whole.” - California Attorney General Jerry Brown

Of course, opponents of Proposition 8 are elated at the Attorney General’s chameleon-like ability to adapt to the environment of hostility that they have created, and have taken to calling the Attorney General “a leader of courage and conviction.” In truth he is neither courageous nor a man of conviction. He is a man betraying his duty to his office. It is the Attorney General’s job to uphold the law, not to advocate for its change. Now he is attempting to use his office and the courts, yet again, to make homosexual marriages legal.

Does a man have an “inalienable right” to marry another man? Of course not, for if he did it would have long since been customary for such unions to be accepted. There is no “right” to marry. It is licensed by the state. Rights are not, nor do they need to be licensed!  And here is the interesting fly in the ointment: homosexuals haven’t been banned from getting married. Any homosexual person can marry somebody of the opposite sex. They often do. What they are demanding are special rights to marry within the same sex. This is not in any way an acceptable definition of an “inalienable right.” If the Attorney General were truly worried about tyranny, he would recognize it as coming from a minority group forcibly imposing its unnatural perversions onto the rest of us. We are repeatedly told we have absolutely no right to reject this perverse behavior. It is us and our world-view that they are demanding be changed. This is the tyranny of political correctness. So who is the real tyrant here?

In 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture. This is a fine example of scientific and academic arrogance. For all of human history homosexual behavior has been considered “deviant” and abnormal but now these fine fellows have decided that not only is it normal, but that we must embrace and endorse this behavior based entirely on their “scholarly” recommendation? Give me a break. So everyone else throughout history, every culture, creed, religion and science was in error and these “enlightened” fellows have “discovered” the real truth? Sorry, but no sale.

If we were to accept that people are born homosexual and that they are powerless to resist their sexual urges we would set history BACKWARDS a thousand years. Yes, I said BACKWARDS. Endorsing this line of thought is not progressive at all. We like to think that we can be anything we want to be. We believe in neither “birthrights” or penalizing someone because of who or what condition they were born into. We judge people by what they are, not what they came from. Yet the homosexual agenda claims the homosexual is born that way and can be nothing else. They likewise perceive sexual preference as their all-encompassing identity and as such it essentially becomes a self-imposed penalty. That’s as intolerable as it is un-American. You are what you make of yourself. You are not born locked into a homosexual lifestyle. I reject that. If you cannot choose, you cannot be free. Be very careful what you claim you want. It is the helpless that are the first victims of an abuse of power, and how often have homosexuals been persecuted for just that perceived helplessness? If someone wishes to live as, and be, a homosexual, by all means let them. But let them do it as a free citizen making  a free choice. That choice is their right and neither I nor anyone else should dispute it. However if someone insists that they have no choice, and homosexuality was forced upon them by genetics or some other pseudo-scientific mythology, then they are just pathetic fools. I have no respect for that. Whining and making excuses deserves, and gets, nothing.

Which brings me around to the brouhaha following the president-elect’s invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. Homosexuals are in a rage over this in spite of the fact that President-Elect Obama has stated repeatedly that he does not support gay marriage. He holds exactly the same position on the issue that Rick Warren holds. John Cloud, an openly homosexual writer for Time Magazine even went as far as to call the future President a…you guessed it…bigot.

“Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn’t be surprised. Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot.” - John Cloud

What was Rick Warren’s great crime, other than obviously opposing homosexual marriage? He infuriated homosexual rights activists with a comment  made in a TV interview. He compared two homosexuals getting married to a brother marrying a sister or an adult marrying a child. Warren even went as far as to say “Certain body parts are meant to fit together.” Kinda makes you think about square pegs belonging in square holes doesn’t it? He rightfully pointed out that once you accept one of these taboo relationships as a “marriage” you are conceding that “alternative” definitions of marriage are acceptable. Once you make that concession you will be on that infamous slippery slope that will lead to further concessions for polygamy, polyandry, or even incest. After all, what logical argument can you hold against those practices that would not apply to homosexuality? It is advantageous for society to encourage the restraint of sexual activity and keep it within boundaries that prevent us from destroying one another. Failure to encourage such restraint will result in a society that tolerates everything. We have a name for such a society. It’s called the Animal Kingdom, a place where the strong are predators that consume the weak and no creature has any rights except those enforced by tooth and claw. The quality of a society is not determined by what it tolerates but by what it does NOT tolerate. Remember that!

Lets make one thing nice and sparkling clear for our homosexual friends. Rick Warren, and all of us who consider ourselves Christians do not have to spend any time writhing in thought over this issue. For us it is pretty simple:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22

If we truly are Christians, then we do not have the authority to tolerate, accept or condone homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage. We belong to the Kingdom of God. We have humbled ourself before him and accept his wisdom and his way. Our approval is NOT our property to give. Lashing out at Christians will not gain homosexuals favor with us. They should never expect us to endorse the homosexual lifestyle as an “equal” to the traditional family. It isn’t going to happen, not even by force!

It is one thing to tolerate the private choices made by free individuals. No one is out to suppress the behavior of consenting adults in the privacy of their own lives and no one should. Homosexuals argue that their “unions” are loving and committed relationships. Whoop de doo da day. I’m happy for them. This misses the point entirely. Marriage is a manifestation of not only the acceptance of the traditional family ideal, but also our desire to encourage it and create the conditions that will make it flourish. This is done for the betterment of the society as a whole, not because we are impressed with the fact that a couple loves each other. Society doesn’t care about that. Endorsing and encouraging homosexual marriages will benefit no one but homosexuals.

There are many reasons to oppose homosexual marriages. The square peg will never belong in the round hole. There is no new found wisdom or understanding about it. Homosexuals who insist on continuing to try to ram these “square peg to round hole” unions down our throats are acting out of pure SELFISHNESS, and nothing more. Championing homosexual marriage is not a noble pursuit and no-one needs flatter themselves into thinking they are more “enlightened” than the rest of us just because they are willing to tolerate or accept it.

Like it or not, the Bible does have the best warning for those who insist that homosexual marriage is just another choice of equal value to traditional marriage:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
” - Isaiah 5:20-24

No my arrogant friends,  if you support the folly of homosexual marriage you are not wise, educated, enlightened or tolerant. You are just the latest in the long history of mankind to foolishly “call evil good and good evil.” We have seen your kind before, and you keep coming to the same result. No matter how hard you try, you cannot make putting a square peg in a round hole a “good” thing. There is no nobility in foolishness and there is no such thing as a noble fool…just a fool.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »