PROCEED WITH CAUTION
-- WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING IMAGES –
PROCEED WITH CAUTION
Recently it has been posited that only “extremist” muslims commit atrocities, and that regular, everyday, average muslims do not subscribe to the brand of fundamentalist, extremist, radical islam that the terrorists do. Is this theory correct? Well, it took a few hours to wade through the thousands of islamic atrocity photos peppering the internet, but here are a few examples not of “terrorists,” or “extremists,” or the “small percentage of muslims who commit these things.” They are, in fact, photos of islamic governments extracting justice. I will warn you that these photos are extremely graphic and disturbing, but please bear in mind that they depict only government sanctioned, government imposed and government inflicted “justice.” Then you tell me the difference between islamic terrorists and islamic governments.
And finally, back to our chief ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia for three more reminders of just how the government there dispenses justice - at the edge of a sword. And this is what muslims want in America, the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.
My Final Word (I Hope) on the Conversation with Joseph "the Christian-Mormon-Buddhist-Freemason-Muslim" Abraham
As “Joseph” seems to be able only to argue for the sake of argument, and because his arguments tend to be ad hominem fallacies, I think I am done with him. I promised I would not ban him from this blog, and as long as he plays nice, he can comment here. If he becomes nasty, petty and mean, however, he will be banned (and honestly, he does come close quite often). So play nice Joey, or you’ll have to leave. At any rate, here is my final response to “Joseph” on this long drawn out conversation/debate. He is merely repeating himself at this point, and I see not benefit in dragging it out longer. I will of course allow him the last word, a final opportunity to attack me, attack Christianity, attack Conservatism, and sling insults around as he likes.
And yet once again, “Joseph” does everything he can to avoid the issue at hand. He refuses to defend his statements, he refuses to defend his support of islam, he refuses to answer any question relating to islam. He simply runs the other way, and reverts to his now painfully predictable method of reply – namely insults, mockery, name calling and other ad hominem arguments, with a healthy dose of lies, false accusations and plagiarism. His latest round of avoiding the issue includes the claims that Christianity is dying, Christianity is failing, Christianity is a joke. Spoken like a true muslim. Which is exactly what “Joseph” is, a muslim. As I have already pointed out, he freely admitted to being a sufi muslim, albeit an unorthodox one.
Rather than answer the question at hand and defend his own statements, “Joseph” expends almost 1,700 words to avoid the issue entirely – the majority of which deal specifically with the validity of a degree held by a man who has been dead for the past 24 years! Although his name was mentioned in a previous reply by me, and then again in a little more detail when “Joseph” took it upon himself mock and deride the man, the man himself (Dr. Walter Martin, a recognized expert in Christian apologetics for many years) was only a miniscule part of the conversation, and never had any real bearing on the issue at hand – the issue that “Joseph” refuses to answer. Why does he continually run away from the issue? Why does he continually do everything he can to avoid the issue? Why does he steadfastly refuse to defend his statements? Because he cannot.
So let us return, yet again, to the issue at hand. “Joseph” has made several statements wherein he has either stated or implied that Christians have committed horrendous acts throughout the years, and that this is somehow indicative of the negative aspects of Christianity. Perhaps the clearest example of this is when “Joseph” said, “When Christians were called to crusade, they killed Christians and Jews in Palestine. They sacked Constantinople instead of fight Muslims. Christians participated in the Inquisition. The KKK was inspired by Christianity. And so forth.” I replied that just because a person calls himself a Christian does not necessarily mean that they are actually a Christian. I pointed out that all religions, including Christianity, should be judged by their respective teachings and holy books. “Joseph’s” response was, “Scotsmen you do not like are still Scotsmen.” His implication is that they actually were Christian’s even though we may not like what they did.
Therefore, I have asked “Joseph” to apply the same parameters to islam. In other words, if Christianity produced the crusades, the inquisition and the Ku Klux Klan, then by employing the same parameters islam produced the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Boston Marathon bombings, the Ft. Hood massacre, and also the Taliban, al Qaeda, al Shabaab, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all other muslim terrorists. If the Crusaders, the Inquisitors, and the Klan are merely following the teachings of Christianity, then it follows that every horrendously violent act and every terroristic act committed by a muslim are merely examples of muslims following the teachings of mohammed and allah as found in the koran.
As a self-admitted defender of islam, as well as a muslim himself, “Joseph” cannot explain this and he cannot defend his statements, for to do so is to expose the truth about islam. Truth that “Joseph” and every other muslim would prefer not to talk about. Thus, “Joseph” holds islam to one standard, and all other religions to a different standard, and he does everything possible to avoid addressing the issue at hand.
Do I understand islam? According to “Joseph” I do not. Since the September 11th muslim attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, islamic terrorists have committed more than 21,000 terror attacks around the world, including here in the United States. Using “Joseph’s” standard of measure, each one was produced by and inspired by the teachings of mohammed and allah as set forth in the koran. And this is just since September 11, 2001! This is what I understand about islam.
According to an April 2012 CBS News report, “Just last month, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan released its annual report estimating that in 2011 at least 943 women and girls were murdered in familial "honor killings," including 93 minors. According to the report, most of the women were killed by husbands or brothers. "Illicit relations" were cited as a reason for 595 cases, and demanding to marry a partner of their choice was noted in 219 cases. … According to a 2011 report by Human Rights Watch, Iraqi law ‘limits the prison sentence to less than three years for an honor killing of a wife by her husband.’… In January, three members of one Canadian family - a father, mother and brother - were convicted of four counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of three of the family's daughters and the father's other wife. The four women's bodies were found submerged in a car in June 2009, and according to the New York Times, police wiretaps recorded the father, Mohammad Shafia, who had brought his family to Canada from Afghanistan in 2007, saying that his daughters had disgraced him by dating and wearing what he thought was inappropriate clothing. Last month, Phoenix police arrested the mother, father and sister of 19-year-old Aiya Altameemi after they allegedly beat her, restrained her and burned her for reportedly talking to a boy and refusing to enter into an arranged marriage with a 38-year-old man, reports CBS affiliate KPHO. The family, originally from Iraq, pleaded not guilty to charges … .” This is what I understand about islam.
[CBSNews report here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57409395-504083/honor-killing-under-growing-scrutiny-in-the-u.s/]
Are honor killings supported by the teachings in the koran? According to TheReligionOfPeace.com, sura 18:65-81 does just that. In explaining this passage they say, “This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)
According to the koran: women are naturally wicked and full of sin (sura 12); women are only good for having sexual relations with (sura 2:223); raping a woman is justifiable if the victim is owned or indentured by the rapist (sura 70:29-31); women leaving the confines of their husbands home while menstruating, are committing an act of immoral lewdness (sura 65:1); marrying pre-pubescent girls is completely acceptable (sura 65:4); beating disobedient women is completely acceptable (sura 4:34); when it comes to the issue of being a legal witness, it takes two women to equal one man, because women are inferior (sura 2:282); women are to be considered unclean, and a man must cleanse himself before prayer (even if it means washing himself in dirt) if he has had any contact with a woman (sura 5:6); although homosexuality is wrong, sex with a woman outside of marriage is perfectly fine if it is used to satisfy ones lustful desires (sura 7:81); and women are simply inferior to men (sura 2:228). This is what I understand about islam.
“Joseph” claims he is a Christian. Is he? At best I would have serious reservations about the validity of this claim of his, because “Joseph” also claims to be a mormon, a freemason, a buddhist, and a muslim. Can one be a Christian while also belonging to these other groups? Are these other groups compatible with Christianity? In a word, no.
Mormonism teaches that god was once a mere mortal man, who lived on a planet near the star “Kolob,” and he was, of course, a mormon. This mormon god followed the teachings of mormonism and upon his death he was taken to the third level of heaven, the “Celestial Kingdom” (there are two other lower levels of heaven according to Mormonism, the “Telestial” or second level and the “Terrestial” or first level) and there he was granted godhood, and he was allowed to create his own planet (Earth). Once his planet was created, he created humans, and he placed within them the souls of his billions of spirit children which were the result of his sexual relations with his numerous spirit wives.
One day the mormon god decided that the people of his planet needed a plan of salvation. Two of his sons, Jesus and Lucifer (mormonism teaches they were brothers) presented their plans to the father, the mormon god. Jesus said the people should be able to choose whether or not they wanted salvation. His brother Lucifer proposed they should not be given a choice, but rather forced to accept salvation. When the mormon god accepted Jesus’ plan, Lucifer became angry and a war broke out. Some of Jesus’ spirit brothers fought alongside him, they became white people. Some of them sided with Lucifer, they became the demons. The remainder of Jesus and Lucifer’s spirit brothers decided to sit the whole thing out, and they did not align themselves with either side, and they became the dark skinned people on earth as this was their punishment for not taking sides.
The book of mormon does teach, however, that those punished with a dark skin (Indians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc) can become white skinned of they accept mormonism while here on earth. At least this is what the allegedly infallible book of mormon used to teach. When this doctrine became controversial, the mormon church changed the book of mormon to say they would become “pure” rather than white (as if it is somehow less offensive to say that people of color are impure, but white non-mormons are not.) [Note: see 2 Nephi 30:6, original 1830 edition versus post-1981 editions. The LDS church claims this was merely a clarification of the original meaning of Joseph Smith, however, 2 Nephi 5:21 and 3 Nephi 2:12-15 both still teach that people of color are cursed but can become Caucasian if they become mormons.] Clearly, mormonism and Christianity are not only incompatible, but mormonism is a non-Christian religion.
This brings us to freemasonry, which “Joseph” also claims to belong to. Is freemasonry compatible with Christianity? Again, the answer is no. According to “Introduction to Freemasonry” by Carl Claudy, “In his private devotions a man may petition God or Jehovah, Allah or Buddha, Mohammed or Jesus; he may call upon the God of Israel or the Great First Cause. In the Masonic Lodge he hears humble petition to the Great Architect of the Universe, finding his own deity under that name.” Therefore, according to freemasonry, the One True God of the Bible is one equal footing with the muslim allah, and buddha, the muslim false prophet mohammed, and, of course Jesus. As the Bible teaches us that God is a Triune God (a single entity and not three gods as some claim) and that Jesus is God (see John 1:1), to say that the One True God of the Bible and Jesus are two separate entities (as freemasonry teaches) is simply wrong. To place him on equal footing with false gods and false prophets is blasphemous. In short Freemasonry blasphemes God.
But it doesn’t stop there. If a Christian is somehow duped into joining “The Lodge” (as freemasonry is often referred to as), freemasonry teaches that he is still living in darkness. He is neither spiritual or moral (in spite of what the Bible teaches in Matthew 5, John 8, and Ephesians 5), and the Christian must then seek out additional light through the various degrees of freemasonry. Thus, freemasonry usurps the authority of God, and places itself above Him as the only giver of total spiritual and moral light.
Freemasonry also teaches that a belief in Christ and faith in Christ are secondary to salvation and entrance into Heaven. More important that what God has said in the Bible, at least to freemasonry, is “purity of life and rectitude of conduct” which are all that is necessary to gain eternal life in Heaven. And, according to freemasonry, it doesn’t matter if the individual freemason is a Christian, a buddhist, a mormon, a muslim, etc., because all are equal in the eyes and teachings of freemasonry. (Well, this would explain “Joseph’s” belief system). Again, the teachings of freemasonry are contrary to the Word of God (see John 14 and Ephesians 2), and the “Lodge” is usurping God’s Word and His authority, placing itself above God as the bearer and giver of absolute truth.
As with mormonism, freemasonry is clearly incompatible with Christianity, and many of its teachings are directly contrary to the teaching of God.
[Note: masonic information from http://www.pfo.org/masonldg.htm]
As with mormonism and freemasonry, buddhism also attempts to usurp the teaching and authority of God. According to the Buddhist Center (http://thebuddhistcentre.com/), to become a buddhist (such as “Joseph”), one must make the “Three Jewels” of buddhism “the central principles of your life.” Out the outset, one can clearly see incompatibility with Christianity which teaches that it is God and His Word that is to be central to the life of a Christian. But let’s take a look at these alleged jewels of buddhism: the buddah, the dharma and the sangha.
According to the Buddhist Center, the “buddah” “refers both to the historical Buddha and to the ideal of Buddhahood itself. The whole Buddhist tradition derives from the historical Buddha and all schools regard him as their root founder, guide and inspiration. Going for Refuge to the Buddha means seeing him as your ultimate teacher and spiritual example. It also means committing yourself to achieving Buddhahood – Enlightenment for the sake of all beings – which means that you aim to become someone who sees the nature of reality absolutely clearly, just as it is, and lives fully and naturally in accordance with that vision. This is the goal of the Buddhist spiritual life, representing the end of suffering for anyone who attains it.”
If one is to follow this teaching, then one must place buddah, or “the buddah,” as the ultimate teacher and spiritual example. This is in direct contrast to the Word of God. To the Christian, it is God who is the ultimate teacher and spiritual example. To replace Him with buddah is blasphemy plain and simple. It is a rejection of the One True God in favor of a false god. To achieve the absolute clarity of reality and live in accordance with that does not end suffering as buddhism teaches. The truth of God teaches that sin is the root cause of all suffering, and only the salvation offered by God can end that suffering; and nowhere does God imply that suffering will end for His children before they enter into His Presence in Heaven. Clearly, buddhism and Christianity are completely incompatible on this point as well.
According to the Buddhist Center, the dharma is “the teachings of the Buddha, or the truth he understood. The word ‘Dharma’ has many meanings but most importantly it means the unmediated Truth (as experienced by the Enlightened mind). … As well as this, Dharma refers to the entire corpus of scriptures which are regarded as constituting the Buddhist canon. These include records of the Buddha’s life (known as the Pali Canon), scriptures from a later date, and the written teachings of those people who have attained Enlightenment over the centuries. The whole canon is many hundred times as long as the Bible and it represents a literature of unparalleled riches. It includes works such as The Dhammapada, The Diamond Sutra, and The Tibetan Book of the Dead.”
Not surprisingly, the Word of God, the Bible (which is the only true Scripture for Christians) is not considered as an equal to the teachings of buddah, and is therefore supplanted by the teachings of buddah. Clearly, this is another example of the buddhist belief that the One True God is inferior to buddah. To accept the teachings of buddah over the Word of God is to reject God. One cannot be a Christian and reject God by replacing Him with buddah. Again, buddhism is incompatible with Christianity.
The “third jewel” is known as the sangha, which the Buddhist Center defines as “others who have done so before us, especially those who have gained insight into the nature of reality themselves…the spiritual community. …Sangha also refers to the people with whom we share our spiritual lives. We need the guidance of personal teachers who are further along the path than we are, and the support and friendship of other practitioners. This is very important because Buddhism is not an abstract philosophy or creed; it is a way of approaching life and therefore it only has any meaning when it is embodied in people. And in the broadest sense the Sangha means all of the Buddhists in the world, and all those of the past and of the future. Beyond this, the ideals of Buddhism find their embodiment in archetypal figures known as Bodhisattvas. For example, Avalokitesvara is the embodiment of Compassion, and he is depicted with four, eight, or a thousand arms with which he seeks to help all living beings; Manjusri is the embodiment of Wisdom and he is depicted carrying a sword with which he cuts through ignorance. Together the Bodhisattvas and the other Enlightened teachers are known as the Arya Sangha or community of the Noble Ones.”
The idea of surrounding new initiates with others who are more advanced is a common practice among false religions, and is used to ensure the new initiate does not stray from fold. Although Christianity also teaches the importance of becoming a part of the Body of Christ (or, the Church), the emphasis is always on the Word of God, the Teaching of God, the Bible, and not the personal interpretations of elders as it is in buddhism and other false religions. Thus, in all three of the “jewels” of buddhism, the essential beliefs of all buddhists, it is clear that God is always placed in an inferior position below the buddah and his teachings. Buddhism seeks to ursurp God and replace Him. It could not be more obvious that buddhism and Christianity are completely contrary and incompatible with each other.
As we have already looked at islam and the obvious incompatibility of that religion with Christianity, there is no need to repeat it. So the question again comes up regarding “Joseph.” He claims to be a Christian. Is he? Again, I would personally have some serious doubts about that, but that is not for me to judge. It is between “Joseph” and God. That being said, however, “Joseph” also claims to be a mormon, a freemason, a buddhist and a muslim, and I can say without hesitation that those four religions are completely contrary to and completely incompatible with Christianity as all four of them seek to place themselves above the One True God, and usurp His power, His position and His authority. In other words, they seek to replace Him, and God’s Word clearly records the result of the last individual who attempted to do that.
“Joseph’s” arrogance coupled with his insatiable need to not simply be right, but to be superior to in every way imaginable, as well as his need to shout his false superiority from every rooftop – every mountain top are what is truly sad in all of this. At least to me. I think he must be young. Very young. If not, if he is middle aged, or worse yet elderly, then how sad it is that he has gone for so long without gaining the humility that is essential for tempering any intellect that one may possess, in order to avoid alienating people, in order to avoid coming across as a “know-it-all,” in order to prepare oneself for teaching. Because teaching is the only valid reason for learning, for increasing one’s intelligence. Otherwise it is nothing more self-indulgence and a waste. Knowledge is a precious thing and something to be shared with others in order to benefit our fellow man. Not collected and horded and lorded over others, because the only purpose that serves is to prove that you are selfish and that you think yourself better than others and that you derive pleasure from rubbing it in their face. In fact, his arrogance and insatiable need to be right, has already resulted in his being banned from not only the Constitution Club website (as he himself has claimed), but also from the LDS,net website, as he states here in this screen cap from his own blog:
I do not mind all the name calling, the lies, the false accusations of plagiarism, the mockery, denigration and other forms of ad hominem arguments, simply because I expect it from “Joseph.” This is not to say I enjoy it, because I do not. Is it hurtful? Of course it is. At the same time, however, I know it is not true, and those who know me know it is not true. Most importantly though, is that I can trust Jesus, my Lord and Savior, to give me the strength I need to withstand “Joseph’s” attacks. So no, I do not mind them.
I allow his attacks not because I enjoy them, not because I want others to mock or denigrate him because of them, but because I want him to see them for what they are, and hopefully learn from them. Learn from the experience. Whether he actually does or not is up to him. At this point I have done about all I can do, and our conversation has become repetitive, on both sides.
Lest there be any confusion as to my statement that “Joseph” claims to be a Christian and a mormon and a buddhist and a freemason and a muslim, my statement is based on his own words. Here are screen caps of his own words.
In this screen cap from the Constitution Club website, "Joseph" states that he is a "non-muslim Christian." Of course in a post on his own website (Thoughts from a Zen Mormon), he admits that he actually is a muslim. A screen cap of that post, in his own words, is below.
This is a screen cap from "Joseph's" blog. Here you can see that not only does he describe himself as a "Zen Mormon," but he reveals that he is indeed a buddhist, as well as a mormon. Interestingly, his email address is "mormon.buddhist@ **********.com," which also supports the statement that he is both a mormon and a buddhist.
Here "Joseph" states he is both a freemason and a muslim. When confronted with this, he stated that I really didn't understand his statements and would never be able to understand his statements, therefore I am wrong. I think his statements pretty much stand on their own. He can talk all day long about comparisons and allegory, but to say "I am also a Freemason" and "I am a Sufi, in a manner of speaking,..." etc, pretty much say it all. Of course, using islamic phrases such as "Inshallah" and "praise Allah," as shown in the next two screen caps also show that yes, he is a muslim.
As can be clearly seen, "Joseph" has made the claim, through his own words, that he is a Christian, a buddhist, a mormon, a freemason and a muslim.
As a Christian, and as an American, it seems almost surreal to even ask this question, but I think it does need to be asked, and seriously considered. Within the past week two Coptic Christians were murdered by a muslim. They were beheaded and had their hands cut off as well. As horrendous as this sounds, we have become somewhat desensitized to reports such as these coming out of Egypt and various muslim controlled areas of the Middle East. The problem, however, is that this report comes out New Jersey.
As might be expected, the dominant liberal media outlets have been conspicuously quiet about this crime, especially since the perpetrator is a practicing muslim and the victims were Christians. The last thing MSNBC, CNN, and the others want is to be perceived as “islamophobic.” And in all honesty, there has been nothing noted anywhere that these murders were religion motivated. Well, nothing other than the koran, which states, “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.’” (koran 8:12).
So, I ask the question again, is America safe for Christians?
In spite of the continual debate between the left and the right, and Christians and atheists concerning the spiritual mindsets or tendencies of the founding fathers, there are certain facts that simply cannot be ignored. Such as:
- During the Revolutionary War, the supply of Bibles to the United States was cut off. As a result, on September 1, 1777, the Continental Congress ordered the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from “Scotland, Holland or Elsewhere.”
- On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken, a printer, asked Congress to officially sanction a publication of the complete Bible. In response, Congress approved his request and noted that they “highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion … in this country, and … they [Congress] recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.”
- On July 4, 1776, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were appointed by Congress to devise the official seal for the United States of America. Franklin proposed a seal based on Moses parting the Red Sea. Jefferson proposed a seal featuring the “Children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night.” Jefferson later rejected his own proposal and embraced Franklin’s idea of Moses parting the Red Sea. Although neither of these proposals were accepted, the simple fact that both Franklin and Jefferson proposed them shows that these two theological liberals still felt that Biblical imagery best represented America.
- During the War of Independence, Congress proclaimed May 17, 1776 (and annually) as a “Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer,” while urging Americans throughout the colonies to “confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease His [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” Massachusetts took it one step further, and to the Congressional proclamation they added, “God Save This People.”
- Congressional proclamation set December 18, 1777, as a day of thanksgiving and encouraged the American people to “express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor” and on which they might “join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance.” Congress also recommended that Americans petition God “to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”Similar Congressional proclamations were issued annually.
- Congress was also concerned about morality in the military, and ordered that Christian services be held each Sunday (and twice a day while on board ship), with stiff penalties for officers who did not attend, and even stiffer penalties for any who misbehaved or acted irreverently during those services.
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the Federal Government, and indeed, even state governments not only supported Christianity, but on numerous occasions even endorsed Christianity, and did not publically malign Christianity at any time. As late as 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States pointedly declared, “This is a Christian nation.” Then came the 20th century.
The change was not immediate, although there were sporadic “outbreaks” of anti-Christian bias, most notably coming from groups and individuals rooted in fascism and socialism – especially during the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s. By the 1950’s and 60’s, however, communism put forth a concerted effort to infiltrate and influence American society, and unfortunately they managed to gain a firm toehold. A toehold that has since become a death grip.
The result is that today, anti-Christian bias and bigotry is rampant in America, and is taught, supported, condoned and even encouraged by the state run schools, courts and governmental agencies across the nation, all in the name of diversity. It is a diversity, however, that is in reality, a one-way diversity. It has become more than apparent that the homosexual community, radical homosexual “activists” in particular, who have taken up the role of “shock troops” in this war against Christianity. For example:
- On Sunday Night September 19, 1993 a group of angry homosexuals stormed the Hamilton Square Baptist Church, of San Francisco, California. They were trying to stop the Sunday Night service because they disapproved of the speaker.
- In November 2008, a mob of homosexual “activists” stormed a Christian church in Lansing, Michigan and began shouting profanities, blasphemies, and anti-Christian hatred, while vandalizing the church and terrorizing the congregation.
- In October 2011 radical homosexual “activists” threw bricks through a church window in Arlington Heights, Illinois. They later released a statement to the press in which they not only admitted their violent actions, but promised to continue if the church did not bow to their demands.
- In April 2012, a homosexual “activist” organization calling itself “Angry Queers” claimed responsibility for throwing baseball-sized rocks through the windows of a Christian church in Portland, Oregon. The group released a statement that any terrorist would be proud of. In it the group said they hope their “small act of vengeance will strike fear into the hearts of” Christian leaders who teach traditional sexual morality. Their message was clear. Denounce Christ or the terror will continue.
Nor are these the only attacks against Christianity. The list goes on and on and on. In 2012 alone, Christian nativity scenes were vandalized across the nation. A very brief search of news reports on these attacks (all from the 2012 Christmas season) showed dozens of attacks on Nativity scenes in dozens of cities across America. Included in these attacks were physical attacks on Christians. One Christian pastor in California was busy decorating his church and was beaten so badly he was left in critical condition. In another attack, the baby Jesus was lynched.
Perhaps what is the most shocking development in all of these attacks, both on nativity scenes, and on Christian churches and their congregations is, that in not one single instance have I been able to find any indication that anyone was ever convicted, or even arrested. Nor have I been able to find any indication of law enforcement, or liberal dominant media outlet, or politician calling this attacks for what they are – hate crimes. Anti-Christian bigotry and hate.
I have been left pondering if the reason for this lack of recognition of anti-Christian bigotry and hate is because law enforcement, politicians, and the liberal dominant media simply do not recognize anti-Christian bigotry and hate. After all, if you do not accept that truth is absolute and believe it to subjective and relative to the individual, then it isn’t really bigotry or hate, it’s just a crime, and not all crimes are solved, and not all criminals are caught. Especially if it is a crime against a group of people who are held in low regard. Which, of course, begs the question, are Christians (and consequently, Christianity) held in low regard by the groups I mention? There is evidence that this is so.
- In April 2008, Crystal Dixon, a Christian, was fired by the University of Toledo in Ohio. Not because she violated any University rule or regulation, but because she wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, disagreeing with an op-ed which put forth the premise that homosexuals have suffered the same way that Blacks have with regard to civil rights. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth, and Miss Dixon stated this in her letter. She did so as a private citizen, and she did not utilize any university property, equipment or time. She simply expressed her “personal, Christian viewpoint on homosexuality” and she was fired for doing so. Miss Dixon took the university to court for wrongful termination. The court ruled that the school’s “diversity” outweighed Miss Dixon’s First Amendment rights. Although the case is currently in appeals, the governmental judicial system set a precedent by holding Christianity in low regard by stating that the “feelings” of those homosexuals at the university were more important than Miss Dixon’s constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech, and the free exercise of her Christian beliefs.
- Dan Savage, the founder of the “It Get’s Better Project”, which is designed to prevent bullying of homosexuals, and help homosexuals who feel they are being bullied, is, in reality, a bully himself. Savage takes every opportunity to bully Christians because of their belief. Not only has he recently mocked and bashed the Pope, but Savage has been more than willing to turn his bullying on children, as he did at a high school in Southern California. I don’t know about you, but in my world when an adult bullies children, it is known as child abuse. However, considering that Savage has publically condoned incest and other deviant behaviors. When you get right down to it, based on Savage’s words and behaviors, he is really no different than Westboro Baptist Church (which is NOT a Christian church). But the world is full of sick and twisted people, you may ask, so why am I singling out Dan Savage? Because Dan Savage, the anti-Christian bigot and bully, is officially endorsed by no fewer than 13 United States Senators, AND President Barack Obama. In spite of Savage’s unabashed bigotry, our nation’s leaders continue to support and endorse him, and in doing so, they are officially supporting and endorsing his bigoted anti-Christian views, and officially holding Christianity in low regard.
- In October 2011, when Washington state residents signed a petition to repeal the states homosexual partnership law failed, homosexual “activists” demanded the names of all who signed the petition. A homosexual “activist” group from Massachusetts calling itself “Know Thy Neighbor” took up the cause (as they had in similar situations in Arkansas, Florida and Massachusetts) and publically stated they wanted to publish the names of those who signed the petition to repeal the homosexual partnership law in an online searchable database. The purpose for this was, they said, to provide those names to homosexuals so they could confront those who object to the homosexual agenda. U.S. District Judge Benjamin settle ruled that every name and address of every individual who signed the petition was to be published. It didn’t take long for the homosexuals to begin confronting those who signed the petition. One family who was victimized as a result of “Know Thy Neighbor’s” actions related that they received a phone call from a man who got their name and number from published list. The family was gathered in their dining room when the phone rang. The son answered, and an anonymous male caller announced, “I’m going to kill you and your whole family.” Again, because the judge cared not one whit for the safety of those who signed according to their Christian beliefs, he held their beliefs, their safety, their wellbeing, and Christianity as a whole in low regard.
- The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization ostensibly formed to advocate for civil rights of minorities, openly engages in anti-Christian bigotry by grouping Christians and Christian organizations with Nazi’s, White Supremacists, and other openly virulent racist groups. The SPLC’s “Hate Map” and “Hate Group” list is used extensively by law enforcement and government agencies as the ultimate authority on hate groups and individuals. Since the SPLC holds Christianity in such low regard, they influence those who utilize their “hate database” to also hold Christianity in low regard.
- At a fundraiser held last October, President Barack Obama quoted one of the most famous statements in American history when he said, “What makes this place [America} special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’” Did President Obama purposely omit the reference to God that is contained in Declaration of Independence (from which the statement comes)? Apparently so, since he did the exact same thing in September 2010 when addressing the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. The original sentence found in the Declaration of Independence reads “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” President Obama consistently removes the reference to God that was originally placed there by our Founding Fathers, and thus sets the tone for the country he was elected to lead by consistently holding Christianity in low regard.
(Curiously, when asked by reporters for an explanation for refusal to include God in his quote, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained it by saying, “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.” Nothing could be clearer, right?)
Clearly, President Obama holds Christianity in low regard, and perhaps this is the reason that the Democratic Party was so determined to remove references to God from their 2012 Party Platform. Another instance of America’s alleged leaders holding Christianity in low regard.
The most recent example of our government holding Christianity in low regard is perhaps the most blatant and most obvious example of anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination that I have seen from elected government officials. Just within the past week Colorado Democratic Senate Leader Pat Stedman, who is openly homosexual, pronounced the passage of Colorado’s homosexual partnership law through the state house. Not content with simply getting the law passed, Steadman insisted upon the removal of a provision that had been included in the law, which would have allowed Christian business owners to make faith-based decisions on how they would provide their own services.
Steadman expressed that he has absolutely no tolerance for Christians who subscribe to the Biblical view of marriage which has always been part of the Christian faith. In reference to any objections Christians may have toward the bill, Steadman said of them, “Get thee to a nunnery, and live there then. Go live a monastic life, away from modern society, away from people you can’t see as equals to yourself … Go some place and be as judgmental as you like, go inside your church, establish separate water fountains if you like. But don’t tell me that your free exercise of religion requires the state of Colorado to establish separate water fountains.”
Steadman’s equating of Christianity to the racism of the deep south of decades ago is not only insulting and offensive, but it is as intolerant an example of bigotry from an elected public official as I have ever heard. So vile and so virulent is Steadman’s unfettered hate that one would expect the rest of the Colorado State Legislature to offer at least a weak condemnation of his words, or at the very least a murmured excuse along the lines of “he was just misunderstood.” Shockingly, however, all of the Colorado Senate Democrats joined Steadman in condemning Christians, and have unanimously supported Steadman’s comments!
The message the State of Colorado has sent is loud and clear. Not only is Christianity officially held in low regard by the State of Colorado, but if Christian’s want to practice their faith, they had better do so behind closed doors as there is no place for them in society. Christians are not welcome in Colorado.
We have come a long way from the days when the Congress of the United States officially endorsed Christianity and the Supreme Court of the United States declared that “this is a Christian nation,” to Christians are not welcome.
So I ask again, is America safe for Christians? Clearly, in light of the evidence, the answer is no.
This is a bit long at 74 minutes, but it is well worth sitting down and watching. A lot of great information, that will be an eye-opener for some, a wake up call for others, and a valuable education for all.
I received this in an email this morning and thought I would pass it along.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
Theologically - no.. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon god of Arabia.
Religiously - no... Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally - no... Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no.. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no... Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no.... Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no... Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34 )
Intellectually - no.. Because he cannot accept the AmericanConstitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no... Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no... Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' The Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.
Clearly then, a Muslim cannot be both a 'good' Muslim and a 'good' American. Call it “racism”, call it “Islamophobia”, call it what you wish, but whatever you call it, it's still an undeniable fact, and one we as a country would do well to remember.
Last Sunday, The Muslim Foundation held their annual Muslim Day Parade in New York City. Among the several speakers and event attendees, flying prominently was the black war flag of muslim jihadists. As the so-called “moderate” muslim jihadists took to the stage to spew their anti-America hatred, one of the events VIP grand marshal’s, New York Senator Tony Avella finally had enough and he walked off the stage and left the event. When asked why, his response was, “I was offended.” An interesting turn of events given that President Obama was recently giving a speech at the United Nations condemning slander of the islamic prophet mohammed. I wonder when Obama will condemn slander by muslims against America? I probably shouldn’t hold my breath.
The Urban Infidel was there, and has much, much more at the Urban Infidel website. Have a look.
Now here’s a novel idea – let’s make every day a “Draw Mohammed Day” or a “Burn the Koran Day.” Not because we would want to offend Muslims, but as a direct response to the mentally defective Muslims who enjoy rampaging around the world. Every time they burn an American flag, we should burn a koran. Every time they flash one of their “Islam Will Dominate”, or “Freedom Go To Hell” or other anti-American signs, we should all post a drawing of mohammed online. In other words, an eye for an eye. Trying to be nice to them doesn’t work. Helping them out doesn’t work. In fact, thus far nothing has worked to calm them down. It’s as if rampaging is somehow part of their religion. Oh wait, it is. So maybe it’s time to take a stand. If their rampaging and rioting and murder and arson is an offense to you, then by all means feel free to offend them right back. Not only is it your right as an American under the Second Amendment, but maybe, just maybe, they will get the message.
Any Westerner can now buy a Koran for a dollar and burn it, while any Muslim with a platform can transform that act into a fighting offense. As passions rise on both sides of the divide, Western provocateurs and Islamist hotheads have found each other, as confrontations occur with increasing frequency.
Which prompts this question: What would happen if publishers and managers of major media outlets reached a consensus -- “Enough of this intimidation, we will publish the most famous Danish Muhammad cartoon every day, until the Islamists tire out and no longer riot”? What would happen if Korans were recurrently burned?
Would repetition inspire institutionalization, generate ever-more outraged responses, and offer a vehicle for Islamists to ride to greater power? Or would it lead to routinization, to a wearing out of Islamists, and a realization that violence is counter-productive to their cause?
I predict the latter. A Muhammad cartoon published each day, or Koranic desecrations on a quasi-regular basis, would make it harder for Islamists to mobilize Muslim mobs. Westerners could then once again treat Islam as they do other religions – freely, to criticize without fear. That would demonstrate to Islamists that Westerners will not capitulate, that they reject Islamic law, that they are ready to stand up for their values.
Comedian, Author, Political Commentator, and well known atheist Pat Condell speaks out against the current crop of rampaging Muslims with a common sense message that I not only agree with 100%, but am a little bit jealous that I didn’t think of it – because it is just exactly how I feel. I offer it here, in its entirety (and with a complete transcript) for your edification. I only wish that it could also be sounded from the top of every building, every tower, every minaret around the world – five times each day in place of the Adhaan.
(H/T: Reaganite Republican)
Well, once again we see multiple violent tantrums from The Religion of Permanent Offence... some things never change,
Once again we see Islam self-detonate -if you'll pardon the expression- and show - once again- why it's about as welcome on this planet as an asteroid...
Once again, we see thousands of Islamic nutcases take time out from beating-up their wives to show their sensitive side- how? By smashing-up the towns they live in, egged-on by clerical ignoramuses whose motives are even lower than the
literacy level of their followers.
And once again, we in the civilized world are being urged to censor ourselves out of respect for a religion that violates the human rights of half the people on the planet, and that doubles for a political ideology indistinguishable from Nazism- it would be funny if it wasn't so obscene... or should that be the other way 'round?
To call these riots 'infantile' and 'imbecilic' is to give them a dignity they don't deserve... they can only be described as 'Islamic'.
Let me get this straight: we're supposed to show tolerance and respect for a religion that doesn't know the meaning of either word- and goes out of it's way to prove it everyday. We're supposed to amend our values to accommodate a religion that accommodates nothing and nobody... dream on, people- it's not going to happen.
Because with Islam, it's always a one-way street: we've learned that lesson the hard way. We can't afford any more tolerance and respect- we've been sucked dry. And we've become weary of manufactured Islamic grievance: it's such a bore, that now when we hear some bearded buffoon -or bag-headed bimbo- telling us how offended they are, we can't even be bothered to laugh anymore.
Not even when the Turkish Prime Minister hilariously demands that Islamophobia be made a crime against humanity -when given the evidence- there's a much stronger case for making Islam a crime against humanity...
Besides, Turkey is already hypocritically guilty of one of the worst crimes against humanity in history – the Armenian genocide – a crime it doesn’t even have the balls to admit to.
When Muslims start showing the same level of outrage about things that are genuinely offensive -like the thousands of women and girls who are murdered and mutilated and raped every year in their countries- then we might take them a bit more seriously.
As it is, there is nothing on this planet less deserving of sympathy or respect than Muslim outrage: indeed, there's something deeply comical about it- it's so contrived and so cringe-ingly un-self-aware that it's impossible to take seriously, even if we wanted to... and nobody in their right mind wants to any more.
There was a time when Islam was given the benefit-of-the-doubt, by many people in the West- now we think it's poison, and we wish we never heard of it, because twenty years of baseless grievance-mongering and knee-jerk 'offense' have shown us this religion for what it really is, and now we don't like it, we don't trust it, and we are never going to respect it... and
we don't care how Muslims feel about that.
EVERYTHING is an 'insult' to this religion- EVERYTHING causes offence. Well, nobody gives a damn anymore, people... you've done it to death, you've killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
So now, if you're an offended Muslim, go stick your head in the oven for all we care. And if you think that if you keep up the violence, the West will eventually cave-in, it's not going to happen: even if the politicians wanted to, the people won't allow it. We'll carry-on, speaking our minds openly and freely... because it's our birthright, and it can't be taken away from us.-
it can only be given away.
And we are giving Islam nothing- because Islam gives us nothing. It's a religion permanently on the take: gimme gimme gimme is all we ever hear. Gimme respect- even though I haven't earned it. Gimme special treatment, or I'll be offended... and you'll be a 'racist'.
Well, we're sick and tired of hearing it, we're sick and tired of Islam, and we're sick and tired of the needless conflict and intimidation that comes from this religion at every turn.
All week we've heard Muslims telling us that we in the West need to understand how important The Prophet is to them: WE DO understand, and we don't care... that's the point. We don't care now, and we are never going to care... get used to it. We don't give a damn about your feelings- our feelings are more important.
And our feelings tell us we're sick to the back teeth of hearing about your religion- so stick a sock in it. And no amount of violence is going to change a thing... the more the you riot and scream and shout, the less we're going to listen: it'll simply stiffen our resolve not to be bullied and pushed-around by people whose values we don't respect... because you've given us no reason to respect them. And more to the point, because you are incapable of giving us such a reason.
In short, we will not be told what we can and cannot say- not by you, not by anybody, not now, not ever: no matter how many flags you burn, no matter how many embassies you attack...
free speech will prevail , and you'll suck-it-up and like it.
It seems as if the battle cry among those defending radical islam (and is there really any other kind?), has changed, at least for the time being, from “ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!” to “McCARTHYISM!!!”, and all because Michelle Bachmann and four other members of Congress had the unmitigated audacity to ask the state department’s deputy inspector general to look into the matter of a possible national security problem.
Not that problems like this haven’t happened before, because they have. Remember the Camp Chapman attack in 2009 and Mohamed Elibiary, the Homeland Security Advisory Council member leaked classified information? Yes, it has happened, and I for one, would like to know if it has happened, and is still happening, elsewhere.
Elsewhere, in this case, is the state department. Specifically involving Huma Abedin, the aide and close friend of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. Abedin may have ties to radical islam by way of her family, and Congresswoman Bachman would like this possible breach of national security looked into. Others, such as Senator John McCain, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Scott Brown and Speaker of the Hosue John Boehner, however, do not want it looked into and have condemned Michelle Bachmann for even suggesting that Huma Abedin could possibly be linked to muslim extremists. But what if Bachmann is right? Can we, as a country take that chance?
If Huma Abedin is innocent, as McCain, Rubio and others insist, then she would have nothing to fear from any examination of her familial ties. In fact, one would think that she would publically welcome it simply to prove her innocence in the public eye and shut Bachmann and the rest up permanently. So far, there have been no comments from Abedin. But again, what if Bachmann is right? A simple look at the facts raise some serious questions as to Abedin’s loyalty to the United States.
Huma Mahmood Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan in 1976, to Dr. Syed Zainul Abedin and Dr. Saleha Mahmood. When she was two years old, her family moved to Saudi Arabia. She has a brother, Dr. Hassan Abedin. Like her parents, and her brother, Huma Abedin is a practicing muslim, and, in fact, was not only born into islam, but was raised in a fundamentalist islamic environment in a fundamentalist islamic country that strictly enforces sharia law according to Wahhabi interpretation – the strictest interpretation found in all of islam, and enforced by “the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice” (Saudi Arabia’s sharia police, founded during the 1920’s – decades before Huma Abedin was born – and still in power to this day).
Huma Abedin’s father, Dr. Syed Zainul Abedin, founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, an organization supported by the Muslim World League – a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was also a member of the Muslim World League in the 1980’s. Huma Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood is the current director of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs and a documented member of the Muslim Sisterhood, and auxiliary branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Dr. Hassan Abedin, Huma’s brother, has been linked to Sheikh Qaradawi – a documented member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Omar Naseef, former secretary general of the Muslim World League and founder of the Rabita Trust – an organization known for funding terrorists and having ties to al-Qaeda.
To briefly recap, Huma Abedin’s father, mother and brother all have documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not to say that Huma Abedin herself has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, but each member of her immediate family does. Is it possible that Huma Abedin may have ties as well? Growing up in a fundamentalist islamic family, in a strict fundamentalist Wahhabi country with Wahhabi teaching ingrained in her from a very early age, one would tend to think that there is at least a possibility.
And then there is the issue of Huma Abedin herself. An admitted muslim, who grew in being ingrained with and influenced by strict Wahhabi teachings, growing up in a Muslim Brotherhood family where she was undoubtedly taught that the Muslim Brotherhood was good and right and of allah, why did she marry a Jew? Not that I have anything against Jews, because I do not. They are God’s chosen people. But I find it interesting that Huma Abedin married Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman, who happens to be Jewish. Yet, muslim women are not permitted to marry Jews. The koran clearly states: “And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon till they believe in allah alone and verily, a believing slave is better than a mushrik, even though he pleases you. Those (Al-mushrikoon) invite you to the fire, but allah invites you to paradise and forgiveness by his leave, and makes his ayaat (i.e. proofs, evidences, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember.” [al-Baqarah 2:221]
According to koranic scholar Imam al-Tabari, the terms “Al-Mushrikoon” and “Mushrik” refer to any “non-muslim from any other religion, whether from among the Jews or Christians, or any other kaafir religion. It is not permissible for her to marry a Jew, a Christian, a Magian, a communist, an idol-worshipper, etc.” And yet, this is exactly what Huma Abedin did, and what is interesting about this is, her family (brother and mother – her father died in 1993) have not condemned her for violating the koran – the “sacred and holy” words of mohammed. Is her marriage to Anthony Weiner nothing more than taqiyya, the islamic doctrine of deception which states that in a time of war it is permissible to deceive non-muslims? The fact that her family has not condemned her for her marriage to a Jew speaks volumes. Why would they condemn her if she was still a practicing muslim (as she states) who is engaging in taqiyya in order to serve allah? Answer – they wouldn’t. Perhaps this is why they have not condemned her.
As not only an aide to Secretary of State Clinton, but also a close friend and confidant for the past 15 years, Huma Abedin job includes advising Secretary Clinton on politics and policy in the Middle East. Her advice carries great weight and influence on Secretary Clinton, and she has access to highly classified information as a result of both her job and her closeness to Clinton. Has Huma’s advice to Clinton served to influence foreign policy? Of course it has. That’s part of her job description. A more appropriate question would be just how has Huma Abedin’s advice influenced foreign policy? And that is a question that is a bit harder to answer. In fact, unless Secretary Clinton actually states just how Huma’s advice has influenced foreign policy, we may never really know the extent of her influence. However, what we can do is look at the shift in and changes to foreign policy since Huma Abedin and Hilary Clinton have been in the White House. For example:
1. The State Department now has representatives in Egypt, who will be responsible for acclimating members of the new ruling party – The Muslim Brotherhood – to working with the United States.
2. An announcement was made by Clinton’s State Department, that the Obama administration would be satisfied with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt.
3. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton personally intervened to ensure entry into the United States for Tariq Ramadan, a controversial and influential member of The Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan had previously been barred from entering the United States due to his ties to islamic terrorism.
4. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has worked closely with the OIC (Organization of Islamic Coopreration) to silence criticism of islam – in accordance with sharia law.
5. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the State Department purposely excluded Israel from the “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a coalition of islamist governments and the United States, whose mission it is to fight terrorism on a global scale. Like The Muslim Brotherhood, the Global Counterterrorism Forum does not recognize the unprovoked attacks on Israel by Hamas to be terrorist actions.
6. After The Muslim Brotherhood “won” the parliamentary elections in Egypt (through questionable means), the Obama administration granted $1.5 billion in aid to The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
7. In 2011 Secretary of State Hilary Clinton overruled congress and authorized a $147 million aid package to Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas, a terrorist organization and the Palestinian branch of The Muslim Brotherhood.
8. The Clinton state department and the Obama administration not only granted a visa and entry permit to a known member of a terrorist organization (Gama’at al Islamia – aligned with al-Qaeda, and involved in the 1993 WTC bombing in New York City), but they also brought in members of The Muslim Brotherhood, all for a meeting in the White House. When the administration was asked why U.S. law was circumvented to allow known terrorists into the United States and into the White House, the administration refused to provide that information.
9. Recently, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton visited Egyptian president-elect Mohamed Morsi, a leader in The Muslim Brotherhood. Clinton also used her influence to pressure General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the Egyptian military to step down and surrender power to Morsi. According to Morsi, one of his top priorities as president will be to pressure the United States to release and return to Egypt, Omar Abdel Rahman – also known as “The Blind Sheikh.” Rahman is currently incarcerated in the United States for his part in master minding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as the murder of JDL founder Meir Kahane and conspiring to simultaneously blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. building, the George Washington bridge and U.S. armories. Rahman also urged his followers to bomb as many American military installations as possible – telling them to use the 1983 bombing of the U.S. barracks in Lebanon as a blueprint for terror. The Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide, one Mohammed Badie’ has also stated that the Brotherhood’s U.S.-assisted win in Egypt, is a stepping stone to the establishment of a just islamic caliphate, and that the United States is now experiencing the beginning of its end.
In light of Huma Abedin’s association with The Muslim Brotherhood, her strict Wahhabi upbringing, her close relationship with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and her role as Clinton’s primary advisor on politics and Middle Eastern policy, one must question whether or not any of these incidents were somehow influenced by Huma Abedin. The possibility certainly exists.
In 1991, The Muslim Brotherhood drafted a manifesto entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Within this document, The Muslim Brotherhood spells out its plan to the establishment of a global islamic state, or caliphate, with the United States as one of its conquered countries. The document lays out the need for a “civilization jihad” as necessary for the conquering of America and Canada and the assimilation of North America into the global islamic state. What is this “Civilization Jihad”? It is simply a jihad against civilization. Our civilization. It includes becoming part of our society, but not for the purpose of assimilation. It is for the express purpose of changing our society so that it becomes slowly acclimated to the idea of a dominant islamic presence. Muslim fundamentalists begin by employing taqiyya and making themselves appear to be members of American society. They begin to purchase businesses and establish islamic neighborhoods around those businesses. They soon have islamic controlled enclaves. In France, Sweden, England and other areas of Europe, these enclaves are known as “No Go” zones, where even law enforcement are reluctant to enter. Sharia is implemented in these areas, and enforced. Dearborn, Michigan is experiencing a growing “No Go” zone of its own with its own Arab-American Chamber of Commerce, Arab police chief, and the 14 block long Arab festival (open to all except Christians – and strictly enforced by local police).
They enter politics – local, state and federal – until such a time as they have become more common than the areas previous residents. In other words, they take over using sheer numbers. Eventually, the only logical conclusion happens, and the area becomes 100% muslim. This is the same tactic employed by islam for centuries. A prime example of this was the islamic conquering of Persia in the 7th century during the establishment of the last islamic caliphate, which lasted until the early 20th century. Once again, history has given us every example, every lesson needed to understand and recognize the potential peril in entertaining islam.
But all of this does not answer the question of Huma Abedin. At least not definitively. Is she a member of The Muslim Brotherhood? Is she using her position a primary advisor on the Middle East to the Secretary of State to assist The Muslim Brotherhood? Or is it all nothing more than coincidence? Is the letter written by Michelle Bachman nothing more than simply “McCarthyism”? (by the way, history has proven that McCarthy was right in his suppositions regarding communist infiltration of our government), or, like McCarthy, are Bachmann’s concerns legitimate? Only time will tell, but, by then it may be too late.
For more instances of muslim brotherhood influence in American government, as well as inroads radical islam has made in the United States, please read the following:
The following can be downloaded from my website at http://independentrealist.weebly.com/written-by-thomas-paine-2nd.html :
As well as these related documents, which can be downloaded at http://independentrealist.weebly.com/written-by-others.html :
For more information on islamic extremists in the United States, please visit the following links:
Source links for this article:
For a downloadable copy of this article, click below.