Sunday, December 27, 2009

Politically Correct Is A Liberal Lie

Despite what you hear from the Politically Correct crowd, examine some of the facts about this so called peaceful and tolerant religion. Consider the following:
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103!
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon!
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the military barracks in Saudi Arabia!
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa!
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE!
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack during the 1972 Olympics in Munich!
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11/01!
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on London, England on 7/7/05!
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack using thousands upon thousands of car bombs used to kill civilians!
  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM suicide bombers used to kill civilians!
  • REMEMBER all the innocent lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks!
Everyone of these actions were done in the name of Islam. How many times have we heard that the book of the Muslims - the Koran - professes peaceful teachings, tolerance, and love? How many of you have ACTUALLY read the Koran? When you read the passages below from the Koran maybe then you'll understand just what is really going on with Islam. It is the fastest spreading religion in this country and it is a very real danger. Despite what the "Left" is preaching, the United States was built on Judeo-Christian principles. You will not find any such principles in the bible as those seen below. So, read on, open your eyes, and ask yourself
"How can Islam be a peaceful religion when it commands its followers to do the following:
Revealing Suras (or Chapters) in the Koran and directly from the Arabic text Qur'an:

  • [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
  • [4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
  • [4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Satan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Satan; surely the strategy of the Satan is weak.
  • [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
  • [9.5] When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.
  • [9.14] Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.
  • [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
  • [9.123] O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
  • [22.39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them.
  • [33.61] Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering.
  • [47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners...
  • [48.29] Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.
WHERE IN ISLAM DO YOU FIND PEACE AND TOLERANCE?Islam - Religion of Terrorism Islam - Religion of Terrorism
Islam - Religion of Terrorism Islam - Religion of Terrorism
Islam - Religion of Terrorism Islam - Religion of TerrorismIslam - Religion of TerrorismAngry Muslims - like that's something unusualGod Bless HitlerIslamic/Nazi ConnectionSuicide Bomber VideoMuslim ProtesterThe Islamic Nazi connectionTeaching Human Sacrifice Teaching Human Sacrifice Teaching Human SacrificeTeaching Human SacrificeFuture suicide bomberWhy Radical Islam needs to be stoppedCair Billboard


  1. Islam professes to be peaceful but there is no evidence of peace in what they proclaim or live. It's frightening how the children are taught to hate at such a young age.

  2. Jesus is love. No wonder why Islam hates Christians and Jews and Buddhist and Hindus. Shi'it and Sunni hate one another. I can see making a mistake here and there. But not all the time. The libs hate America and the terrorist hate America so they are friends for now. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." That is why the bleeding heart libs/Democrats are so hell bent on giving the terrorist every chance to walk out free men after killing Americans in NYC. We must fight them with love and without fear. When they hate us love them back. And do not let them strick us again. And we need to throw out the politicaly correct rule book the liberals wrote. Let the left live by their own rules and we will live by ours. Let them speak politicaly correct and we will speak the truth no matter what the pain.

  3. Chris ?,

    " We must fight them with love and without fear. When they hate us love them back."

    Just how do you propose to acheive this? Do you not believe fighting fire with fire? Do you not believe in demolishing evil?

  4. This "moderate" thing is frickin spreaing?

    Jesus died as was predetermind in Scripture.

    The Christians that followed were not predetermined (think Roman Collasuem).

    Do you want to risk your families lives on Love as weapon or a 30-06?

    Do not ask what Jesus would do, but rather what He would want you to do. Evil will always lose in the answer.

  5. Someone said the other day "While there may be peaceful MUSLIMS, there is NO peaceful ISLAM."

  6. Right Wing,Good point. But the issue remains,,Kill or be Killed. Love is a powerful weapon in relationships but NOT war.

    I dare anyone to name a war fought by humans that was won by Love?

  7. Folks, If you really want to understand the situation at hand,do yourselves a favor and read Salmon Rushdies 'Satanic Verses'. This will clarify the situation. A good companion book to that would be the presidential history of Jimmy Carter.

  8. My Problem with Islam is that there seems to be NO apparent Leader of their Religion who will STAND up and DENOUNCE the TERRORIST for what they are,MURDERS!It is most likely because they THEMSELVES are TERRIFIED of them and there willingness to USE Murder as a RELIGOUS TOOL. They really have NO problxem KILLING Innocent PEOPLE to get there Political Agenda Heard and that is to MAKE ISLAM the WORLD Religion and those that DONT agree are SIMPLY Killed!

    I do Believe the ONLY way to Fight these Murders is by the SAME Tactics they use. If we DONT WE cannot DEFEAT them and one DAY their AGENDA will Prevail cause WE will NEVER Defeat this ENEMY with KINDNESS which to them is SIGN of Weakness and will just Embolden TERRORIST to KILL more INNOCENT PEOPLE!

  9. I would rather die using the weapons God gave and the methodes Jesus told us to use. Christopher,does it look like I am a moderate by this post? Is the use of a gun the only weapons we have? Is being conservative mean you must go out and kill Muslims? Where in the Bible does it teach us to go after the enemy with weapons? Or does it say to go forth and teach all nations and turn the other cheeck. Christopher why aren't you out there killing of being killed? In fact where are you period? Where are you on all of this. I know I have spoken to more muslims then you have and there were no AK's of 30-06 involved. Christopher said,"Do not ask what Jesus would do, but rather what He would want you to do. Evil will always lose in the answer." Did Jesus ask me to kill them or to turn the other cheeck? My friend I think you have cracked. Christopher said,
    "I dare anyone to name a war fought by humans that was won by Love?" Jesus fought a war for our sins and if yopu want a man we can talk about Mohatma Gondhi and the war he and his people WON against both Islam and Hindu and the war for their sovernty against England. I will not fight evil with evil as both side loose. Now mind you if there was a man on my flight trying to blow it up I would subdue the man and most likely kill him do to a lack of control on my part. But if you can turn a Muslims mind against the hate they may have for Christians,Jews and America we can win the war. Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought with guns,bombs and Love. As that is our chance to truly change the minds of the peoplem is to treat them well and help them rebuild for qa brighter future. And that is how love can and has won many wars. Christopher you sound quit tough how many Tea Party protests have you been too? If you got rid of your fears then Love would have a chance to win. Did the men in Brian Pannebeckers blog fight back the way you say to? Of where they peacful? Who won in your eyes and who lost that battle over our freedoms? The men asking a questions with the video cameras or the muslims hitting the men with the cameras while trying to take those free mens rights? One was love and the other was hate.

  10. Christopher, I have been reading your blogs for a while now and I have noticed that you are acting strange. You need to relax and stop making everyone your enemies. As a friend I'm asking you to get help for what seems to be a mental illness much like Bruce and djtyg have. This is my first time posting and I don't want to do it on your blog. Chris and Brian are not moderates nor radicals. Maybe a break from posting and blogging would do you good. Try doing something to further your idealogy instead of just writing about it. Your friend,M.J.

  11. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission recently subpoenaed the Justice Department in an effort to understand why they dropped charges in May against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in a voter intimidation case that was won by the government.

    Three members of the group were charged in a civil complaint with violating the Voter Rights Act by allegedly using force to threaten voters and block campaign workers in November 2008, according to

    One of the members, Minister King Samir Shabazz, was accused of brandishing a police-style baton and menacingly pointing it at prospective voters.

    The government won the case in April, but moved to dismiss the charges in May after obtaining an injunction against Shabazz. The Justice Department defended its actions, stating that they dismissed the charges "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."

    The department’s explanation and their subsequent lack of response to inquiries by conservatives have not satisfied members of the Civil Rights Commission or Republican lawmakers.

    "Over the last year, the department has stonewalled any effort to learn about the decision to dismiss the case," said Representative Frank Wolf (R-Va.), quoted by the news source.

    He added, "I have written Attorney General [Eric] Holder on six occasions asking for an explanation for the dismissal of this case. To date, I have received no response from him."

    Malik Zulu Shabazz, chairman of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, said that insider influence played no role in the dismissal of the charges and that the commission’s inquiry is a "political witch hunt," according to the Associated Press (AP). The Panthers "were not active campaigners [for Obama] and he owes us no favors," he said.


    We, the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense local chapter, representing the national New Black Panther Party, are currently organizing for the benefit of our people in this city, region, nation, and all over the earth. To this end we scientifically and consistently organize to redeem our people and ourselves. We recognize the necessity for Ujima (Collective work and responsibility). We strive to develop a Black Power Movement in the local area to develop complete constructive change amongst our people and to defend our rights.
    We as a local and national party strive for Black Unity (Umoja) and Black Solidarity with other Black organizations worldwide. We shall build alliances with organizations, leaders, Churches, Mosques and like. When necessary we must deal firmly and appropriately with "Black" leadership who betray the interests of the Black community or Black Nation.
    We recognize our Divine destiny and the need for Divine guidance in our movement. We are not a religion, however all faiths and spiritual practices are respected and studied from a Black liberation perspective. We support Black liberation and salvation theology as a necessary weapon to redeem ourselves after our enemy has destroyed us. We affirm our Imani (Faith) in the victory of our just cause.
    "One God, One Aim, One Destiny..." The Honorable Marcus Mosiah Garvey

    We, the New Black Panther Party, work to educate our people, particularly the youth. To that end, our movement educates and teaches the community at our weekly meetings; public forums, rallies; programs; town hall meetings; on the streets; in the schools; in the projects; on the radio; through electronic and print media, and anywhere where knowledge needs to be forwarded.
    Most of our youth are currently in the public school system. For this reason we will take an active role in school board affairs and general work in the regional public schools. We will struggle to turn the local school board back into the electoral hands of our people. We also struggle to ensure that knowledge of self and history is taught in the local and regional School Board systems.
    We support development of independent African-Centered schools. We shall establish our own schools as a Party. We encourage college degrees, professional degrees, as well as trade and vocational training. We strive for the knowledge to compete with the best in civilization. Education also, includes a knowledge of better diet and health practices.
    A proper education enables us to define, thereby develop and defend what is in our Black self-interest, giving us Kujichagulia-self determination. See point # 5 of our National 10 point program.

    We struggle to promote and develop a Black economy. We must control the money that flows in our community. We must own and control the businesses in our community. We struggle for Black owned stores, banks, supermarkets, Laundromats, hotels, cab companies, beauty supply shops, retail outlets, restaurants shopping centers and the like.
    We must... WE MUST establish trade with our selves our motherland Africa, and the nations of the earth. We must BUY BLACK as often as possible and cease unnecessary spending with non-Black owned businesses.
    The Hon. Marcus Garvey's U.N.I.A. and the Hon. Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam are two great historical examples of building a Black economy.
    The businesses that currently operate in our community cannot be allowed to exploit the community. We shun exploitation, regardless of the race of the exploiter. We must remove the foreign economic "bloodsuckers", from our community.
    We support UJAMAA- (Cooperative Economics.) Please see point #3 on our National 10 point program


    We recognize the reality of politics as being a process that controls the distribution of resources in the city and our community. We built the city, region and country, and are currently forced to pay taxes. To that end we, the New Black Panther Party engage in the political process to ensure the proper use of our communities tax dollars and other dollars that were stolen, by whites, from us.
    "Politically, Black Nationalism means to control the politics and politicians in our community."...Malcolm X
    We shall be active in the affairs of the politics of the District, region, and National Government, which impact our people. We will deal with the local city council, regional governments, school boards, ANC's etc. We shall back strong Black candidates when they meet the Black Agenda test requirements. We encourage political awareness and activity to further the Black agenda. All Black politicians who betray the people must be dealt with. We understand that political power is limited, absent economic power and a true knowledge of self.
    We are 100% opposed to gentrification or white takeover of the inner city. We demand full self-determination for particularly after having built the city and nation. Self-determination today is denied because of blatant racism.
    We struggle to establish our own provisional government (in unity with other Black organizations), in order take control of our communities and in preparation for our own government soon to come! We advocate political alliances with all African -Black Organizations that are uncompromising in the struggle for liberation. We also will organize with the other oppressed people of color. The New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense is all Black, not integrationist.

    We respect the Police in our community who show proper respect for our community. We respect those in authority as long they respect us. God alone is our master.
    We, the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense, mobilize and organize for an end to police brutality and misconduct. We demand the police in our community, and elsewhere, respect the Human Rights of our people and their constitutional rights.
    We call on Black Police officers to recognize that they are Black men and women first and police officers second. We call on Black police officers to recognize our common enemy who put our people in this condition.
    We demand full accountability of the police to the citizens of the Black Community. We strive for community police review boards with legal power to seek indictments, punish and discipline rogue police officers. We will monitor and observe the police according to the law. We call for an immediate end to surveillance cameras in the Black community
    We struggle to reform areas in our community or nation from the negative behavior that the slave master and the decadent American way of life imposed upon us. We believe in our divine and legal rights to self-defense after over 400 years of abuse.
    The criminal justice system must be held accountable to the will of our people and not a cruel ex-slave master that desires to see our people continuously incarcerated. Of course, our work is in the jails and prisons where many great brothers and sisters are locked up. We demand immediate freedom for all political prisoners and prisoners of racist political circumstance.


    The New Black Panther for Self-Defense recognizes the good qualities and leadership potential in Black youth. We seek to help them to become leaders and defenders of our community. The future of our nation depends on this so-called lost generation. The history of the liberation struggle shows us Black youth at the forefront. We excitedly welcome Black youth into our ranks.
    We call for an end to gang violence and an end to Black on Black violence in general. We demand, locally, billions of dollars in reparations specifically for the salvation and education of our young people. Every Black youth or able-bodied person in this city and region should be afforded a proper education and reasonable job at a good wage after the robbery of our people for over 400 years.
    We demand an immediate end to the wholesale incarceration and criminilization of Black youth.
    We invite Black college student participation and affirm continuity in struggle through youth!

    We strive, with community residents, to reclaim and clean up our community, block by block. We organize patrols, community events, and programs to reclaim our neighborhoods. We feed and clothe the homeless (with community support) and always work with the downtrodden in our society.
    We demand adequate health care and rehabilitation in our community!!
    Again we must fight gentrification or THE WHITE TAKEOVER of the (CITY). We recognize this as a conspiracy to remove our people, and will fight against it by any means necessary. We, with the community, shall establish a new code of conduct in the Black community of love, sisterhood, brotherhood, intelligence, peace, respect and unity and struggle.

    We shall struggle and organize against all forms of racism and discrimination against black people in the region: federal, state and local government racism, corporate racism; consumer racism; police discrimination, housing discrimination and racist discrimination in general. The New Black Panther Party is the vigilant defender of Black people's divine, human and legal rights.
    To this end we work through the BLACK DEFENSE LEAUGE (an OAAU) and call On Black legal organizations, attorneys, Black activists, pastors; preachers; churches; organizations, and leadership of every Black stripe to join with us against the evils of racism, inequality and injustice.



  15. I was given this by a friend that doesn't know I'm a black conservative.The last time in our history groups like this gathered so many members there was blood in the streets of LA and Detroit.Islam and the New Black Panther Party have a lot in common.

  16. Chris--War is actually Biblical at times. This war is a good example of a Biblical war. We're to deliver people from the hand of the wicked (Psalm 82: 3-4). God has established civil government and given us the responsibility to maintain justice, which can include using deadly force. (Romans 13:4)

    There are tons more verses, but I just wanted to show you that war is indeed used of God and by God and for God at times, and the "Jesus is love" approach does not always work. He is love, yes. But He is righteous and sovereign as well.

  17. After Jesus where is there a "Holy War"? When the Romans came for Jesus to kill him and his Deciples fought back what did Jesus do? He gave them love and fixed the Roman soldiers ear. How many of the Deciples fought back with hate instead of love? How many of the twelve were killed? The early Christians died and they fought with love and hate. But it was the love that made the largest impact in the war against evil and opression. We as Christians are called to help and protect our fellow men. We are to love our Enemies as ourselves. If you are called to help and do nothing that isn't love. Lets say there is a person crying for help as you walk by. You are able to help but to help you must hurt the person that is attacking. I know I would hurt that person even though Jesus asked us not to hurt them. But we are of this earth. But that doesn't change what Jesus asked us what to do and what Jesus did. But our action must be done in love not hate if we want to win. Our war in Iraq and Afghanistan are fought with love for freedom and to give people back their God given rights. There is a thing called "Just Anger" and we need to use it when it comes to those that attack us. We did more as a nation and a culture after the tsunami that killed thousands in Asia. Our aid and free will offerings and help given to Indonesia that did more for the peoples move towords freedom then any war. Have you ever heard of the stories of Christians being burned at the stake at the same time singing praises to God? That won the wars with Rome/Pagans and Christians. It had such a large inpact on the Romans that they became the largest Christian Church,Roman Catholics. They fought back without fear and with love and the impact of those singing Christians is felt 1500 years later. Love wins over the people and it effects the culture long term.

  18. The Range of Jesus’ Teaching on the Subject of War.—There is a sense in which it is true to say that Jesus gave his disciples no explicit teaching on the subject of war. The application of his ethical principles to the concrete affairs of life was not something which could be seen and taught in its entirety from the very first, but was bound to involve a long series of more or less complex problems; and the short lapse and other special conditions of his earthly life rendered it impossible for him to pronounce decisions on more than a very few of these. Upon large tracts of human conduct he rarely or never had occasion to enter, and hence little or no specific teaching of his is recorded concerning them. A familiar instance of this silence of Jesus on a matter on which we none the less have little doubt as to the import of his teaching, is the absence from the Gospels of any explict prohibition of slavery. And what is true of slavery is also true—though to a much more limited extent—of war. Whatever be the bearing of his precepts and his example on the subject, the fact remains that, as far as we know, no occasion presented itself to him for any explicit pronouncement on the question as to whether or not his disciples might serve as soldiers. It does not however follow that no definite conclusion on the point is to be derived from the Gospels. The circumstances of the time suffice to explain why an absolutely definite ruling was not given. Jesus was living and working among Palestinian Jews, among whom the proportion of soldiers and policemen to civilians must have been infinitesimal. No Jew could be compelled to serve in the Roman legions; and there was scarcely the remotest likelihood that any disciple of Jesus would be pressed into the army of Herodes Antipas or his brother Philippos or into the small body of Temple police at Jerusalem. But further, not only can the silence of Jesus on the concrete question be accounted for, without supposing that he had an open mind in regard to it, but a large and important phase of his teaching and practical life cannot be accounted for without the supposition that he regarded acts of war as entirely impermissible to himself and his disciples. The evidence for this last statement is cumulative, and can be adequately appreciated only by a careful examination of the sayings in which Jesus utters general principles that seem to have a more or less direct bearing on war and those in which he explicitly alludes to it, and by an earnest endeavour to arrive at the meaning that is latent in them.

  19. Statements of Jesus inconsistent with the Lawfulness of War for Christians.—I. The first precept of which account has to be taken is Jesus’ reiteration of the Mosaic commandment, Thou shalt not kill. This commandment appears in the Sermon on the Mount as the first of a series of Mosaic ordinances which, so far from being narrowed down as too exacting, are either reinforced or else replaced by stricter limitations in the same direction.1 It is included in the list of commandments which Jesus enjoined upon the ruler who asked him what he would have to do in order to inherit eternal life.2 ‘Acts of homicide’ () are mentioned by him among the evil things that issue from the heart of man.3 It is commonly argued that this commandment of Jesus refers only to acts of private murder, and does not apply to the taking of life in war or in the administration of public justice. It is true that the Hebrew word used in the Mosaic commandment has almost exclusively the meaning of murder proper, and is not used of manslaughter in war, and that the Mosaic Law in general certainly did not prohibit either this latter act or capital punishment. On the other hand, it has to be noted (1) that the Hebrew word for ‘murder’ is used two or three times of a judicial execution,4 (2) that the Greek word which appears in the Gospel passages quoted has the more general sense of ‘killing,’ and is used of slaughter in war both in classical Greek5 and in the Septuagint,6 and (3) that, while there is undoubtedly an ethical distinction between murder or assassination on the one hand and slaughter in war on the other, there is also an ethical similarity between them, and the extension of the Mosaic prohibition to cases to which it was not commonly thought to apply, but with which it was not wholly unconnected, was just such a treatment as we know Jesus imposed upon other enactments of the Jewish Law.

  20. II. Still more explicit is the well-known non-resistance teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. I quote from the version of that Sermon in Mt v : (38) “Ye have heard that it was said : ‘Eye for eye’ and ‘tooth for tooth.’ (39) But I tell you not to withstand him who is evil : but whoever strikes thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also : (40) and if anyone wishes to go to law with thee and take away thy tunic, let him have thy cloak also : (41) and whoever ‘impresses’ thee (to go) one mile, go two with him. (42) Give to him that asks of thee, and from him who wishes to borrow of thee, turn not away. (43) Ye have heard that it was said : ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.’ (44) But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (45) in order that ye may become sons of your Father who is in heaven, for He raises His sun on evil and good (alike) and rains upon righteous and unrighteous. (46) For if ye love (only) those who love you, what reward have ye? do not even the taxgatherers do the same? (47) and if ye greet your brothers only, what extra (thing) do ye do? do not even the gentiles do the same? (48) Ye then shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”1 Volumes of controversy have been written as to the real import and implications of these critical words, and great care is necessary in order to discover exactly how much they mean. The obvious difficulties in the way of obeying them have led to more than one desperate exegetical attempt to escape from them. There is, for instance, the familiar plea (already alluded to) that Jesus meant his followers to adopt the spirit of his teaching, without being bound by the letter2 —a plea which, as has been pointed out by no less an authority than Bishop Gore, commonly results in ignoring both letter and spirit alike.1 Granting that the spirit is the more important side of the matter, we may well ask, If in our Lord’s view the right spirit issues in a ‘letter’ of this kind, how can a ‘letter’ of a diametrically opposite kind be consonant with the same spirit? Another hasty subterfuge is to say that these precepts are counsels of perfection valid only in a perfect society and not seriously meant to be practised under existing conditions.2 The utter impossibility of this explanation becomes obvious as soon as we recollect that in a perfect state of society there would be no wrongs to submit to and no enemies to love.

    A less shallow misinterpretation argues that Jesus meant this teaching to govern only the personal feelings and acts of the disciple in his purely private capacity, and left untouched his duty—as a member of society and for the sake of social welfare—to participate in the authoritative and official restraint and punishment of wrongdoers.3 Whether or no this interpretation be sound ethical teaching for the present day, the idea that it represents the meaning of Jesus cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. For in this very passage, Jesus exhibits society’s authorized court of justice, not as duly punishing the offender whom the injured disciple has lovingly pardoned and then handed over to its jurisdiction, but as itself committing the wrong that has to be borne : “if anyone wishes to go to law with thee, and take away thy tunic,” and so on. But further than that, the Lex Talionis—that ancient Mosaic law requiring, in a case of strife between two men resulting in injury to one of them, “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe”1 —was no mere authorization of private revenge, permitting within certain limits the indulgence of personal resentment, but a public measure designed in the interests of society as a restraint upon wrongdoing, and doubtless meant to be carried out by (or under the supervision of) the public officers of the community.

  21. III. In entire harmony with this conclusion is Jesus’ refusal to advance his ideals by political or coercive means. In the one corner of the Roman world where the passion for an independent national state still survived, he had no use for that passion. As the incident of the tribute-money shows, he felt but coldly towards the fierce yearning of his fellow-countrymen for national independence and greatness, and he rejected the idea of the Messiah which was framed in conformity with these aspirations. At his Temptation, if we may so paraphrase the story, he refused to take possession of the kingdoms of the world, feeling that to do so would be equivalent to bowing the knee to Satan. It is difficult to imagine any other ground for this feeling than the conviction that there was something immoral, something contrary to the Will of God, in the use of the only means by which world-rule could then be obtained, namely, by waging a successful war. The idea that the wrong he was tempted to commit was the indulgence of pride or an eagerness for early success does not meet the point : for was he not in any case invested by God with supreme authority over men, and was it not his life’s work to bring in the Kingdom as speedily as possible? Assuming that the use of military force did not appear to him to be in itself illegitimate, why should he not have used it? Had he not the most righteous of causes? Would not the enterprise have proved in his hands a complete success? Would he not have ruled the world much better than Tiberius was doing? Why then should the acquisition of political ascendancy be ruled out as involving homage to Satan? But on the assumption that he regarded the use of violence and injury as a method that was in itself contrary to the Will of God, which contained among its prime enactments the laws of love and gentleness, his attitude to the suggestion of world-empire becomes easily intelligible.1 Other incidents bear out this conclusion. He refuses to be taken and made a king by the Galilaeans2 : he does not stir a finger to compel Antipas to release the Baptist or to punish him for the Baptist’s death or to prevent or avenge any other of the many misdeeds of “that she-fox.”3 He was not anxious to exact from Pilatus a penalty for the death of those Galilaeans whose blood the governor had mingled with their sacrifices.4 He made no attempt to constrain men to do good or desist from evil by the application of physical force or the infliction of physical injuries. He did not go beyond a very occasional use of his personal ascendancy in order to put a stop to proceedings that appeared to him unseemly.5 He pronounces a blessing on peace-makers as the children of God and on the gentle as the inheritors of the earth.6 He laments the ignorance of Jerusalem as to ‘the (things that make) for peace.’7 He demands the forgiveness of all injuries as the condition of receiving the divine pardon for oneself.8 His own conduct on the last day of his life is the best comment on all this teaching. He does not try to escape, he offers no resistance to the cruelties and indignities inflicted upon him, and forbids his followers to strike a blow on his behalf.1 He addresses mild remonstrances to the traitor and to his captors, 2 and at the moment of crucifixion prays to God to pardon his enemies : “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

  22. What's up with the liberal's Jihad against innocent babies?

  23. This one gives us a clue as to where the left stands on this issue. Attorney: Hasan's 'religious rights' prohibited
    Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 12/28/2009 5:00:00 AM
    One of the nation's foremost critics of Islam says it's absolutely reprehensible that the lead attorney for the man charged in the murderous rampage at Fort Hood last month is trying to paint his client as a victim.

    Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan is suspected of killing 14 people, including an unborn baby, while wounding more than two dozen others at the Army post in Texas on November 5. Hasan remains hospitalized at Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, where he is paralyzed from the chest down.

    The San Antonio Express-News recently reported that Hasan's attorney, John P. Galligan, claims the Army is violating his client's religious rights because it prohibited him from praying from the Koran in Arabic with a relative. Hasan was reportedly on the phone with his brother when the guard cut the conversation short because the suspect was not speaking English. The military has restricted Hasan to only speaking English to visitors or on the phone, unless an Army-approved translator is present.

    "It's very common for Islamic jihadists to claim victim status when they're in prison," notes Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch. "Part of the al Qaeda playbook is that they should always claim that they have been tortured, whatever the truth may be."

    In Spencer's opinion, Galligan's claims are at fault. "It's reprehensible for this lawyer to be demanding that Nidal Hasan be given free and unrestricted access to the ideology that led him to commit those murders," he argues. "It would be like saying that a Nazi war criminal has to have a copy of Mein Kampf in his jail cell."

    The Jihad Watch director concludes that the military is completely justified in imposing the language restrictions on Hasan.

  24. "Allah Akbar" says it all.

  25. On September 19, 2001, writing in the Hyde Park Herald Barack Obama attributed 9/11 related terrorism to, “a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”

    Even more so, Obama went on to say:

    “They see poverty all around them and they are angry by that poverty. They may be suffering under oppressive and corrupt regimes and that kind of environment is a breeding ground for fanaticism and hatred.”

    “It’s absolutely critical that the U.S. is engaged in policies and strategies that will give those young people and these countries hope and make it in their self-interest to participate and create modern, open societies like we have in the U.S.”

    Obama has, in fact, held to this position for the better part of a decade despite the evidence that the 9/11 attackers were, in fact, mostly rich kids.

    In his Cairo speech, Barack Obama did not directly mention “poverty,” but instead went with the white man’s burden — an indirect way of saying the same thing — pontificating that “tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims.”

    Contra Obama, it turns out that yet again, the Al Qaeda terrorist who tried to blow up a Delta jet on Christmas Day was another rich kid.

    With his wealth, privilege and education at one of Britain’s leading universities, Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab had the world at his feet – able to choose from a range of futures in which to make his mark on the world. . . .

    Abdulmutallab, 23, had lived a gilded life, and, for the three years he studied in London, he stayed in a £2m flat. He was from a very different background to many of the other al-Qa’ida recruits who opt for martyrdom.

    It may be easier for an academic wrapped up in post-modern liberal syllogisms to draw inescapable conclusions from the absence of facts than to embrace simpler themes based on the presence of fact, but we can always hope and pray Obama learns something from this.

    Some people want to kill us. They need to be rooted out and killed first. And we should perhaps consider that the “War on Terror” we are no longer allowed to refer to continues even if we choose not to participate.

    Oh, and given that the “poverty” stereotype has yet again been disrupted by a terrorist who did not fit Barack Obama’s fact pattern for terror, maybe Obama should consider that “no one has ever broken out of a SuperMax” and “let’s try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City” also are the products of post-modern liberal syllogisms derived from the absence of actual facts. And do we really want to keep releasing GTMO detainees to places like Somaliland that do not even technically exist?

  26. Oh but these poor people are just deranged, misinformed individuals! Their religion (GASP) should have no part of it!

    Great blog post. And great blog. You have a new regular reader here.

    Feel free to check back at mine anytime.

  27. Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist. And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait until you see the evidence.

    The critics of this work will claim that Prophet of Doom is offensive, racist, hatemongering, intolerant, and unnecessarily violent. I agree - but I didn't write those parts. They came directly from Islam’s scriptures. If you don't like what Muhammad and Allah said, don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.

    Others will say that I cherry-picked the worst of Islam to render an unfair verdict. They will charge that I took the Islamic scriptures out of context to smear Muhammad and Allah. But none of that is true. Over the course of these pages, I quote from almost every surah in the Qur'an - many are presented in their entirety. But more than that, I put each verse in the context of Muhammad’s life, quoting vociferously from the Sunnah as recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, Ishaq, and Tabari - Islam’s earliest and more trusted sources. I even arrange all of this material chronologically, from creation to terror.

    Predicting what he called the "Day of Doom" was Muhammad’s most often repeated prophecy. While it did not occur as he foretold in 1110 A.D., it nonetheless came true. Muslims and infidels alike have been doomed by Islam.

    To discover why, we shall dive into the oldest surviving written evidence. These official works include: the Sira, Ta'rikh, Hadith, and Qur'an. Ishaq's Sira, or biography, called Sirat Rasul Allah, provides the lone account of Muhammad’s life and the formation of Islam written within 200 years of the prophet's death. While the character, message, and deeds portrayed within its pages are the antithesis of Yahshua's and his disciples, the Sira's chronological presentation is similar in style to the Christian Gospels. The Ta'rikh is the oldest, most trusted and comprehensive history of Islam’s formation and Muhammad’s example, called Sunnah. It was written by Tabari. His History of al-Tabari is formatted like the Bible. It begins with Islamic creation and ends with the acts of Muhammad’s companions. Tabari is a compilation of Hadith quotes and Qur'an passages. As such, it provides the best skeleton upon which to flesh out the character of Muhammad and the nature of fundamental Islam. A Hadith is an oral report from Muhammad or his companions. Muslims believe that Hadith were inspired by Allah, making them scripture. The most revered Collection was compiled in a topical arrangement by Bukhari. Allah’s Book, the Qur'an, lacks context and chronology, so to understand it, readers are dependent upon the Sira, Ta'rikh, and Hadith.

    All that can be known about Muhammad’s deeds, means, motives, god, and scripture is enshrined in these books. In their pages you will see them as they saw themselves. My only point of departure from Ishaq and Tabari will be the comprehensive review of the early Meccan surahs, a period in which they had very little to say. Our paths will join again as we approach Islam’s midlife crisis: the Quraysh Bargain, Satanic Verses, Night's Journey, and Pledge of Aqaba - a declaration of war against all mankind. At this point, the Sunnah speaks more clearly than the Qur'an.

  28. So that there will be no confusion, I have set the passages from Islam’s scripture in bold-faced type . When quoting from the Qur'an and Hadith, I have elected to use a blended translation. No language transfers perfectly - one word to another. Five of my twelve translations of the Qur'an were combined to create the most accurate conveyance of the message possible. However, the writing quality is so poor, the proofreaders of this manuscript suggested that I help Allah and Muhammad out by cleaning up their grammar, punctuation, and verbosity. So for clarity and readability, I have trimmed their unruly word patterns and meaningless repetitions, being careful not to alter the meaning or message of any passage. Insertions within parenthesis (like this) were added by the Arabic translators to fill in missing words or to clarify the text. Insertions within brackets [like this] represent my observations.

    I have elected to present Islam’s original source material in juxtaposition to my evaluation of its veracity. This format is similar to that used by the first English translators of Mein Kampf as they attempted to warn America about the dangers lurking in Hitler's manifesto. They, as I, found it necessary to hold the author accountable. A great deal was at stake then, as it is today. The last time the world was ignorant of such a hateful and violent doctrine, 55 million people died. If we don't shed our ignorance of Islam, many more will perish.

    My quest to understand Islam began on the morning of September 11th 2001. I wanted to know why Muslim militants were killing us. So I went off to Ground Zero for Islamic terror - Israel. The West Bank is home to more suicide bombers per capita than anywhere else on earth. I arranged to meet with the terrorists themselves. I asked members of al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, and Hamas why they were killing us. They said, "Islam. We are following Muhammad’s orders." That adventure is recounted in Tea With Terrorists . It covers a wide range of material and serves as a companion volume, connecting fundamental Islam to terrorism. Prophet of Doom focuses strictly on what the Islamic scriptures have to say.

    So, could it be? Could a prophet and a religion be responsible for today’s terrorist attacks? I invested 10,000 hours in pursuit of that answer. I wish everyone had. But knowing that not all are able, I have distilled what I discovered into these pages.

    Now for a word of caution: this journey of discovery is ordered chronologically. It is not prioritized by relevance. Explaining the root cause of Islamic terror is the biggest priority; yet it is not exposed until the last half of the book. I want you to know Muhammad, Allah, and Islam before you judge their legacy. So to keep you turning pages, I have endeavored to make Islam’s early years as entertaining as possible. While Prophet of Doom is meticulously researched, documented, and accurate, it's written as if you and I were old friends having a lively chat about the most important and lethal issue of our day.

    One last thought before you head down this perilous path. I pray that when you have reached the journey's end, you will share my heart for the plight of Muslims. I want nothing more than to free them from Islam, and in so doing, free us from the terror their doctrine inspires.

    And If you keep trying to harm Islam we will find you and distroy you like a rat in the kitchen.

  29. There are several fundamental problems with the way the United States Transportation Safety Administration combats terrorism. These have their roots in fighting the war for the freedom of mankind as a public relations problem. Too often we take a security theater approach, apparently in an effort to reassure the public that everything is fine and the system is working. Meanwhile, things may or may not be fine. Below the fold are my seven complaints against the TSA.

    We are treating the War on Terror as a war on terror, and not a defense against jihad. We’ve made the decision that naming jihad as the enemy would give it an enemy. There is also a strong current of political correctness running through the debate. Some will now call me names, as if acknowledging that for religious reasons some people hate our culture makes me the bad one.
    Because we’re fighting terror, we identify tactics we dislike, and not the tacticians. This means that as long as the enemy can fit within the rules we define for legitimate users of our system, common sense gives us no probable cause to investigate further. In scrupulously avoiding the use of “profiling”, we ignore things we should not. Further, to avoid insulting a subset of legitimate users, we end up treating everyone as a suspect.
    We publicize each new attack and react to it, successful or not, leading both the public and the enemy to believe that such attacks are more common and more successful than they actually are.
    The controls we enact are in reaction to each new attack, rather than against all such attacks. This will lead to the eventual crippling of the enforcement system, as both its legitimate users and its enforcers become overburdened. Each new rule gives a hint to the attacker of what to try next.
    The rationale for a security control must be clear or the public will reject the control — one way or another. This is called psychological acceptability. An unacceptable control, such as too low a speed limit, will be ignored or will cause the public to find some clever means around the control. The key is that the public must perceive that the control offers enough protection to justify its use.
    Instituting controls to win the battle for perception doesn’t work. The only policy goal it achieves is a false sense of security. We believe that if following the rules is difficult for legitimate users, it must be more so for the enemy. In fact, the opposite may be true. Warning everyone what will be searched when boarding a plane, for instance, tells the enemy what not to bring along.
    A complex apparatus with a dense set of confusing rules can result in security through obscurity, which is to say, no security. Those enforcing and following the rules are led to believe that because of the hassle, no one could circumvent the rules. Someone not concerned with following the rules may find a way around them that those concerned with their minutiae miss or discount.
    I’m sure there are other problems with the TSA and its approach to airline security. I just had to offer these.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.