There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is a Muslim
Excellent work here that you be read by everyone in Western Civilization; for if you don’t and can’t come to terms with the real threat we face you grand kids will be either killed by the Jihadists or converted to be Muslims and no sane parent would want there daughters to live under what the Islamists belief is the role of a Muslim woman.
By Victor Davis Hanson // NRO- The Corner February 6, 2015 8:41 am
President Obama, at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, said:
Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.
This is banal.
The problem with all such high-horse declarations by Obama is his continual omission of historical context and, in this case, his conflation of the frequent with the rare. The Crusades began in 1095, almost a millennium ago; the Inquisition in 1478, now over 500 years past. When the president says “people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” he should remember that all religions at the time committed terrible deeds that shock the modern sense of morality — given the savage wars between Christendom and Islam, and the religious purifications and civil discord common to all the religious factional strife that played out, violently, in accord with the ethos of the times.
Slavery was outlawed in the U.S. in 1865. Jim Crow ended officially a half-century ago. Indentured servitude, however,continues, almost exclusively among some Islamic groups in the Middle East and Africa. The caste system and ethnic and religious tribalism that institutionalized discrimination and second-class status, quite akin to Jim Crow, persist in places in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. I doubt today whether a Jew of any nationality would be allowed to immigrate and buy real estate in too many corners of the Islamic Middle East. Outside of the West, women and homosexuals are often treated no differently than in the Seventh Century.
In fact, Christian countries were the first to legally end the age-old human sin of the slave trade, and the first to outlaw slavery’s continuance. The president, is fond of historical sloppiness and moral equivalence (cf. the Cairo Speech). But what is the point of citing sins of 1,000, 500, 150, or 50 years ago, without acknowledging 1) that such pathologies still continue today outside the West, especially in the world of Islam, and 2) that Christianity had a unique role in ending these wrongs?
So the question for the president is, why does such medieval violence persist to a much greater degree among so many Islamic extremists in the present world than among most zealots of other religions? (This is an empirical statement. Cf., for instance, the nature of recent global terror attacks in resources such as the Global Terrorism Database). And why search the distant past for examples of moral equivalence, unless the present does not offer suitable data?
Did Churchill point to the excesses of Oliver Cromwell, or did Daladier to the French Revolution, to remind their contemporaries that National Socialism in Germany was not doing anything differently in the 1930s than had their own countries in the distant past? Those of the 1930s who sought to make such facile comparisons between their own past and Germany’s present were written off as appeasers.
Areas of Central and Latin America are as poor as the Middle East, but Christian liberation theologists, unlike the Islamic State, are not beheading and burning prisoners alive to advance their redistributionist cause. Chinese imperialists and colonialists have absorbed Tibet, but the Dalai Lama is not sending suicide bombers into China. The children of East Prussians expelled from 1945-47 are not suiting up with suicide vests to attack Poles. Impoverished Hindu extremists, angry at centuries of British colonialism, do not hijack planes and ram them into high-rises in British cities. Jews are not blowing up cartoonists and satirists in Paris and Germany who deny or caricature the Holocaust.
No one has easy answers to the dilemma of contemporary violent Islamism; for brief interludes in the recent past, secular ideologies were more likely than radical Islam to be the expressed popular driving forces in the violent Middle East (e.g., fascism [1930s], Communism [1940s], Baathism and Pan-Arabism [1950s], which produced the Grand Mufti, Nasser, the Assads, Arafat, Saddam, and Qaddafi). The president and his advisers should be investigating why radical Islam is currently terrorizing the globe, rather than denying it entirely, hiding it by euphemisms, or excusing it by citing morally equivalent examples from the past.
There is little doubt that we live in interesting times. However, it is not always doom and gloom. What you have to understand is there will never be any change or reform without the doom and gloom. We have to crash and burn in order to create what Joseph Schumpeter called Waves of Creative Destruction.
There was the Great Depression, which everyone says we must prevent. All they see is the doom and gloom. Without the Great Depression you might still be growing tomatoes. Here we can see the shift within the make-up of the economy. Agriculture crashed and burned sending unemployment to 25%. This forced people to become skilled labor. Unfortunately, it marked the birth of government which grew tremendously. Now we have reached the peak in government and they must go through their wave of collapse. Government produces nothing – it consumes the wealth created by the people. The more it consumes, the slower the economic growth and the less opportunity in the future for the next generation.
So yes, we are in a doom and gloom era for government. But the light peaking through the clouds is a new land of exciting opportunity – a Private Wave of opportunity. What we must be careful about is government will not reform nor will it go quietly into the light. They will rage against their coming demise. The object is to step out of the way and help others understand this is a Wave of Creative Destruction – not the end of the world. Embrace it and prepare for a new way ahead. In part this is why I will do the SOLUTION conference now rather than latter.
By Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine
It’s pretty embarrassing when the on-line comments about an article are more logical and knowledgeable than the article. Such is the case with a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week that argued Muslim violence does not reflect traditional Islamic doctrine, but is merely a case of arrested historical development. The whole argument is a tissue of logical fallacies and historical ignorance.
The author, a professor of history at Harvard, starts by explaining that Christianity was once violent and intolerant, but changed over time, and thus can provide an example for “modernizing Islam.” But most of his catalogue of Christian violence and persecution is little more than the tu quoque fallacy. It ignores the fact that Christian violence was typical of the whole pre-modern world, a sad banality of human existence like plagues, war, torture, and famine. The comparison of premodern Christian violence to today’s Islamic terror is as irrelevant as rationalizing modern torture and executions, like the mutilation and beheading regularly practiced in Saudi Arabia, by bringing up the hanging, disemboweling, beheading, and quartering the English used to punish traitors in the 14th century.
More important, such violence and cruelty were a violation and distortion of Christian doctrine, a reflection not of eternal theological imperatives, but of a fallen human nature prone to error and sin. That’s why even during bouts of cruelty and oppression, like the brutal treatment of the New World Indians, there were those who publicly based their opposition to such behavior on Christian belief. In 1511 the Dominican priest Antonio de Montesinos scolded his co-religionists, “You are in mortal sin and live and die in it because of the cruelty and tyranny that you use against these innocent peoples . . . Are these Indians not Men? Do they not have rational souls? Are you not obliged to love them as you love yourselves?”
Later, the anti-slavery movement was similarly grounded in Christian doctrine. In 1791, evangelical Christian William Wilberforce, the driving force behind the British abolition of slavery, preached to the House of Commons, “Never, never will we desist till we have wiped away this scandal from the Christian name, released ourselves from the load of guilt, under which we at present labor, and extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic.” No matter how often Christian ethics were violated over the centuries, they still provided the theological foundations for rejecting violence and intolerance, as happened during the Civil Rights movement in this country, which was led by a Christian minister. And today Christians know that their co-religionists who continue to act violently and intolerantly are being bad Christians.
This point makes the professor’s argument a false analogy, for there is nothing in traditional Islamic theology that provides a basis for making violence against heretics and non-believers un-Islamic. The professor wants to argue away these inconvenient truths about traditional Islam by arguing that the faith can evolve away from them, just as Christianity did. But again, whereas historical Christian violence could find no scriptural justification, and much to condemn it, Islamic violence and intolerance––and of course slavery and Jew-hatred––are not the result of fringe or extremist misinterpretations. Rather, they are validated in the Koran, the Hadith, and 14 centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence, all regularly and copiously cited by today’s jihadists and theologians.
Thus the doctrine of jihad against infidels––the notion that such aggression is a justified form of the defense of Islam and necessary for fulfilling Allah’s will that all people become Muslims––is the collective duty of those dwelling in the House of Islam. The Koran instructs, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth.” Nor can there be any “tolerance” or “mutual respect” for those who reject Islam, especially Jews and Christians: “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” The professor’s dream of a “broad-minded form” of Islam would require an extensive reinterpretation or rejection of some of Islam’s fundamental tenets.
That’s why one would be hard pressed to find a Muslim theologian in the 16th century scolding the jihadists rampaging through the Balkans, or seizing Christian slaves in the Mediterranean, the way Montesinos or Bartolome de las Casas criticized the brutalities of the conquistadors; or in the 18th century a Muslim arguing like Wilberforce that slavery, explicitly sanctioned by the Koran, was a “scandal” on Islam’s name. More typical are the words of the envoy representing the pasha of Tripoli, who in 1785 justified piracy and slaving in the Mediterranean by telling Thomas Jefferson that “it was written in the Koran that all Nations who should not have acknowledged [Muslims’] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find.” So too today, many respected imams and theologians throughout the Muslim world sanction Islamic violence against non-believers, and textbooks in schools teach children the same beliefs.
The facts of Islamic theology and historical practice render delusional the professor’s statement that Muslims must learn “that religious texts arose in a particular context and must be reinterpreted in the new context of modernity.” But this reduction of spiritual truth and meaning to the material world of time and social change is a habit of modernity that finds no warrant in Islamic theology. Unlike the Christian Bible, which is the product of an ongoing spiritual inspiration of humans existing in time, the Koran is the pre-existing, uncreated, eternal word of Allah, dictated to Mohammed. It is perfect as written, just as the life and sayings of Mohammed provide the perfect, timeless guide for every dimension of life, including law, economics, politics, and family life. The role of interpretive exegesis or allegory in traditional Islam, then, is vastly less significant than it has been in Christianity. Any Muslim today who desires to reinterpret, say, jihad, or relations with non-Muslims, or illiberal shari’a law, will thus find it difficult, if not impossible, to change the plain meaning of the scriptures as understood consistently by Muslims for 14 centuries.
These problems leave the professor’s article an exercise in false historical analogy. Nor does it help that he makes misleading statements, like his claim that Islam can be reconciled with democracy, and that “such reformations have been institutionalized successfully in several countries with significant Muslim populations, such as Turkey and Tunisia.” Tunisia maybe, but this “reformation” is only a few years old, and has a long way to go before it can be called “institutionalized,” let alone “successful.”
As for Turkey, despite nearly a century of aggressive secularization and de-Islamizing of society, under Recep Tayyip Erdogan it has been moving away from reconciliation with modernity towards an Islamist state. Prime Minister of Turkey for 11 years, and now the new President, Erdogan has called democracy a “train” you “get off” once you reach your “destination,” has jailed more journalists than any other country, has said, “You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism. For them to exist together is not a possibility,” and was a follower of Necmettin Erbakan, the prime minister who founded the Turkish equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood and began Turkey’s turn away from Western liberal democracy and back to a more traditional Islamic view of the social-political order. The example of Turkey makes exactly the opposite point the professor wants it to.
Ignoring the theological foundations that militate against a “reformation” of Islam or even its coexistence with modernity is a form of myopia akin to Obama’s refusal to say “Islamic extremism” or his claim that “no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” Nor does it help those Muslims who sincerely want to find some way to reconcile their faith with a world that these days is more intimately interconnected than ever. The tenets of Islam make their job hard enough, but we don’t make it any easier by indulging our “willful blindness,” as Andrew McCarthy calls it, to truths that offend our ideological prejudices or do not serve our political interests.
By Paul Eidelberg
If you are puzzled by “homegrown” Islamic terrorism in America, if you are wondering why many youth join “radical” or “extremist” Islamic organizations, you may want to consider, among the various causes of such phenomena, certain hitherto unexamined facts about American “culture.”
One such fact is the lack of any clearly defined culture in this country. Most clearly lacking is what was once deemed admirable and worthy of praise and imitation: the heroic.
The concept of the heroic was once propagated by Hollywood Westerns, personified, for instance, by Gary Cooper in “High Noon.” Such heroic personalities have been replaced by urban misfits, portrayed, for example, by physically unimpressive types like Dustin Hoffman. But this touches only the surface of the anti-heroic.
Probing more deeply, the heroic, which portrays man as larger that than life, has been buried by the ordinary. Shakespeare is dead, replaced by the meaninglessness Jean-Paul Sartre’s Nausea.
The ordinary has become the preoccupation of the cinema. It has been endowed with philosophical trappings, such as the college-bred doctrine of moral relativism, a doctrine that denies black-and-white distinctions, such as “good” and “evil.” The old Hollywood ending in which good triumphs over evil is now ancient history. For Americans, history began with the dropping of the A-Bomb on Hiroshima, hardly an act requiring personal courage.
To make things even clearer, ponder Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman,” whose central character is rightly named “Willy Loman.” The salesman has nothing of his own, and this exactly defines the anti-heroic.
Indeed, the anti-heroic has conquered the American mind and is vividly exemplified in Barack Obama’s servile apology for American greatness. Moreover, Obama’s retreat from America’s pivotal role in the Middle East may be compared to Miller’s Death of a Salesman translated from the stage in Broadway to the stage and death of American foreign policy!
We see this demise in America’s anti-war movement and corresponding anti-war movies. We are witnessing the senility of contemporary America. This senility goes against the grain of youth. It clashes with youth’s full-blooded imagination and dreams of greatness. Small wonder that some young Americans have joined a Muslim terrorist group that exalts self-sacrifice in the seemingly heroic cause of Islam.
Contrast the moral relativism and milquetoast nihilism of American colleges and universities. Barack Obama ingested the moral anemia of academia. Hence his phlegmatic description of ISIS terrorism as “bankruptcy” and his less than heroic forays on the golf course while the world is going to hell. But now you may begin to understand why some American youth want more than Willy Lomans
Dave knows what he is talking about the problem is Islam and it never ever was a peaceful religion it has been at war with the world for almost 1400 years; and after we are long gone it will still be at war and will be until the world is 100% Muslim or they have all been killed or converted.
By: Dave Gaubatz
View original post 698 more words
Its all coming art now and when it does we will all suffer the pain that we caused by allowing the politicians to do what they have done!
By Daniel Hannan ~
Eurocrats are starting to realize, with a kind of horrified stupefaction, that Alexis Tsipras really means it. Their assumption had been that the new Greek prime minister, like other politicians, would be accommodated by the system. The EU, after all, is all about compromise, moderation, the postponement of difficult decisions. You rarely find black and white in Brussels; rather, a kind of sfumato, where lines are deliberately blurred, sentences balanced by two apparently contradictory clauses. It’s like inhabiting Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: Nothing is stated directly, everything elliptically.
Well, not this time. Tsipras, the narcissistic leader of the far-Left Syriza movement moved immediately to dispel any idea of compromise, telling his first Cabinet meeting that he would “not consent to a policy of submission.” Having fallen just short of an absolute majority, he was widely expected to form a coalition with one of the pro-euro…
View original post 874 more words
What they should be doing is sending them all back to where they came from if they don’t renounce their belief in the cult of Islam!
This is what the Muslims want and what they must follow as it is in their Qur’an. Those that we in the west can’t call Jihadists because they don’t know their own religion are, in fact the ones that know it best!
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 