Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category

Revisiting Obama’s Call for a Civilian Army and Some Final Considerations

April 11, 2011 Leave a comment

After long thought and consideration, I have decided to make this piece my last for this blog until further notice.  I want to share my personal thoughts and feelings for this decision and will do so at the close of this piece.  But first I’d like to go back and cover something our putative president told us on the 2008 campaign trail.

Perhaps there is nothing more frightening than the thought of a military-like presence in a residential neighborhood.  It’s even more chilling than seeing lines of squad cars cordoning off a street to check drivers to see if they’re drinking and/or not wearing a seat belt, the latter being a blatant unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment.

The images of a group of law enforcement officers walking thru a community sends a message that a crime is about to be averted or if in place, shut down. In such cases, most residents of that community would relish such a presence or at least not be bothered or intimidated by it, unless it becomes a regular pattern.

But seeing military commandos walking down our sidewalks or cruising down our streets would like send shivers up most any normal human being. Yet as disturbing as this would be, the thought of some largely unknown civilian army (with no direct ties to either the U.S. military or traditional law enforcement agencies) parading thru a city would possibly not only send shockwaves thru its residents but create massive and likely unprecedented panic and fear.  Most any rational headed man or woman would equate such activity to that of a police state with images of what occurs in many foreign nations coming to mind.

I know.  Because when I first heard Obama mention this civilian army at a campaign stop in Colorado, those thoughts and images raced through and plagued my entire being.  I could envision the gross and blatant violation of our 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Amendments.

And mind you, I’m no conspiracy theorist.  I don’t see how any normal minded law abiding individual could not be fearful of possibly being escorted from his or her dwelling to a prison or makeshift concentration camp by a law enforcement officer or military official, let alone a civilian army official, however that may be defined.

But a couple recently surfaced items have compelled me to reexamine what Obama might have implied when he was making his run for the White House.  Mind you, these are only observations.  And mind you, I know as so many of you do that Obama is a serial liar.  He is the equivalent of the little boy crying “Wolf!” on steroids.  He should not be trusted on pretty much anything.  He is perhaps an instrument of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya.

But what if Obama meant what he said in this regard?  What if he truly wants to assemble an army that is as strong as our current military forces, if not stronger?  We may not have an idea of what his true intent is but if it begins like with the expansion of the Americorps as Michael Savage points out here, or with this idea, or even with this one (worth viewing since it incorporates excerpts from both previous videos, plus more), we better sober up.

One of those items introduces us to the new Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy.  The question that begs for an answer upon seeing the name of the school is this: what leadership skills does America’s allegedly legit president possess that entitles his name to go on a school building and set as an example for others to emulate?  But beyond that, since Obama has sealed all his papers from public purview via executive order, his very first upon assuming office, we don’t have any transcripts as a student, awards as a teacher (if he so was one) or any other related documentation from his classroom or teaching days as examples of why a school should be named for him. Therefore, we don’t know what caliber of an individual this mystery man possesses other than of the unproven hearsays from talking heads on radio, TV and the Internet.

The limited information on the schools website doesn’t reveal much of anything different than we might read about a traditional public school. Dancing Czars exposes a few tidbits of details about its chief administrator there as a result of an unlinked story posted there.

Other details that might be revealed thru a Google search pans out nothing out of the ordinary, though a short video (volume quality is poor) gives the indication that this will probably be an all black school.  Based on the school district’s testing criteria, curricula here would seem to be that of any other middle school and high school in the Dallas district.  So maybe there’s nothing here.

But I do have this gnawing feeling, given the army videos and what is known about Obama, that there could be something more sinister in the brewing, like:

Will the school attract Muslims and teach about Islam in any capacity?

Will there be political activities on campus, particularly ones that will endeavor to recruit students to government service and some form of military combat?

Will the school be a recruitment source for Democrats?  With Obama’s name on the outside and his political prowess, I wouldn’t put this past him, despite the fact that schools are not supposed to be tools for political party organization. Recall the hubbub from Sept. 2009 when Obama used his bully pulpit to speak to public school students from the Oval Office upon their return to school.

With this being an all male school, was the gender segregation done to keep young impressionable students disciplined towards their studies?  Or realizing how Obama is the most pro-homo (putative) president ever in office, knowing how he seeks to promote the agenda at every turn and how he may have such tendencies himself, will this be a subtle effort to teach and homosexualize pupils?  Don’t laugh.  Massachusetts has been the one state subsidizing taxpayers to do so.

It does seem a bit peculiar in a strong conservative Republican state like Texas that a school named for our alleged president (and who is largely unpopular there) now exists.  Perhaps I’m reading too much into it.  Maybe I’m going overboard politicizing it.  But what if I’m not? There may indeed be nothing to this. But with Obama being who he is, a homosexual embracing Muslim and a person who has done nothing, despite widespread concerns, to prove he’s a natural born citizen, I’d rather be safe than sorry in saying this.

The second item is in all likelihood a bigger consideration for Obama’s civilian army.  And that pertains to the tragic December repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) in the U.S. armed forces.  It was a horrible decision by Congress to approve of it but it fits right in line with who Obama is and what he supports.  Sadly, it’s being implemented right before our very eyes. And if you want to know how repulsive the results of repeal are showing itself to be, here you go.  You have to read it to believe it.

4 months ago, Gen. James Amos, commandant of the U.S. Marines, our best of the best in uniform, made a strong case against the DADT repeal to Congress.  Less than two months after, he and one of his juniors have been apparently brainwashed to do the 180 (upper video – can also be seen directly on You Tube here).

It’s a terrible blight on our nation, both the acceptance of homosexual conduct as federal policy and the foisting of it on the men (and women) in uniform.  We can thank most of the Democrats as well as a few Republicans and the likely bogus POTUS for the repeal.

I know, some of you may be asking, “What does the DADT repeal have to do with Obama’s idea of civilian army – the federal military would have nothing to do with that”.

It all starts with one word as I alluded to two paragraphs ago: brainwashing.

Now let me hasten to add that I don’t know if there will be a correlation between a civilian army and the U.S. Armed Forces.  But if you can “convert” a prized and principled military leader like James Amos into accepting openly degrading and unnatural sexual behavior among the men (and women) who wear the uniform, well, you might be able to “convert” anyone.

We don’t know what went on behind the scenes with Obama, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and other high ups to cause Commander Amos to alter his apparent previously strong position on homosexuals in the military.  If you didn’t know how principled it was, just read the second paragraph here.  Not only was he opposed to repeal but so were the chiefs of the Army & Air Force.  And back in May, so was the head of the Navy.

So with our military’s finest now deluded to accept degrading and unnatural sexual acts and to allow such practitioners to openly serve, it appears we’ve reached the end of an era of integrity.  What has been both historically and Biblically viewed as verboten is now publicly tolerated, if not enthusiastically embraced, as part of our “brave” new military.

So how does the DADT repeal square with Obama’s concept of a civilian army as powerful as our actual military?  This is a theory but follow along.

No matter how hard the left and homosexuals on the left try to mainstream homosexual activity as normal and safe, the facts completely undo such thinking.  Most rational kids with normal childhoods do not enter puberty with raging hormones to engage in sexual activity with someone of their own gender. Those who participate in such activities (more so men) find themselves personally conflicted and confused, both from a moral standpoint as well as a natural one.  Those who persist in such activities find themselves dug in to it and gradually become firmly entrenched, generally believing from both a moral and natural standpoint that there is no issue with homosexual conduct.  Such people cannot distinguish right from wrong and this is why there is grave danger with the change of the DADT policy.

As is known by those of us who watch and read what is going on in the White House, we know that Obama has more homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers and allies than any previous president and perhaps more than all presidents combined since Reagan.  It would be too lengthy to detail all the groups and events with a homosexual “flavor” that have been part and parcel of the Obama agenda but suffice it to say that it is extensive and if you’re not sure of it, just plug it all into your favorite search engine.

With our military in the process of being brainwashed on homosexual conduct, it stands to reason that Obama may be making plans to have America’s military leaders train public outcasts to be part of his civilian army.  And what better way to do so than train avowed homosexuals as well as Muslims, to the extent the two can coexist?

Radical homosexuals and radical Muslims do not like America as it is and want to make it into an image that our Founding Fathers could never envision.  To do away with traditional marriage in favor of any faux form of it and to attempt to mainstream Islam and the Koran in America would drastically alter our national fabric. Yet that is exactly what Obama is doing, given the sizable number of homosexuals and Muslims in his administration.  To put the two generally disaffected groups together would seem to be a Herculean task, given the views of some Middle Eastern nations towards homosexual and given how many hard core homosexuals view any religion, be it Islam or Christianity.

Yet that’s what Obama seems to be achieving, which is partly why I believe that if he is not the antichrist, he is at least paving the way for him. What other discrete and divergent groups are so enamored with this empty suit?

So if homosexuals and Muslims are heavy in the Obama Administration, more so than all previous (legitimate) presidents combined, and our U.S. military is being brainwashed on homosexual behavior and Islam, why would such individuals not be considered to be part of an Obama civilian army?  Add to that the illegals currently residing in the U.S. that he enthusiastically embraces as well as disaffected black youth (which have been seen in military-like training exercises on You Tube) and you may have some form of civilian army full of outcasts beyond our wildest imaginations.

Of course, this is a theory and I accept that I could fully be in error here.  But think about it.  What kind of folks would consider being part of a civilian military led by an anti-American “president” other than the disaffected or those who view themselves as such? Would your normal every day Americans, even liberal ones, who go to work and raise families consider taking up arms against their fellow Americans?  I’m not even sure you can get your hardest of hard core Democrat leftists in public office (the Nancy Pelosis, the Barbara Boxers, the Harry Reids, Dick Durbins, etc.) to do so.

But if you’re not an American citizen, as Barack Obama is suspected not to be, then what’s to keep you from taking arms against the country you live in.  Lack of allegiance would be a dead giveaway to someone thinking of putting together a civilian army.  But who’s to say Obama has any?  Remember, there was likely a reason he didn’t cross his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem.  It wasn’t an accident.

The volumes of evidence showing Obama not to be constitutionally qualified because he’s not a natural born citizen are almost insurmountable.  And there is scant little, if any, evidence that Obama would not take up arms against the American people if it gets really bad.  And that is getting nearer to reality, especially as Americans are looking at whether Obama really met the constitutional requirements for the presidency.

I’m not going to address the FEMA camps that have been alleged where Americans may find themselves as a result of rebelling against the Obama Administration.  It has been viewed as conspiracy thinking.  It may well be.  But what if it’s not?  Although I don’t plan to discuss it in this piece, is it out of the realm that Obama could not use these facilities against us by rounding us up and putting us there?  I would not be too quick to dismiss it.  A call for a civilian army arouses the wildest of imaginations, many of which should not arbitrarily be dismissed.

One last point.  Some folks may think Obama was conjuring up every thought he could when he was on the campaign trail, including the civilian army.  And now from what we know about Obama since taking office 2+ years ago, a good many of us know that he’s a serial liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth on virtually anything.  So is it possible that he could be lying about the civilian army as well?  Yes, he could.

But what if this is the one rare exception whereby Obama tells us the truth?  We would be remiss if we pooh poohed it.


txdivider1.gif (501×15)


As those of you know and have followed me for years, you know I love writing. I believe God has gifted me to do so.  From my days of writing for The Reality Check and Alan Keyes Renew America to my Seat Belt Choice website (inactive) to my Stop the ACLU website (also inactive) to my blogs and miscellaneous places, I have cherished getting the word out on so many items.  I have been blest with a rich knowledge of all the news and resources the Internet has to offer as well as the Holy Scriptures which has shaped my thinking and world view of what I have gleaned from being online for nearly a decade. It’s long been my hope, prayer and passion that what I have shared, both via e-mail and my websites and blogs, would make an impression and impact on all I’ve come to meet.

Make no mistake about it.  Those of you whom God has put in my path have helped shape my thinking and world view.  Your knowledge and analyses of public figures, national and world events and spiritual matters have blessed me to no end.  Being able to spread the word on these items and compel lawmakers to address them for the betterment of the states and country we live in is something I am proud of.

However, there gets to be a point where one has to ask themselves (as I have) how much more we need to spread the word on something to get our message out.  I have now come to that point.  I no longer want to be an armchair quarterback or general, either to you, my readers and supporters, or to our elected officials.  I want to be where the action is.

I can no longer sit at my computer for hours on end composing and sending compelling messages, be they in the form of e-mails, news items for my website or blog, or for action items to lawmakers at the state and federal level.

Last month, I wrote this piece.  At the suggestion of a fine patriotic woman and contact, I outlined how we all must come together to encompass all the district offices of every Congressman and woman and U.S. senator in America for the purpose of impeaching or otherwise removing Barack Obama from the White House.  I originally thought it would be a fabulous idea if we all went to Washington (like 20-50 million of us) to force the usurper out.  I still think it is a great idea.  But not too many folks can make the long trip to DC, because of jobs (for those who still have them), finances, families or simply the distance to travel to DC, especially those who live more than a few hours north, south or west of the capitol. It simply becomes not feasible because of the logistics involved.

So I proposed this idea to the many contacts I have from my Stop the ACLU days as well as others I’ve come to know since my active days there.  I thought we finally had something tangible we could make an impact for.  We wouldn’t have to go across the country to Capitol Hill.  We could just go to the district offices of all our Congressional officials and hold up signs, demanding action from them on Obama.  The pressure for Congress to act would be too great to ignore if all 535 elected officials in Congress had their local offices blanketed with impeachment and removal signs.  Doing this on a daily basis would be something that could not be ignored.

As a result of my e-mail, I cannot tell you how dismayed I was when the number of responses I got to the idea on my blog amounted to less than one hand’s fingers. I thought this idea was a sure winner.  But by the deafening silence conveyed from my e-mail, it was clear that a good many of my contacts did not think so, preferring to do nothing or be little more than armchair generals operating from their keyboards.  We can no longer keep the status quo.  Unfortunately, some of us are content to be so, despite the country being stolen from us by the likes of Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano and a House Speaker (John Boehner) who doesn’t have the balls to tell Obama to show his papers or quit, nor to insist that taxpayer abortion funds and EPA funding be removed from budget considerations.

Though we must never cease educating our friends, families and others on the numerous agenda items the country faces day in and day and the dangers Obama poses to us both individually and corporately, there comes a time where we absolutely have to leave the keyboard behind and take to the streets.  This is that time.  America is in crisis mode with a dangerous man in the Oval Office and a Congress with a speaker who “takes Obama at his word” instead of investigating himself whether he’s a natural born U.S. citizen.

We can call, write, fax and e-mail Congress all we want but with few exceptions, its members will not listen to us.  The only way they will hear us (along with the media) is if they see a sustained presence outside their 1200-1500 offices across the fruited plain with signs demanding Obama’s removal.  It’s cheaper than going to Washington and requires nothing except wheels to get to their offices and makeshift signs demanding they act immediate.  Not everyone can go every day to a Congressman or senator’s office.  But we can ensure that coverage is consistent six days a week. There needs to be at least 100 men and women outside of every congressional and senatorial office in America on a daily basis (Monday thru Saturday) if we’re going to have a chance to save the nation.  Obama, Holder and Napolitano will not go if we stay home.  Patriotism demands action now!

As the venerable conservative Jewish columnist Don Feder wrote, “Where’s the Outrage“?

Unless and until we are willing to adopt the details laid out on my previous article, America will likely further sink into oblivion.  Lots of well-intentioned folks have great ideas to restore the constitutional republic via different methods.  The problem is many of those methods are largely not understood by the public.  The ideas are in many ways compelling.  However, most are not readily comprehended and virtually none get rid of the petulant man child in the Oval Office. The idea listed on my blog is easily understood and requires no experience, just patriotism and perpetual calls for Obama to go.

The issue is not can we do it but will we?  If patriotism is still alive and you want to get involved in this national effort, you’ll contact me.  If it’s dead and you don’t want to get involved, you won’t.  But think about what you will leave for those behind you if you decide that saving the country for your children and from a bogus president doesn’t warrant a little time and sacrifice on your part.

This is my last call to everyone.  I pray for an unprecedented response.  Because without it, America’s finest days may well have passed us by.  And without it, my activist days will likely go into the annals of American history.


Congressman King: No Need for Hearings on Islamic Extremism

March 13, 2011 4 comments

The list of individuals lining up to attack Rep. Peter King’s decision to hold hearings on so-called “Radical Islam” is far and wide.  From Muslim “crybaby” Congressman Keith Ellison to Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to the sheriff of Los Angeles to hip hop model Kim Kardashian to leftist ministers to the effervescent whiners and terrorist sympathizers at the Council on America-Islamic Relations, it appears folks from all folks of life and politics are ganging up on the New York Republican for this supposed stigmatic decision.

And you know, perhaps these folks are right.  Maybe this was an unnecessary move on the part of Congressman King.  Maybe there was no need to hold these hearings.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I agree.  What a waste of time and money it was to call CAIR and other Muslim groups and individuals for something that has already been known for well over 14 centuries.  Let’s go straight to the “good” book to find out.

Koran (4:89)“They but wish that ye should reject faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Koran (5:33)“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Koran (5:51)“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.”

Koran (8:12)“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

Koran (9:5)“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Koran (9:23)“O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers

Koran (9:29)“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Koran (9:30)“And the Jews say: Ezra 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!”

Koran (33:60-62)“If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while.  Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”

Koran (47:3-4)“Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord.  Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude.  Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners”

Crucifixion, chopping off heads, fingers and feet, slaying infidels, nah, that can’t be radical, can’t it?  Of course not!

Or this most recent “act” of Islamic “kindness”.

So yeah, I agree with Ellison, Jackson and company.  This is not “radical Islam”.  This is mainstream Islam, straight out of the Koran. Look it up.  Or if you want to isolate and check the verses about violence and avoidance of Muslims to non-Muslims, go here.

Oh, but, Nedd, you do know most American Muslims really don’t believe or do that stuff, don’t you?

I suppose.  Perhaps you’re referring to Muslims who don’t know their Koran, right, the so-called “moderate Muslims.”  OK, fine.

But what about those who do? Does the Koran instruct Muslims to kill unbelievers, cut off body parts and crucify them or does it not?  I mean, do these verses exist in the Koran or don’t they?

So depending how you want to look at it, all Muslims are radical.  It all depends on how you want to interpret “radical”.  Most any rationally minded individual would classify crucifiers, beheaders and supporters of such heinous activities as radical.

But if a Muslim is defined as an adherent to the texts of the Koran, then regardless of their knowledge of what their so-called “holy book” contains, they all are radicals.

Or, to put it in oxymoronic fashion, they’re all mainstreamers; thus affirming a saying known in Internet circles, “there may be moderate Muslims but there’s only one Islam.”

So why should Rep. King say that he wants to track down all the radical Islamists who are part of the Al Qaida network?  Should he be concerned about all Muslims?

Oh, but, Nedd, you are a bigot.  You hate Muslims.  You want to stereotype them all.”

Actually the Koran has done a good job of stereotyping without my assistance. I mean, there’s one Koran, right?  And there’s just one Muslim religion, right?  I’m not aware of there being various sects of Islam, unlike Christian denominations like Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.

Let’s take a couple examples of denominations, like the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches.  The Lutheran Church has three different synods: the Wisconsin Synod, the Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA).  The Wisconsin & Missouri Synods are conservative in their worldviews, opposing same sex marriage and abortion.  The ELCA is more supportive both.  The Presbyterian Church has two synods: the Presbyterian Church of America and the Presbyterian Church USA.  The Church of America, of which the well known Coral Ridge Church of Ft. Lauderdale, FL is part of, is socially the equivalent to the Wisconsin & Missouri Synods.  The Church USA is more in line with the left leaning ELCA.

Both denominations and their factions generally embrace the Bible as the Word of God, even though the left wingers in the ELCA and Church USA stray away from some portions of it.  Both denominations and their factions, as well as others like Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Episcopalian, Church of Christ, Church of God, etc, generally regard Biblical principles as ones all should live by, though they may have varied interpretations of the Bible.  They all believe in different forms of church government they, based on the interpretations they see in the scriptures.

But we know of only one Islam.  You cannot find in the phone book church headings that categorize Islam into different denominations the way Christian churches are split. You certainly won’t see “Moderate Islam” next to any Yellow Pages ads under church listings on church, umm, mosque doors.

So how are we supposed to interpret Islam?  How is Rep. King supposed to interpret it?  Frankly, he is more or less beating around the edges of the truth.  The fact is all Islam is radical (or “mainstream”) by virtue of the texts in the Koran.

This means all Muslims should be treated suspiciously, especially those we don’t know personally.  After all, who can always tell by an outward appearance that one is a “normal” Muslim?

But, Nedd, there you go again, stereotyping, lumping all Muslims into one basket”.

Sorry, I can’t help that.  Based on what’s written in the Koran, if I were to sit down at the table with a Muslim (actively practicing or not) stranger in one’s home or at a restaurant, what assurance(s) do I have that I won’t be attacked with a butcher knife, ax or similar object because I do not believe in Allah or Mohammed?  How do I know for sure that at any given moment that he won’t suddenly recall a graphic text in the Koran and literally apply it by clubbing me or taking on some other form of violence?

I have no such assurances.  I can’t guarantee that just because I don’t live in a Middle Eastern nation that I won’t be attacked.  The more than ample numbers of Islamic killings here in the U.S. and disproportionate number of Muslim onslaughts (compared to other religions) do not necessarily persuade me that I am safe around any Muslim, particularly those I do not know.

But isn’t Christianity violent?  Doesn’t the Bible sanction killing in the same way you read the Koran?”

Those are two good questions.  As for Christianity being violent, if you want to call it that, about the only claims to that can be made over the last 25 years are the shootings of two abortionists, “Dr.” Barnard Sleppian in 1998 and “Dr.” George Tiller in 2009.  Those murders, while not sanctioned by any God fearing and loving Christian, were strictly targeted at those who killed babies in the womb and not indiscriminately.  You did not hear the words “Jesus Akbar” or something similar shouted prior to the attacks.

However, you will find little, if any, other examples of any murder or attack done in the name of the Christian faith.

Now as for contrasts between the Bible and the Koran, this page will provide some help to your thinking.  But on a strictly scriptural level, may I offer my personal experience as a Christian why any such comparison between the Christian and Islamic text totally fails.

In the strictest of contexts, the Christian scriptures have never advocated violence in any way, shape or form.  This can be stated since the Christian faith is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as laid out in the New Testament.  But since the Christian faith includes the Old Testament and since Old Testament prophecy predicted the coming of Jesus Christ (or as Jews call Him, the Messiah), we can and should look to the Old Testament, also known as the Old Covenant.

There are indeed passages of violence in the Old Testament that are adequately explained for the average reader.  And there are a few others, such as God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 (for deviant homosexual activity, not inhospitality as homosexual groups claim) with fire and brimstone, and passages in Leviticus calling for severe punishment on those engaging in sexual conduct with relatives of one’s family or spouse’s family.

But such should be viewed more in line with the fact that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob hated sin and when its practitioners did what God told them not to do, they were sometimes met with the fate of death.  God was a pure and holy God and certain groups and individuals met their fate thru their willful disobedience and sin.  Not all sins committed resulted in death.  But some did.  Some of the wicked were punished by the sword and some were struck dead by the Lord.  Why the Lord did what He did back then, I confess I don’t have all the answers.  I admit that.  And many won’t be revealed, if at all, until we get to “the other side” (Heaven for those of who proclaim Jesus as Lord).

However, at no point in the Old Testament do you find any torture on the part of any of God’s people.  You also cannot find an instance of crucifixion.  You do find an instance of beheading in the Old Testament when David slew Goliath; however, the chopping off of Goliath’s head occurred after he was dead, not before.  You also do find an instance of hanging as occurred in the book of Esther.  And yes, there were slayings (by the sword) but again, that should be interpreted as punishment for gross sin and not necessarily because the ones killed were disbelievers in Jehovah God.  God did use the wicked at times (such as Pharaoh and Jehu) to achieve His purposes.  So it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that punishment in the Old Testament was not necessarily for refusal to believe in Jehovah God and that punishments that did occur were for gross sin.

In the New Testament, there are ZERO instances of Christians fighting for jehad.  You will find the slaying of Christian leaders during the Book of Acts as well as John the Baptist’s beheading in the gospels.  But since Jesus Christ paid the price for all sins of all humanity in the New Testament (or New Covenant) by being crucified for us, there was no more need for God to strike down people for their gross sins, to continue to institute human efforts to destroy evil or animal sacrifices to atone for sin.  Jesus paid it all in full!

By contrast, Allah has required for over 1400 years for Muslims to kill those who do not believe in Islam.  The atrocities done in the name of Islam are too innumerable to list here but many are well known, not the least of which was 9/11.  The two religions are diametrically opposed to each other.  The differences are stark and are too many to be named here but if you want a fairly exhaustive list of them, check them out here.

Aren’t there good Muslims, like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser”?

By all human understanding, Dr. Jasser is a fine patriot.  He probably is a person I would enjoy a good lunch or dinner with.  I have no qualms about that.  But he does have a problem.  And that is his faith.  He identifies Muslim groups and organizations like CAIR as radical and political.  And from all signs he has sought to distance himself from them.

As to the faith Dr. Jasser claims to love, as he notes in his testimony to Congress, frankly, it’s hard to see it.  As stated earlier, while there may be moderate Muslims, there is only one Islam.  And I cannot find anywhere on his site or in any quotes or articles of his elsewhere that he repudiates any of the verses like the above ones that cause division and hatred to exist between Muslims and Jews and Christians.

But if Dr. Jasser were to call for any of those verses to be removed, he would be excommunicated as a Muslim. Like the Bible, verses in the Koran warn of those who seek to remove them.  Thus my question is thus this – is Dr. Jasser willing to pay that price?  I certainly cannot see the beauty of the faith he claims to love.

A website that specifically called for divisive verses to be removed,, was online for years but a recent search for it now results in the appearance of a portal page.  The site was run by a so-called reformer to the Muslim “faith” but it appears he was either cast out of Islam or no longer believes what he originally penned.

(UPDATE 3/13 10:30 AM – Thanks to my good friend here, we now have the missing page from this courageous individual who said these verses should be excised and invalidated.)

But that aside, notwithstanding Dr. Jasser’s apparent patriotism and love for his version of Islam, it appears that form of religion does not exist.  So while I will not call him out on this matter, I do not feel he can sufficiently reform his religion. Virtually none of these so-called moderates come out and do so. Plus we don’t know what qualifies as moderate.

In the end, I have to come to the conclusion that all Muslims are either hypocrites or terrorists.  They’re hypocrites if they don’t believe in the whole Koran or terrorists if they do.  I see no middle ground.  Thus as much as I may hate to say it, I have to put Dr. Jasser on the hypocrite list since he doesn’t subscribe to the jehad verses in the Koran.

As such, the sooner the public and elected officials come to view Islam and the Koran literally for what it is and that technically all Muslims are potential terrorists, the sooner we will be able to eradicate this problem from our shores.

And if that means deporting all Muslims or asking them to renounce their affiliation to Islam, so be it.  The nation’s safety is more important than their religion since Islam is not the religion of peace but of war and hate, something even the hard leftist comedian Bill Maher agrees with.

Of course I admit this may seem truly radical in the definition of the word but if the public cannot differentiate hypocritical Islam from terrorist Islam, then what are we supposed to do?  We can live with hypocrites. We do every day. But we cannot live with terrorists, meaning those who are literal adherent of every word of the Koran.  The sooner Rep. King and others like him who both have the power and will to put a stop to this can frankly address this critical problem, the sooner our nation will be safer.

Profiling Muslims is absolutely essential to the safety of America.  We may be pilloried and pummeled for this view but there are no terrorist Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and atheists committing atrocities in the name of Allah and Mohammed.  Groups like CAIR can howl and threaten to sic the ACLU to keep America unsafe but in the end we must profile and view Islam exactly as it laid out in the Koran without a scintilla of denial or we will end up paying a stiff price for not doing so.

Dr. Martin Luther King paid heftily in the 1960s to ensure the conveyance and protection of civil rights for blacks as well as all Americans. The question nearly a half century later is this: is the New York Congressman by the same last name (as well as other members of Congress) willing to pay in the same fashion (if necessary) in order for the right of all Americans to live, let alone be entitled to their civil rights.  Because if we don’t have the right to live, civil rights are moot.  And we may well lose both unless we do the politically incorrect and unprecedented thing and look at Islam and the Koran exactly for what it is.  And if that means purging Muslims from our shores, it must be done.  The right to life comes before liberty, pursuit of happiness and civil rights.  Civil rights means zilch without life. And life and lives will be lost unless political correctness on Islam is buried 6 feet under.

God save America!

Categories: CAIR, Congress, Islam, Koran