The Doomsday Machine

THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE

There has, of late, been a glut of left leaning writers and speakers condemning the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war as an immoral, if not illegal, act. Many have even gone so far as to demand that articles of impeachment be initiated against him for "war crimes" for attacking Iraq under what they claim were "false pretenses." Not the least of the president's critics is Senator Barack Obama, the presidential nominee for the democratic party. Senator Obama claims that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Fortunately for him, Illinois state legislatures don't actually get to vote on such matters and therefore he didn't actually have to take his position on record. If he had, one wonders if he would have opposed it the same as he did the recent FISA bill. Which is to say he opposed it right up until the point that he voted in favor of it. His recent rhetoric on Iraq suggests he will say whatever you want him to say.
The war in Iraq was initiated for several reasons. Failure to abide by the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, in and of itself, was a valid justification to go in and finish off the regime of Saddam Hussein, let alone the matter of 17 violations of United Nation mandates. After all, President Clinton wasn't flinging cruise missiles into Iraq late in his administration for no reason now was he? However the opponents of the Iraq war have always focused on President Bush's belief that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, as well as an intent to use them. This is the reason most people believe the U.S. attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq in a preemptive war, to prevent any possibility of future Iraqi aggression.
You can argue whether or not the basis for the president's decision was justified. He had many sources of information claiming that Hussein possessed these weapons, even though the treaty that he signed at the end of the first gulf war forbade him to have them. Not only did our own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) believe that it was a "slam dunk" (their actual words) that he had them, but also the intelligence agencies from several other countries corroborated this information. These included countries such as France and Russia who opposed the idea of the United States taking military action. This combined with the fact that Saddam Hussein had previously used chemical weapons against his own citizens in 1988 rightly convinced President Bush that in a post 9/11 world, military action was required.
It is true that no "working" weapons of mass destruction were found. It is also true that 500 tons of yellow cake uranium, the kind used to make such weapons, were found. So arguments can be made to justify or criticize the president's actions. Yet the question of the morality of a preemptive war still haunts many of our countrymen. There is a certainty among many that it is never right for the United States to strike first. However, in a world confronted with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, this is a matter of judgement...a very important attribute for a president. Consider these words from Barack Obama:

"When people talk about experience, what they really want to know is: does he have good judgment? You would hope that if someone has more experience it gives them better judgment. But everyone knows many 50-, 60-, and 70-year olds who don't have good judgment because they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. What we want to talk about is judgement, common sense, and how we get stuff done." 08/22/07

Ahh, judgement. It appears Mr. Obama has a lot of faith in his own judgement. But should we have faith in his judgement, or in the judgement of anyone who would question the current president's wisdom in his choice of action for a preemptive war? For as you shall see, such wisdom, fortitude and judgement will be required again, and soon. Allow me to introduce you to the "Doomsday Machine" known as the Electromagnetic Pulse Weapon. Or, as the Iranian's call it, "change you can believe in:

"WASHINGTON -- Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world's lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts.
The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight.
Scientists, including President Reagan's top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons - even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years. (World Net daily)

You better read that paragraph over again to make sure you understand the ramifications of what it is saying. Many people often refer to the United States as a superpower that can bomb someone else into the "stone age." Well, you have just been told that the same can be done to us. Let that sink in.
What is an electromagnetic pulse weapon? It is important that you understand this weapon and the implications of having such a weapon used against you. William R. Graham, chairman of the "Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse Attack" described electromagnetic pulse weapons thusly:

"A single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth's atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field to produce electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth. EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that 'shocked' - upset, damaged and destroyed - electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects."
"The major impact of EMP weapons is on electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the nation."

The purpose of an electromagnetic pulse attack is not to kill people, at least not immediately. The initial attack will wipe out electricity, fry electrical circuit boards and destroy communications apparatus over the target area. The higher the altitude of the detonation the greater will be the affected area. The cascading effects on our society would be dramatic to say the least. The financial system would instantly be ruined, making even the simplest of transactions impossible. Food water and fuel would become scarce. Why? Lack of electricity will mean a lack of refrigeration, which would leave food rotting in warehouses. The inability of water treatment facilities to sanitize and distribute water would threaten public health. The lack of electricity would likewise make it impossible to refuel vehicles as the fuel cannot be dispensed from gas stations without the electricity. Fuel unavailability would lead to vehicles being stranded when they run out of gas. This will result in severely limiting transportation capability, and the increasing chaos would result in a rapid breakdown of social order.

No one will know what has happened, and know one would be able to tell anyone if they did. Realistically there will be no one coming to anyone's aid. No government or civilian services will exist. This is a catastrophe of the highest magnitude. If this country is deprived of it's electricity it immediately will become function-less. Our extreme dependence on electricity and electronics has created an "Achilles Heel" that our enemies are now seeking to exploit. Once disabled by an electromagnetic pulse attack, it will take from months to years to repair the damage. What will become of us in the meantime? Will the world come to the aid of the United States, or will our enemies pounce on us while we are down? Imagine the chaos and lawlessness witnessed in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Will we descend into a sub-civilization and become our own worst enemy? Do you really want to find out?
The EMP threat is not a new one. The Soviet Union also had the capacity to deliver such a blow to the United States. However certain military and government facilities can be hardened and protected against the effects of an electromagnetic pulse attack. Therefore preserving the ability of the United States to retaliate with our own strategic nuclear forces. This was a deterrent to a nation state like the old Soviet Union as it is to most nation states. However this is not a deterrent to a rogue state like Iran which is governed by a lunatic who believes his messiah (The 12th Imam) will only return due to an apocalyptic event. Such a man can, and will, initiate the apocalyptic event himself. Nor is the threat of a catastrophic counter attack much of a deterrent to terrorist groups that have no state identity. Who are you going to attack? In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center it was quickly ascertained who was responsible, yet with the United States electrical systems shut down and most electronics fried, how will we even be able to accurately determine which terrorist group is the aggressor?
This is a relatively inexpensive way to destroy us. The Iranian government may be trumpeting their success at detonating their Shahab 3 ballistic missiles by remote control, but a the missile itself need not be that sophisticated. A nuclear weapon detonated on a simple scud missile will produce the same results. And there is a glut of such missiles in the world. We also know that al-Qaeda has access to upwards of 80 ships from which such a missile could be launched. Considering Iran's relationships with not only al-Qaeda but also other terrorist groups such as their proxies Hezbollah, it becomes more imperative that they not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons or the technology to develop them.
I know some of you out there are thinking about our ABM (anti-ballistic missile) weapons. Won't they offer us some protection? It is true that we have successfully tested and deployed some of these weapons for exactly this reason. However, lets be honest here, these weapons are not necessarily that dependable. We have managed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles under test conditions where we knew when, and from where they were coming. In the event of a real attack the response time will be severely shortened as we will not know when, or from where the attack is coming. Therefore we will not know how effective these counter measures are until they are tested under the real world conditions of an attack. That is quite a risk to take, especially if there is an alternative.
It is interesting to note that President Bush has made deploying an ABM system in Europe a major part of his foreign policy. His argument being the same as the justification for deploying such defenses in the United States, to protect against rogue states launching weapons of mass destruction. Just this week, Poland agreed to accept an anti-ballistic missile defense system on its territory. Vladmir Putin, Prime Minister and de facto ruler of Russia, has strongly opposed deployment of such a system in eastern Europe and has threatened Poland with an attack in the event such a system is installed. All the while he has been providing "technical assistance" to the Iranians in developing their "peaceful" nuclear program. Coincidence? Considering the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, do we dare to contemplate the potential for a Moscow-Tehran alliance?
Now ask yourself if a man can make the following statement and still consider himself qualified to be president of the United States:

"I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. You know, Iran, they spend one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Who would say such a thing? Why Mr. "Judgement" himself, Senator Barack Obama. As a United States Senator he is privileged to have all the information I have presented thus far, and yet he has the "audacity" to make such a foolish statement. Why? Because he is aware that MOST Americans do NOT know the extreme threat that Iran poses to our nation. As you can see, it is a far greater threat than Iraq ever presented. He is counting on the public's ignorance, and its impatience with the Iraq occupation, to drive public opinion away from the use of force to actively defend our nation. Unfortunately many, if not most, Americans seem to agree with him. There is an arrogance that comes with extended periods of safety that blinds us to the constant threat to survival that has always been part of the human experience. The most vulnerable society is the one that fails to perceive its own weaknesses. You would think that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center would have awakened us to this ever constant danger. But once again, we see ourselves turning towards distractions, that are far less important than our survival.
But the question remains. What should we do about Iran? Should we use the military option and destroy Iran's nuclear program? Certainly a regime as dangerous as theirs that consistently threatens the annihilation of both the United States and Israel should not be allowed to ever get possession of such weapons. Israel rightly views a nuclear armed Iran as an existential threat to them but, as we have seen, it is likewise an existential threat to us as well.
There are those who would suggest that we should let Israel attack Iran, essentially letting them do the dirty work for us. This however is very foolish. For starters, Israel does not have the capacity to destroy all of Iran's military capacity and it is doubtful they can even seriously harm their nuclear assets. This is not the same situation as when they bombed Iraq's nuclear program in the 1980's. That target was concentrated in one location and was totally caught by surprise. Iran is a much more determined adversary who is more than aware of a potential attack.. Their nuclear assets are scattered in numerous places which would force Israel to divide its attack upon several targets and hope to be successful at all of them. A military improbability. Also, once attacked, Iran is going to strike back. Not only will they strike back at Israel, but they will also attempt to close down the Strait of Hormuz and shut down the flow of oil coming out of the Persian Gulf. Then the United States will have to get involved to reopen the passage. So Israel can only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a small factor, and in so doing, create a big international mess that the United States will have to clean up anyway.
No. There is no way of getting around the obvious. The job must fall to the United States. We must strike in such a thorough way as to eliminate, not only all of the various sites Iran has dedicated to developing nuclear weapons, but also we must destroy all of their military capacity. This will not necessarily require an invasion, but it will require a prolonged air and naval campaign to render the regime in Tehran impotent. Only the United States has the military capacity to do this.
But that returns us to the same moral dilemma we faced on the eve of the Iraq war. Is it moral for the United States to attack another country first? The threat is clearly present in the form of both the actions and words of the Iranians. Yet, in spite of all the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, many feel it would be a second immoral preemptive action.
Does the United States have the right to attack another sovereign nation? ABSOLUTELY!! There is no doubt about the intent of the government in Iran. They have boasted of their desire to destroy the United States and Israel to the point where almost no one pays them any attention anymore. So much so that presidential hopeful Barack Obama feels comfortable belittling the threat they present as part of his campaign rhetoric. But now we all can see that they can carry out their threats in a manner equal to their bravado. As always, I am led to a passage in the Bible:

EZEKIEL 33:1-6 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Here we see that God holds those who know of an impending attack into account. The fate of the people rests in the hands of the watchman if he fails to warn the people. However, once warned, it is the people themselves who are accountable for their lives. Interesting...
Our leaders, acting as our watchmen, have known of this threat for some time. Our blood has been on their hands. The electromagnetic pulse weapon is designed as a first strike weapon. If successful it may be the only strike required to destroy us. It would be completely immoral for our president to fail to protect us from this attack. In fact, it can be argued, that the president has no greater responsibility than that of protecting the country. But consider this: you who are reading this, and many others throughout our country, are now aware of this threat as well. Your blood may very well be falling into your own hands as you cast your vote in the next election. We must be sure we elect a man with the moral fortitude to act in our defense. When dealing with a weapon that can start and finish a war in one strike, survival depends on shooting first. Some people in our country are clamouring for a change. Iran and their terrorist proxies would love to give it to us. This is a danger every bit as serious as the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. In fact it is more dangerous! We better be sure there is a man in the White House who can handle it, not one who belittles the situation.

"When a country doesn't recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, it cannot claim any national or international rights. Therefore, anyone who wants to invade a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is morally justified in doing so, because he is doing no worse than what that country has accepted as its social system. It is improper to attack a free country, because it recognizes the individual rights of its citizens."

Who could have said such a thing? Why none other than the world famous and renowned atheist Ayn Rand. Though I am no fan of atheism, she was quite an interesting and very reasonable woman. Her Objectivist philosophy is thoroughly based on reason and self-interest, two things the political left in this country arrogantly thinks they have bestowed upon themselves. A nation that oppresses its own people and does not recognize the individual rights of its own citizens cannot itself claim a right of sovereignty now can it? On what would their claim be based? How can a nation which openly calls for the annihilation of other nations not expect that those nations might seek to act in their own defense and strike them down first? The truth is, such a nation can and should be destroyed BEFORE it causes harm to a free state. It is immoral to put free societies at risk just to placate a bully state for a few more moments of delusional safety. It is time to go about the business of acting in the interests of protecting the free world, whatever the short term consequences and inconveniences.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Iran qualifies as a society that fails to recognize the individual rights of its own citizens, as also did Saddam Hussein's Iraq. So all of you who have worried your consciences over the moral ethicality of attacking an oppressive society need to get over it. Talk of impeaching President Bush for war crimes for the Iraq invasion is rendered childish and silly when seen in its proper perspective. In fact, he would be more entitled to an impeachment if he had failed to act! If the populations of oppressed countries can tolerate their own oppression, they are not going to do anything to prevent their country from attacking and oppressing others. They deserve the same as their government deserves. There are no innocent people in an oppressed country. Oppression is a cancer on civilization. You don't tolerate cancer, you remove it. The Iranian people wanted a change in the 1970's...and they got it. They got the Islamic Revolution and they have been living under the yolk of Islamic totalitarianism ever since. Their leaders are leading them straight toward a confrontation with us. They made their choice and have been antagonistic to the United States from the moment they took our embassy and held its members hostage. Let us act in our own interests and not concern ourselves with their fate anymore than they are concerning themselves with ours. I choose for them to be destroyed, and will not vote for a president who fails to perceive the seriousness of their apocalyptic agenda. If this sounds like an endorsement of John McCain...so be it.
I'll conclude by quoting the President of the recently invaded country of Georgia, a free country that was improperly attacked. When asked what America could do to help his country, Misha Saakashvili replied: "Who else can stand up for liberty in the world?" Who else, indeed?
A better question might be: Who will stand up for America when she has been neutralized by an electromagnetic pulse attack? Some people want change...this is one we must prevent! Its time to deliver to the Iranian government its final ultimatum...give up their nuclear program and openly allow international inspectors, or give up their lives. Each day we fail to act is another day closer to our own demise. To risk the death and destruction of our free society at the hands of an oppressive, Islamic Iran is an immoral act. Attack!

The Death Of Free Speech

THE DEATH OF FREE SPEECH

"Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth. Or by misleading the innocent." First officer Spock, USS Enterprise, star-date 5029.5

...And so it begins. The effort to dismantle the basic freedoms guaranteed in Western Civilization are accelerating in earnest. The European Union is under direct attack from Muslims demanding...yes, DEMANDING, that the West adopt a policy of silencing critics of Islam. Yet, in what can only be described as a shocking turn of events, one of the first successful acts of suppressing free speech has occurred in...Colorado? Ye who mock God should be very careful who you crawl into bed with...

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.

What! No mention of the Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD "Axis Of Evil?" I tell you its just not fair the way they go about choosing who constitutes the leading offenders of Islamo-blasphemy! It's not really about who says the most "Inconvenient truths" about Islam. It's all about who you know. I'm feeling so rejected.

They said that a six-member high-level delegation comprising officials from the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Law would leave Islamabad on Sunday (today) for the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and explain to the EU leadership the backlash against the blasphemous campaign in the name of freedom of expression. The delegation, headed by an additional secretary of the Interior Ministry, will meet the leaders of the EU countries in a bid to convince them that the recent attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan could be a reaction against the blasphemous campaign, sources said.

Ahh yes. The "I wouldn't blow up your embassy if your country didn't allow the publication of blasphemous Muhammad cartoons" excuse. Kind of reminds you if that line in the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" where Paul Newman exclaims: "If he'd just pay me what he's spending to make me stop robbing him, I'd stop robbing him." But alas, it gets better. Our Muslim friends go on to threaten more violence in the event that their demands go unfulfilled.

They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.

Strong words to be sure. So when are we going to start believing these people mean what they say? In this case it was the Danish Embassy that they blew up, killing six people. Yet they have the audacity to claim that it is they, the Muslim population, that are the victims.

'It isn't just the people of Pakistan that feel they have been harassed by what your newspaper has begun, I'd like to know if your newspaper is satisfied with what it has done and what it has unleashed?' Fauzia Mufti Abbas, Pakistan's ambassador to Denmark

The ambassador's perspective on Muslim violence is not unique. It follows the same trajectory established by Muhammad himself, to justify removing criticism of his, and thereby Islam's, policies. His influence remains alive and well. Will the European Union fall prey to this foolish logic that sees Islam as a perpetual victim? Will Europe surrender one of the most precious freedoms in Western Civilization in hopes of thwarting future Muslim violence? Is there any "fight" left in our European friends or would they prefer to surrender and become dhimmi servants to their new Muslim overlords. Overlords such as Pakistani ambassador to Norway Rab Nawaz Khan. What? You haven't heard about the new Norwegian cartoon controversy? Lets remedy that.
A caricature of Muhammad was published in the Norwegian publication Adressearisen. Nothing new or original about that. What is new is that a high ranking official like ambassador Rab Nawaz Khan would go off the deep end and say this about it:

"Muslim societies all over the world will be insulted. Therefore it's a terrorist act,"

Wow! The very basic right of the freedom to express oneself is itself a terrorist act because someone will be insulted. In this case it is Muslims claiming to be offended, but it could have been anybody. Is not this the very reason we have the right of free speech? To guarantee that one cannot have his views restricted by those who would oppose them? But wait, it gets better. Like his Pakistani compatriots in the EU delegation, he too adds a threat to his statement. Fearing that news of the publication will cause "strong reactions" and cause people to "lose control." He then adds:

"People shouldn't forget that there's many Norwegian businesses in Pakistan"

It might remind you of another classic Hollywood scene from the movie "The Untouchables." When one of Capone's men notices that his victim has a little girl he tells him:

"Its Nice to have a family. A man should take care, see that nothin' happens to them."

Now that's good theatre! It would appear that Ambassador Rab Nawaz Khan is familiar with the scene as well. All people in the West should take note of the ambassadors use of the threat of violence as a tactic for it reveals much about not only Islam's intentions but also its character...and you would do well to know that they and Capone"s gangsters do operate exactly alike. But the thuggish and brutish street tactics of Capone and his like are only pale imitations of the tried and true method of extortion and violence that has been perfected by Islamic Jihadists for 1400 years! They have cleverly placed the blame for their future violence squarely on their victims failure to acquiesce to their demands. The only remaining question is how will we respond?
Well, I'm glad you asked, for now you can know the answer to one of the burning questions in the current American presidential campaign. As I am sure you are well aware, democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has indicated that he has a strong desire to talk with America's enemies without preconditions. He has particularly mentioned talking with infamous Israel hater Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran. What everyone has wanted to know, of course, is what they would talk about. Now we know...
They will talk about the way Islam has been "misrepresented" and "misunderstood" and how these "blasphemous" expressions of "hatred" against Islam are terrorizing their citizens and causing them to react violently. Certainly Ahmadinejad will ask if President Obama would be willing to do something to control all of this. After all, as we have been shown, its all our fault. The fact that the EU is already being pressured to pass anti-blasphemy laws, and Barack Obama has made it plainly clear he values the opinions of people outside of the United States at least as much, if not more, than those of our own citizens, does not bode well for his acting in defense of our most important liberty. How long do you think it will take for him to call for some sort of hate speech legislation within this country to restrict criticism of Islam?
Unfortunately he doesn't have to look far for advice for dealing with this situation. Across the border in Canada they have something called the "Canada Human Rights Commission" which is a parallel legal system to the Canadian courts that is unrestrained by such arcane and outmoded concepts as due process, presumption of innocence and free speech. They have just recently dismissed a case presented before them involving conservative writer Mark Steyn and the respected Maclean's Magazine. In an article titled "The Future Belongs to Islam," Steyn claimed that Muslims are on the verge of dominating Europe and the West because of a demographic shift. The article claims that their greater numbers will eventually allow Muslims to dominate Western countries. The article goes so far as to quote a European Imam who allegedly said Muslims are reproducing like "mosquitoes." The Canadian Islamic Congress had argued that by publishing the article the magazine exposed Muslims to hatred and contempt.
Though the the Tribunal dismissed this particular case one has to ask why such a Commission exists at all? They bear too much resemblance to such entities as the "culture ministries" that exist in Islamic countries, such as Iran, to monitor and CONTROL the media. Perhaps when they meet, President Ahmadinejad will share some tips with President Obama on how to get such a thing implemented here on the United States. I know some of you may think this is extreme but to a certain extent, it is already starting.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives made it clear that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the "Fairness Doctrine" (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during '08. In ruling out a vote on Pence's proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the "Fairness Doctrine," which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested. Experts say that the "Fairness Doctrine," which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force. Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.
The "Fairness Doctrine" is really a misnamed policy. The fact is that radio stations are commercial enterprises that must generate income to survive. Conservative talk radio has been very successful at generating the audiences necessary for the stations survival. There hasn't been a lack of alternative voices for liberals and progressives out there. Far from it. The left has poured millions into getting the best talent on the air all over the country. But you can't force people to listen to it. Liberal talk radio has as much, or less, commercial appeal as Death and Black Metal music. They can get a lot of headlines for their antics but no audience. If the "Fairness Doctrine" were reinstated it would be the death of AM radio as broadcasters would be forced to broadcast shows that they knew would fail alongside the ones that they need to survive. Effectively killing half of their potential income. How fair is that? When directly asked if she supported reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" Speaker Pelosi answered "yes" without hesitation. (Human Events.com)
Incidentally it is interesting how the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine" is always described as an attempt to control "hate radio." Once again we see speech that offends someone being called offensive. In this case, it is purely political, yet all too often conservative talk radio is accused of being "hate speech." The founding fathers knew this when they insisted on instilling this basic right into the constitution. All speech that you don't agree with could be called hate speech. By describing your opponents rhetoric as "hate speech" you are just attempting to discredit them through name calling rather than dealing with the merits, or lack thereof, of their arguments. We must not tolerate the censoring or silencing of any of it! But I'm afraid we already have...
Signed into law last week by the Governor of Colorado, SB08-200 which has this damnable clause in it:

Section 8. 24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation... shall publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or tuition or any accommodation, right [marriage], privilege [adoption], advantage, or convenience... on account of... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... [which] is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or solicited."

After 400 years of religious freedom for those who wanted to own and distribute Bibles on their own property in America, the Governor of Colorado has put an end to it. While churches are exempted for now, Christian schools, Christian book stores, private business, etc. are not. Once again we see freedom of speech disallowed because someone finds it offensive. In this case it is being sold as anti-discrimination legislation. But all laws discriminate against someone. Do not laws prohibiting rape and thievery discriminate against rapist and thieves? Every gain for someone is a loss for someone else. In this case, the loss is a right of free expression of Christian beliefs pertaining to homosexuality.
The Muslims seeking anti-blasphemy laws must be rejoicing. Certainly people who criticize Islam are just as guilty of discrimination by these standards as those who condemn homosexual behavior on religious moral grounds. The path to enacting restrictions on the criticism of Islam and its' adherent's behavior is now wide and clear. Homosexuals may think they have scored some sort of victory here but they have signed not only their own death warrant, but one for the rest of us as well. Homosexuals, like Christians, Jews, dogs, and free speech are offensive to Muslims. Muslims don't just condemn homosexual behavior...they kill homosexuals! Remember when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said "there are no gays in Iran." Where do you reckon they went? Unfortunately for the homosexual lobby in this country, they are not nearly as vicious and threatening as the Jihadists. Soon homosexuals will be able to trade their "perceived" discrimination at the hands of a forgiving Christianity who sought to redeem them, for a real discrimination at the hands of Muhammad's feral adherents. They do not offer repentance and redemption. They will simply kill them. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is even under the impression that in Iran, he has killed them all. One of the major enablers of that, or any genocide, is the suppression of the ability to criticize the actions, policies, or simply the belief system that would lead to such behavior. That is the result of stifling free speech...death! And there will be plenty of death to go around.
Consider it a fine example of how no one truly gains when someone else is unjustly deprived of their freedom. When you refuse to stand up to bullies and false grievances you only postpone the damage that will be done to you, not prevent it. It just goes to show that cowards always get what they fear most. And you know what? They deserve it too!

I AM THE WALRUS

The assault on the American economy by socialism is increasing in its voracity with each passing day. The sovereignty of the United States, as well as our own individual liberty, has never been in greater danger than it is now. The appetite for economically stifling environmental litigation only grows with each meal it consumes. Global warming hysteria is dragging the socialist indoctrinated lemmings of our society over the edge of a doomsday precipice that will destroy our economy and our way of life, whilst having ZERO effect in changing the course of the earth's climate. With their foolishly surprising success at deceiving the Bush administration into listing the Polar Bear as a threatened species, despite the use of dubious data, the Church of the Global Apocalypse has moved on to a new "victim" of man made global warming...the Pacific walrus.
Well, you really didn't expect them to stop did you? Their bamboozle job with the Polar Bear was impressive. No, not for the quality of their argument, but for the fact that ANYONE would fall for it. The decision to list the Polar bear as "threatened" was based entirely on politics and not on science. Unproven computer models suggested that, as the polar ice continues to decline, the Polar Bear would likewise lose substantial portions of its habitat thus leading to a reduction in its population. This fantasy from the environmentalist insane asylum is ridiculously contrasted with the reality of what has happened to the Polar Bear over the last forty years. In spite of the fact that we have been told that Global warming has been reducing polar ice for years, the Polar Bear has apparently had a more amorous reaction to the supposed decline of its habitat, resulting in a population that has more than doubled, from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s, to the current population which numbers some 20,000 to 25,000 bears!
In a world where success only furthers greater ambition, it should come as no surprise that the environmentalist lawyers are now filing suit to get the Pacific Walrus listed as threatened too. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition in February to force federal action to list the walrus as threatened because of "threats from global warming and offshore petroleum development." Shaye Wolf, a biologist and lead author of the petition, said Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than the best predictions of climate models. "As the sea ice recedes, so does the future of the Pacific walrus," she said. And so the same organization that deceived the Bush administration in its misrepresentation of the Polar Bear's "dire" circumstances now moves forward on the walrus.
But how can they make the claim that the walrus population is threatened at all? The size of the Pacific walrus population is both unknown and very difficult to survey. Estimates place the population between 200,000 and 250,000 animals. The population estimates have stayed consistent for the last thirty years. Although Bruce Woods, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman in Anchorage, said the agency is close to finishing a new walrus survey. "We do have a population count from the 2006 survey that should be finalized soon," he said. "That will give us a better basis for evaluating the petition." Why does that statement make me skeptical?
Walruses are prone to gathering in large numbers on land and when startled, they stampede. This often results in a large number of deaths. One AP news article described how "scientists received reports of hundreds and hundreds of walruses dead of internal injuries suffered in stampedes" and quoted biologist Anatoly Kochnev of Russia's Pacific Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography as estimating that "3,000 to 4,000 walruses out of population of perhaps 200,000 died, or two or three times the usual number on shoreline haul-outs."
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, Arctic sea ice last summer dwindled to 1.65 million square miles, the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979. The recession of the ice is being blamed for causing more and more walruses to congregate on shore and thereby creating a greater risk of stampeding. Over the last ten years, every fall, walruses have congregated on the Vankarem Cape, forming a "haul-out" just a half-mile from the village. Last fall some 20,000 to 30,000 walruses were piled up there. No one has actually counted them all, but the Vankarem residents are certain the number is growing. Walruses are more vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. Stampedes can, however, be caused by a variety of factors. Like cats in a group, they can be startled quite easy. Once out of control, the stampede is on. Also the presence of natural predators or low flying aircraft can initiate a stampede. The kind of low flying aircraft like the ones used by environmentalists to survey them per chance?
But is receding ice really a problem for the Pacific walrus...or could there be other considerations? Considerations like, say, hunters? Consider this excerpt from a Sea World link:

As the Pacific walrus population grew, annual subsistence catches by indigenous Arctic peoples ranged from about 3,000 to 16,000 walruses per year until about 1990, and then decreased to an average of 5,789 animals per year from 1996 to 2000.

Thats 3,000 to 16,000 killed by human hunters as compared to the 3,000 to 4,000 they claim (dubiously of course) are killed by stampeding...and yet they wish to claim that the walrus is threatened because of receding ice due to global warming. Of course there is another hunter of the Pacific walrus that has a taste for their calves, and the mere sight of one will often send a herd into a stampeding frenzy. Care to guess who the hunter is? C'mon, you can't make this stuff up, its too good to be true but, alas, it is. You guessed it...The Polar Bear. Yep, increased numbers of Polar Bears over the last 40 years have led to an increase in their harvest of both walrus calves and the remains of walruses that don't survive the stampedes they cause. Isn't that a precious "inconvenient" truth?
So lets be sure we understand this. The Pacific walrus should be listed as threatened, even though there is no evidence to suggest that its population is any smaller, or larger, than it has been over the last half century. But let us not be concerned with evidence that hunters, both human and beast, regularly get upwards of 20,000 animals per year WITHOUT altering the balance of the population. No, its global warming reducing the ice that is the culprit of this phantom crime that we are sure is either happening or is going to happen. Lack of proof notwithstanding. For some strange reason, this comes to mind:

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Perhaps as the United States drifts ever more into the realms of godlessness there are going to be more fools selling bunk like this to us. Unfortunately, these fools expect that a larger and larger portion of us are going to buy into this type of thing. Hey, it worked once already for the Polar Bear! Who would dare to bet against this now? Remember when Obi Wan Kenobi asked: "Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" My money is on the second fool. The fool who follows him. I can't stop the first fool but I can refuse to become the second one!
The cold hard truth about this is simple. Socialism is alive and well in the United States, as well as the rest of the world. This is how they intend to gain control over our societies once and for all, so that they can get along with the social engineering they have lusted over since the time of Bismarck. It is part of their "we're all in this together campaign" to save the planet from, well, ourselves. You, me, the walrus and the Polar bear all have equal worth in their eyes, and we all have to share and sacrifice for each other. Gives you a warm feeling all over doesn't it? The key word, however, is sacrifice. The bear and the walrus can't do that. That responsibility will fall to us...and there is the linchpin of the entire hoax.
Its very important to them to link these fraudulent species endangerments to the use of petroleum products and fossil fuels. Therefore they can use the legal system in an attempt to force draconian measures against us to combat global warming. The recently defeated Lieberman-Warner bill was the first such example of this sort of legislation. This bill would redistribute over $5.6 trillion from American consumers to pet congressional projects. Despite paying for the trillions of dollars mandated by this cap-and-trade scheme, American families and workers will only receive back $800 billion in consumer tax relief. That's $7 paid for every $1 returned. "The Lieberman-Warner bill was the largest pork bill ever considered by Congress. It was nothing more than a massive tax increase hidden behind the facade of "taking action to combat global warming." This bill was defeated. However, you can bet it will return again in some form. Both Obama and McCain claim to support action against the supposed effects of man-made global warming. Perhaps McCain will be more reasonable, but that remains unproven. When it comes to change, draconian measures are exactly what a President Obama has in mind:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." B.H. Obama

Mr. Appeasement appears to have a deep seeded desire to be liked by everyone. This is not a particularly desirable trait for a president to have. Self-perceived good intentions combined with their arrogance and hatred for industry, will bring forth a disaster to our economy. The draconian measures Obama and our socialist politicians want to implement will not have any effect on the planet's climate, but by enforcing such measures, as added taxes on fuel and businesses that consume energy, they will destroy our economy. This is an objective they have had all along. There is nothing a socialist hates so much as a free market capitalist economy. Increasing taxes is their method for confiscating our economic independence. Make no mistake about it, these policies will affect EVERYONE that uses gasoline and electricity in this country. Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you they are going to raise taxes on the rich. The rich can pay these extra costs, can you? And how about those geniuses who desire for us to pursue biofuels? This converts that which we use for food into fuel for vehicles. There is an idea that will raise food prices, as you have already seen, as farmers convert from food to the more profitable fuel crops. Do you think this idea is better for the rich, who can afford both the fuel and the higher priced food, or the poor who won't be able to afford either? Maybe the kool-aid drinking enviro-wackos actually believe in man-made global warming and get a warm (ironic isn't it) fuzzy feeling about saving polar bears and walruses, but the dyed-in-the-wool socialist couldn't care less about these creatures. They just want control. We must not give it to them!
This environmentalist litigation is nothing less than pre-emptive action to prevent any increase in domestic oil production. Because of the rising price of fuel and the fact that American wealth is being sent to foreign governments hostile to our interests, the American people are clamoring for more domestic drilling. The socialists, on the other hand, desire the higher fuel prices because they think the American people are too wealthy and they wish to punish us by destroying our economy. They are using these tactics to short circuit the public's demand for an increase in domestic oil production and exploration.
Congress has banned energy exploration in 85% of our country. China and Cuba are drilling for oil closer to our coastline than U.S. oil companies are allowed. How insane is that? It has been estimated that beneath the American coasts lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years! There is enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years! The Republican controlled congress of the 90's put a bill to allow drilling in Anwar Alaska on Bill Clinton's desk. He vetoed it. During the administration of G.W. Bush the democrats in congress have continued to block all legislation to allow drilling for oil in Anwar as well as continue to uphold restrictions on domestic oil production. This May, democrats in congress blocked the American Energy Production Act of 2008. The bill would have allowed for more domestic oil and natural gas exploration, more use of coal and liquefied coal and it would have tapped into America's vast oil shale fields. The result of such a plan, if enacted, would have been more oil and natural gas on the market, easing supply constraints and lowering prices. It also would have created tens of thousands of new jobs in America and go a long way toward reducing our dependence on energy from unstable and hostile foreign regimes, many of which are actively seeking our destruction.
Just this week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee On Interior and Environment voted not to bring forth a bill to lift domestic offshore drilling restrictions. The vote was on straight party lines with ALL the democrats voting against it and all the republicans voting for it. "We are kidding ourselves, as we routinely do in this town, if we think we can drill our way out of this problem," said Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin.
And what, praytell, did the democrats have to offer as an alternative to the American Energy Production Act of 2008? Their own proposal in Senate bill S3044 which called for a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies! They also wished to rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade. This has been tried before by the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter. The result was higher gas prices as the oil companies will just pass the extra tax down to the consumer at the pump. Worse, it also resulted in LESS domestic oil production as there was no incentive for oil companies to increase production. Way to go democrats! The Middle East may very well be holding us hostage to their oil prices but the democratic party has given them the gun to do it with!
Contrary to the claims of environmentalists, wildlife has expanded and flourished in and around Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. It has had no negative effect whatsoever. And do you want to hear another "inconvenient" truth? Of course you do. Two leading environmental groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy, actually allow oil and natural gas production on several of their own nature preserves. Why? For the money! Don't you know how much that stuff is going for these days?
If organizations such as these can see their way to allowing gas and oil production on their land, why can't we, the taxpayers, get the government off the backs of the oil companies and let them get at the oil we know exists in our own country? Increase the supply, decrease the price. Any fool knows that...well maybe not. Or maybe the socialists that we (well, obviously not me and probably not most of you reading this) have elected to congress are getting just what they want. Choking the life out of the U.S. economy and relieving us of the burden of our freedoms. If you don't believe there are socialists actively working for the destruction of our country you haven't been paying attention. Consider this statement from California Democratic Representative Maxine Waters to the president of a U.S. oil company at a recent hearing on oil prices:

"guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socializing -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

I guess she gets all her ideas from Hugo Chavez who has done exactly that to the Venezuelan oil industry. You can't fault her for her honesty about her socialist desires, but we can and must stop her and others like her. These nonsensical declarations of species endangerment are just an excuse to deprive the U.S. economy of the fuel it needs to survive. The socialists don't want it, or us, to survive. The world will be a better place without us and they have told us so. What are we going to do about it...or them?
As the Psalmist said: "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Ask yourself, what good can come of these blatant attempts at deceiving us? What will become of us? Man-made global warming may very well destroy us all...but not in the way its being sold to us. Somewhere up north there are Pacific walruses holding their little thumb/fins up to their nose, laughing and leering at us...and don't you know what they are saying?...

COO COO KACHOO

No Representation Without Taxation

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION

It is a lie. It is probably the lie most often told by politicians of a particular persuasion, and repeated even more by their parasitic adherents in the press. "The rich do not pay their fair share." Class warfare has been the modus operandi for socialist movements all over the world, and it is a practice that is alive and well right here in the United States.
All of the candidates currently running for President will make various claims as to whose taxes they will raise and whose they will lower. The truth is, they all are lying. By themselves, they haven't the authority to do it. Or as article 1, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."

So the next time a Democrat claims she or he is going to repeal the "Bush Tax Cuts" it would be fair to remind them that President Bush only "suggested" them. It was the Congress that made them the law of the land. Congress had all the power in the U.S. law to resist them. And they can repeal them any time they want...if they really want to do it. We currently have a Democrat controlled House and Senate now. So what are they waiting for? Congressmen tend have a short career when they start raising taxes. Its an election year.
It is true, however, that we do have a lot of Presidential candidates eager to "redistribute" the wealth of the proverbial "rich" to the "less fortunate" in our society. Robin Hood is alive and well. This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt to buy the votes of those people who will be on the receiving end of that money. That is a primary motivating factor in the Democratic party's embracement of government controlled "Universal Health Care." The more people they can get on the "receiving" end of a government programs the more people will be inclined to vote for those people who supply those programs. Naturally, the money has to come from some place. Raising taxes is the common method of acquiring the financing. This is prototypical Socialism. Class warfare being used as a wedge to force in these expensive big government programs into existence. It's all about getting influence and control over the lives of the nation's population. The less money you have, the less control you have over your own life and the more dependent you are on government. It is typical socialist propaganda to claim the rich ought to pay more. Tax cuts, it is argued, only benefit the rich.
Well, it is a fact that you have to be paying taxes to benefit from a tax cut. It is also true that cutting taxes has the effect of increasing revenue. Why? Tax policy is the one way the government can truly effect the economy. When you cut taxes, you leave money (capital) in the economy that can then be used for investment. This leads to an expanding community that adds jobs and therefore adds more taxpayers and new businesses to the tax base. Raising taxes has absolutely the opposite effect by reducing capital in the economy and shrinking investment you therefore reduce the tax base. You would think this would be simple. Yet the Democrats feel emboldened to not only repeal the so called "Bush Tax Cuts," but also to increase taxes still more in order to finance their socialist government programs.
The argument against tax cuts is always the same. Tax cuts are for the rich and therefore if we are reducing their taxes then the burden of financing the government must be "unfairly" shifting onto the poor. But is that the truth? According to the most recent statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, it isn't even a distant relative of the truth.
In 2005 the top 1% of all income earners, which means all those whose annual income exceeds $365,000, paid a whopping 39% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 they were paying 35%. So not only are the richest 1% paying well over third of all federal income taxes, they are carrying an even greater share of the tax burden than they were under President Clinton. This AFTER the "Bush Tax Cuts!" Imagine that.
If we look at the top 5% of income earners, those with annual incomes over $145,000, we see they are paying 60% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 their share of the tax burden was 55%. Once again we see the tax burden of the wealthiest 5% of income earners increasing AFTER the tax cuts. Impressive.
It continues no matter how you look at the numbers. The top 10% of income earners, $103,000 and above, pay 70% of all federal taxes. The top 25%, $62,000 and above, pay 86% of federal taxes. And get this...the top 50% of income earners, those earning $31,000 and above, pay 97% of all federal income taxes!!
That leaves the 3% of income earners who earn less than $30,000 annually. They are currently paying 3% of all federal taxes but in 1999 they were responsible for 4%. So who is bearing the tax burden of the federal government? Have the tax cuts really shifted the tax burden in the direction of the poor? It would appear that tax cuts have brought nothing but desirable results all around. They have provided an expanding economy, more jobs and fair dispensation of the tax burden. Now the Democrats propose to improve this by raising taxes? Lunacy.
When it comes to unfairness in the tax system, the problem isn't the taxpayer. Any taxpayer. The problem arises from those who do not pay any taxes at all. If you have no financial stake in the government, your voting practices are going to reflect that fact. Tax cuts mean nothing to the non-taxpayer. However you might be led to believe that tax cuts could effect you negatively if you are dependent on government programs and government income. That is where the Democrats come in, providing misleading information to those dependent on the government for their wellbeing. Truthfully, tax cuts will benefit those dependent on this redistribution of income as well, but politicians practicing class warfare find these "less fortunate" people to be vulnerable to this misinformation. After all, if they have any education at all it was government provided public education. Remember, the idea is to mislead and gain control.
Consider these figures. 41%of whites, 56% of blacks, 59% of American Indians and 40% of Asians and pacific Islanders paid absolutely NO federal income taxes. They have ZERO tax liability. Yet each and every one of them has an equal voice at the ballot box as those who do fund the federal government. How "fair" is that?
The socialists, who continually present the argument that the rich do not pay their fair share, know all of this. They intentionally misrepresent this information in their attempt to gain power and influence over us. It is their desire to destroy the U.S. economy so as to eliminate the independence of the American people. It's all about control. It is a deception that has worked before when people who have a stake in government allow those who do not to participate as equals in the selection process of government officials. Once a population realizes it can vote itself money from the treasury it can hold the government hostage to its demands. We have arrived at that point in this country.
This country was founded by people who were sick and tired of paying taxes to England and not having a voice in its government. They were paying money to a government that was not responsive to their concerns. "No Taxation Without Representation" was the battle-cry of the revolutionaries. Well the pendulum has shifted too far the other direction now. People who are NOT paying taxes should NOT have as equal a say in the government as those who do! We as taxpayers are once again being governed by a government that is not responsive to our concerns. Our politicians are too busy doling out the treasury to non-producers in exchange for votes.
If more taxpayers were aware of how truly unfair and biased the tax system is against them, I believe they would insist on a "new revolution" to correct this "injustice." That is a word the socialists love. Injustice. They use it to validate all of their programs. "Social justice" is how they validate their demands for more money from the treasury to placate a variety of social ills. But "justice" for some is ultimately a crime against someone else.
Those receiving the "redistributed" benefits of the work of others should not be allowed to dictate the terms of that redistribution! When they are allowed to do so we are no longer "promoting the general welfare" of the population. Nor is this any form of charity. It's robbery! Why should the weakest, non productive element of our society be allowed to destroy our entire society with their demands? Perhaps a new battle cry is necessary to fix this "social injustice:"

"NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!!"

"Axis Of Evil" Essay II: Come Drink The Wrath

"Axis Of Evil" Essay II:
COME DRINK THE WRATH

The phrase "once saved, always saved" is at the heart of one of Christianity's oldest and deepest running controversies. It is the belief that a person's salvation is a permanent condition. Many Christians, including Catholics, commonly deny this doctrine. Several Protestants, including Southern Baptists, embrace this belief. Still others fall in between holding to the argument that if one's salvation experience was indeed genuine, then that genuineness will be manifested in a secure salvation. In other words, if you backslide you were never truly repentant in the first place. Though I myself am a Southern Baptist, I have challenged this doctrine on the new Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD in a very big way. I have suggested that the infamous "mark of the beast" can, and will, be forced on people against their will. That especially includes Christians. I don't make this assertion carelessly.
The first person to espouse the idea of "once saved, always saved" was John Calvin in the mid-sixteenth century. Even Martin Luther didn't subscribe to the theory. Prior to Calvin, the unanimous consent of the early Christians was that a person is capable of losing his salvation by committing mortal sin, as in this scripture:

1 John 5:16-17 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

In the first century, the Didache, commonly known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, said "Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time." -Didache 16 {A.D. 70]
In the second century, Irenaeus wrote, "To Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess' [Phil. 2:10-11] to him, and that he should execute just judgment towards all. The ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men shall go into everlasting fire; but he may, in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the beginning of their Christian course, and others from the date of their penance, and may surround them with everlasting glory." -Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]

Biblically speaking, arguments can be made for all three positions. Advocates of the "once saved, always saved" position often point to these scriptures:

EPHESIANS 4:29-30 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

ROMANS 8:37-39 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

JOHN 10: 26-30 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

Although there is a lot to be said for the comforting certainty that this approach to salvation provides it does harbor some fatal flaws. The implication is there that no MAN is able to pluck a person out of Gods hand. But we should remember this as well:

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Ahh yes, problem number one. It is not humans that are the problem here. It is the spiritual powers that control the world unseen. Although it would appear Paul is trying to console us that these powers cannot come between us and God in the ROMANS passage, I believe this is a tribute to the power of God and should not be misconstrued as a perpetual condition. To say that you can not lose your salvation would be the equivalent of saying that no one can pull you out of a car moving at 100 mph! Of course they can't! But you CAN jump out on your own. There in lies the the great problem. There are those who, by deception or the lures of earthly reward might convince you to do the equivalent of jumping out of the moving car. This is what I propose. You can be led by the actions of spiritual beings and their earthly ambassadors to willingly and perhaps even unwillingly extinguish your salvation. I return to the most dangerous verses in the entire Bible:

REVELATION 14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

This is a passage that, unfortunately, does not allow for any misinterpretation. Absolutely everyone who receives this mark is entitled to the wrath of God. It therefore would be very important for our favorite fallen angel to find any and every way to get this mark on everyone. Much has been written of how this mark could come about. Things like implants that can be scanned much like a credit card but that could also contain all your medical and financial records. We already know that animals are implanted with these types of devices. Such an identification implant would be quite useful not only for eliminating all currency into one digital form, but it would also make quite a handy tracking mechanism. Remember, only God is omniscient. The other spirit beings have to find a way to keep track of you while operating in the earthly realm. It will not be that difficult to convince the non-Christian world to accept this "mark" in the name of modernization or even simple "law and order." But what about....Christians?
I have always believed that the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine was one of the methods used by Satan to deceive people into taking his mark. By convincing Christians that they are "entitled" to be removed from the earth prior to the events of the great tribulation he essentially has them lowering their guard for these forthcoming events. If you believe you aren't going to be here for it then perhaps you will simply view this mark as a form of social and economic identification, and therefore say to yourself: "this can't be the mark of the beast since I am still here." And of course you are instantly eternally doomed. I do believe this is the purpose of the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine, and it will work with many people, but there is more.
Many Christians believe that if someone put a gun to their head and said "take the mark or die" that they could easily choose death. If only it would be so easy. I propose an alternate probability. One that is far more vicious, violent and pure evil. For I believe that the entire tribulation and all the power at Satan's disposal will be aimed at Christians and Jews at this time, and we will be here for it.
It's one thing to deceive you into taking the mark, but first the question must be asked:can it be forced upon you? From a physical standpoint the answer is obviously yes. Scientists (not the toughest of people) regularly "tag" animals like elephants and tigers with relative ease. Shooting them with a tranquilizer suddenly makes the most physically challenging animals on earth very vulnerable. Since humans are much less physically imposing than tigers, we can easily say that the enforcers of the Anti-Christ's "New World Order" will have the technology at their disposal to actually capture and coerce the unwilling to accept the mark.
Now many people will argue that since the mark was not voluntarily accepted that it therefore will not count against you. I would not be so sure about that but if you truly believe that, it will be one of the greatest challenges to your faith you will ever have. There are these verses in the book of Matthew that have always bothered me.

MATTHEW 18:7-9 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

It seems to me, that Jesus is giving you the prescription for saving yourself from this very problem. Would it not stand to reason that the most offensive thing you could possess on your body would be the "mark of the beast?" It therefore stands to reason that if you find yourself involuntarily in possession of it then you KNOW what you must do. Considering this mark is said to be most often associated with the forehead, and we do possess the technology to make this mark unremovable (safely), it would appear that there is only one way to regain your acceptability in the sight of the Lord. Yes, I am suggesting that you just may have to ask someone else of equal faith in God...to remove your head. Many Christians out there will say this could never happen and isn't true but you must always remember that Satan is the instigator of confusion and deception. It may well be Biblically true that the mark forced upon you will not separate you from your salvation. But will you take the chance? Many of you will say that the Lord will protect his own and keep this situation from happening much like he kept Noah from drowning. By simply keeping these people away from you. That may also be true but to that I would also say this:

MATTHEW 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

What kind of Christian is Jesus addressing here? He is stating that many people who call themselves Christians are in fact not. Would not this kind of person be vulnerable to a forced application of the mark of the beast? And consider this: Would such a person who suddenly found him or herself forcibly abducted and marked likewise be blessed? What? Blessed you say!! Yes, and here is why. Isn't it quite possible that many of these people actually believe they are Christians? That they are right with God, only now to find themselves cursed by him? The liberalizing of modern day Christianity is to me the singl biggest CAUSE of the tribulation. Thats right I said CAUSE. I firmly believe that if the faith of Christians remained strong then the tribulation would not even get started. Why? Because like in the story Sodom and Gomorrah. God waits until the last possible moment before he acts in judgement. Weak Christianity is the cause of the tribulation. Or as Paul said:

2 TIMOTHY 4:4-5 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 THESSALONIANS 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Here we see a weakening of faith being tied together with the arrival of the very personality that is going to be behind these events. Therefore I challenge you that a lot of people who think they are faithful Christians actually are not. These people have imperfect or just plain false knowledge about God and are therefore vulnerable to being forcibly marked by the Anti-Christ. However, they should also have knowledge of this mark, and once it has been placed on them, they just may find the humility to pursue the truth of God and they may then have the courage to remove the mark. Therefore it could be viewed as a blessing or a last chance for those who may not have known better? Because of the mark they can correct their situation and will now not be among those who Jesus tells to depart for he never knew them. Therefore...a blessing!
There is also another thing to consider. If you have the mark forcibly applied to you, whatever the state you believe your salvation to be, you will be tempted to use the mark and interact within the society. Think about that one a lot. Once the mark is applied, you will then have access to your bank accounts and medical records that you did not have without it. If you are sick and seek medical attention, you have voluntarily USED the mark. If you are hungry and go to a McDonalds and purchase a meal, you have USED the mark. It matters not at that point whether you willingly accepted it. Perhaps the spiritual ramifications of a hamburger were never so monumental!
So I have presented a case for certain people who could be forcibly marked. Remember the idea is to sew confusion and deception in the world. If I can think of these things, Lucifer is far ahead. But I have saved perhaps the worst of it for the last. What of the children?
For the pre-tribulation rapture believer this comes down to the question of whether or not the children of the non-Christians will be taken. It is pretty much given that the children of Christians would go with their parents. Many, including Jack Van Impe, say that ALL the children of the earth would be taken in the pre-tribulation rapture. However I would contend that this could not be the case. As I argued in the Axis of Evil Essay on Islam, Jesus called himself the "good shepherd" and as such he would be entitled to take that which belongs to him in his rapture. The children of his sheep certainly would qualify as belonging to him. But the children of other shepherds belong to those shepherds. If Jesus was willing to "render unto Caesar that which was his" would he not have to allow the other shepherds to claim that which is theirs?

EXODUS 20: 5-6 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

I believe that these two verses resolve the issue soundly. The children of non-Christians will be "left behind" because those without Jesus to intercede on their behalf are to be judged by the law...and the law is clear.
But wait! Haven't I established that I believe the very idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is a Satanic plant within the world of Christendom for the purposes of deception? Therefore if there is no pre-tribulation rapture...what of the children?

MATTHEW 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

This verse should bother you a lot as it comes right in the midst of Jesus describing the events leading up to his return. He specifically goes out of his way not to mention the children, but their parents. What could that be all about? Yes, it's that bad and I am going to say it.
What would you do if you were Satan? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Now is the time for you to do it. Even if you were willing to execute someone who refused to take the mark of the beast, would you be willing to kill their children? Of course not! You will take him or her alive into "state custody" where they will receive the mark, and with it, the promise of eternal damnation. It is the responsibility of the parents of those young children to see that their offspring are not captured...alive. Am I suggesting that Christians living through these events will kill their own children? For some, this will be their only option. I hate to offend the sensitivity of many of you Christians out there (Ok, actually I don't but I don't want you to think I am enjoying this), but its time to spiritually "grow up" and see the world for what it truly is. REVELATION 14:9-11 does not allow for exceptions. And before you go howling away about how God would never allow such a thing remember: God is not the one doing it to you! Satan is!! And Satan is mocking God!! Consider this example:

GENESIS 22:1-12 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid [it] upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where [is] the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

It is a long passage but an important one. Most people will tell you that God was testing the faith of Abraham. Certainly Abraham passed the test since he was willing to sacrifice his own flesh and blood son, as God had requested. But God did not allow him to follow through with the sacrifice. Seeing that his faith was true, God spared him from this terrible duty. However, it is not God who is insisting on putting an identification mark on the people of the earth in the last days. God has no need of a tracking mechanism. I tell you Satan will mock God and force you to prove your faith in those days. He will not show mercy and you will have to be stronger than him.
Keep in mind that this will actually help the cause of Christian persecution at this time. The newspapers will be full of stories about how Christians kill their own children rather than submit to what they believe is a benign example of modern technology designed to help preserve peace and security. Since persecution of Christians is the ultimate goal of both Satan and the Anti-Christ, it's a virtually fool-proof plan. And it has already been done in the past.
In the previous "Axis Of Evil" Essay on Islam, I suggested that Islam was in fact a religion of Satanic origin. Have you ever heard of the Janissaries? Lets look at them. The Janissaries became famous for their military skills, but also because they were staffed by youths conscripted from Christian families in the Balkans. After the conscription they were defined as the property of the sultan, and converted to Islam. That is right, Christian children were taken from their parents and raised as Muslims and as soldiers they were charged with fighting against the Christian society from which they were stolen. It's not the only time that Islam has stooped to this type of behavior. During the Armenian Genocide of 1915-22, Armenian children were taken from their families and likewise raised as Muslims. Do you really think the Anti-Christ will do less when it come to the children of Christians in his time? The children apprehended by this "Beast" will certainly have the mark placed upon them and be forever separated from God. Will you be willing to risk that with your own child? What will you be willing to do to prevent it? How far will you go? Now tell me, how strong is your faith? I tell you "The Great Tribulation" will be this bad...and even worse.

COME DRINK THE WRATH
Sidney Allen Johnson (A.S.C.A.P.)

Welcome to the free world, upon you I will feed
I've come to place a mark on you that bonds your soul to me
Don't act so surprised, you've known it all along
This day would come when I will make you choose where you belong

Come drink the wrath! Of Your God
Come drink the wrath of your God

Will your hand offend you? Or will it be your head?
Great or small, rich or poor you'll all be just as dead
Do you have the strength, to free you from my vice?
Can you suffer death on earth to enter heaven's life?

Come drink the warth! Of your God
Come drink the wrath of your God

Do you love your children? I'll put you to the test!
Is your love strong enough to put your child to death?
No Jesus, these I will not kill
Once my mark is on their head...you will!

Come drink the wrath! Of your God
Come drink the wrath of your God

Now listen up you Christians
I've got a special plan for you My secret is sedation
I'll get my mark of death on you

Welcome tribulation, is it everything you fear?
You'll kill for life and kill for love and all that you hold dear
Don't act so surprised, you've known it all along
This hour would come when I will drag you down where you belong

Come drink the wrath! Of your God
Come drink the wrath of your God
Come drink the wrath! Of your God
Come drink the wrath of your God

Lift your glass, raise it high
Now your soul is mine

"Axis Of Evil" Essay I: Islam

"AXIS OF EVIL" ESSAY I: ISLAM

"There is no terror threat in this country. This is a lie. It's the biggest lie we have been told. And it was a lie told in service of stirring up Americans to accept a new Crusade. A Crusade sponsored and led by Christian theocrats who were working to take control of this country, institute Biblical law, and use America's immense might to launch their mission on a global scale."-Michael Moore, certified lunatic"

We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world, except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew." -Radical Islamist Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris proving that Michael Moore is a lunatic.

One of the primary protagonists in the new Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD, "Axis Of Evil" is, unsurprisingly, Islam. I have been researching the subject a lot over the last few years and have already written several essays on the subject. There will be more to come as well. This one is aimed primarily at the claims made in this new work about Islam. This is not something I have undertaken frivolously. Quite the opposite. I have taken Islam to task both seriously and aggressively but without the fraudulent theatrics that often accompany other forms of music that regularly desecrate Christianity such as Black and Death Metal. I contend that Islam is not a religion, as we in the Christian West understand the meaning of religion.
There is no separation of religion from the state in Islam as there is in Christianity. In fact the two are intentionally married together and are inseparable. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad was most definitely interested in an earthly kingdom and Islam is the apparatus he constructed to acquire and control it. Therefore Islam is better understood as a tool created for a certain purpose by a certain creator. And yes I do identify that creator...Satan.
On the preceding CD, "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy Of Satanic Christianity," my intention was to display an active, if uninvited, negative spiritual influence in Christianity. Certainly if one is prepared to accept the reasonable, and obvious, premise of Satanic influence within the sphere of Christianity, it should not be difficult to understand that such an influence would be much easier to peddle in a world less interested in truly divine spiritual powers.
I will return to a favorite metaphor for describing the influence of these spiritual forces and how they operate. It is the way Jesus referred to himself as the "Good Shepherd:

JOHN 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. 6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

In this instance we see Jesus as the "Good Shepherd." Unfortunately there is another shepherd out there who is not so good. It seems reasonable to assume that if Jesus is the door that leads to the flock of sheep that shall be saved, that another door might produce substantially lowered expectations. And who might be the door to that flock and what kind of "sheep" might one expect to find therein? Would not these sheep be subject to the protection and nurturing that would be of a considerably more diabolical nature? At the risk of violating a lot of people's timid sensibilities I am going to say it clearly: Islam is comprised of the sheep of Satan. They belong to him. They serve only him. The god of Islam is...Satan. Learn it. Live it.
If you were to try to construct a religion whose values would stand in perfect opposition to those established by Jesus, you could not do any better than Islam. Whereas Jesus was a nonviolent "martyr" who sacrificed his own life in a thoroughly humiliating and humble death so as to take the consequences for all the sins of mankind upon himself, Muhammad devoted his life to violence aimed at extracting vengeance from those who offended him by rejecting him as a prophet. Could there be more difference? Muhammad used violence as a tool to acquire the wealth that he needed to finance his new religion. We have a word for this sort of thing: piracy. He was humiliated by the Meccans who forced him to flee to Medina. Then he was offended by Jews who would not accept him as a prophet of God and had the annoying habit of pointing out his doctrinal errors. This, in spite of the fact that he went out of his way to steal many of their religious ideas, celebrations and traditions and incorporate them into Islam in an attempt to gain their favor. When they still rejected him as a prophet of God he felt himself justified in killing them and was compelled to justify the killing of them in his new religion.

Qur'an 5:51 Believers, take neither Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers.

Was it something they said? You bet it was. It would appear Muhammad did not handle rejection so well. Jesus allowed himself to be not only rejected but humiliated before the world. Most Christians would view this as a major display of both strength and love. However Islam doesn't view things this way. Karen Armstrong, an Islam apologist and author of many books on Muhammad and Islam, even had the audacity to ask the question: "is a Christ-like failure the only way to God?" Well Karen, the answer is yes. Though I would be careful about using that word "failure."
Jesus lived a life unblemished by sin. He therefore was fit as a sacrifice to exchange his blood for ours and pave the way for our salvation. If he had even one sin attributed to him he would be unable to fulfill this purpose. This is in keeping with Old Testament laws about sacrifices that were made in the Temple. The sacrifice had to be unblemished or perfect. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that Muhammad is revered throughout the Islamic world as al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man? Apparently, however, there are two very differing views on perfection. The differences between the two examples of perfection are many:

Muhammed's disciples killed for their faith; Christ's disciples were killed for their faith.
Muhammed and his fellow warriors murdered thousands; Christ and his disciples murdered none but saved thousands.
Muhammed's method was compulsion; Christ's method was voluntary conversion.
Muhammed was a warrior; Christ is a deliverer.
Muhammed was swift to shed blood for his gain. Christ shed His own blood for the salvation of others.
No nation has ever willingly converted to Islam. None....Ever. Let that sink in, for it says everything you will ever need to know!

We find the differences spelled out clearly in the "Holy" books from both competitors for your worship. The Bible and the Qur'an. Those who would claim that both religions are "equals" are misrepresenting the facts. There is no comparison. Islam is in complete opposition to Christianity.

MATTHEW 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Qur'an 8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

MARK 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Qur'an 9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Qur'an 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.

As we can see from these and so many more examples, Islam is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. Coincidence? Not likely. This is direct proof of the involvement of the very spirit beings mentioned in the above verse from Ephesians. A religion entirely fabricated by Satan to be exactly what he is to this world. The opposition of all that is true and Holy. Satan is a liar and Islam is his lie. There is absolutely no equivalency between the religion of Christianity and Islam. They are polar opposites by diabolical design.
There is also an all to common misconception about the equivalency of violence between Judeo-Christianity and Islam. This often revolves around the book of Joshua. In chapters 8-11 there is considerable killing. All justified by God himself. However, unless you are one of those people who inhabited that land God was giving over to Israel, this doesn't apply to you. Also God did explain why those people were not to be spared in the takeover. The violence in the Bible is descriptive of the events that took place at that time and at that place. They are in no way written as instructions for future people to use in any other situation. If anything it goes to great lengths to point out that this particular campaign was ordained by God for his purposes. Specific instructions were given to specific individuals to be carried out at a specific time and at a specific place. And only at that time and only at that place.
Islam on the other hand endorses an open ended campaign of violence against non believers. The Qur'an clearly teaches its followers to commit acts of violence against them.

Qur'an 2:190-193 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

Worse still, is Islam's intolerance of its own rejection. There is no allowance for turning away from or rejecting the "truth" of Islam. There is also no allowance for the toleration of other beliefs or the freedom of conscience to even entertain the idea of another system of belief. The hand of judgement for offences against Islam is not reserved for "Allah," but instead is the duty of every Muslim.

Qur'an 4:89 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah From what is forbidden. 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.

Contrast that with Jesus instructions for handling the rejection of his word.

MATTHEW 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

MATTHEW 19: 21-22 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

There is something very important there. Jesus Christ, the son of God and Saviour of the world, did not chase down the man who walked away from him. He did not curse him. He did not authorize anyone to do any harm to him. And, perhaps even more importantly considering the "liberalizing" of modern day Christianity, he did not alter his message to make it more appealing to those who would reject him. What did Jesus do? He just let him go in peace. Islam cannot allow that kind of freedom of choice. Why? Because Muhammad is a false prophet and "Allah" is a false god. Power must be demonstrated through suppression and oppression. Jesus, on the other hand, is God. He knows you will answer to him. He has all the power in the universe and he has all the time in the universe to wait and give those who reject him every chance to hear the truth...and accept it. If only they will. Quite a difference.
The Qur'an is a terrorist manual which condones and encourages fighting, conflict, terror, slaughter, and genocide against those who do not accept Islam. Muhammad was no martyr and neither are his followers who constantly view themselves as such. Using your own death as a weapon to kill others is not martyrdom. Its murder. It is perfectly acceptable to someone whose Kingdom is "of this earth" as is Muhammad's. He has his reward.
It is foolish to look upon the violence in Islam as being the work of a few "Islamic Fundamentalists" who have hijacked an otherwise peaceful religion for their own purposes. It is true that the great majority of Muslims do not partake in violence but their silence or lack of participation should not be misinterpreted as disapproval of it. Though the jihadists are a minority within the larger Muslim community, they do insist that their actions are based in Islamic theology. Those hoping for some Muslim equivalent with the Christian "reformations," that led to the removal of a lot of institutional corruption within the Christian religions, will be very disappointed. The jihadists claim they ARE the reformers and it is they who are practicing the truest puritanical Islam.
It is of interest to point out that nowhere in the Muslim world is there an anti-jihadist movement. Muslims all over the world rioted over the publishing of Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper, yet they danced in the streets in celebration of the destruction of the World Trade Center. They attacked non-Catholic Christian Churches in the Middle East after Pope Benedict quoted some unfavorable remarks about Islam, yet they never criticize Osama Bin Laden for hijacking their "peaceful" religion. Quite the opposite. There is no greater hero in the Muslim world today! So is Islam a religion of peace? No! Not now. Not ever.
The Bible is a missionary manual to spread the gospel of peace to all the world. Jesus was a martyr who, in possession of all the power in the universe, allowed himself to be killed for the benefit of others. A real martyr. The concepts of the two religions cannot be in more total opposition. There is no equivalency between Islam and Christianity. Islam is death. Tolerance for Islam is tolerance for death. Yours!
Religious ideology runs deep. The fact that you don't believe in their god or any god will not alter their reality. 1400 years of history cannot be ignored. Pursuing the myth of moderate Islam only provides them with more time, and they are fastidious in their use of time as a weapon. These people are more committed to their agenda than anyone else. They give their lives for it. Believe their own words:

"Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established as they always have been, by pen and gun, by word and bullet, by tongue and teeth.
Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals, or Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialog of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun."-Al-Qaeda Manual

As of this writing a new milestone has just been reached. There have now been over 10,600 Islamic terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001. Not just terrorist attacks, but ISLAMIC terrorist attacks. 10,600!!! If Islam is a "religion of peace," how do you define war?

Matthew 7:20 "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Indeed my Lord. We know them well

ISLAMIC TOLERANCE

THE NEW BABYLON MYSTERY ORCHESTRA CD "AXIS OF EVIL"