skip to main |
skip to sidebar
CONSTANTINOPLE FALLS...AGAIN
The whole world is aware of the controversy surrounding the proposal to build a Muslim mosque on the Ground Zero site that sustained the attack of September 11, 2001. Suddenly people who despise the idea of religion in public life and who become squeamish at the thought of public prayer are becoming misty eyed in their support for the religious freedom of the Muslims whose motives for building this mosque are rightly being questioned. Strangely, the clash of three civilizations is repeating itself at the site of Islam's expansionist rebirth. Surely you recognize the conflict of Islam and Western Christianity as it boils over into the streets of New York. But what of Eastern Christianity? It too has a role in this controversy just as surely as it was at the center of the storm that resulted in the Medieval Crusades, and once again we see how little man has "evolved" in the 915 years since the Western Christian powers came to the aid of the Christian East. It looks disturbingly as much like 1095 as it does 2010.
Apparently Father Mark Arey of the St. Nicholas Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't get it. He doesn't understand why the Muslim Mosque is all the rage in the media while his little church struggles in obscurity. You see, the St. Nicholas Church was actually located at Ground Zero BEFORE the attack of September 11, 2001. It was annihilated when the South Tower fell and consumed it. In the nine years since, the same Port Authority that so enthusiastically supported the proposal to install a Muslim Mosque at the site of one of Islam's great successes has failed to authorize the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church to rebuild.
“I dare say this, if this were a Roman Catholic church or a Baptist church or even a synagogue, we would not have had this problem. I’m not sure we haven’t been a little bit bullied because we’re tiny.” -Father Mark Arey, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
And you thought the liberal media were standing up for the minority underdog.
In the tradition of most Orthodox churches, St. Nicholas held relics of saints, including the one for which the church was named: St. Nicholas of Myra (270-346 AD). This Saint was known for his love of children and was particularly beloved by the Dutch, who called him Sinterklaas and believed that he delivered treats to children on a special night every December. Sinterklaas? Sound familiar? He was the patron saint of Amsterdam and I am sure that most of you remember your history well enough to know that New York was originally a Dutch settlement called New Amsterdam.
However I bet most of you didn't know that a church containing relics of the actual St. Nicholas was amongst the collateral damage inflicted by those Islamic barbarians on that fateful day. Had this been made known then perhaps the American public would not have weakened its resolve in the subsequent years following the attack. It's one thing to strike a blow against the economic center of capitalism in the heart of the "Great Satan," but they also attacked...Santa Clause!!! Barbarians indeed.
Soon after the Towers fell, Port Authority officials, and then Governor George Pataki, vowed to build a new St. Nicholas Church on the World Trade Center site. A location at 130 Liberty Street was agreed upon. Apparently that location would allow for a larger structure with a traditional Greek Orthodox dome, and a non-denominational center for visitors to ground zero. It was felt the church would likely attract thousands of pilgrims to the World Trade Center site who might appreciate the secular memorial but who also thirst for a spiritual memorial. If the raising of a new World Trade Center Monument is meaningful to us, then the resurrection of the site's ONLY original sacred structure would also have to be considerably meaningful. Unfortunately, that meaning may well be too politically incorrect for our time.
In 1054 the two great churches of Christendom split when the Western Church broke away from the Eastern Orthodox. The Western Church became forever known as the Roman Catholic Church. The cause of this division can be found in primarily one issue: the Primacy of the Pope of Rome.
Until the Fifth Century A.D. there was never a single instance of dissension or antagonism between the two Churches. The Bishop of Rome had always been considered the First in the order of hierarchy. This was a natural consequence of the position of Rome as the capital of the Roman Empire. When Constantinople became the new capital of the Byzantine State its Bishop assumed the second position in the ranks of the hierarchy. However, with the rise in prominence of Constantinople the Pope of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction was soon to be contested.
The influence of Greek thought on Christian thinking led to all sorts of divergent and conflicting opinions. Theology was also used as a weapon against opponent bishops, because being branded a heretic was the only sure way for a bishop to be removed by other bishops.
The opinion of the bishop of Rome was always sought, and his approval often desired. However the Bishop of Rome's opinion was not always accepted by all.
Divisions and arguments fomented for centuries until the two entities essentially excommunicated each other. All this is fascinating in that just a few decades after the split, Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus would ask the Christian West for military assistance to help him resist Islam's expansion into Byzantine territory. An expansion that was becoming a threat to Constantinople itself. Constantinople, you will recall, is named after the Roman Emperor Constantine who himself converted to Christianity and legalized it in Rome. The help that the Christian West provided to the East has been forever known as the Crusades.
The Crusades had their own political intrigues that involved repeated betrayals by the Byzantines who were quite fearful of the Crusaders. Eventually these betrayals would lead to the Crusaders actually sacking Constantinople themselves during the fourth Crusade on April 12, 1204. In spite of all the distrust and infighting, the city remained in Christian hands until May of 1453 when Sultan Mehmed II finally conquered the city with a massive slaughter of the Christians inside. The city was renamed Istanbul and, interestingly, The Church of the Holy Wisdom, also called the Hagia Sophia, was converted into the Ayasofya Mosque. This was done in keeping with the Muslim tradition of building mosques on the sites of their great victories.
Throughout history, Muslim conquerors have demonstrated their dedication to "multiculturalism" and "inclusiveness" by purposefully erecting mosques over some of the most sacred and hallowed places of Jewish and Christian worship. The al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is built on top of one the holiest site Judaism, the Temple Mount. The Cordoba mosque in Spain was a former Christian cathedral. Muslims have engaged in this practice for centuries, symbolizing their victories over the infidels. Significantly, the Muslims proposed to name their Mosque at Ground Zero the Cordoba House until the symbolism behind that name was brought to everyone's attention. Islam is nothing if not consistent.
Symbolism is important to Muslims. You should not believe that the date of September 11 was some random choice by Osama bin Laden. That date held an important symbolic meaning...and no, bin Laden was no fan of legendary football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant who was born on that day in 1913. Rather bin Laden was well aware that on September 11, 1683 The King of Poland, Jan III Sobieski, attacked the Muslim army that had besieged Vienna, Austria. He subsequently routed the Muslims and this defeat would represent the end of Islamic attempts to expand their territory westward. To the Muslims it was a humiliation. The attack on the World Trade Center was delivered on that date to send a message to the West that "The Religion Of Peace" is back on the offensive. How many of us got the message?
The founders of the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque at Ground Zero say they want peace and reconciliation. They got approval for their project, and look what’s happened. They have created nothing but conflict and divisiveness. Or as Jesus might say, by their fruits you will know them. I propose that they have generated the exact results they were seeking.
The liberal politicians and media personalities that have suddenly discovered their religious tolerance are not lecturing to us because of their love for Islam. In fact, it is their continuing hatred for Christianity that motivates their support for the Ground Zero Mosque. In their world of moral relativism ALL religions are equal. Therefore their support is not intended to raise Islam up in the eyes of the public. It is rather to bring Christianity down to Islam's level. The United States was founded on Christian principles, not Islamic ones. Yet they would equate the two. As always, the evil religion of equality is behind their actions. They have offered ZERO support for the St. Nicholas Church.
“The Port Authority may be Goliath, but we’re David and you remember how that story ended.” -Father Mark Arey
Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that negotiations between the St. Nicholas Church and the Port Authority had resumed, but Father Arey says no one has reached out to him. "We are very concerned. We’re not going to be pushed out. We are very determined to rebuild the church at Ground Zero.”
How little has changed. Once again the Christians of the West are needed to rescue the Christians of the East. The Mosque itself may be a constitutional right, however, the right of the St. Nicholas Church is just as protected and, of course, they were there first. Can we be motivated like those Crusaders of old to act in defense of our brethren of the East? Or do we watch as Constantinople falls again, right before our eyes? Islam is once again wrapping itself around Christianity and constricting the life out of it. If we cannot rise to the aid of St. Nicholas Church and insist that IT have priority at Ground Zero, then Islam truly will own the battlefield and be the clear victor in the battle of New York City. A Battle they started by attacking on September 11, 2001.
C,mon...rise up and defend Santa Claus!
A REFLECTION OF GOD?
In the world of shocking headlines this one comes as a real snoozer:
POLL: 1 in 5 thinks Obama is a Muslim
These results were derived from a Pew Research survey that was taken BEFORE the President stepped into the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque in New York City. One can only assume that it would have been a lot higher had the survey been conducted after Obama unsurprisingly affirmed his support for the project.
A growing number of Americans now believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim while the number of people who believe he is a Christian is declining. Perhaps more impressively, a size-able segment of the public is unwilling to commit Obama's religious conscience to any particular religion...at all!.
A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama's recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center. -Pew Research Center
"While the president has been diligent and personally committed to his own Christian faith, there's certainly folks who are intent on spreading falsehoods about the president and his values and beliefs." -Joshua Dubois
Dubois went on to claim that the president's Christian faith plays an important part in his daily life. He referred to six speeches that the president has given in which he talks about those beliefs. However true it may be that the president has made references to some alleged allegiance to Christianity, the fact is that he has no one to blame but himself for the public's refusal to perceive him as a Christian.
When Barack Obama became president, he promised to try and change the relationship between Islam and the West. He said his goal was to build bridges, lessen hostility, create trust, and generally reduce the volume level in the conversation between the two cultures. Shortly after becoming President he gave his first formal interview to to Al Arabiya. That was followed by the now infamous speech he gave to the Muslim world in Cairo. Obama’s speech was laced with references to the Qur'an and his own "Muslim roots.”
And just what are these "Muslim roots?" Obama's grandfather was a Muslim. His father was raised a Muslim before becoming, by Obama’s account, “a confirmed atheist.” Obama’s stepfather was a Muslim. His half-sister Maya told the New York Times that her “whole family was Muslim.” Obama spent two years in a Muslim school in Indonesia and later, in a conversation with the New York Times, described the Arabic call to prayer “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” Given all that, it is entirely accurate and fair to describe Obama as having Muslim roots.
But it doesn't end there. Since becoming president his policies have turned decidedly against Israel. His administration came out against Benjamin Netanyahu's government after it announced a new expansion of a Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem. He likewise insists on dithering with the Iranians almost as though he WANTS to provide them the time necessary to develop an atomic weapon and, perhaps strangest of all, he instructed NASA chief, Charles Bolden, that NASA’s “foremost” mission is Muslim outreach. With all of this public affection being demonstrated toward the Islamic world, and yet again affirmed by his coming out in support of the controversial Ground Zero Mosque, is it any wonder that someone with his acknowledged "Muslim roots" might be perceived to be, in fact, a Muslim?
Strangely, some evangelicals have come out in defense of President Obama. Television pastor T.D. Jakes and Kirbyjon Caldwell, a spiritual adviser to George W. Bush, have released a letter condemning "misrepresentations" of President Obama's faith.
"We are deeply troubled by the recent questioning of President Obama's faith. We understand that these are contentious times, but the personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate. Obama has been unwavering in confessing Christ as Lord and has spoken often about the importance of his Christian faith. Many of the signees on this letter have prayed and worshipped with this President. We believe that questioning, and especially misrepresenting, the faith of a confessing believer goes too far."
Too far? Absolutely NOT! The fact that the president claims to be a Christian means absolutely nothing. No politician would dare to claim otherwise if he holds any serious ambition to be elected to high office. This letter, signed by more than 70 pastors and other Christian leaders, calls on the media and other public officials to offer "no further airtime" or attention to those who suggest Obama is a Muslim, not a Christian. That's right, when in doubt shout down the opposition and tell them to shut up. Did you really expect this from supposedly Christian pastors? Now you can see, in the open, what I was referring to on the Babylon Mystery Orchestra record "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy Of Satanic Christianity." Not every church with a cross hanging on it is a tool of God. These pastors have come to the defense of their Lord.
It amazes me how quickly some people will turn to a god when they can find his influence useful, likewise, this president's religious convictions are merely a matter of political expediency. He joined Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church not out of any appreciation for Christian ideology but for its political philosophy known as Black Liberation Theology." This brand of "Satanic" Christianity teaches the lie of "collective" salvation among others. People like Obama who appreciate the redistributionist ideology of Marxism turn to such churches to get their ears "tickled." Whereas true Christianity convicts the heart of sin, Liberation Theology justifies revenge for those who comfort themselves by claiming oppression. Does that sound like the Jesus of your Bible?
The most impressive information revealed in Pew Survey, however, is not the rising number of people who suspect the president is a Muslim. It is the number of people who say they do not know what religion claims the president's true allegiance. These people, in their confusion, have actually arrived at the correct conclusion..."none of the above." Apparently the American people can see that the president's religious views are as flexible as any given situation requires of them.
This president is not a mystery. He often reveals his true religious convictions in such statements as this one made to a group of Rabbis in August of 2009:
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death." - President Barack Obama
Absolutely NO Christian could, would or should describe their relationship with God as a partnership. The president was, once again, trying to utilize religion as a tool to further his own agenda. In this case it was the monstrosity he called Health Care Reform. This is the kind of language used by someone with an ambition that knows no limits...and we have heard it before...
ISAIAH 14: 13-14 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Even as our president shows his impatience and contempt for the people who foolishly elected him, he has his sights set on something greater. He has already established a "partnership" with God. Obviously he perceives the presidency as a job that is undeserving of his unique talents. The penultimate narcissist has made it clear that he will not be bound by constitution or country.
"We are the ones we have been waiting for." -Senator Barack H. Obama
Well what did we expect? He was at least honest with us. There is no need to waste time concerning ourselves with President Obama's religious affiliations. People who are capable of saying "we are the ones we have been waiting for" find their gods in their mirrors.
SHE WANTED IT
It was the first Manowar record I ever bought: Into Glory Ride. It began with the sounds of a couple entwined in sexual copulation only to be discovered by the sixteen year old girl's none-too-happy parents. The boy tapping into the forbidden fruit gave the long established yet uncomfortable excuse that, unfortunately for many parents, happens to be true...she wanted it. Alas, this same excuse, though useless when dealing with an aggrieved father and his 12 gauge shotgun, works wonders as a defense in rape prosecutions throughout that part of the world that operates under Muslim law. In fact, once it is ascertained that the victim of a rape "consented" to the sexual act she can then be prosecuted herself, for that too is against sharia law. If you are a male unable to restrain your sexual appetite, then perhaps you should consider making Islam your religion of choice.
ABU DHABI A teenager who alleged she had been gang-raped by five men but later recanted her claim has been sentenced to a year in prison for consensual sex. The five she had initially accused were acquitted of rape by the Abu Dhabi Criminal Court today, but were found guilty of less serious charges.
The Emirati teenager LH, 18, was found to have consented to intercourse with YM, a 19-year-old military police officer who was also sentenced to a year in jail after the rape charge against him was changed to one of consensual sex by the judge. Two further defendants, both referred to as HA, were sentenced to three months in prison for being alone in the company of a woman. The fifth and sixth defendants were fined Dh5,000 (US$1,400) for violations of public decency. - The National
Islamic Sharia law requires four male Muslim witnesses who actually saw the rape to establish rape or adultery. Without those witnesses, a woman who makes such an accusation is ultimately incriminating herself. A clever rapist knows how to remedy this situation. You simply invite the girl to be alone with you. Once that happens everything she has is yours. What a religion, huh?
Genetic material recovered from the scene led the judge to convict YM of consensual sex, while acquitting HA. The forensics report found that LH was not a virgin and that there was no genital bruising. It found 12 bruises ranging from 1cm to 7cm long on her upper lip, hands, thighs, knee and behind her left ear.
"Some of the bruises are new, two to three days old, and some of them are old, seven to 15 days old," the report said. The report attributed the bruises to body pressure or being hit with a solid material. During the trial, prosecutors claimed that LH had gone for a drive on May 2 with her male Emirati friend, HA, in Baniyas, where they had intercourse. Prosecutors said the fact she agreed to go with him alone in the car partly showed her consent to sex.
Apparently beating your victim is not proof of coercion. Just so long as you do not damage the parts you were looking to play with in the first place. But hey, what's wrong with busting her in the mouth for protesting? We are Muslim men, we don't take no lip from no woman...ever!
It's too bad Mike Tyson or Kobe Bryant didn't have their little "entanglements" in a Muslim country. However, if they would convert to Islam, there are plenty of liberal judges who would consent to applying Islamic law to their cases. It's only fair that you be judged a legal code of your own choosing...isn't it?
Where are all the women's advocacy groups calling out the injustice of convicting a woman of allowing herself to be raped solely on the basis of agreeing to be in the company of a man. I suppose they are too busy fighting all the oppressive laws here in America that require a teenage girl's parents to be notified before an abortion. It's good to see that those advocates for women's rights have a good set of priorities. We must stifle those restrictive meddling parental consent laws.
My favorite part of this story, naturally, revolves around the cleverness of the initial rapist. Since Muslim law requires four male Muslims to testify as witnesses in order to prove a rape I have always contended that any witnesses would likely be participants in the crime itself. This was borne out as this story continued:
They said that, HA, 19, then called five of his friends - four Emiratis and one Iraqi - and invited them to join him in raping her in the backseat of his Nissan Altima. Charges against one defendant were later dropped.
Man do those Muslims know how to throw a party or what? If your Muslim buddy finds a woman foolish enough to be alone with him, the law encourages him to share his bounty with you so that everyone can keep their story straight. Who knew the droogs in "A Clockwork Orange" were Muslims? What's not to love about the Religion of Peace? Or is that the Religion of Piece? Where do I sign up? Allahu Akbar!
WHEN TOLERANCE KILLS
Political correctness is in the air, and fear of the truth is everywhere. In the aftermath of the recent attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, President Obama went out of his way not to use the word "terrorism" to describe the massacre. And for good reason, the fantasy that there is no "war on terror" is one of the quintessential cogs in the left's governing apparatus. Without which, all the other gears in their machine will not turn. It shall be interesting to watch the president and his administration scramble to blame the military and the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for this incident. They will blame everyone...except those responsible.
In fact, the Fort Hood shooting is the first successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. But Obama, his hands soiled with the responsibility of dis-assembling Bush era protections against such attacks, is attempting make it look like a run-of-the-mill maniac with a gun shooting. The politicization of the massacre was swift and sure as the FBI, within hours of the shootings, decried that this was not terrorist related even before FBI agents arrived at the scene.
Ever the loyal sycophants, the media too has been downplaying any relationship to the attacker, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, to organized terror groups. But alas, not only do such connections exist, they are damning:
Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.
The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations. -The London Telegraph
It is a shame that one has to consult foreign journalists to get an honest assessment of such critical elements of this story. This man was a follower of the same Imam as several of the 9/11 attackers. Some would say this alone qualifies as a reason to look for a possible terrorist link. Yet, as always, there is more:
Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree. As investigators look at Hasan's motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.
Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists. Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an "al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers... who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen".
Last night Hasan remained in a coma under guard at a military hospital in San Antonio, Texas, and was said to be in a "stable" condition. Born in America to a Palestinian family, Hasan, 39, was an army psychiatrist who had chosen to sign up for the US military against his parents' wishes. But he turned into an angry critic of the wars America was waging in Iraq and Afghanistan and had tried in vain to negotiate his discharge.
He counselled soldiers returning from the front line and told relatives that he was horrified at the prospect of a deployment to Afghanistan later this year – his first time in a combat zone. Whether due to his personal convictions, his stress over his deployment or other reasons, Hasan is alleged to have snapped and gone on a murderous rampage with a powerful semi-automatic handgun after shouting "Allahu Akhbar" ("God is great"), according to survivors. He had earlier given away copies of the Koran to neighbours. -The London Telegraph
Major Nidal Malik Hasan screamed "Allahu Akhbar" and began a shooting massacre that killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 more. The fact that he acted alone would not make him any less of a terrorist. Lone suicide bombers are the norm in most Islamic terrorist attacks. That Hasan was a trained soldier would certainly make the use of firearms a somewhat more reasonable method of operation. The difference between a stressed out or delusional psychopath and a terrorist is political motivation and the political motivation is certain. Also certain is the unfortunate fact that Major Hasan had been communicating recently with his former Imam, Anwar al-Awlahi who currently resides in Yemen and acts as a recruiter for...Al-Qaeda!
His "Allahu Akhbar" declarations would certainly indicate that he was motivated by the Islamic fanatacism that Obama and his media bootlickers are bending over backwards to deny. This, of course, recalls President Clinton's deliberate and misleading response to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Like all democrats, he viewed the bombing as a merely a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them. We have come full circle to the delusional world of leftist fools who act as though 9/11 never happened. Which, of course, only guarantees something equally disastrous will happen again.
Many people, including myself, have lamented and warned that the the weakening of Bush administration anti-terrorist policies would leave us vulnerable to be attacked again. Now it has happened and our president, fully believing that the only enemy to the United States is the American people, is doing everything he can to delegitimize the terrorist threat in order keep his domestic political agenda front and center. Depriving Americans of their liberties through the confiscation of the health care system and redistributing U.S. sovereignty and wealth through a fraudulent carbon-tax scheme supercedes defending the nation and its antiquated constitution in his eyes.
Lets face it, when the U.S. military is targeted within our own borders, our enemies do NOT fear us. As certainly as the October 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole was a warning that our Islamic enemies were not impressed with America's ability to thwart their actions, so too is Major Hasan's attack on Fort Hood a precursor to an even greater and imminent attack. They our watching our for our response. What will it be?
The soldiers killed in this vicious attack were murdered by the president and his follower's allegiance to the myths of tolerance, diversity and political correctness. As I have documented in previous writings, many of our soldiers are killed by people masquerading as their friends and allies. It is perhaps an unavoidable reality when an Iraqi soldier who goes into battle with Americans suddenly reveals his true allegiance by turning and firing on our soldiers. You cannot tell who is a jihadist just by looking at them. Al Qaeda has long encouraged infiltration into the foolishly politically correct West. However, this killer was no surprise:
In the months leading to Thursday's shooting spree that left 13 people dead and 29 others wounded, Hasan raised eyebrows with comments that the war on terror was "a war on Islam" and wrestled with what to tell fellow Muslim solders who had their doubts about fighting in Islamic countries. "The system is not doing what it's supposed to do," said Dr. Val Finnell, who complained to administrators at a military university about what he considered Hasan's "anti-American" rants. "He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out."
Finnell studied with Hasan from 2007-2008 in the master's program in public health at the military's Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., where Hasan persistently complained about perceived anti-Muslim sentiment in the military and injected his politics into courses where they had no place. "In retrospect, I'm not surprised he did it," Finnell said of the shootings. "I had real questions about what his priorities were, what his beliefs were." -Associated Press
It's called "discrimination," and it is exactly what was called for here. Too many people hold onto foolish ideas of tolerance and political correctness and those are the very things that led to this massacre. The saddest part of this story is the revelation that many soldiers who heard the rantings of this Islamic supremacist dared not report what they knew in fear of being labeled a bigot and accused of discrimination. Even worse the Secretary of the Army had this to say after the tragedy:
"I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. There are about 3,000 Muslims on active duty military service or in the National Guard or reserve forces, They remain a small minority within the U.S. military." -General George Casey
WHAT!!!!! A fully indoctrinated Islamic supremacist infiltrates the United States Army and kills American soldiers and the army's top general goes on every major Sunday news show to say he fears a "backlash" against the one thousand Muslim soldiers who currently serve? If there is one group of people who have shown they can keep a level head in these situations it is those serving in our military. We need to stick to the issue at hand instead of fabricating a "backlash" that has not and will not happen. In fact, we need to act in a way that will protect our soldiers from the "backlashes" of future turncoats.
In WW II our ancestors had the wisdom to disallow American's of Japanese descent from serving in the Japanese theater, and even went so far as to imprison many until their backgrounds could be investigated during the early stages of the war. Obama and his ilk look down on these decisions as discriminatory and bigoted, yet it was entirely reasonable given the suddenness of the Japanese attack and the problems inherent with diverse and multicultural societies.
I tell you we are NOT better than our ancestors. We are weakened by political correctness because we haven't had the courage to question Muslims in our society...and we are paying for it. It may be true that not every Muslim is a terrorist in waiting, and many are perfectly loyal Americans. But Major Hasan wasn't, and it doesn't take a psychological degree to see that he was a threat. What more could he have done to draw attention to himself? Declare war on America? Obama has done that!
Major Hasan was definitely wrong about one thing. Presidents Bush and Obama have gone out of their way to make it clear that the "War on Terror" was NOT a war on Islam. That is why it is doomed to fail. Too many ignorant people inflate their opinion of themselves and their intellect by accepting a foolish moral equivalency of Islam with other religions, particularly Christianity. It is a fool's lie. Islam is at war with us and has been for 1200 years. It only understands dominance and submission. Tolerance to Islam is dangerous. Thanks to Nadal Hasan, we have learned that lesson yet again. Therefore, what we need is an open declaration of "War on Islam." Political correctness be damned! Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization. Muslims know this, why do we insist on accepting tolerance, diversity, equality and political correctness mythology? They are all false gods.
"Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what [Hasan] has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal." -Anwar al-Awlaki's response to the massacre
Discrimination. It's what people do...when they KNOW better. How long does it take for some people to learn?
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG WITH THIS?
While we celebrate breast cancer awareness week here in America, it's good to know our Islamic friends, likewise, are concerned about the safety of their women's breasts...sort of:
Muslim Militants in Somalia Crack Down on Deceptive Bras!
A Somalian Muslim group reportedly has started whipping women in public for wearing bras that violate Islam, the Daily Mail reports. Residents claim insurgent group Al Shabaab sent gunmen into the streets to round up women who appeared to have a firm bust. The women are inspected to see if their suspected firmness is natural or from a bra.
Officials reportedly make the women shake their breasts after removing their bras. "Al Shabaab forced us to wear their type of full veil and now they order us to shake our breasts," a resident, Halima, told Reuters, adding that her daughters had been whipped on Thursday.
The new bra rule adds to the long list of religious restrictions in Somalia, including a ban on movies, musical cell phone ring tones, dancing at weddings and playing soccer. - FOXNews
And the National Organization For Women would have us believe that women are being persecuted in the United States when a 14 year old girl's parents have to be notified before she can have an abortion...
FOR THE LOVE OF HATE: The Prosecution of Geert Wilders
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." [John 8:32].
There is a belief that permeates our legal system. It is the idea that the truth is an absolute defense in all things. Well, it turns out this old judicial truth may not be true after all. "The times they are a changin," and not for the better! The greatest test Western Civilization will face is happening now in the Netherlands as the truth is actually on trial. The mere fact that this trial is happening is a great victory for all those who oppose freedom, let alone what the consequences will be for the outcome...
Islam film Dutch MP to be charged (BBC News)
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.
Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression. Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said. Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned. "Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.
Who indeed? In March of 2008 Geert Wilders posted a short film that he made called "Fitna." Fitna is an Islamic term meaning "strife." Predictably this film was called an abomination and an offense to Islam even though there is not one false statement presented. The film featured quotes from the Qu'ran dubbed over video of actual scenes of these verses being brought to their full and violent fruition. Mr Wilders even had the audacity to compare the Qu'ran to Hitler's famous book "Mein Kampf" and likened Islam to Nazism. Gee, I wonder where he got that idea...
“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all — Our Fuehrer.” - Heinrich Himmler
“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” - Adolf Hitler
That truth stuff sure does get in the way of a good hate crimes prosecution doesn't it? One might even call it..."inconvenient!" The two leading Nazi's of the Third Reich are not only endorsing Islam with all of its Jew-hating consistencies with their own regime, but also, as clearly pointed out by Himmler, noting the fact that Islamic nations did ally themselves with the Nazi cause. So how are they going to prosecute Mr. Wilders for telling the truth? Well, obviously there has to be a higher authority. Something, or someone, whose interests outweigh the value of spreading TRUE information throughout a society. Reckon what that could be?
The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations...which can amount to inciting hatred" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians. The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs."
The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.
"This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism" - Gerard Spong, lawyer
So there you have it. "Offensive" speech is now a prosecutable offense. Never mind that the offending speech is all true or the offended are all guilty. The complaint alleges it is "one sided," and of course, it just happens to be the provably true side. Nevertheless Muslims have been offended and everything must be done to ease their inability to handle the truth. Offensive speech a.k.a. "hate speech" is the natural and necessary by-product of the foolish concept known as a hate crime. The idea of punishing people for "insulting" religious beliefs is exactly what Islamic countries have been practicing within their own societies and have long been clamouring for similar laws in the West. They desire that Western nations adopt blasphemy laws and stop the "defamation" of Islam. Defamation being defined as saying anything they decide they don't like, which can and often does, include the simple act of repeating their own words.
There are, of course, limits to free speech, such as calls for violence but one doesn't have to agree with Mr. Wilders to realize that he hasn't even approached that line. In fact, he is only guilty of reporting the violent actions of Muslims. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements, but why are they not equally outraged by the violence done in the name of Islam? It seems their outrage would be better spent persecuting the actions of their own people rather than wasting it on the righteous condemnation of those act by others. They make a controversial issue about the speech while ignoring the action that is the subject of that speech. Nonetheless, if freedom of speech has any meaning, it must apply to the freedom of controversial speech. Non-controversial speech needs no protection. Without the right of free speech, all the other freedoms we cherish will soon perish.
For his part, Geert Wilders is convinced he has already been convicted and will go to prison:
"The decision of the court today was so strong that there is a real chance unfortunately that there will be a guilty verdict. In fact, it was so bluntly motivated that it already looks like a verdict instead of just ordering the public prosecutor to start a trial. I lost my freedom already four and a half years ago in October 2004, when my 24-hour police protection started because of threats by Muslims in Holland and abroad to kill me. So of course I don't want to go to jail as a criminal, but I don't fear losing my freedom since I already lost my freedom in 2004." - Geert Wilders
And yet, this is not an isolated incident:
Vienna - Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam's prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter's home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported.
The politician, who took a seat in parliament last fall for the Freedom Party (FPOe), made the anti-Islamic remarks in January 2008. She also proposed in a discussion with students that Muslim men should commit bestiality rather than making "indecent advances" on girls. The politician had pleaded innocent Thursday, claiming that she "did not want to insult anyone, but only to point out problems." The verdict is not yet legally binding.
Once again the truth was not allowed to be a defense. Muhammad's consummation of his marriage with his wife Aisha is in the Hadith collection, Bukhari, several times. Of course you will remember that the girl was NINE YEARS OLD at the time of this consummation. Muslims consider Muhammad to be their "perfect example" and take emulating his behavior very seriously. How seriously you ask? Well consider the case of the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini. The leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran married a ten year old girl when he was twenty eight. Of course he didn't call it pedophilia. No, he referred to it as a "Divine Blessing."
“Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” - Ayatolla Khomeini
It will probably come as no surprise to learn that the the legal age for marriage in Iran is nine for girls and fourteen for boys. Where do you suppose that magic number of nine years old came from? One could call Iran a pedophiles paradise. Certainly a Westerner speaking in a Western country should not be convicted of "incitement" for pointing out that the values of Islamic civilization are in conflict with the values of our own, especially when the "incitement" consists of citing examples from Islam's own accepted traditional writings. Yet here it stands as another example of Western culture bending over and grabbing our ankles while the ever uncompromising ambassadors of Islam proudly mount us saying: "who's your daddy?" Is our only response always going to be the infamous Kevin Bacon line from the Animal House movie? (Thank you sir, may I have another)
You are probably thinking to yourselves that this could never happen here. Perhaps President Obama would even be willing to grant Geert Wilders political asylum in America. After all, do we in America not have an absolute right to free speech as granted by the first amendment to the Constitution? Well don't be so sure about that. Our new president is a "sensitive" sort of fellow to the feelings of certain groups of people, particularly those who like to fabricate the illusion of their own victim-hood, as is evidenced by the official White House website:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
Uh oh. There are those words again. Hate Crimes. As if there are any other kind. This is the kind of nonsense that leads to "incitement" laws prohibiting offensive speech. Slowly but surely, every group of people who perceives themselves as having been aggrieved by someone else seeks to have themselves added to the list of those "protected" classes of citizens who shall not be offended. You might as well call them "blasphemy laws" because Muslims will use them to stifle all criticism of their religion just as surely as the homosexuals will use them to repulse the condemnation of their deviant lifestyle. However you can be certain that speech offending Christians and Jews will somehow find a way to be excluded from such protections. We wouldn't want to stifle all the "artistic creativity" in Hollywood now would we? Their freedom to mock all things decent, traditional and Judeo-Christian must not be infringed!
How is it you can be charged with offending someone's beliefs, even as those very beliefs insult you and everything you stand for? Whenever we hear the words 'human rights' in connection with Islam, we are repeatedly confronted with ugly opportunism that spits in the face of real and genuine human rights and insults everyone's intelligence. They get away with saying one thing to us while saying something entirely different and considerably more unsavory amongst themselves. We should not be expected to respect an ideology that doesn't respect us. Be very clear about this: Islam respects nobody. It claims the right to dominate. Our portion is OBEDIANCE. They have not been shy about making that clear:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth" - Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations)
It could be fairly said that I have a somewhat biased view on the issues of free/hate speech. After all, I am guilty of exactly the same crime as Geert Wilders. The Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD essentially does the same thing as Mr. Wilders movie Fitna. There are direct quotes from Muslims and the Qu'ran and an intentional linking of Muslim words to violent Muslim actions. I even went as far as to construct the lyrics of one song, God Given Right, entirely out of very offensive statements made by very offensive Muslims. However if Fitna or BMO's "Axis Of Evil" are to be considered "hate speech" and guilty of the crime of "incitement," might the same also be said of the Qu'ran itself or Muslim clerics like Omar Ahmed? Isn't it amusing how much you can get away with if you simply claim yourself to be oppressed?
It does worry me that the first major interview our new President has done was with Al Arabiya, where he went out of his way to pacify the sensitivities of the Islamic world. It makes me wonder how far he is willing to go to placate them. These are dark days for the West if we don't stand against Islam's desire to remain beyond criticism. "Tolerance" and "multiculturalism" may seem like noble pursuits to some people but there is one group of people who have never and will never acquiesce to such ideas...Muslims. They can't. Although the very act of saying that may soon be a prosecutable offense here too! Incitement crimes are coming to America! Still don't believe me? Observe this:
The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill. The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations.”
Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse. Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.
With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real. (PrisonPlanet.com)
There is coming a time when Americans will be locking away people who say things that incite others in the name of "crowd control." Freedom of speech is a dying principle. Such "emergency centers" are an ideal place to locate the incorrigible dissenters who fail to quietly follow the edicts of this, or any, administration. Dissent, which we were told was patriotic when Bush was President can now be seen as "incitement." A wonderful method for making sure that everyone accedes to the will of the new Socialist Godhead that is Messiah Obama. It begins by failing to uphold the right of someone to offend someone else with simple words. It ends with the incarceration, or worse, of all those who dare oppose the all powerful state. What is happening to Geert Wilders in The Netherlands is going to come here.
Perhaps there is a place being prepared for me in one of President Obama's new gulags. Guantonemo Bay may not be closed down after all. We will just change the kind of people we incarcerate there! If we do not act to restrain the coming speech codes soon, there are going to be a lot of you in there with me. But hey, at least we will get to meet Rush Limbaugh! The President has actually went so far as mentioning him by name. How long will it be before he decides he has to do something about all of us who won't go along with his social engineering ideas. Hate speech and incitement laws are a fine way to get rid of us.
