When In The Course of Human Events ...

A friend of mine sent me a link to an article entitled, America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President. Now, maybe you're not a Christian, and maybe you're not even religious. That's beside the point. The thing that struck me about this article is the similarity to another document. See if you can guess what it is.

When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions. 

Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith. 

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

• December 2009-Present - The annual White House Christmas cards, rather than focusing on Christmas or faith, instead highlight things such as the family dogs. And the White House Christmas tree ornaments include figures such as Mao Tse-Tung and a drag queen.
• June 2013 – The Obama Department of Justice defunds a Young Marines chapter in Louisiana because their oath mentioned God, and another youth program because it permits a voluntary student-led prayer.

TL;DR, you can go here to see the rest. Now, here's the comparison. 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
• He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

TL;DR, you can go here to see the rest.  Now, the list of grievances against the present King of Great Britain President Barack Obama is limited to religious freedom and an attitude, but the real list goes all the way back to the Great Imprognation, starting over 100 years ago, ca. 1913. And that list is much, much longer than the list enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, and spans more than one president.

I will re-iterate: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 

My question is, what is our new breaking point? How much shall we endure? Are evils still sufferable? We are supposed to be a free country, but from my perspective of almost 60 years, I can see a very monotonic diminution of our freedoms. I can no longer do a great many things that we used to do without thinking 40 years ago. I could make a list of what those things are. They would take a form very similar to the two lists I just presented. GHUA.

That Which Shall Not Be Named

The White House refuses to call Islamic terrorism "Islamic terrorism", on the (convoluted) grounds that it isn't "accurate". As their story goes, "These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam in their own deviant view of it."

Well, sort of. Actually, there are only two possibilities:

1. These terrorists are taking the name of Allah in vain, and in so doing, besmirching an entire religion, and their God. 
2. The Islamic doctrine really does teach that violence in the creation of a worldwide caliphate is justified. 

I don't think it is too illogical to assume that someone taking the name of someone's God in vain ("Allahu ackbar!") and besmirching their entire religion would make the devoted followers of that religion rise up in great anger, denouncing these barbarians. The fact that there is no such blowback suggests to me that option 2 is more likely. This is consistent with what I have learned about Islam and the Koran in the years following 9/11/2001. 

Islam has no concept of the separation of church and state. Islam is more like the Holy Roman Empire, where the Catholic church ruled most of Europe in the Middle Ages and died out in early part of the Age of Enlightenment. The key word is "enlightenment". Clearly, the Obama Administration is unaware of this detail. A political movement doesn't need to justify its actions by invoking a religion when the religion is the political movement!

The founders of the American form of government included the non-establishment clause in the Bill of Rights, to avoid something like the Holy Roman Empire, or even the Church of England from ever occurring in America. Simultaneously, they also provided the free exercise clause, subject to the non-establishment clause. This makes Islam fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution of the United States, because to freely exercise Islam requires Shariah law, which would be an establishment of Islam, in much the same way that prayer in schools has been deemed unconstitutional. 

We westerners are hesitant to judge other people, races, cultures and religions, although self-loathing is a national pastime. There's a big difference between judging a person or race, and identifying flawed doctrines in a culture or religion. Even a non-religious person can make an objective decision about which religion he would rather associate with. Even a non-believer can compare the life and lifestyle of Mohammad vs. Jesus; the Koran vs. the Bible; Allah vs. Yahweh. Atheists tend to think Allah and Yahweh are basically interchangeable. Nope. They're polar opposites*. Jesus said, "Judge not, lest you be judged." However, Jesus certainly expected us to recognize the difference between good and evil. We absolutely must call evil by its real name. We cannot defend against an enemy we cannot name. 

Now, am I saying that 1.6 billion people in the world are murderous monsters? No. I think they simply are not devout Muslims, just as a great many people in America who call themselves Christians have no real personal attachment to any Christian denomination. They just think it's good to be a Christian, so they say they are one. They've never really read or studied the Bible. Muslims are probably no different. But the fundamentalists are a different story. It is rare for Christian fundamentalists to go on a murderous rampage (it does happen rarely). It is quite common for Muslim fundamentalists to go on a murderous rampage. So much so that it is a worldwide problem. We absolutely must call evil by its real name.

People seem to think that criticizing another religion or culture is bigoted, and therefore, politically incorrect. But religion is not race. Culture is not race. These people have a choice. We can evaluate the fairness and justice of a religion's or a culture's value systems, and draw objective conclusions about how fair and how prosperous it will be.

We have a serious culture clash between Islam and the West going on right now, and maybe it is best not to allow these two cultures to interact, or even touch each other, if the outcome is always violence. Unless ... one culture or the other wants to adapt.

Should the West adapt? Would we like to treat women as property? Do we want to force women to cover themselves, and not become educated, or go out on the street without a male escort? I think Western women would have something to say about that.

Would we like to stone homosexuals to death? Virtually no Westerner, even those who prefer not to celebrate the gay lifestyle or promote the gay agenda, support the idea that homosexuals should be executed.

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh" ~ Robert Heinlein

Funny, I'm not laughing.

Merry Christmas! God Bless Us, Every One!

Bill Whittle talks about faith, morality and the American form of government:

My Annual Christmas Post

This never fails to choke me up, especially since it was mainstream when I first saw it in 1965, and it is considered controversial today.



They would never put this on network TV today. How far we have fallen.

Decisions, Decisions

It's Easter Sunday. Arguably the most significant holiday of the Christian faith. Christians make up 33% of the world population, larger than the next nearest, Muslims at 21%.

Google has traditionally changed the logo on their main search page for various holidays and anniversaries. They're called "Google Doodles". Of course, I didn't expect to see, "He is risen!" emblazoned across their home page on Easter morning (although I probably would have as recently as the 1980s, if Google existed then). No, this is it:

Google Doodle, Easter 2013: Celebrating Caesar Chavez 80th Birthday

That's Caesar Chavez. It's his 80th birthday. Now, my politics do not make me a big supporter of a socialist union activist, and I know it's presumptuous of me to expect everyone in our 'progressive' culture to buy into the whole virgin birth/resurrection thingy, but I figured that maybe we'd get Easter eggs, or a bunny. This was from 2000:

Google Doodle, Easter 2000: Observing the holiday with some harmless secular baubles, at least.

Maybe the wizards at Google could figure out how to make the image switch every minute or so, when you hit "refresh". Now that would be diversity! I'm just a little disappointed.

Happy Easter, Anti-Kakistocrats!

He's Not a Muslim; He's a Dhimmi

I'll start right off by saying that the man in this video, Pat Condell, doesn't understand Christianity -- although he's reacting to the usual vain interpretations of it (as in, taking God's name in vain). So why would he understand Islam any better? Actually, I think he understands Islamic extremism about as well as he understands vain Christianity, which is quite a lot, really.

The point that really hit home though, was his take on the notion that Barack Obama is a Muslim. No, Obama's a dhimmi. I think Pat nails it.

My mother always used to say, "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all". I feel like I've been dumping on President Obama awfully hard lately. But here's the thing: When someone is enslaving you and your children, you have to speak up. Some things just override the basic rules of etiquette.

Mocking Mormons: OK; Mocking Muslims: Bad

In and article in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens says, 

So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons. (Read more...)

It does look like a double standard, doesn't it?

Chuck Norris Warning for 2012

Chuck Norris notes that evangelical Christians were absent from the 2008 election in large numbers. If they had all voted, Barack Obama might not have been elected in 2008.

Demi-God, or Demagogue?

I imagine a hypothesis in which Man releases a miniscule percentage of trapped CO2 into the atmosphere, which causes runaway climate change.

And everyone believes me without any verification.

The True Nature of Islam

There is an email going around the Internet called "High Fashion at the Mosque" and this picture, with the caption, "Perhaps it is time that we learn the true nature of Islam..."

I have several problems with this. First of all, the person in the picture may not be Muslim, and we don't know why he's wearing the shirt. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that he stands with America regarding the 9/11 attacks.

Having said that, I will now say this:

If people haven't learned the true nature of Islam by now, they never will. A shirt with pictures of the burning twin towers is nothing compared to the actual burning twin towers, and we all sleepily opened our eyes, hit snooze, and went back to sheep sleep. Oh sure, we used it as an excuse to fight a couple of wars, for which the lives and treasure spent, the Obama regime subsequently squandered.

We had a huge public debate about whether it was OK to build a mosque near ground zero (What? Does nobody know Islamic history? It's what Muslims do when they make a conquest! Duh!) It has taken us more than a decade to replace the towers. A country with any pride would have replaced them immediately, with something even more modern and impressive, as a statement to the world. But no, we spent our time wringing our hands about cultural "sensitivity"! This is all about culture! A good culture vs. a bad one. Who cares if "they" think theirs is the good one? If we don't think ours is, then it is the beginning of the fall of Western Civilization. We'd better wise up quickly, if it isn't already too late. It's The Enlightenment, stupid!

Merry Christmas, Anti-Kakistocrats!

Peace on Earth, goodwill towards men.

Merry Christmas!

Times Sq. bomber sentenced, warns of more attacks

From an article in The Washington Post:

NEW YORK -- The Pakistani immigrant who tried to detonate a car bomb on a busy Saturday night in Times Square accepted a life sentence with a smirk Tuesday and warned that Americans can expect more bloodshed at the hands of Muslims.

"Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun," 31-year-old Faisal Shahzad told a federal judge. "Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow." (Continue reading...)

America's ruling classes and Muslim apologists object strenuously whenever one of us says we are in a religious war. The strange thing is, the people we're in the religious war with, say it all the time -- and I quote, "Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun". I do not think I could put it any more succinctly if I said it myself. How long are we going to ignore this threat, and pretend it does not exist? How far do we take tolerance and diversity? I believe in being tolerant, but I draw the line at cultural suicide.

I know, I know, this guy is a crazed outlier. He would have to be crazy to try to target innocent civilians. There are tons of moderate Muslims. But right up to the time he tried to set off the bomb, he fit the profile of a "moderate Muslim". Well educated, seemingly assimilated, and so on.

The judge cut him off at one point to ask if he had sworn allegiance to the U.S. when he became a citizen last year.

"I did swear, but I did not mean it," Shahzad said.

This illustrates the concept of taqiyya -- religious deception: According to Islamic doctrine, Muslims are allowed to lie to avoid persecution, a right that jihadists use to cover anything to further the cause. So whom can you trust? I would not say, "You cannot trust any Muslim" without them saying it first. Personally, I would advise, "trust but verify" whenever verification is physically possible. Otherwise, you logically cannot trust anything Muslims say about their religion, its objective or their part in it.

Islam is a political system disguised as a religion. In regimes where Sharia law reigns supreme, people become Muslim in name only, simply to avoid persecution and death. In this country, taqiyya suggests that I can't be sure what they're doing.

Burning the Koran is Offensive and Provocative...

...but so is building a victory mosque at the site of the 9/11 massacre. The difference is, the Korans will only burn for an hour or two, but the mosque is permanent.

The Koran burnings will be used as a tool by the 'progressives' to marginalize the religious right, and win more elections this November. I know people are frustrated, but this is a bad tactic.

I'm Not an Islamophobe, I Simply Reject Their Doctrine and Culture

The right to reject someone's doctrine and culture is fundamental to the American form of government, and consequently, our culture. People do it all the time, whenever they have an argument about politics or religion.

Muslim or Christian?

Rush Limbaugh dedicated his whole show on Friday to whether Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, but it was the mainstream media who decided to start polling on that issue.

There are people who think that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all basically the same. Nothing could be further from the truth, as most religious people know. Get some Methodists to discuss Mormons, or vice-versa and see what happens. They're both nominally Christian.

Islam, unlike most other major religions, has a very strong theocratic doctrine. It is therefore a relevant first amendment question to know whether Barack Hussein Obama is Muslim. His father was a Muslim, which makes Obama legally a Muslim according to Islamic doctrine. This is actually something that should have been discussed seriously and openly during the campaign. It's a bit late to be talking about it now.

If Muslims continue pushing for Sharia Law (or Sharia compliance, as Muslim apologists are now calling it -- to make it sound more compatible with the free exercise clause), it will dramatically and dangerously distort the original intent of the first amendment.

A Poke in the Eye with a Sharp Stick II

I saw this in a blog the other day:

I believe in "moderate muslims" the way I believe in giant squid: I've never actually seen one, but every once in a while a dead one shows up somewhere.

I completely agree with Barack Obama (?!?) when he says that the Muslims have every constitutional right to put a mosque near ground zero. The free exercise clause guarantees that.

Where I differ with the president is that decency and respect should make Muslims instinctively realize that this would be a bad move. But if it is in their culture to erect a monument wherever they have achieved a conquest; to establish a beachhead at the site of their victory, then it is with cultural awareness that we should realize that it is not unconstitutional to prevent that. If we need to declare ground zero as "hallowed ground" then so be it.

This would not be a religious issue except for the fact that Muslims do not distinguish between politics, religion and conquest. The fundamental separation of church and state that we Americans understand, is antithetical to the people who attacked us, and to the people who want to build the mosque. It is a culture clash of biblical proportions, and the 'progressives' who are always mewling about 'diversity' and 'cultural sensitivity' ought to try some real cultural awareness for a change. Republicans should not back away from this issue. It is fundamental, and it will help, not hurt their election prospects.

A Poke in the Eye with a Sharp Stick

The proposed Muslim center at ground zero, called the Cordoba house, is a thumb in the eye to all who died there on 9/11. It is the Muslim culture to erect a mosque on sites that they have conquered. Even the name "Cordoba" is a historical reference to the Muslim conquest of Spain. The city of Cordoba was an Islamic caliphate in the middle ages. This is a very symbolic gesture to Muslims, and it should be a chilling one to us, too. Our ignorance of their culture, and our slavish PC devotion to "diversity" will be our downfall.

The Muslims are using our liberty against us. It is illegal and unconstitutional to prevent the construction of this building. That's because our laws, and the Constitution are based on Judeo-Christian values. When cultures who do not respect those values infiltrate our borders, we have a catch-22. Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the first amendment. I always thought it was a catch-22 for the Muslims, but it appears that they have twisted things around so that it's a catch-22 for us.

I'm not sure what recourse we have, but it might involve civil disobedience. Our laws won't help us here. My position is that Muslims can erect a Cordoba house at ground zero just as soon as Christians can erect a cathedral in Mecca, and not a moment before.

Quotes by C. S. Lewis

Here are some brilliant quotes by C. S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia. Of course, just because I agree with them doesn't make them true, but I believe them.

• We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.
• You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
• There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."
• Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
• Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.

And I saved the best for last:

• Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.