Sunday, April 28, 2013

You can't put a smiley face on Islam, and here's why.

Simply put, Islam is at war with America (and with Israel). We have the purveyors of conventional wisdom in our State Department, in academia, and in the media who believe that we are only dealing with a "handful" of radical extremists, whom they insist are not following Islam. They would have you believe that we need to go to the root cause which is poverty, western imperialism, cartoons, etc. in order to end this reign of terror.

But the reality is--You cannot make peace with Islam unless you adopt Sharia law. If we as a nation would just accept Sharia law, all this terrorism would end.

Andrew McCarthy writes: "It is sharia, not terrorism, that must be our line of demarcation, dividing radical Islam from moderate Islam." There are very few moderate Muslims.

Our newly appointed CIA director, John Brennan, is a full-on Islamic apologist who has embraced Islam and believes that Jihad is a peaceful struggle. He is the first government official to put a smiley face on terrorism by framing Jihad as a peaceful struggle to be a better person. In reality, the Quran states that Jihad may be waged against injustice or an unjust nation, as Islam defines the terms. In Islamic texts, a  "just war" can be waged against any nation or people who does not submit to Islam.(please feel free to insert your name and those of your loved ones and friends here).

You should be concerned about the advancement of Sharia law here in America because:
Woman buried alive and then stoned to death
according to Sharia law.
  • In Islam, Sharia is the law of the land. There is no separation of church and state. Nothing is open to negotiation. 
  • In our republican democracy, we are governed by the Constitution. In Islam, everything is governed in accordance with Allah's will, as manifested in Sharia law.
  • Here in America, we believe in freedom of conscience. In Islam, that is apostasy and considered sowing treasonous discord, punishable by death.
  • Here in America, we believe in matters of personal privacy, but in Islam and Shariah law, homosexuality and adultery are punishable by death and other transgressions are brutally punished.
  • We take great pride in our freedom of speech, including the liberty to analyze and criticize different practices. But in Islam and Shariah law, these practices are considered blasphemy and result in savage retaliation, including being beheaded or burned alive. 
  • We believe in liberty which includes private property. But in Islam, all private property belongs to Allah.
  • Here in the U.S., we believe in equality. But in Islam, men are favored over women who are treated as 2nd class citizens, and non-Muslims (that would be you and me), are given a choice to either convert, or pay a heavy tax for the privilege of living in an Islamic state, or choose death.
  • We make a big deal about freedom from cruel and unusual punishments. But Islam and Sharia law prescribe penalties that include stoning, decapitation, and the severing of limbs. (Think of chilling scene of Jamie Lannister in episode 4 of Game of Thrones having his hand cut off).
  • Here in the U.S., we unequivocally condemn terrorism. But Islam and its Shariah law rationalize and
    Jamie Lannister about have his right hand cut-off.
    (Game of Thrones, episode 4)
    justify these barbarous attacks as legitimate "resistance" because they always believe Islam is under attack. In Islam, efforts to plant Western ideas and institutions in Muslim countries are seen as attacks on Islam and violations of Sharia law).
In my next post, I'll explore some of the ways that Islam and Sharia law are making inroads here in America, thanks to our President and those on the LEFT.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Everybody wants to ignore the elephant in the room

After the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton immediately blamed the bombing on Rush Limbaugh and talk radio. The media along with Pres. Clinton rushed to judgment and as usual got it wrong. Here are some other uninformed, politically-correct and ignorant remarks uttered after the Boston terrorist attack:
  • Before the identities of the Boston bombers were confirmed, NPR counter-terrorism expert, Dina Temple-Raston reported that her sources were leaning towards believing that this was a homegrown attack by right-wing extremists. She said, "April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals."
  • Mayor Michael Bloomberg rushed to judgment in speculating that the Times Square bomber might have been an angry right-winger who was upset over Obamacare.
  • David Sirota, Salon Magazine, tweeted that he hoping and praying that the bombers would turn out to be "white Americans."
  • Jake Tapper, CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem have this exchange about it all. TAPPER:  It certainly seems as though these individuals are, uh, Islamic terrorists. KAYYEM:  Well,
    yes. But - but that’s  - those are two separate words at this stage. Because I think after 9/11 we have this fear of tying a, you know, Muslim with terrorism. We shouldn't do that.
  • AP (Associated Press) reported: "Two U.S. officials say preliminary evidence from an interrogation suggests the suspects in the Boston Marathon attack were motivated by their religious views but were apparently not tied to any Islamic terror groups."
  • CBS' Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer, asked Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, “of what the motive of these two young men was?” Patrick replied, “Not yet, Bob, and it’s hard for me and for many of us to imagine what could motivate people to harm innocent men, women, and children in the way that these two fellows did.” 

The family of Krystle Campbell, who was killed
in the bombings at the Boston Marathon,
leave her funeral Mass in Medford, Mass.,
on Monday
Here's my take-away from all this: The MEDIA and those on the LEFT were hoping that the Boston terrorist attack was the work of right-wing, Bible thumping, gun-toting, tea party types. They wanted to believe that this heinous act was perpetrated by gun-toting, Christian extremists.Why? Because if you love Jesus and believe in the Bible, you are a bigger threat to the U.S. than Islamic terrorists. The MOST hated group in America in the minds of the Left (and most of your media) is evangelical Christians.

The elephant in the room that NOBODY wants to talk about is ISLAM which sanctions these terrorist attacks in the name of holy jihad. Islam teaches that if you are not a believer in Islam, you are an infidel and if you won't convert, then you need to be killed. These two young men were not psychopaths or sociopaths--they were following the teachings of Islam. The Left which includes professors on most university and college campuses LOVES ISLAM, and in the name of political-correctness, will give Muslims a pass every single time.

If this heinous act had been done by a Catholic, the Pope and most Catholic priests would have immediately condemned their actions.

But where is the condemnation from the Muslim community? Where are the Imams on the local news condemning this terrorist act?
Where is the outrage from the Islamic community? Nothing but a deafening silence. Why? Because many of them quietly support this terrorism, and believe that America is finally getting what she deserves.

In my next post, I'll give you some insight into Sharia law and how the Muslim community wants to make Sharia law the law of the land here in America.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Censored: Dr. Kermit Gosnell's "House of Horrors" --A Total Media Blackout

Here's a story about a trial that is currently being held for a Dr. Kermit Gosnell.  You won't read about this in USA Today, or the NY Times, or see it covered on NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN. 

There is a media blackout on this trial because our pro-abortion journalists won't report on the horrors of the abortion industry. If they did, many of them would be out on the streets looking for a new line of work, or they might awaken their conscience and suffer some sleepless nights.

The grand jury report in the case of Kermit Gosnell, 72, is among the most horrifying I've read. "This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy - and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors," it states. "The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels - and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths."
Dr. Kermit Gosnell  
Charged with seven counts of first-degree murder, Gosnell is now standing trial in a Philadelphia courtroom. An NBC affiliate's coverage includes testimony as grisly as you'd expect. "An unlicensed medical school graduate delivered graphic testimony about the chaos at a Philadelphia clinic where he helped perform late-term abortions," the channel reports. "Stephen Massof described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, 'literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.' He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, 'it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.'"
One former employee described hearing a baby screaming after it was delivered during an abortion procedure. "I can't describe it. It sounded like a little alien," she testified. Said the Philadelphia Inquirer in its coverage, "Prosecutors have cited the dozens of jars of severed baby feet as an example of Gosnell's idiosyncratic and illegal practice of providing abortions for cash to poor women pregnant longer than the 24-week cutoff for legal abortions in Pennsylvania."
This is Dr. Gosnell's "House of Horrors" owned by
Karen Holder, our Attorney General's wife.
I also want to call your attention to James Taranto's Best of the Web column today in the Wall Street Journal: "From Roe to Gosnell." This column today is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the abortion industry.

On the heels of yesterday's horrific bombing in Boston, which was a terrorist act taking at least 3 lives, injuring 176 others with at least 17 in critical condition, the carnage from the finish line is NO different than that described in Dr. Gosnell's clinic, which incidentally, is owned by Karen Holder, wife of our attorney general, Eric Holder.
Jospeh Mengele, "Angel of Death"

Someone has said that if Dr. Gosnell had taken an AK-47 and killed these infants, maybe then it might be receiving some front-page coverage because the media would seize upon it as an opportunity to attack the
right-wing, pro-gun crowd.

What Dr. Gosnell did to these unborn babies is on par with the Newtown Massacre by Adam Lanza. And, Dr. Gosnell is no different than Adam Lanza, or the Columbine killers. Dr. Gosnell is our modern-day Joseph  Mengele, "the Angel of Death" at Auschhwitz.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Great Presidential Quotes and then there's Barack Obama....

Here are some great presidential quotes:

George Washington
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Thomas Jefferson
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

James Madison
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted." 

Andrew Jackson
“Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error”
Ronald Reagan
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

.....and then there's Barack Obama:
"Let's Make It a Little Harder for Our Kids to Get Gunned Down"
Obama wiping a phony tear from his eye, to add
emphasis to his concern about gun legislation.
In other words, your kids are going to be "gunned down"--let's just make it harder for that to happen. Who thinks like that? Who talks like that? No one I know, except our beloved president,  who will exploit any tragedy for political gain. He wants every American thinking that their son or daughter is about to be gunned down and if we don't enact new gun legislation, our children won't have a chance for survival!

How about this, Mr. President, we already have 20,000 gun-control laws on the books. Let's begin by enforcing some of those laws. 

Here's an interesting stat cited by Sen. Ted Cruz: "In 2010, over 15,000 felons and fugitives tried to illegally purchase guns and were turned down. Out of those 15,000, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted just 44. Why is the Justice Department not going after the criminals who are already trying to purchase guns?"-- The reason why is they (the Obama administration, including the Justice Department under Eric Holder) don't want to catch too many people and make it look like they have sufficient legal resources to deal with this, because that would THWART their effort to get even MORE RESTRICTIVE gun laws! As Sen. Ted Cruz puts it, "If you have an existing law that would shut down illegal gun traffic, why do you need a NEW LAW???

None of the laws on the books, or any new gun-control legislation would have prevented mentally-ill Adam Lanza from going on his shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

We have yet to hear our President wax eloquent on violent video games, or Hollywood films. We have yet to hear our President really tackle the issue of mental  illness and the danger that some of the mentally ill pose to society. 

With the "new rights" afforded the mentally-ill by a Democrat congress in the 1980s, we can't institutionalize them and we can't even force them to take their prescribed medication. What's wrong with this picture? 

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Historical Revisionism Favors Islam and Treats Israel as the Bad Guy

Today's post is a long one. I violate all the rules for writing a post and for that I am sorry. But, I hope you will persevere and take the time to read this post because it will inform you with the facts needed to think critically and accurately about the Arab-Israel crisis, as well as the history of antisemitism, especially from the

One of the greatest attempts to rewrite history to conform to a political ideology (often anti-semitic) centers around the Jews and their subjugation by Islam throughout Europe, as well as the history of Israel.

Another common method of history revisionism that is commonly employed is:

1) Islamic Tolerance:

Perhaps the most serious flaws in most books are distortions resulting from a combination of omission and commission. This is particularly true of the coverage of Islamic history and Muslims' treatment of Jews in the world history texts. The increased attention given to Islam is one change made to recent editions. Its prominence is now at least equal to that of Judaism and Christianity and, in some books, surpasses them. The significance of Islam to world history is not in doubt. What is historically inaccurate, however, is the portrayal of Muslims as paragons of tolerance, particularly regarding Jews.
Several textbooks, including the Middle East (Houghton Mifflin 1990) write that the Muslims offered the Jews religious toleration, and the Jews were generally treated with leniency by Muslims. Some texts even have the audacity to write that the Jews flourished under Islam.
In World History-Patterns of Civilization (Prentice Hall, 1990) by Benton Beers, we have one of the few books that hints that life was not so ideal, noting that Islam protected Jews "in theory if not always in practice." 
Farah and Karls put it differently, writes" Jews did not have all the advantages Muslims did. While Jewish communities in Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs. 
As historian Bernard Lewis has written: "The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy with Islam" ("The Pro-Islamic Jews," Judaism, Fall 1968, p. 401). Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews. Jews did thrive culturally and economically at certain times, but their position was never secure and changes in the political and social climate would often lead to harassment, violence and death
2. Omission

American history texts often skip the period of Nazi persecution prior to the war. In American Journey (Prentice Hall, 1992), for example, James West Davidson et al. have a single line stating that Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat in World War I. Usually, the critical aspects of the Nazi terror are ignored.
In The Human Experience—A World History, Farah and Karls define concentration camps as "large prisons" and the Holocaust as "widespread destruction." 
3. Apologists for Authoritarianism
The distortion that is commonly employed is to describe Arab regimes in benign and often positive terms. Conflict among Arab nations is rarely mentioned. 
In The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures, Welty and Greenblatt go so far as to excuse Arab governments for adopting authoritarian forms of government. They assert that military takeovers are common because army officers are better educated, the army is the most effective power base other than religion and historical tradition favors military rule in the Arab world. These are the same authors who write that one of Faisal's first acts as King of Saudi Arabia in 1964 was to abolish slavery, as if nothing was unusual about the practice of slavery a century after the Emancipation Proclamation. They also ignore the evidence that slavery continues to be practiced in parts of the Arab world to this day.

4. Lies about Israel
The coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict is particularly abysmal. Much of the crucial history of Palestine before 1948 is omitted, particularly from the U.S. history books. Those texts that discuss the mandatory period present the Arab version of history; that is, an unrestrained flood of Jewish immigrants invaded a land already inhabited by another people, who were subsequently forced out. The historical Jewish presence in the country is usually ignored.
Beers, for example, implies in World History--Patterns of Civilization that no Jews lived in Palestine until Eastern Europeans came in the 1920's and 30's (nearly 40 years after the First Aliyah) and found more than 650,000 Arabs already living there. (A patent lie).
Farah and Karls write in The Human Experience-A World History that only 50,000 Jews, most from Eastern Europe, lived in Palestine at the time of the First World War, comprising only 10 percent of the population. The actual number was more than 80,000, closer to 15 percent of the total population. 
Welty and Greenblatt say in The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures that Jews only migrated to Palestine from the 1920's on and give the impression the British did not impose restrictions until right before WWII. These authors totally ignore Israel's 3000 yr. existence in Israel.
 5. Lies and Revisionism about the Palestinian Refugees
The history of the Palestinians is replete with factual errors, omissions and distortions. Most books give the same explanation for the Palestinian refugee problem, that they "fled or were expelled." No one refers to the thousands who left before the fighting began or before the war was over. Nor do they point out that the number expelled was a fraction of the total that left to avoid the war, or in response to Arab leaders' exhortations to leave. 
Farah and Karls, for example, say in The Human xperience--A World History that the Palestinians "decided-or were forced-to leave what had been their homeland." This comes after a discussion of the 1949 armistice, which insinuates the Palestinians fled after the war. In their 1992 edition, they adopted a more neutral position, reporting that as a result of war 700,000 Arabs became homeless. It is unclear where Farah and Karls and the other authors who use the same statistic came up with the number of refugees. The 700,000 figure is lower than the exaggerated Arab estimates, but still nearly one-third higher than that of the U.N. Mediator on Palestine.
In World History-For A Global Age, Abramowitz is the only author who alludes to the fact that 500,000 Jews fled Arab countries in what was, in effect, an exchange of populations. No mention is made of the mistreatment of Jews that provoked many to emigrate from the otherwise tolerant Islamic societies to Israel.
Also, little is said about the treatment the Palestinian refugees received from their brethren. A couple of books do point out the refugees were not welcomed by the Arab states. 
Schwartz and O'Connor observe in Exploring A Changing World that Arab nations have not given the Palestinians a home (one of the ONLY texts to point out this truth), but Wallbank and Schrier's Living World History is the only book to note that only Jordan gave them citizenship. The text also points out that refugee camps became bases for "violent attacks" against Israel. Hantula et al's.
The number and condition of the refugees are distorted in every book that discusses them. Wallbank and Schrier say most refugee camps became "permanent settlements" without jobs, farms or services. 
Hantula et al., Stearns et al. and Beers all have nearly identical versions. According to these authors, one-third of the 3.5 million Palestinians live in exile, as many as two million confined to squalid refugee camps. These descriptions give the impression that millions of Palestinian refugees are suffering in camps, but this has not been the case for decades. According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, two-thirds of the approximately 2.2 million Palestinian refugees are not in camps. "They live and work like everyone else in the towns and villages of the Middle East," UNRWA reports. Moreover, of the five million Palestinians, nearly three-quarters now live in historic "Palestine," either as Israeli or Jordanian citizens or in the West Bank and Gaza. 
The truth is that Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights. In fact, Israel is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women can vote. Arabs hold 8 seats in the 120-seat Knesset (Israel's governing body), as well as various government posts. The sole legal distinction between the Arabs and Jews in Israel is that Arabs do not have to serve in the military. Industries like trucking and construction have come to be dominated by Israeli Arabs. 

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Historical Revisionism: Making Your Own Reality

The reason why I won't be lighting a match anytime soon to my set of Encyclopedia Britannica (1958) is because of a dirty little activity known as "history revisionism." You're asking: What is history revisionism? Revisionism attempts to alter the way a people views its history and traditions in order to cause that people
to accept a change in public policy.

There are many means used by revisionists to accomplish their goals but the most common are:

Patent lies. For example, numerous history textbooks make claims that our “national government was secular from top to bottom,” or that the Founders “reared a national government on a secular basis.” If you have read and studied the Founding of this nation (especially in a set of encyclopedias that dates back to 1958 or earlier), you would know that this is a lie.

Signing the Declaration of Independence
  • John Adams, declared: “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.” (Even the text of the Declaration of Independence refutes any charges of government secularism.) You might as well write that James Madison used an atomic bomb to end the Civil War, or that the first sub-machine gun was developed in 1536 in Nevada by the Quakers). Revisionism relies on a lack of citizen knowledge in specific areas. Only an ignorant citizenry would have no knowledge of whether this were true, or not.
Selective Omission: Notice the following two examples from American history works:
We whose names are under-written . . . do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil
body politick. MAYFLOWER COMPACT, 1620. (That which is omitted after "written" is:   "for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God,"
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? . . .        I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death? PATRICK HENRY, 1775. (That which was omitted after "slavery?" is: Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death? In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine
John Adams
Providence to dispose the hearts.
  • Also regularly omitted from texts is the fact that gratitude to God was central to the first Pilgrim Thanksgiving
  • Another textbook said that "Pilgrims are people who take long trips." They were described entirely without reference to religion. One reference said the Pilgrims "wanted to give thanks for all they had" but never mentioned that it was God to whom they wanted to give thanks. 
  • Also OMITTED is that fact that in 1782, the Congress of the United States was responsible for America's first English-language Bible; and that in 1800, Congress voted that on Sundays, the Capitol Building would serve as a church building and that by 1867, the largest protestant church in America was the one that met inside the U. S. Capitol; etc.
Benjamin Franklin
Lack of Primary Source References: 

When my daughter was in junior high, I borrowed all the history books for 6th-8th grade for a week to examine them for historical revisionism. This goes back to the early 1990s and even then, the textbooks were rampant with examples. I noticed that each text book would talk about our Founding Fathers, but there NO direct quotes from any of the Founders. In other words, the historian would devote a paragraph or two to Benjamin Franklin or John Adams, but would provide the reader with any excepts of John Adams' speeches or writings. The same for George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and others.

I concluded that the goal of these texts was to make our Founding Fathers look and sound as boring and ancient as possible. I began to see a pattern that most public school textbooks did not want students to know about the religious roots of our nation's founding. They also wanted to keep students in the dark regarding the passion and love that our founders had for liberty and freedom. If a student were to be allowed to read some of the writings of any of these great men, they might actually get excited and begin to see what was so special about the founding of this nation.

I'll continue this with one more post on historical revisionism and how contemporary leftist historians have attempted to rewrite the history of the founding of Israel as well as her struggle against Arab domination since 1948.