So you still need more proof Islam IS the religion of Peace? How about a Church burning. Oh that little Quran Burning in Florida is nothing! Look what the Peaceful loving Muslims of Islam do for fun on the weekends, or I guess any day is a good day for them to wreak havoc on Christians. What a loving bunch. Makes you feel all warm inside.
Peaceful Muslims just passing the time… while BURNING A Christian Church.
A serbian christian church was set in flames and desacrated by muslim Albanians during the pogram in 2004 (Podujevo – 19.03.2004). UN-soldiers stand by or flee instead of defending this Christian earth. Why this wasn´t shown in the news around the world? Maybe because of the serbs were still right! The crosses are still fallen – not in iraq, in europe!!! It was just one of over 130 destroyed or desacrated churches. So the islam is getting closer to europe step by step – but in this case the eyes of the UN are watching it.
Have you ever seen the vine / weed Kudzu? Islam is like Kudzu.
Kudzu grows very fast and consumes everything in its path. Eventually the kudzu is all that remains of any vegetation or life form.
The gates of Aushwitz, an infamous Nazi concentration camp
In a week when Jews will celebrate Rosh Hashanah, the New Year–5771, the connection between the Nazi’s rebellion against the Judeo-Christian worldview and the present-day ideology that drives the environmental movement needs to be exposed.
Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe and elsewhere around the world, driven in part by the Islamic hatred of Jews, but also reflected in the liberal antipathy to corporations and the financial community, often portrayed as “Jewish bankers”, as history’s favorite scapegoat for economic problems. The situation mirrors Germany in the 1930s.
Few know of the connection, but it is spelled out in “Nazi Oaks” by R. Mark Musser ($12.75, Advantage Books, softcover, via Amazon.com). Thanks to his research we learn that “the highway to modern environmentalism passed through Nazi Germany. By 1935, the Third Reich was the greenest regime on the planet.”
“It is no coincidence that sweeping Nazi environmental legislation preceded the racially charged anti-Semitic Nuremburg Laws.”
In the decades during which I have seen the rise of the environmental movement in America I have also seen its inherent totalitarian drive to not merely alter society, but to completely control the lives of all Americans. It is fundamentally an attack on the American credo of individual freedom and it has become commonplace to suggest that environmentalism has become a pseudo-religion.
Mark Musser is a 1989 graduate from the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, widely regarded as one of the premier environmental institutions in the nation. In 1994, he received a Master of Divinity from Western Seminary in Portland and, for seven years, was a missionary in Belarus and the Ukraine. He is currently a pastor.
The history spelled out in Musser’s book needs to be understood in terms of what is occurring in America today. The title of the book comes from the fact that, “With the oak tree being such a powerful symbol of German nationalism and the German natural landscape, Hitler had oaks planted all over the Reich in hundreds of towns and villages.” The practice was dubbed by Nazi environmentalists as “concordant with the spirit of the Fuhrer.”
Just as America is passing through a period of economic stress, the Nazis in the 1930s sought to tap into the German psyche and a “return to nature” myth was seen as a unifying measure. The same regime that would later create the means to systematically kill Europe’s Jews shared a lot in common with any number of present-day environmentalist leaders and academics.
Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, is on record saying, “Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition.”
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the United Nations Environmental Program, said, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our duty to bring that about?” When you contemplate the many measures taken by the U.S.
In the opinion of usurper president and U. S. Constitution destroyer Barack H. Obama, there is no legitimacy in any state to seek its own protection from foreign invasion with its concurrent and resultant damage to life, limb and property.
The Preamble to the Constitution lists the requirements of the federal government to our nation’s security. One of those requirements is to “provide for the common defense.” This is one of the responsibilities granted to the federals by the states. If the feds can not or will not ‘provide for the common defense’, it is only reasonable that the state or states will have to do it themselves due to the abdication of responsibility by the federal government.
This is the situation in Arizona. Hordes of illegal aliens have been coming across the federally controlled and unprotected borders; Obama and his inefficient Attorney General and Chief of Homeland Security with their malfeasant and contrary to law refusal to act in accordance with our Constitution’s mandates, do unnecessarily place the legitimate citizens of Arizona and the United States, in serious jeopardy.
The only recourse for the Arizonans is to reclaim the responsibility for the provision of the common defense for their own protection. An analogy would be when parents abandon their children leaving them unprotected and predators seeing this try to move in and harm the children and take over their home. The children are physically and mentally mature enough to fight off the offenders and do so in order to prevent even more serious injury or death at the hands of the law breakers.
Days later the parents return and they see the children had to defend themselves against illegal alien attackers; what do they do; berate the children for protecting themselves because it was not what they were supposed to do even though they, the parents, weren’t there to do it? I rather doubt that would happen as the parents would be so thankful the children weren’t hurt they would be joyous and promise to never leave them unprotected again.
However my friends, this is not how the Constitution is interpreted by the type of un-American creatures that inhabit and attempt to control our nation in this Administration. Using the same analogy as above, Obama and AG Holder would have the kids arrested and charged with disobedience of government orders.
Obama proves over and over again his absolute disdain for our Constitution and his deep hate for our country. His every speech contains at least one derogatory comment about the United States, and an equal amount of how great is the world of Islam. And there are some people who just can’t see the truth for all of the lies that come out of his mouth.
The State of Mississippi’s Department of Marine Resources (DMR) opened all of its territorial waters to fishing on August 6. This was done in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Food and Drug Administration, despite concerns from commercial fishermen in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida about the presence of oil and toxic dispersants from the BP oil disaster.
On August 19, Truthout accompanied two commercial fishermen from Mississippi on a trip into the Mississippi Sound in order to test for the presence of submerged oil. Laboratory test results from samples taken on that trip show extremely high concentrations of oil in the Mississippi Sound.
James “Catfish” Miller and Mark Stewart, both lifelong fishermen, have refused to trawl for shrimp because they believe the Mississippi Sound contains submerged oil.
“I can’t tell you how hard it is for me not to be shrimping right now, because I’m a trawler,” Miller told Truthout as he piloted his shrimp boat out of Pass Christian Harbor, “That’s what I do. I trawl.”
But Miller and Stewart have been alarmed by their state’s decision to reopen the waters, and have been conducting their own tests for oil in areas where they have fished for years. Their method was simple – they tied an absorbent pad to a weighted hook, dropped it overboard for a short duration of time, then pulled it up to find the results.
On each of the eight tests Truthout witnessed, the white pads were brought up covered in a brown oily substance that the fishermen identified as a mix of BP’s crude oil and toxic dispersants.
The first test conducted was approximately one-quarter mile out from the harbor, and the pad pulled up was stained brown.
“They’re letting people swim in this,” Miller exclaimed, while holding the stained pad up to the sun.
Miller and Stewart were both in BP’s Vessels Of Opportunity (VOO) program and were trained in identifying oil and dispersants.
This writer took two samples from two absorbent pads that were brought up from the water that were covered in brown residue and had them tested in a private laboratory via gas chromatography.
The environmental analyst who worked with this writer did so on condition of anonymity, and performed a micro extraction that tests for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH).
What do “global warming,” “global governance” and “sustainable development” have to do with the proposed “Ground Zero mosque?” One would think absolutely nothing; however investigation into the money, organizations and people behind the project has uncovered some revealing and disturbing connections. An extensive analysis of these findings provides the missing insight into the larger agenda, motives and modus operandi associated with what is now known as the Park51project. It also reveals the reasons behind the persistence of the insipid and insulting project and why it remains viable in the face of such visceral opposition.
Those who oppose the construction of an Islamic center in close proximity to Ground Zero are legitimately upset by the hubris of Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf and his associates, and his lack of class and sensitivity exhibited by their insistence to continue forward despite the plaintive objections of those most affected and victimized by the terrorist attacks. Some in opposition appear perplexed that the individuals behind the project have not relented or even acquiesced to open dialogue about moving the Islamic center due to the volatility created by the project. To date, overtures made by the governor of New York as well as members of the clergy have been quietly rebuffed by the people behind the project. If building bridges and fostering goodwill is, in fact, their objective, it is reasonable to question their reluctance and outright refusal to mitigate any ill will by reconsidering the location of the Islamic center. For the purpose of a comprehensive investigation, it is not only reasonable, it is imperative.
Opposition to the Islamic center to date has been limited to information that is known or has been most easily uncovered about Imam Abdul-Rauf and the Cordoba Initiative. That Abdul-Rauf has suggested that the 9/11 attacks were a result of American foreign policy and his refusal to characterize Hamas as a terrorist organization should themselves be sufficient reasons to cause any person of reasonable sensibilities to oppose the construction, especially at this location. Yet, those behind the project, as well as those in support of the project do not appear to be adversely affected and remain undeterred. Once again, it is an investigative imperative to determine why.
Despite such obviously controversial positions, Abdul-Rauf presses forward with the approval of political leaders from Barack Hussein Obama to Michael Bloomberg. Together with many in the corporate media, project supporters deflect from the core issue into a specious constitutional argument relating to freedom of religion, despite the fact that no one is preventing Islam from being practiced in the United States. The issues are even further diluted and deflected by those who insist that the project is neither a mosque nor will it be located at Ground Zero. While both assertions might be considered technically accurate in the eyes of Western thought and culture, they are nothing more than frivolous defenses at best and intellectual deception at worst.
Barack Obama’s naive statements on the Ground Zero mosque have brought new energy to the debate over his religious affiliations.
Yahoonews.com reports, in part, that nearly one in five Americans believe that Obama is Muslim: Ref 1
“Nearly one in five Americans incorrectly believe President Obama is Muslim, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. That total, 18 percent, is up from 11 percent in Pew’s March 2009 survey.
“While the view that Obama is Muslim is more widespread among those who identify as Obama’s ideological opponents, the survey found that a growing number of independents also believe the myth, up 8 percent from 2009.”
Note that the word “incorrectly” as used in the Yahoo.news story is not necessarily true.
Consider Obama’s actions since 1/20/09:
Immediately called for shut down of GITMO
Called for terrorists to be tried by civilian juries, rather than military, including Miranda rights and other rights conferred on citizens.
Once in office, rushed off to a Muslim nation to deliver a speech in which he declared that America is “not” a Christian nation.
Changed policy toward Israel such that that nation is treated like a gang of terrorists.
Supports, or at least does not oppose, the mosque at Ground Zero.
In defending the president, White House spokesman Bill Burton made the following comments aboard Air Force One:
“The president is obviously – he’s Christian. He prays every day…” But, Burton added, the president’s top priority is not “making sure Americans know what a devout Christian he is.”
Excuse me? Prayer does not make one a Christian.
For instance Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad surely prays many times a day. As did Mohamed Atta and the other 18 devils who brought the Twin Towers down.
The issue is to whom does he pray and does he believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the resurrection?
The media is all worked up over a poll that shows the majority of Americans don’t think Obama is a Christians and nearly a 1/4 of Americans think that Obama is a Muslim. Naturally the “mainstream” conservative blogs are embarrassed by these results. Politico is calling it a new Birtherism. Left unasked is the question of why people might think that.
There’s Obama own statements on the topic in which he emphasized his family connections to Islam. This is what he said in Turkey;
Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them.
This is what he said later in Cairo
“Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk.”
This time Obama included the mention that he is a Christian, but his emphasis was still on Islam.
“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office. He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
In short, Obama’s family on his father’s side is Muslim. He grew up with a Muslim stepfather in a Muslim country. Then he went to Trinity Church and found a mentor there in the form of Jeremiah Wright. Wright was a former Black Muslim, his sermons still sound more Muslim than Christian, with their rantings about America, and obvious bigotry. Obama’s church was Muslim influenced, which may have attracted him to it and to Wright.
Take all this together, and it’s not too surprising why some people would have the perception that Obama is Muslim, in part or in whole.
The media would like to pretend that this is a smear and bigoted. Some of the “mainstream” conservative blogs would like to pretend it’s stupid and contemptible. But Obama himself created the problem, by being vague and misleading. When speaking to Americans, he emphasized his Christianity. When speaking to Muslims, he emphasized Islam. Both sets of audiences could be forgiven for thinking that Obama was feeding them an identity that they would find more compatible.
In a recent letter to the editor of my local newspaper, Valley Scene columnist (a liberal arts and entertainment tabloid) Mr.N, a prominent local atheist, castigated historian Dr. Jake Jacobs for his expose of Lifest speaker Jim Wallis.
For readers unfamiliar with this event, it is an annual Christian music festival, held in Oshkosh Wisconsin, which features contemporary Christian music and acclaimed Christian speakers. Jim Wallis was invited to speak by Life Promotions president Bob Lenz, the promoter of Lifest, to the consternation of certain local Christian clergy and laity. The concern is because Wallis preaches a doctrine of “social justice” which promotes the idea of wealth distribution through government coercion, rather than exclusively through charitable volunteerism.
Some also cite research into Wallis’ past that link him to support of revolutionary socialist movements, as well as claiming Wallis holds unorthodox views on certain basic Christian doctrines. Obviously, all this is of great importance since the festival is attended primarily by highly impressionable teenagers and young adults.
A peripheral issue, but one equally important, is the bewilderment over why Mr. Lenz would invite such a controversial figure considering the composition of the Lifest audience. Mr. Lenz has had a sterling reputation for his interaction with youth, so the invitations to Wallis and other controversial presenters, leave some people who know Lenz, scratching their collective heads. The 64 million dollar question is whether this establishes a trend for future Lifest events, or whether Mr. Lenz will seek the advice of discerning critics before repeating similar decisions.
Mr. N and others, aren’t always clear whether they deny Jim Wallis’ past controversial connections, or if they acknowledge them, but claim they are somehow consistent with Christian biblical orthodoxy. As I have dialogued with a handful of Wallis apologists, many of whom are non-Christians, or at best, nominal Christians, I have noticed they often use a few boilerplate scriptural passages in support of their polemic. Most of them are outright non-sequiturs, making implausible leaps of logic to support their conclusions about biblical economics.
N’s piece for instance, was quite ironic. Not long ago in his postings, he was articulating the theme of the “schizophrenic Jesus”(scriptures that refer to the judgment of Jesus, as well as those that refer to His affinity for peace and love),” which he recycles frequently in his numerous editorials. Now, in making his own point about economics, he wields Jesus’ sayings as authoritative. Mr. N is an artisan of sophistry, and as such, engages masterfully in the gambit of “special pleading.” Mr. N holds a very low view of Christian scripture, but never hesitates to quote it in order to embarrass or manipulate the thinking of people who do take it seriously.
One can only wonder then if he holds in esteem biblical warnings to unbelievers as well?
His piece is a complete non-starter. How does one jump from biblical warnings against the unfaithful wealthy of the day, to a mandate whereby contemporary government ought to coercively redistribute wealth?
A Western team of Christian medical volunteers that provided eye care to poor villagers in remote northeast Afghanistan was lined up, stripped, and shot to death by the Taliban.
The execution-style killings of 10 people working for a Christian medical team in a remote region of northern Afghanistan fit into Taliban insurgents’ stated shift in tactics: Target Western civilians, especially Christians, as “foreign invaders.”
The Taliban took credit for one of the deadliest attacks yet on aid workers in Afghanistan, saying the Christian charity workers were proselytizing to poor villagers – a charge that the International Assistance Mission, which dispatched the team, denies.
The bodies of six Americans, a Briton, a German, and two Afghan interpreters were discovered Friday in a forested part of Badakhshan Province in remote northern Afghanistan – until now considered a relatively peaceful region known mostly to adventure travelers. The only person in the party not killed was a local translator who offered proof he was a Muslim by quoting the Koran, according to the Associated Press.
The attack represents the largest single toll of American civilian deaths in Afghanistan since December, when a suicide bomber killed seven members of a CIA team. It also points to the operational viability of Taliban insurgents’ stated intent to target foreign aid workers as combatants.
Tom Little raised three daughters with his wife in Afghanistan, avoided kidnappings during the Russian occupation, hid in his basement for months during the Taliban rule in the 1990s, survived rocket attacks and endured arrests for one reason, friends and family members said: to provide eye care for indigent Afghans.
After four decades in the country he came to call home, Mr. Little, a 61-year-old optometrist originally from upstate New York, was returning from treating people in a remote valley in Nuristan Province when he was among the 10 aid workers ambushed in the woods and killed.
Another was Dr. Karen Woo, a 36-year-old surgeon from Hertfordshire, England, who specialized in women’s health. She had blogged about being a tomboy who loved “sexy dresses and high heels,” as well as her passion to help Afghan people.
Tom Little never sugar-coated the outreach work he and wife, Libby, did in Afghanistan.
When he spoke to friends from the Capital Region churches who supported the efforts of the NOOR Eye Project, he talked about how his three daughters grew up being able to tell the difference between incoming and outgoing missiles by listening from the basement of their Kabul home.
And he talked about once having the doors of an eye clinic he supervised locked by government officials. He had to creep into the clinic at night to retrieve some of the expensive medical equipment, placing it at a new site so he could continue to provide desperately needed care, just as he had done for more than 30 years.
Expelled for being Christian. That’s the fate of two college graduate school students at separate universities that apparently should just put a sign out front that says, “Christianity Not Accepted Here.”
Julea Ward lost her lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University July 26. She sued after she was dismissed from a counseling program in March, 2009, for not affirming homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.
While in a counseling practicum course in the school in January, 2009, she was assigned a potential client who needed help regarding a homosexual relationship. Knowing she couldn’t affirm the client’s homosexual relationship without compromising her religious beliefs, Ward asker her supervisor how to the handle the matter.
The supervisor assigned the client to another counselor. The university then told Ward she would have to undergo a “remediation” program to help her “see the error of her ways” and change her “belief system” if she wanted to stay in the program.
She claims EMU faculty denigrated her Christian views and asked inappropriate and intrusive questions about her religious beliefs. She was then dismissed from the counseling program.
She appealed to the dean who upheld the dismissal. Now a Federal court has sided with the school.
A similar case is ongoing at Augusta State University in Augusta, Ga. There Jennifer Keeton was told her Christian beliefs are unethical and incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession.
She must stop sharing her beliefs with others and change her beliefs if she’s to graduate from the program, the school has told her.
“A public university student shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here,” said David French, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which is handling the cases for both women. “Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform. Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop. Jennifer’s only crime was to have the beliefs that she does.”
Requiring a change in a belief system to continue in a university program is an Orwellian concept and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the Christian faith.
You don’t “remediate” someone out of Christianity. Christian beliefs are rooted in Bible truths and faith in a Supreme Being. They are not simple ideas that you can pick which side you come down on.
More and more it seems the fascist elites in government and education preach tolerance of every alternative, abnormal, perverted or despicable, self-serving behavior that man can devise. But let someone profess Christianity and she is shown the door—or the losing end of a court battle.
It’s becoming painfully evident that, in this day and age, perhaps President Obama was right when he said ours is not a Christian nation. Certainly it won’t be if the elites continue to have their way.
