Reformists imprisoned in Dar al-Islam

I thought democracy and Islam were compatible, but how can one have democracy without freedom?

The latest from our "ally" in the War on Terror: Saudi reformists get harsh penalty.

"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- In a stunning setback for reformists in Saudi Arabia, a Riyadh court yesterday sentenced three detained Saudi reformists to jail terms ranging from six to nine years for sowing dissent and disobeying the ruler.

Three judges at the court, which was ringed by security forces, issued their verdict after a nine-month trial, which was conducted almost entirely behind closed doors.
The court sentenced Ali Al-Dumaini to nine years in jail, Abdullah Al-Hamed to seven years in jail, and Matruk Al-Faleh to six years in jail.

The academics have been imprisoned for more than a year after being arrested in March 2004 for calling for a constitutional monarchy, an independent judiciary and freedom of speech. The prosecutors had accused them of using Western terminology in calling for their reforms. "

In case there was any doubt that this is more than just a tyrant trying to retain power, consider this:

"Mr. Al-Dumaini reportedly received the harshest sentence because of his criticism of the Saudi educational system, which he said was responsible for producing terrorists."

The government maintains the rule of Sharia. If the government did not have a king, but was still ruled by Islam, would it be any different? It doesn't seem likely.

Whether the tyrant is a god (Allah) or a man (Saud), there is no room for those who disagree.

"I'm in shock," said Jamila Al-Ukala, the wife of Mr. Al-Faleh, as she spoke with supporters and reporters yesterday outside the courthouse.

"They didn't commit a crime. From the beginning, there was no evidence against them," said Ameer Al-Faleh, the 23-year-old son of Mr. Al-Faleh. "The whole case is just about thoughts that were just ink on paper."

The Qur'an's words are "just ink on paper," yet they have directly resulted in the enslavement, rape, and murder of millions of non-Muslims throughout Islam's history.

"Mr. Gothaimi said the panel of judges found that the men had overstepped the bounds by speaking to the foreign press, supposedly with the intent to incite people against the government The men also were accused of challenging the independence of the judiciary. "

Does anyone else get the irony here? A democratically-elected President and Congress would facilitate American justice with the additions of much-needed judges who respect the U.S. Constitution, but the Democratic Party instead is trying to circumvent the will of the people using the same terminology.

"This verdict is a reflection of how bad our courts are," said Mohammed Alanezi, a supporter of the reformists. "They are centuries behind. We are now going downhill."

That would be about fourteen centuries behind, wouldn't it?

"The Saudi regime is determined to stifle reasonable and peaceful voices for reform in the country," said Ali Alyami, the Washington-based director of the opposition Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia. "Surely, it is time for the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress to stop regarding the Saudi royal family as sacrosanct and start holding them accountable for their violations of human rights".

Yes, it is time for accountability, but not only for the House of Saud. It is time to hold Islam accountable.

How can you defeat an enemy you do not recognize?

Secretary of State Rice, whom I hold in extremely high regard, this weekend made some very disturbing comments in her address to some of our military overseas.

Besides apologizing for our "desecration" of the Qur'an (how do you desecrate that which is by nature profane?), Dr. Rice said that "the lack of freedom" in the Middle East is what motivates the "ideology of hate."

This is not true. It is the Qur'an and the sayings and doings of Mohammed that inspire the hate. Allah commands it. (Are any of our military dying with the belief that their sacrifice will help Islam love us? I hope not.)

I have been disappointed, frustrated, and angered to hear President Bush repeatedly refer to Islam as "one of the world's great religions" and a "religion of peace." I was outraged to hear him equate the Qur'an with the Bible in his Second Inaugural Address. I thought he was, for what he deemed necessary political gain, knowingly misrepresenting Islam.

After hearing Dr. Rice express the same dangerous beliefs on what motivates our enemy, I am led to hope that perhaps our leaders are only ignorant of the breadth and depth of the danger of Qur'anic Islam, and not actually lying to us.

Is ignorance better than lying? At least with ignorance there is the possibility that one will realize the truth before it is too late.

Whom can you trust...

when a person's god commands them to kill you? From Muslim Troops' Loyalty a Delicate Question.

Why this Friday is Good

All around the world today Christians celebrate Good Friday, a remembrance of Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion at the hands of Roman and Jewish authorities. What is the meaning of His death for us today?

Three-and-one-half millennia past, the God of Israel, "I AM" (YHWH), appeared to a man named Moses, calling him to lead His people out of slavery in Egypt and to a land promised generations earlier to their ancestor Abraham.

The pharoah would not allow Israel to leave to worship as they wished, despite being at the receiving end of a number of destructive plagues. The last and most devastating judgment against Egypt would be the death of all firstborn males in the land.

In His providence, God directed the people of Israel to slaughter a male lamb and to place its blood around their doorposts. When the Angel of Death passed over, it would see the blood and harm no one inside. All those who did not have the lamb's blood over them lost their firstborn. There was a devastating (and unnecessary) loss of life.

Israel was commanded to remember God's Passover forever.

Fifteen hundred years later, God provided another Lamb Whose blood would save us from eternal death.

This Passover Lamb Who was slaughtered once-for-all is Jesus the Christ, the Messiah promised to Israel and foreshadowed by the lambs of the first Passover.

By His death we have life. It is His sacrifice for us we remember today.

An American court orders the death of an innocent

All legal technicalities aside, the Schiavo case boils down to one issue: an American court has ordered the death of an innocent (and defenseless) woman.

The American Declaration of Independence argues that God gives all people the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The American Constitution guarantees to all its citizens that neither Life, Liberty, nor property can be taken from them without due process.

If Mrs. Schiavo were a pedophile, or a murderer, or an abortionist, those calling for her death by dehydration and starvation would be protesting for her to have all legal options explored in preserving her life. A convict on Death Row would have all legal avenues exhausted and still many "kind-hearted" liberals would be arguing for a stay of execution.

This act of injustice is indefensible.

A Dear John (and Ken) Letter

Two popular Southern California radio personalities, John and Ken have, over the course of the past week or so, unrestrainedly expressed their contempt for religion (and the religious) in connection with the Schiavo Right-to-Live case.

In particular, they've repeatedly equated religious faith with irrationality.

It is true that not all religions are morally or rationally sound. It is true that not all who are religious believe on the basis of empirical evidence.

It is irrational to assume, without any examination of a religion or its empirical foundation, that by definition a religion is mythological.

It is irrational to assume, without any investigation as to why a person believes, that he or she is deluded.

One of the great successes of the enemies of God over the last century-and-a-half is the idea in Western culture (among liberals in Academia and the Media) that religion is unscientific, irrational, and anti-intellectual.

This is due to the erosion of confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the Scriptures by lying liberal "theologians" (is that redundant?) and the Darwinists. Too many Christians (in the West) have abandoned this one sure foundation for religious faith.

Rather than arguing what is empirically true (that Darwinism is contrary to Reason and Science; that the Scriptures are historically-reliable documents, and in many cases, eyewitness accounts of actual events; and that America was founded on a thoroughly Christian worldview), Christians have become complacent, ignorant, and cowardly.

There is one religion that is founded on fact, one that is attested to by History, Archaeology, and Reason. That religion is the religion of Moses and the Prophets. It is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.

Deadly bias

ABC News deceptive in Terri Schiavo poll?

I thought it strange to see more than one broadcast today characterize the Schiavo case as involving "Terri's right-to-die."

According the information I've seen, these are the important facts:

-There is no legally-valid, written statement of Mrs. Schiavo's wishes, only her husband's assertion that Terri would have wanted to die in this kind of situation (on which point he contradicted himself when interviewed by Larry King).

-Mr. Schiavo has two children with his mistress.

-A financial settlement to provide for Terri's rehabilitation was won, but Terri has not received such rehabilitation.

-A lawyer for Terri's parents told Terri that her feeding tube would be removed and that she had to say she wanted to live, which Terri tried to do.

-Terri is not in a coma. She is not unresponsive. Neither is she on a life support system.

This is not a case of "Terri's right-to-die;" this is a case of a husband's right to kill his wife.

It is not for Man to decide whether a person's life is no longer worth living, whether a judge or a husband, and it is unconscionable that our nation gives individuals the right to kill the defenseless.

The one on whom Terri should have been able to depend to defend her is the one trying to end her life.

That one judge after another has ruled in favor of her murder should not be a surprise, since each one of these decisions is another in a decades-long tradition of American courts ruling in favor of death.

If millions of children can be murdered by their own mothers (and this defended as a "Constitutional right") what is one "damaged" adult?

That the Mainstream Media are portraying the facts of this case falsely (if not to influence public opinion, then why?) is another example of its leftist, immoral, pro-death agenda.

BBC and IHT suffering from HITS Syndrome

BBC News: Anti-Muslim bias 'spreads' in EU

In what is (hopefully) a severe case of "Head-In-The-Sand" syndrome, the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights claims that Muslims are unjustifiably "suffering" increased "prejudice" throughout Europe.

Apparently, close contact spreads this disease, since in reporting on it, the BBC fails to add any sort of context to IHT's inexcusable cluelessness (or is it overt propaganda?).

The following statements are symptoms of this potentially fatal disease, followed by my comments...

"In France, the debate over the French law forbidding religious clothing in schools had encouraged discrimination against Muslim women who wear headscarves, the report says.

We are concerned that these developments threaten to undermine positive efforts at integration and further increase the vulnerability of Muslims to human rights violations and marginalisation...."

So, wearing highly-visible garments intended to demonstrate one's separation from the mainstream will help integration?

"In the UK, the report says the media have created the impression that justice officials are successfully prosecuting Muslim terrorists, although only a few people have been convicted and the vast majority of those who are arrested on allegations of terrorism are released without charge."

Isn't any conviction of Islamists a "successful prosecution"? It only took a few individuals to bring down The Towers.

"In Germany meanwhile, more than 80% of those surveyed last year associated the world 'Islam' with 'terrorism' and 'oppression of women'..."

Could that be because the Qur'an commands the faithful to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"? Could that be because Islam allows the beating of one's wife, the treatment of women as chattel, the debasement and subjugation of women, and polygamy?

"...although it was unclear to what extent this resulted in discriminatory behaviour."

That discrimination cannot be determined is a testament to the German people's patience and decency (or their widespread consumption of the BBC).

"It also says that Muslim schools in the Netherlands are widely believed to 'undermine integration efforts" although it says such claims are "poorly supported by facts'."

You wouldn't want facts to get in the way of understanding something affecting the fate of Western Civilization.

"A number of European countries have been engaged in a debate about whether long standing policies of multi-culturalism best serve the minorities involved."

Then the Islamists are winning. The debate should be about whether the integration of those whose god commands them to slaughter the native population best serves the majority.

"Assimilation has been put forward as a means of stopping minorities - and particularly Muslims - from occupying a parallel society that could exclude them from mainstream benefits."

The only assimilation Qur'anic Islam desires is that which will result in the establishment of Shari'a (or that facilitates the killing of infidels), and by then the only option for non-Muslims will be the occupation of "a parallel society that will exclude them from mainstream benefits."

Here's an example of the kind of assimilation in which Islamists are interested, courtesy of an American plotting to assassinate the PotUS: "...al-Qaida leaders gave Abu Ali two options: He could either become part of a martyr operation or he could establish a cell in the United States and he would 'marry a Christian woman, assimilate into the community and he would be provided operatives.'"

"The IHF warns that "growing distrust and hostility" experienced by Muslims and a possible erosion of their confidence in the rule of law could also fuel support for extremist organisations."

Something ought to be done about that which fuels "support for extremist organizations"--how 'bout starting with the Qur'an?

"It also advocates actively promoting tolerance among EU citizens by encouraging debate in the media over how to cover minorities and avoid "perpetuating prejudice", and also recommends the setting up of elected Muslim representative bodies."

Just another step toward the establishment of Shari'a.

Like a lobster in a pot of boiling water, by the time it realizes it's in trouble, it's too late.

"The IHF has a consultative status with the UN and the Council of Europe."

Let's hope they don't listen.

CAIR doesn't

...about the truth, that is.

A revealing post at DhimmiWatch lists a number of members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations who have either committed or plotted acts of Jihad, or have expressed sympathy or solidarity with those who do.

Read it here: Dhimmi Watch: DC Watson: CAIR's Perpetual Twists & Turns

More on taqiyya and kitman

In doing a little more reading on taqiyya, or the Islamic practice of deception, I found the following information. This is again an especially difficult doctrine for people of good will, for how are we to distinguish between those Muslims who are truly peaceful and those who only appear peaceful?

From history:

"During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ’ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’."

And

"Al Taqiyya is with tongue only; not the heart. A believer can make any statement as long as the ‘heart is comfortable'. The 9/11 terrorists lived and visited in the United States for two years before the 9/11 attacks. How did they acculturate? By the use of taqiyya. Meaning: I hate you but I smile at you-in public."

A Christian should know better than to try to justify any lie. Jesus said that the devil "was a liar and a murderer from the beginning and there is no truth in him."

Learn some more here.

Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. But, Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one’s convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions...

Taqiyya and kitman or ‘holy hypocrisy’ has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.’

The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.

During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ’ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’.

Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations. The theory and practice of counter terrorism would be counter productive, indeed pointless, and even harmful, without reference to taqiyya and kitman and the crucial role of deception ranging from Islamic jurisprudence to Al Qaeda training manuals, which carry detailed instructions on the use of deception by terrorists in Western target countries.

According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.

Taqiyya, American-style

Suspect Said to Admit Plan to Kill Bush

If it weren't disturbing enough that an American citizen is also an Islamist, note the choice this traitor was given by his superiors:

"...al-Qaida leaders gave Abu Ali two options: He could either become part of a martyr operation or he could establish a cell in the United States and he would 'marry a Christian woman, assimilate into the community and he would be provided operatives.'"

It is worth repeating: an American citizen (and high school valedictorian) whose goal it was to marry a Christian woman and assimilate into the community so that he could kill Americans.

I hope President Bush realizes this threat against his life is coming at the command of a god he wants to equate with the God of the Bible.

The implications for whom we can trust is quite troubling.

"Democracy and Islam are contradictory terms."

As noted here, the commands of the Qur'an make it impossible for anyone but Muslims to enjoy the full rights of citizenship under Islam.

Jihad Watch has a link to an article that makes several of the most important points regarding the (largely unrecognized) threat of Qur'anic Islam: Five Misconceptions about Islam that could kill Democracy.

Here's number five:

"5. Islam and Democracy are compatible.
Democracy and Islam are contradictory terms. The goal of Islam is Sharia law, the implementation of the Quran as the law of the land. What you see in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan is the Moslem global vision. The idea we express in a democracy, 'I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it' is not understood in Islam. There is no right to dissent. There are 16 Moslem nations in the Middle East; not one of them is Democracy."

Apology of Islam and its Theology of Power

"Apology" as in defense, not contrition.

Some excerpts from an article by a UCLA professor at Austin Bay Blog caught my attention. Here is my response:

Can one have Islam without the Qur'an? No. Can one have Islam without Mohammed? Of course, not.

As long as one person believes the Qur'an is the word of Allah (and therefore must be obeyed), there will be someone who believes it is his duty to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Regardless of the various tangents taken by Muslim schools of thought throughout its history, Qur'anic Islam requires war against unbelievers, "until all religion is for Allah."

Obedience to the Qur'an will eventually result in its adherents doing that which its god commands: converting, subjugating, or killing non-Muslims. (Indeed, it is a blessing that more Muslims don't actually do what its scriptures teach and what its founder practiced.)

That Khaled Abou el Fadl has to argue that various movements have rejected, strayed from, or re-interpreted "extremist" Islam is quite revealing in itself.

His comments never repudiate the fact that according to the Qur'an, violence for Allah against unbelievers who reject his message is the duty of every able-bodied Muslim.

In stating, "Muslim jurists reacted sharply to these [terrorist] groups, considering them enemies of humankind....Regardless of the desired goals or ideological justifications, the terrorizing of the defenseless was recognized as a moral wrong and an offense against society and God...," el Fadl appears to be implying that what we see from modern Islamists is against traditional, Qur'anic Islam.

While it may be true that some jurists reject terrorism as a tactic, it does not deny that Allah commands his people to subdue or kill the unbeliever who will not convert.

el Fadl appears to try to discredit militant Islam by using such loaded language (no pun intended) as: "...puritanical zeal...Wahhabism resisted the indeterminacy of the modern age by escaping...to a strict literalism...Wahhabism exhibited extreme hostility to intellectualism, mysticism and any sectarian divisions...any form of moral thought...as a form of self-idolatry, and treated humanistic fields of knowledge, especially philosophy, as 'the sciences of the devil.'"

Whether Wahhabism does any of these things is irrelevant; what matters is whether or not the violence done in the name of Allah is justified by the Qur'an or is in violation of it. If it is against the Qur'an, then there is hope that Islam can be reformed.

The disturbing fact is that such murderous behavior is not only justified, it is commanded.

el Fadl continues: "According to the Wahhabi creed, it was imperative to return to a presumed pristine, simple and straightforward Islam, which could be entirely reclaimed by literal implementation of the commands of the Prophet....Wahhabism rejected any attempt to interpret the divine law from a historical, contextual perspective...."

If any of the multitude of Qur'anic verses commanding violence against non-Muslims is not enough evidence that those verses should be taken literally, look at the "prophet" himself. Did his life give the impression that he was predisposed to hyperbole, or did he mean what he said? Obviously, Mohammed obeyed Allah's revelations.

In writing of the rise of Saudi Arabia, el Fadl writes, "The Wahhabi rebellions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were very bloody because the Wahhabis indiscriminately slaughtered and terrorized Muslims and non-Muslims alike." This is the manner in which Mohammed unified Arabia under Islam 1300 years ago.

Finally, we read, "In this sense, it is accurate to describe this widespread modern trend as supremacist, for it sees the world from the perspective of stations of merit and extreme polarization."

It is not a modern trend. This is how the Qur'an has taught its readers to see the world for the last thirteen centuries.

The problem with Islam is not defeatism, anti-intellectualism, or a misapplied literalism. The problem with Islam, if you are an unbeliever, is the Qur'an.

Defining terms

I have taken to using a term I've not seen anywhere else, and that is Qur'anic Islam.

By this I am referring to the practice of Islam as commanded in the Qur'an and expressed throughout Islam's history, beginning with its founder.

This is the Islam that commands non-Muslims be converted, subjugated, or killed.

This is the Islam that justifies the slaughtering of innocents.

Incompatible with Democracy? Yes, and there's a reason for it

Consistently brilliant, Victor Davis Hanson writes about why Democracy could work in the Middle East, and why we should support it.

There are two points at which Mr. Hanson seems to be missing the mark. The first is here:

"In the case of the Muslim world, there is nothing inherently incompatible between Islam and democracy. Witness millions in India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey who vote. Such liberal venting may well explain why those who blow up Americans are rarely Indian or Turkish Muslims, but more likely Saudis or Egyptians. The trick is now to show that Arab Muslims can establish democracy, and thus the Palestine and Iraq experiments are critical to the entire region."

It seems to me in those societies named there is insufficient public support for the implementation of Qur'anic Islam (though I do not doubt there are those working within them to move those societies into the "freedom" of Shariah).

The second point is here:

The Arab world so far has missed the bus of history. The success of democratic reform in parts of Africa, Latin America, and Asia is a daily reminder of the decades lost in the Middle East, and how endemic Arab envy, jealousy, and excuses — which so repel or bore the world — can be ameliorated only by a new maturity and responsibility that are the wages of democratic government.

The reason the Arab world has "missed the bus of history" is because of Islam. It commands that non-Muslims be converted, subjugated, or killed.

Qur'anic Islam is inherently incompatible with Liberty.

Read it all here.

Saudis spread hate through U.S. mosques

But it's the religion of peace, and they're our friends, right?

Jihad is here, courtesy of one of our main allies in the Middle East. Read about it.

A site worth a look

Amillennialist Contra Mundum :)

Moral equivalence can kill you

This lack of judgment reminds me of a scene from the movie Independence Day:

"'With all the news from Iraq and Afghanistan and the 'war on terror,' a lot of people are really tuned into the news, and the major news sources have a Western bias,' Brandchannel Editor Robin Rusch said. 'I think people are tuning in to Al-Jazeera and looking at its Web site because it does offer another viewpoint,' Rusch said. 'For the global community, it's one of the few points of access we have to news from the region with a different perspective.'"

If you've seen the movie, you may remember when a crowd gathered atop the First Interstate building in downtown Los Angeles to greet a massive alien ship--just before the aliens opened up their big gun on them.

Al-Jazeera's perspective is different. It is different because Al-Jazeera is Al-Qaeda's media arm. If there is a "Western bias", I suppose it is because we believe that it is wrong to slaughter innocent men, women, and children.

Too many in the West are absolutely unaware of the danger already here (as I lamented in this post).

Apple edges Google as top brand.

Shouldn't 9/11 have been enough?

Can one have Islam without the Qur'an? No. Can one have Islam without Mohammed? Of course not.

As long as even one person believes their god commands them to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them... (Qur'an 9:5)," as long as one person believes the murderous Mohammed was the "perfect man" whose example should be imitated by the faithful, Jihad will not end.

Of course, the reality is much worse. Millions of people actually believe the Qur'an to be the word of their god; Mohammed taught that "war is deceit" and his followers in the West practice this; and many in the West are blinded by this Muslim duplicity and the lie of multiculturalism.

When you have the most powerful man on earth saying that the God of the Bible and the god of Islam are the same, when you have him equating the words of the Qur'an with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, when billions of American dollars are going to an enemy that believes those Americans are devils whose blood should be spilled, what hope is there that America will deal with the real cause of Islamic terrorism before it is too late?

How can one defeat an enemy it does not recognize?

People ignorant of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and Islam's history will believe that Islam is another "one of the world's great religions." With jihadists in America using murder (New Jersey), the Intolerance Card, and the courts (thanks, ACLU) to try to intimidate into silence anyone who dares to tell the truth about Islam, it seems doubtful that our nation will wake up to the very real threat posed by Qur'anic Islam any time soon.

Do we need an even more devastating attack on our nation before we start telling the truth? Shouldn't 9/11 have been enough?

Is the "Greater jihad" really spiritual struggle?

Going a little too far...

Apparently, the president's "tolerance" extends to groups who support Islamic terrorism: Key Bush Aide Praises HAMAS Front

One phrase for posterity

In what was in all other respects an outstanding address, President Bush made the grave error of (again) trying to legitimize Islam by equating the Qur'an with the words of God.

In referring to the giving of the Law to Moses at Mount Sinai and the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the president includes "...the words of the Qur'an."

Of which words was he thinking? "Slay the unbeliever wherever you find him"? Perhaps he had in mind Allah's command to fight the unbelievers until "all religion is for Allah." Was he referring to the command to fight Jews and Christians "until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya"?

Obviously not.

But for what reason would someone so knowledgeable and well-versed in history (the president referenced at least Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Jefferson in his address) make such an obviously misleading statement?

Is President Bush trying to give our Muslim "allies" a means to save face? Is he trying to make American Muslims feel accepted? (Indeed, this latter explanation was my rationalization for why after 9/11 the president referred to Islam as a "religion of peace" and to Allah and Christ as the same God).

To equate the words of a murderous pedophile with the words of God is, three years after 9/11 (by which time someone in the Administration should have read at least some of the Qur'an), inexcusable.

What should have been a speech for the ages will be marred forever by one phrase.

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality

LTC Tim Ryan, Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq writes of the media's one-sided coverage of our efforts in Iraq. Notably, he plainly states the effect of such unbalanced "news":

"Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy."

I've made the same argument since the Democratic leadership crawled out from under their rocks and thought it finally safe enough to try to hurt the president by attacking our military effort.

From one serving on the ground in Iraq, the assertion cannot be easily dismissed, even by those who claim to "support our troops."

This media bias, whether intended to harm our military effort or not, actually harms our military. It aids the enemy. It is treason.

And as noted in "Postmodern War"" (cited below) by Victor Davis Hanson, the resultant demoralization of our forces and the weakening of our will to win here at home is the only hope the enemy has for victory.

Read Lieutenant Colonel Ryan's thoughts here or here.

Win at all costs

Victor Davis Hanson very articulately argues that despite our military and technological superiority, absolute victory is attainable only if we have the will to win at all costs: Postmodern War

The Religion of Peace still at work in America

Three years removed from 9/11, it may be tempting to believe that the horrors of that day were an aberration, but jihad is here, it is coming, and it will not relent.

9/11 was not a fluke.

In just the last few days, jihad again has raised its grotesque head.

In New Jersey, a man and his family were slaughtered like animals, apparently for his criticism of Islam: New York Post Online Edition

And in Texas, a young man was nearly decapitated by his muslim "friend": Saudi pleads guilty to killing Jewish friend

And more evidence for why our borders must be secure: Criminals, jihadists threaten U.S. border

From Islam's beginning until today, because of Allah's commands and its founder's example, Non-muslims have only three choices under Qur'anic Islam: conversion, submission, or death.

An excellent site for staying informed: Jihad Watch. Share it with your family and friends.

Be prepared.

Because Americans are too self-centered to have noticed?

I just heard a teaser for an NBC special to benefit victims of the south Asian tsunami featuring "some of the biggest stars in the world" (or some similar silliness).

While I respect every attempt to help those in need, it is now three weeks after the initial disaster. Millions have been given and pledged by private citizens all across the United States, and our government has generously offered our tax dollars in the form of financial aid, food, supplies, materials, and military support.

With this in mind, what do the celebrities performing (I think I heard the ubiquitous Bono in the ad) think they are doing? Motivating the unwashed masses who, apart from a celebrity on whose every word they hang, would be completely unaware of (and indifferent to) human suffering?

I can't help but wonder about the rationale behind something like this.

A response to the Chairman of the RNC

After receiving an e-mail regarding renewing my support for President Bush, I sent this reply:

Dear Mr. Gillespie,

I have been an ardent supporter of President Bush and his waging of the War Against Islamic Terror. I believe the president is a good man. Even if I wasn't convinced that his opponent in the last election was a liar, a traitor, an appeaser, and a socialist, I still would have supported him.

Now that President Bush has won re-election, there are two major areas where I believe the president's policies are headed in the wrong direction: Illegal Immigration and Domestic Spending.

First, the president must lead the effort to really secure our borders. He must not allow those who (for whatever reason) would violate American law and sovereignty.

Second, though the president has proven he is in most important ways socially-conservative; his fiscal policy is indistinguishable from a Democrat's.

In order to receive any more of my financial support, President Bush must demonstrate the courage and conviction to uphold all of the Constitution.

Regards....

One can hope that if enough of those who supported the president in his last run send responses along this line, change will occur.

Two of America's enemies join forces

In what is a revealing and troubling (but not surprising) development, CAIR, a group with well-documented ties to individuals and groups practicing Qu'ranic Islam, has enlisted the help of the ACLU in attacking and undermining Christian freedom in the United States.

The ACLU has a long history of attacking the religious freedom of the American people and of usurping the will of the people through the use of judicial activism. It has long sought (with a great deal of success) to undermine American Liberty.

CAIR, recognizing the effectiveness of the ACLU, has also chosen to use gross distortions of language and law to intimidate Americans.

Rather than succumb to politically-correct misspeak and be bullied into silence, Americans must continue the persistent and courageous declaration of Truth, for "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

ACLU, CAIR target group of mainly Christian schools

The Incredulity of St. Thomas

by Caravaggio, courtesy Mark Harden

Faith without works is dead

Why are Christians losing America?

It is not enough to "believe" in Jesus.

The Apostle James warns Christians against the false security of thinking that faith apart from works is worth anything at all--"even the demons believe, and shudder."

In other words, faith without works is dead.

Some familiar with Christianity will no doubt object, saying, "We are saved by faith, not by works!" Yes, this is true. But the faith of which James speaks is real faith, the kind of faith that results in obedience to Christ, the kind of faith that results in action.

Jesus said, "If you love Me, obey My commands." He spoke often of the fact that His children will produce the works He intends.

Because it reflects the traditional Apostlic faith, Lutheran theology states it this way: "We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone."

The reason for the first Christmas

Behold! The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world!

by Rubens, courtesy Mark Harden

+ Word of the Day +

"So I will acknowledge in front of my Father in heaven

that person who acknowledges me in front of others.

But I will tell my Father in heaven that I don't know the person

who tells others that he doesn't know me" (Matthew 10:32-33).

UBL trying to intimidate the American people

WorldNetDaily: Bin Laden to states: Don't vote for Bush

What does it say for the Democratic Party that those it honors (Michael Moore) provide propaganda for America's enemies?

Happy Reformation Day!

The real reason to celebrate: today is the anniversary of one of the most important moments in Church history.

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic priest, posted on the church doors at Wittenberg his 95 Theses.

The main thrust of his argument was that God had clearly revealed in His Scriptures that:

-because of our sin, all of us justly deserve His wrath,

-there's nothing we can do about it, but

-because of His great love for us, the Son of God bled and died to take away our sins!

Because of Jesus, we are freely and completely forgiven of all our sins, reconciled to God, and await eternal life with Christ in His kingdom!

What better reason to celebrate?

Mark Steyn on why many support Kerry

Justifications for backing Kerry fall flat

Big Media again trying to help their candidate to the detriment of the truth (and our nation)

Jack Kelly: Explosive charge

"Michael Moore, America's worst enemy and one of the world's most evil men is a big fan of yours."

What does it say about Moore's ideology that a religious tyrant and mass murderer uses his "creative" output to try to influence the American electorate?

What does it say about the Democratic Party that Moore receives a place of honor at its Convention?

It only took about a year after 9-11 for the leadership of the Democratic Party to start putting their own political gain ahead of the security of America.

Providing aid to the enemy in a time of war is treason. Providing significant portions of bin Laden's Election Eve propaganda piece would qualify as providing aid, wouldn't it?

Read about it at the New York Post Online Edition

It's good to hear someone appreciates our military's sacrifices...

WorldNetDaily: Kuwaiti editor: Bush is 'history maker'

A speech for the ages...

WorldNetDaily: Text of Zell Miller's speech

I don't believe any argument against John Kerry could have been delivered more clearly, credibly, or passionately than the one given by Democrat Zell Miller tonight.

With brutal honesty he exposed and condemned the Democratic leadership's eagerness to sacrifice our nation for their own political gain.

[Update October 31, 2004: Given the truth of the charges made by Miller, it shouldn't be surprising that the Democratic leadership and its Media Minions have made every effort to discredit and destroy the Senator. This disgraceful effort demonstrates how effective and truthful his assertions were.

Just a few short years ago, Senator Miller was a darling of the Democratic Party for his support of President Clinton. It seems that hypocrisy is not a vice for which the Democratic leadership feels any shame.]

Dying daily (or living in one's baptism)

WorldNetDaily: The passion of the Christian

This article is several months old, but its message is timeless. Christians are to follow Christ.

Some highlights...

"Of course – and this is something of a divine paradox – as Christians, we know we can't save ourselves, and yet we are most definitely called to obedience. So, let's not slough off our responsibility to "die daily" by comfortably presuming on the unending mercy of God. His mercy is unending, indeed, but also balanced with justice, and these two seemingly contradictory qualities work together mysteriously and wonderfully toward our redemption, but only in the truly sincere human soul that doesn't tempt God."

"The recipient of your patience – say, your spouse or child – experiences that patience as love, just as they experience your impatience as a lack of love."

"No, if God wanted to demonstrate His love for us, and at the same time provide us with the perfect, ultimate example of real love for our fellow man, what could be a more perfect expression of love than the willing suffering and death of His Son – Who while dying asked God to forgive His tormentors? The sheer logic and power of it is transcendent. If you're looking for love in this loveless world, that's it."

+ Word of the Day +

If you love someone, you have to tell the truth (gently).

In making clear that we are to put no one or no thing before Him, Our Lord said,

"The person who loves his father or mother more than me does not deserve to be my disciple. The person who loves a son or daughter more than me does not deserve to be my disciple. Whoever doesn't take up his cross and follow me doesn't deserve to be my disciple. The person who tries to preserve his life will lose it, but the person who loses his life for me will preserve it."

and,

"If you love Me, obey my commands."

Paul warns against compromising with false gods:

"We haven't cut you off. Your own emotions have cut you off from us.

"I'm talking to you as I would talk to children. Treat us the same way we've treated you. Make a place for us in your hearts too.

"Stop forming inappropriate relationships with unbelievers. Can right and wrong be partners? Can light have anything in common with darkness? Can Christ agree with the devil? Can a believer share life with an unbeliever? Can God's temple contain false gods? Clearly, we are the temple of the living God.

"As God said, 'I will live and walk among them. I will be their God, and they will be my people.'

"The Lord says, 'Get away from unbelievers. Separate yourselves from them. Have nothing to do with anything unclean. Then I will welcome you.' The Lord Almighty says, 'I will be your Father, and you will be my sons and daughters'" (2 Corinthians 6).