"Bigotry" workshops for public school teachers promoting ... Islam?

It's not hard to read between the lines. "Bigotry" and "tone of recent debates" are references to the growing fact-based discussion of Islam.

How ironic that these propagandists would use George Washington's Letter to the Hebrew Congregations of Newport to whitewash their mendacity:

-First, it was Washington's Christian faith that informed his affection for his fellow (Jewish) citizens and moved the heirs of Western Civilization from "tolerance" to "Liberty."

-Second, these liars pretend to defend religious freedom by discussing its "limits." They want to move us from "Liberty" back to "tolerance" and eventually to "persecution" and "murder." You know, "Islam."

-Third, there's only one major "religion" on Earth that wants to rape, enslave, and slaughter those who refuse its "invitation" to convert -- Islam -- and that's the one "faith" they're trying to protect from honest examination.

-Fourth, it's not Christians who need an education on tolerance; it's Muslims who need re-education to stop killing Jews (and the rest of us).

Because America "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance," Islam must be exposed, resisted, repelled, and eventually, defeated.

California just keeps on giving:

Facing History and Ourselves, One Nation: Many Faiths TAH Project, San Joaquin COE, CSU San Bernardino-ELC and the California 3Rs Project invite you to participate in Give Bigotry No Sanction – The Meaning of Religious Liberty in America George Washington’s 1790 Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, RI

Join Facing History and Ourselves and the One Nation: Many Faiths TAH project for a look at the letter of George Washington in 1790 to the Hebrew Congregation at the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island. This letter is a landmark in the history of religious freedom in America and part of a founding moment in U.S. history when the country was negotiating how a democracy accommodates the “deepest differences” among its people.

Today this letter can serve as a guide in today’s changing global landscape, where Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, as well as people who belong to no religion, find themselves living alongside neighbors whose beliefs and practices are often quite different than their own. With this new diversity, there is a growing need worldwide to discuss religious freedom—and its limits—in secular, democratic societies.

These are not easy conversations, and the tone of recent debates about religious difference suggests that we need to get better at talking about these issues, or else risk further polarization. Lesson materials and resources are provided for teachers to use Washington’s letters in their classrooms or other discussion forums.

Join us for one of the following 3 programs. There is no fee but registration is required
Select one of the following events and contact people. Email that contact person the date of your workshop, your name, school name, school street address, city, zip code, and phone number.
__________________
November 3, 2012
8:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.
San Joaquin COE – Nelson Education Center
2901 Arch Airport Rd, Stockton CA 95206
To register, contact Veray Wickham vwickham@sjcoe.net 209-468-9021
DEADLINE: October 26, 2012
__________________
December 1, 2012
8:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Best Western Heritage Inn
8179 Spruce Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
To register, contact Margaret Hill mhill@csusb.edu 909-946-9035
DEADLINE: November 26, 2012
_____________________
January 12, 2013
9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Skirball Cultural Center, Los Angeles
To register: http://www2.facinghistory.org/workshops
DEADLINE: January 7, 2013

Here's a link to the source.

Obama bin Lyin': President kept out of decision to eliminate bin Laden because he vetoed three earlier opportunities to do so

President Obama continually hypes UBL's demise, but really, what choice did he have? Who wouldn't have authorized the elimination of the single person most symbolic of 9/11?

It turns out, Obama himself, three times according to this article:

Obama “did not know of the raid in Abbottabad to kill Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011, until after the helicopters with SEAL Team 6 had crossed into Pakistani airspace.”

The source said Obama was notified “at the golf course … which is why he was sitting in the strange sitting position in the picture that documented the White House operations room event.”

The source told Stand Up America that Panetta “was the key player who organized and supported this daring raid.”

“He signed the ‘execute orders’ with only a few people aware: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Adm. Bill Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus.”

The source explained the White House “was closed out of the decision because the president, through Valerie Jarrett, had turned down two or three other earlier proposals.”

Panetta, Vallely’s source reported, “and his covert planning team were extremely frustrated at all the denials, so saw the opportunity slipping away, as implausible as it seems.”

The report said Panetta convinced his other principals to make the decision and received their full-fledged support but the president, according to the official, “remained clueless on the mission.”

“This tremendously serious and sensitive information was relayed by a source who has been very frustrated with the continued dishonesty within the White House,” Vallely reported.

Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, previously has called for “We the People” to stop the nation’s “progressive socialist, treasonous death march.”

He graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961. He served in theaters in Europe and the Pacific Rim and saw two tours of combat duty in Vietnam.

CBS has reported that “Obama’s decision to send operatives after Osama bin Laden” was described by White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan as “one of the most gutsiest calls of any president.”

However, the Mail Online in London reported a book by Richared Miniter documented that three “kill” missions were canceled by Obama in January, February and March of 2011.

The SEAL mission was in May 2011.

Miniter reported it was Jarrett who kept urging Obama to cancel plans to get bin Laden.

Timothy Marr and Joseph M. Hennessey believe that your "misunderstanding" of Islam is the reason (at least in part) for 9/11 and other Muslim atrocities

But what can you expect from someone who regurgitates Edward Said?

At least we have this to show for it. (Who knew that Captayne John Smith -- yes, Pocahontas' John Smith -- fought against jihad?)

Captayne John Smith, defender of the West against Muhammad's hordes.
Because, unlike Disney's fictionalized American Indians,
Muslims don't paint with all the colors of the wind.

Offered in defense of my comments on The Cultural Roots of American Islamicism:

Joseph,

According to the BOOK DESCRIPTION, Marr argues that "Historical, literary, and imagined encounters with Muslim history and practices provided a backdrop where different Americans oriented the direction of their national project, the morality of the social institutions, and the contours of their romantic imaginations. This history sits as an important background to help understand present conflicts between the Muslim world and the United States," as if we are somehow to blame.

Among the EDITORIAL REVIEWS, we find:

-Melani McAlister saying that our "global cultural imaginings" help explain the conflict between Islam and America.

-Iftikhar Malik claiming that "American mis-images of Islam" and their "reverberations even today" help explain the conflict between Islam and America.

-Anouar Majid asserting that "America's conflicted view of Islam" helps explain the conflict between Islam and America.

And MARR HIMSELF acknowledges that teaching for three years in Pakistan "opened my eyes to Islamic cultures and to the kindness of Muslims . . . That extended time . . . helped me begin to understand cultural distortions in the ways that Islam is represented and interpreted in American situations . . . It is my hope that this book will contribute to a fuller analysis of the impasses between Americans and global Muslims . . . I have been sustained . . . by the vision of Bahá'u'lláh [apparently Marr doesn't realize that the Bahá'í are persecuted by devout Muslims] that the earth is one common homeland consisting of a single human family sharing a diverse world culture."

The fundamental impasse between America and Islam is the difference between Heaven and hell. It's the difference between God-given, inalienable rights on the one hand and "kill the pagans wherever you find them" on the other.

Do you understand now that our present conflict with Islam has nothing to do with OUR perception of the "Muslim world"? That's like claiming that OUR "misunderstanding" of Imperial Japan helps explain the "conflict" in the Pacific. Or that the Holocaust was due to the Jews of Europe "misunderstanding" Hitler.

Stop blaming the victim, Joseph.

Islam is, and has always been, a totalitarian, brutal, genocidal "faith" because that is what Muhammad preached and practiced. Neither our perception nor the perceptions of the other non-Muslim civilizations attacked by Islam over the last one and one-half millennia have ANYTHING to do with why they hate us. Rather, it is Muslims' perception of the genocidal pedophile Muhammad as the apostle of a god that is the root cause of the global jihad.

To demonstrate that I offered John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Ibn Kathir, and Muhammad in their own words. But you call that "ignorant."

So, if you like books that get fundamental historical fact completely upside-down, blame victims for the atrocities committed against them, and aid our enemies during a time of war, then please, buy this book.

Unless rioting Muslims are cinephiles enraged at really poor production values, they have no right to be distressed at a video pointing out what their own texts claim regarding Muhammad

Would the distress Nazis might feel at Hitler's being mocked be "entirely understandable"?

In the same way, the discomfort Muslims (claim to) feel over an internet video is neither acceptable nor excusable. By saying that it is, you're not only legitimizing Islam's prohibitions against any criticism of Muhammad, Islam, and Qur'an (even when truthful), but you're betraying those millions of innocent non-Muslims living under the constant threat of Islamic violence and discrimination.

(And that's not far-removed from the Obama administration and its propagandists' absurd claim that the video "ignited" Muslim rage, which is as nonsensical as claiming that reporting about the Holocaust caused the Holocaust.)

Have you seen the video/trailer? Though it is poorly made, its claims regarding the genocidal pedophile Muhammad's atrocities are accurate, as they come straight from Islam's own "sacred" texts.

So, unless rioting Muslims are cinephiles enraged at really poor production values, they have no right to be upset at a video pointing out the words and deeds of Muhammad, whom they otherwise exalt as Allah's "beautiful pattern of conduct" and the "Ideal Man."

Democrats rip away the mask; finally admit their contempt for God, Jews, the unborn, your children, and you

Which makes them a natural fit for Islam (and unfit for citizenship, let alone public office). If you are a decent person and a Democrat, you can no longer be both.

One of the great things about the Drudge Report is that often even a quick glance will provide revealing snapshots of national and global trends. The screen capture below shows all that needs to be said about the malice, greed, mendacity, and perverseness of today's Democratic Party.

This is not the party of even Jimmy Carter, who recently expressed his concern at the Democratic Party's becoming the party of abortion. (Speaking of Mr. Carter, he must delight at the Obama presidency in one respect: He's no longer America's Worst President Ever.)

This is the Democrats' creed, their vision for America:

Hostility toward God (but not Allah, I'll bet).

Typical Liberal Jew-hatred (a perfect fit for Islam).

Using your tax dollars to fund the slaughter of our children (an American holocaust).

Sixteen trillion dollars in debt (but give Obama four more years, and this time, he'll do something about. Honestly, he will. For real. What are you, racist?)

Record food stamp usage (because it's hard to vote on an empty stomach. Just remember where that came from).

There was a time when such positions would incur public wrath. Now it's a national political party. Is that what you want America to be?

As if there was any doubt. At least now there's no more pretending.

When decent Americans are classified as potential terrorists and treated like criminals by their own government, but Muslims are shielded from any real scrutiny (even just basic fact-telling) whatsoever -- despite claiming fealty to a god demanding the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert -- then you know that the enemy is not only within the gates, they're in control.

As destructive as Franklin Roosevelt was to the Constitution and American Liberty, even he would be demonized by today's Democrats as a right-wing, religious extremist. And JFK? Clearly, a Nazi. And don't even think about giving any sort of credence to Colonial proto-terrorists like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, or Madison. As for Lincoln? Reagan? Republicans.

This is what happens when citizens allows the ignorant, perverse, and craven to gain control over government, media, and education. You end up with malignant narcissists on parade and in power, on your dime.

Congrats, tyrants, there's a political party just for you, and now, it's official.

Update 2:03 AM, 9/5/12: According to Drudge, a DNC video declares: "The government is the only thing we all belong to."

Of course. Now we're just one or two steps away from Democrats informing us that we exist at their discretion and for their benefit.

Cake, anyone?

Same-gender "marriage" not about human rights, but about using the coercive power of the state to endorse perversion

In response to this:

If all sin were illegal, we'd all be serving life sentences.

Having said that, this manufactured controversy is not about "human rights," but about forcing society to endorse a perverse abuse of the human body. What society in the history of Man has promoted same-gender depravity as legitimate family structure?

The definition of "marriage" is not determined by majority-vote; if it is, what's to keep "We the People" from mis-defining marriage as "one man, three women," "one mother, one son," "one man, one iPod," or "one man, one [insert farm animal here] (pun definitely not intended)? How will anyone be able to stop NAMBLA or Islam from defiling our children (Allah-sanctioned pedophilia, for the uninformed)?

We are not defining marriage, we are merely describing what already exists -- what God created -- and that is a permanent union of one man and one woman (with the glorious possibility of children).

Even the person of no particular religious or moral conviction has to see that homosexuality taken to its ultimate conclusion leads only to the end of civilization and the extinction of the human race.

And it is obvious that the human body was designed with the systems for a man and a woman to reproduce.

Tolerance is not approval. Endorsing sin is not love.

Why isn't Tom Scheck of Minnesota Public Radio telling the whole story about Keith Ellison, a.k.a. Hakim Muhammad?

Mr. Scheck,

In your article at http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/07/20/politics/ellison-denounces-bachmann-accusations/, you write as though Ellison-Muhammad is an innocent victim with legitimate complaints. Are you intentionally deceiving your readers, or are you really so uninformed?

Why aren't you reporting on Ellison-Muhammad's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/keith-ellison-d-muslim-brotherhood-whitewashes-his-own-links-to-brotherhood-and-hamas-linked-cair.html)?

Why aren't you warning your audience of the Brotherhood's stated goal of bringing down Western Civilization from within (with its non-Muslim citizens' help)? In "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America" (http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20), the MB states that Muslims should view their lives in the West as:

a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes . . . ."

Why aren't you reporting on the multitude of MB "friends" in the U.S., including CAIR, MSA, ISNA, MPAC, et al.? Why aren't you reporting that CAIR is tied to Hamas, a Muslim terrorist group which in its charter confesses its goal to wipe Israel from the Earth? Why are you printing CAIR's "description" of itself as if it were merely a special interest group without pointing out that it is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a major terrorist funding case (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/hamas-linked-cair-is-still-an-unindicted-co-conspirator-so-is-isna.html)?

Please do your duty, Mr. Scheck.

Regards,

Santiago Matamoros

What can you expect from someone who thinks that Muslims have a Constitutional right to his own daughters?

Hello, Tony, and welcome to 2003.
This is the earliest e-mail addressed to a public figure containing the revised signature.

Following is a response to the inveterate liar Anthony Sokolow, who advocates Socialism and Shari'a. In other words, an Obamaphile:

Tony,

How sad. You can't defend your nescient agitating for the bankruptcy of the American Republic, so you resort (again) to absurdity.

You are a liar and a masochist.

I did not select my nom de guerre out of pretention. (How stupid! If I were to do something like that, I'd have to be twelve-years-old and harboring intense feelings of insecurity . . . which goes a long way toward explaining why you thought of that first.) I chose the name to make a point regarding the one and one-half millennia-old existential threat posed by Islam. Unsurprisingly, you don't get it.

And where have I called myself a "scholar"? (Thanks for the compliment, by the way.) All one needs to understand Islam's texts, tenets, and timeline is the ability to read, some free time, and a little intellectual honesty. You have the time to participate in these e-mail exchanges (I'd use "debates," but that implies at least two sides contending more-or-less equally), so you do have some free time on your hands, and . . . .

. . . Well, I guess one out of three isn't too bad. (If this were Major League Baseball, you'd be an All-Star.)

With regard to the Henry quote, shall I remind you of how I disgrace you publicly every time you bring it up? You will recall that I demonstrated conclusively that you were several years late in pointing out its origin and that the only reason it showed up in its older form is because of a quirk in Hotmail.

Is anyone really surprised that you can't be honest? After all, you defend on Constitutional grounds the right of Muslims to exercise the freedom in their religion to behead you and rape and enslave your wife and two daughters.

You really ought to spend less time on the computer. After all, you've got bigger things to worry about. Like how to explain to your daughters your giving them up as sex slaves to the Ikhwan.

A.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." -attributed commonly to, but inspired by, Patrick Henry

"I know no Savior apart from the One born by the Virgin, died on the cross, and given out at the altar." -Martin Luther

Treacherous Wikipedia

Wikipedia's editors play Judas to the truth.

Everyone has biases, but as Wikipedia's editors prove, not everyone can deal with the facts honestly.

Absurd ad hominems, specious arguments, over-generalizations, diversion, condescension. So much for intellectual integrity at Wikipedia.

A few notes pointing out Wikipedia's fundamental dishonesty from here:

The fact that the Lutheran Study Bible contains devotional content does not mean that its theological, historical, or textual scholarship is in any way questionable. That's poor logic.

Also, the text notes and essays contained in the LSB are written and/or compiled by professionals with earned Master's degrees and doctorates. Dismissing highly-educated Lutheran theologians and editors because they're Lutheran is fundamentally dishonest.

And the Evangelist made no "erroneous attribution," which is shown clearly by the material that was deleted.

Finally, Augustine and Luther are quoted/noted to imply error; their own words and heirs ought to be able to add to the discussion. That they're not indicates strongly a profound bias.

No wonder Wikipedia has the reputation it does.

Infrastructure does not create Prosperity, Liberty does

Offered in response to Anthony Sokolow's defense of Obama's deception on "infrastructure":

Infrastructure -- Government spending -- does not create Prosperity, Liberty does.

You write as if Government is a god, creating ex nihilo. But it doesn't. All that Government "gives" – including infrastructure – is paid for by its citizens through either taxes, debt, or inflation.

Every dollar spent by a politician – which politician knows better than you what to do with your own wealth, Tony? – is a dollar that the one who earned it no longer has to use for his own purposes.

Having a political "elite" decide how everyone else should live is fine as long as you're part of that elite, but it's not Liberty.

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's fundamental dishonesty regarding "infrastructure" (h/t Tom):

Spoken by a man who never created or ran so much as a candy store.

And it's completely a straw man argument — as if conservatives and Republicans are arguing to disband the fire department and the police department so we can all do it individually on our own. The idea that infrastructure is necessary and good is as old as the republic. It's older than that. The Romans had the Via Appia and that wasn't exactly a new idea. And they had the sewers as well.

The question is: What do you do with the money once you build the infrastructure? You heard Obama talking about the moon shot. … in that speech. He went through a list of the great achievements that the government has done. The moon shot. Well, Obama's the guy who shut down the moon program — manned space program so that today we have to outsource our access into space. For any American astronaut who wants to go to the space station we have to pay the Russians $50 million a shot.

He spoke about the invention of the Internet, which he neglected to say was the work of Al Gore. In fact, it wasn't the government that invented it, in general, it was the Defense Department, a part of the government. And what has Obama done as he sprinkled billions of dollars on all the other departments in government? He shrunk the Defense Department and it's now looking at draconian cuts.

This is a man that spent $1 trillion [stimulus] and left not a residue. He could have, for example, done something about the electric grid. He did nothing on that. Instead he sprinkled the money on cronies, pie in the sky ideological fetishes, like solar panels and electric cars…. Money wasted, it's water on the sand. He did not leave behind residue on all that, and yet he speaks of infrastructure.

All of us want infrastructure — but real infrastructure. And leave the rest of life to the private individual and the entrepreneur.

To liberals, "freedom" and "justice" are merely buzzwords useful only for buying votes from the greedy and stealing them from the gullible

You know, if stimuli are so good for terrorist states, corporations, public employee unions, and other campaign contributors, why don't leftists just give every American citizen – and illegals, too, why discriminate? – a billion dollars?

No leftist will answer that, since then they'd have to address why politicians, corporations, thieves, the lazy, and terrorists are more deserving of American dollars than those who actually earn them.

Liberals don't believe in freedom or justice. To them, those are merely buzzwords useful only for buying votes from the greedy and stealing them from the gullible.

Romney prescribing the same socialized arsenic as has President Kevorkian, only in smaller, state-sized doses

In reply to Anthony Sokolow's defense of Obama's mendacity on the proper attitude of government toward its citizens:

Tony,

Obama's performing some more sleight-of-tongue, making the absurd logical leap from the legitimate functions of government to justifying Leviathan and the final undoing of American Liberty. He's running a bait-and-switch on the American people, implying that what he's trying to do is consistent with what Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington did, people whom he defines as "right-wing extremists" and "potential terrorists."

If you refuse to vote for Romney on the basis of his distance from "everyday Americans" (whatever those are, for income should not disqualify one from holding public office, right?) and his secrecy (alleged by the Left; how ironic!), then you must despise Obama (not to mention many other leftists), who refuses not only to reveal anything meaningful about his own past (forget tax returns; how 'bout a birth certificate?) but to deal plainly with his intentions for the Republic's future.

Seriously, making up girlfriends? I'm sure that even if you did that, Tony, it was only to save face in front of your friends and not to create an electable façade, a mask behind which you could work to undermine the Republic.

You know, anyone reading your eager swallowing whole of whatever propaganda Obama and his media whores put out might conclude that you're incapable of intellectual probity; factual accuracy; or critical thinking.

And that's fine. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And if you chose to have an opinion that is not an informed one, well then you do yourself a disservice by holding it and everyone else a disservice by publishing it.*

A.

P.S.: None of the above is an endorsement of Romney, since he's proven his willingness to say and do whatever he thinks is necessary to win elections, going so far as to prescribe the same socialized arsenic as has President Kevorkian, only in smaller, state-sized doses. Our nation's only hope is that Romney wins and is forced by the American people to keep his promises to reverse the disastrous effects of Obama's only term.

*Tony is a master of Unintentional Irony, the humorous but tragic propensity for tyrants to accuse others of their own perverseness. You'll find the most severe cases in hardcore Leftists and Muslims, as those who hate God the most are least able to recognize truth and most prone to proving His wisdom
. . . and their own folly.

If St. Augustine is going to be used carelessly (or dishonestly) to impugn the integrity of Scripture, then he should be allowed to speak fully

In exploring the possible use of "Iscariot" as an epithet for Judas (the name can mean "man from Kerioth," like Leonardo "da Vinci"), I stumbled upon a discussion of the two apparently-conflicting accounts of Judas' death recorded in the New Testament. But it's not whether he died from hanging or his body fell and burst that is at issue (the Scriptures state that Judas hanged himself and that his body fell and burst; the two are not incompatible)' it's whether or not Matthew erred in citing Jeremiah when quoting Zechariah.

In an article on Judas Iscariot, a contributor notes that no less than Saints Augustine, Jerome, and Luther consider Matthew's citation an "error." Here's the passage in question:

Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood."

They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me" (Matthew 27:3-10).

The best-informed and most rational explanation for this apparent contradiction is offered by the Lutheran Study Bible in a text note on Matthew 27, verses 9-10 (p. 1645) and the subsequent essay on the reliability of Scripture, "God's Reliable Word" (p. 1646). The text note states that the passage:

"Quotes Zechariah 11:12-13, but adds phrases from Jeremiah 19:11 (a potter's field is used for burial) and an allusion to Jeremiah 32:6-11 (Jeremiah's purchase of land)."

So, did the Evangelist err (at least partially)? Was St. Matthew careless? The essay explains further that (emphases mine):

"critics overlook a number of points on this issue. First, at a time when manuscripts were very rare and expensive, readers resorted to a variety of ways for studying and remembering key passages. Scribes often prepared collections of texts on a topic as a means for exploring and learning the teachings of Scripture. In The Harmony of All Sacred Scripture, Michael Walther provided numerous examples of this practice and the writers' habit of merging quotations (Harmonia Totius S. Scripturae [Strasbourg: Eberhard Zetzner, 1626], 416). Below is Walther's list with some additions:

Matthew 21:5 contains Isaiah 62:11, Zechariah 9:9

Matthew 21:13 contains Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 7:11

Mark 1:2-3 contains Malachi 3:1, Isaiah 40:3

Acts 1:20 contains Psalm 69:25, 109:8

Romans 3:10-18 contains Psalms 14:1-3, 53:1-3, 5:9, 140:3; Proverbs 1:16; Isaiah 59:7-8; Psalm 36:1

1 Peter 2:7 contains Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 8:14

The example from Mark 1:2-3 is especially helpful for understanding Matthew 27:9-10. Mark ascribes his quote to Isaiah, but the full quote is actually a mixture of Malachi and Isaiah -- and Malachi gets quoted first. When we carefully consider Matthew 27:9-10, we see that the first words of the text come from Zechariah 11:13. But there is also wording from Jeremiah 32:6-9. It appears that both Matthew and Mark named their lists by the larger prophetic books cited in the lists. (Zechariah and Malachi were perhaps less likely to suggest themselves for the titling, since they stood in the scroll of the minor prophets.)

And if St. Augustine is going to be used carelessly (or dishonestly) to impugn the integrity of Scripture, then he should be allowed to speak fully:

"If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood . . . For the utterances of Scripture, harmonious as if from the mouth of one man, commend themselves to the belief of the most accurate and clear-sighted piety, and demand for their discovery and confirmation the calmest intelligence and the most ingenious research . . . So that, if any one is perplexed by the apparent contradiction, the only conclusion is that he does not understand" (NPNF 1 4:180).

So, it turns out St. Augustine was right after all. Not about the Evangelist erring, but about our lack of understanding and our need for "the calmest intelligence and the most ingenious research" in our study of Scripture.

Muslims stone Christians . . . in Dearborn

And what do those sworn to protect our God-given, unalienable rights do? Not only do they allow Muslims to commit attempted murder against those exercising their freedom of speech, but they also harass, threaten, and act as accessories to the violation of those victims' rights. All this because, of course, men standing with signs are a "danger to public safety," but Muslims literally stoning (and bottling, concreting, milk-cartoning, and urining) peaceful Christians is "understandable" and "expected."

The consequences of this official cowardice are dire. One of the Christians heard on camera near the end of the video has it right: The authorities are rewarding Muslim rage and violence and contempt for American law.

It's too bad the victims in this case weren't homosexuals protesting Islamic intolerance of their behavioral choices or blacks denouncing the racism inherent to Islam; then the police might have done their job. Or, can you imagine what would have happened if the identities of the two groups in this case were reversed, if this had been a mob of Christians hurling projectiles and expletives at Muslims merely holding signs denying the divinity of Christ or somesuch?

Any bets on when Holder and his Department of Inaction and Enabling are going to ensure that the law is upheld? President Obama? No, you're right; they're too busy giving citizenship and automatic weapons to illegal aliens and Mexican drug gangs. At least they're "trying real hard."

If left unchecked, it's no secret how Islamic intimidation and violence will turn out here, because we've seen it over and over again, year after year, in nation after nation. All you have to do is look at any Islamic -- and Islamizing -- state to see what happens to its non-Muslims when they allow Muslims to gain any sort of significant presence.

Once a Muslim population hits critical mass, it explodes.*

This is Islam in America, and it's only going to get worse. Allah must be proud:

*What pun?

For Obama, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is today, while Romney endorses the liberal half of the Supreme Court as the final word on all things Constitutional

Whether it's King George or King Barry, "tyranny" by any other name would smell as rank.*

Officials have already drafted 13,000 pages of new regulations for the new ObamaTax law.

King Barry will be hiring thousands of new tax people to enforce "the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years." And you won't get your refund until you provide proof of insurance.

It's bad enough that when you're pulled over you have to show proof of auto insurance. That's the government punishing you for driving. This is being pulled over for proof of health insurance. That's government punishing you for living.

If the Obamacare "tax" is really a penalty (which it is), then the law is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to force free people to buy a particular product. Misdefining "penalty" as "tax" is how Chief Justice Roberts justified siding with the deranged half of the Court in upholding Obamacare, and its how Obama's liars lawyers argued it before the Court, all of which is an admission not only that Obama knows that the law is unconstitutional, but that he thinks you're stupid.

Why is Obama changing definitions again? Because he knows that the American people are sick of taxes, and we will not tolerate 13,000 pages of new taxation. If we opposed socialized medicine when it carried with it a "penalty," how much more despised will it be now that the "penalty" is a massive tax increase?

And there is Romney's problem: He's right to call it a "penalty" (liberals, like all tyrants, love to punish those who disobey them) and not a "tax," but his handlers want him to call it a "tax" because they think that will make it easier to defeat Obama. They think that We the People are incapable of understanding Obama's shell game. But if it wasn't obvious before, it should be clear now that Obama's the operator, the politicians, media, and Supreme Court justices are the lookouts, muscle, and shills, and the American people are the mark.

Romney would be best off calling the penalty what it is and not endorsing the liberal half of the Supreme Court as the "final word" on all matters constitutional. We the People, judging in accord with our nation's founding principles as stated in our Declaration of Independence and enumerated in our Constitution, are the final word. Mitt should explain Obama and his fellow Socialists' willful, condescending deception and vow to repeal it.

How will the Republic survive when its only alternative to King George is afraid to state plainly that the emperor is wearing Marxist underwear?

Obama silent while spokesman denies mandate is a tax:

Anchor Soledad O’Brien asked LaBolt: “His spokesman…said it’s a penalty. The Supreme Court has said it’s a tax. What does he believe?”

“That it’s a penalty,” LaBolt answered.  “You saw our arguments before the Supreme Court…”

“So then he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision that says it’s now a tax?” O’Brien asked.

“That’s right,” said LaBolt.  “He said that it’s a penalty.  You saw our arguments before the Court.”

At that point, O’Brien pointed out that the Obama administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, argued before the Court that if the justices chose not to find the mandate constitutional under the Commerce Clause, they could still uphold it because it is a tax, and Congress has broad power to levy taxes.

*Apologies to Messrs. Ramirez and Shakespeare

Even Roberts's apologists admit his dishonesty

See, John, it all depends on what the meaning of "tax" is. If anyone asks, use this . . . .

The Marxist-in-Chief and his persons of hench repeatedly denied that the mandate was a tax. Until it was.

Charles Krauthammer, who, along with Hugh Hewitt, is giving credit to the Chief Justice for being a subtle genius, had to admit that Roberts used semantic sleight-of-hand to join the treasonous Left side of the bench in ruling in favor of Obamacare, noting that he was:

"finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law . . . ."

We know what Roberts did, but we don't know why. Perhaps Krauthammer and Hewitt's speculation is correct, but they're not mind-readers, and Roberts isn't talking.

This is a better assessment of the issues at stake:

“It was disturbing that we made the case to Justice Kennedy, who embraced the concept of limited government, only to have it overshadowed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who envisioned the entire issue simply of one over the ability to tax,” Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas . . . .

What's to stop Congress from calling everything it wants a "tax"? Our malfeasant Representatives and Senators have the power to tax, but they don't have the ability to mandate, to force free citizens into commerce. Neither does Congress' power to tax include the power to tax inactivity.

This "law" and the court decision upholding it is Leviathan. It's big government. It's socialized medicine. Therefore un-Constitutional in every sense of the word.

Lou Costello (1906-1959)

A great man. It's rumored he had a sense of humor, too.

Just give me a sign ... Just any kind of sign. I'll keep on the lookout for it. Meanwhile, I'll just put you in the closet.

Sometimes, we choose to ignore the obvious.

It's easy to point out the faults in others, but it's not always easy to be honest about our own.

Lately, I've noticed something unusual. Now, God speaks to all men through His Word, so I don't believe (as some Christians like to claim) that "God is talking to me," but He does work through everything for the good of those who love Him, and so recent, odd circumstances have not gone unnoticed but have impressed upon me important truths I've chosen to ignore.

First, Courageous. Every film I watch, song I listen to, book I read, speech I hear, or game I play becomes a theological exercise (the Apostle John tells us by the Holy Spirit to test everything), but this is a special case because Courageous is an explicitly-religious film. What a wasted opportunity to share God's mercy with those who are hurting and lost (whether Christian or not)!

A father suffers the tragic loss of his beautiful, little daughter, and what is his -- and the filmmakers' -- answer? The (little "e") evangelical's answer to everything theological:

"Try HARDER."

The film's website admits this when it talks about its characters who "miss the mark." Of course, they "miss the mark." We all miss the mark. We are all miserable sinners desperately in need of God's mercy, which He lavishes on all in Christ!

(In other words, our trying does not "draw us closer to God," but God comes to us, giving the forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and salvation to all who trust in Christ.)

I have no doubt that those behind the film are sincere, "good" Christians. And they probably intend the film as encouragement to fathers, but it's not Gospel. It doesn't save souls. It doesn't comfort broken hearts. And it confuses Man's effort for God's mercy, which is hell for those who know they aren't good enough but don't know that Christ has already taken away their sins.

Still, some good stuff about fulfilling your God-given responsibilities as a father and overall, an interesting, emotionally-powerful movie (at least until the last scene, which replaces the work of the Holy Spirit with a pep rally).

Second, for the first time in my life, I'm doing it for Tony. And for Marcus.

And today, this.

One day at a time.

Hope for a change? We'll see, since it's a different dose of the same socialized medicine

Does anyone really believe that the guy who did "for" Massachusetts what Obama's done to the Republic will deliver on this video's implied promise?

What choice do we have? When the patient is hemorrhaging to death, you've got to stop the bleeding. Our chance to do so is this November. Vote out B. Hussein Kevorkian. And if Romney lacks the sense and courage to restore the Rule of Law, vote him out, too, and every other politician who promises to "take care of" the American people, when what they're really doing is coaxing voters into selling their God-given liberties for a bowl of soup.

Politicians' positions exist to protect our rights, we do not exist to provide them position.

Roberts' treasonous plunge left a nail in someone's coffin

Thomas Jefferson warned, "Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Well, we've given our political elites enough chain to hang someone.

Either the Republic will go the way of Greece, or this unconscionable, unconstitutional power-grab by our elected tyrants will motivate citizens to reclaim their Constitutional rights and beat back Cerberus into its proper, specified limits.

Liebau notes Obama's subversive mendacity here:

1. Obama ran against Hillary Clinton saying that he would not support an individual mandate.

2. After he won, he said he would support an individual mandate -- but it wasn't a tax.

3. In the Supreme Court, to make his legislation constitutional, he instructed his Solicitor General to argue that it was a tax, after all -- thereby violating his pledge against a middle class tax increase.

The slaughter of innocents: Our own modern, maternal holocaust

Pharaoh, Molech, Herod, America. It may have been possible to self-deceive when the facts of abortion were hidden, but they're secret no longer.

Tens of millions of babies butchered by their own mothers in the name of convenience, commerce, and the Constitution. This is one small victory for those telling the truth about our own modern, maternal holocaust.

Judge protects videos exposing ‘savage’ abortions:

the screen cuts to a video clip in which it appears that a fetal hand reaches out of the birth canal and gloved fingers – ostensibly those of a doctor – expose more of the hand before using forceps to rip off the appendage.

Obama humiliates Marines as degenerates defile Reagan

Just another fabulous moment in Obama's heartfelt, lifelong middle-fingered "salute" to the American people.

The First Homosexual President never misses an opportunity to violate America's honor. This time, he brought a few of his sexually-deviant supporters into the White House to insult Reagan, with the Marine Corps Band providing the soundtrack to their insolence.

Notice Hart's admission that AIDS was primarily a homosexual affliction (or his own cold indifference toward Straight-Americans).

From here:

This wasn’t Segal’s first trip to the White House, having twice visited during Bill Clinton’s gay-friendly tenure. “One of the things on my bucket list was to dance with my boyfriend at the White House,” remarks Segal.”And this is the second time I got to do it. We come up to the main foyer, and what do they play? Barbra Streisand. ‘The Way We Were.’ And I thought, Are they going to play nothing but Barbra, Bette and Lady Gaga? I was waiting for ‘Over the Rainbow.’ I mean, this is the Marine band!”

Clearly, Segal, a dedicated activist but also an astute political hobnobber, wants to be invited back. But his counterparts couldn’t seem to care less. Hart posted his photo on Facebook with the caption, “F[sic] Reagan.” Strauss simply posted hers without commentary. After all, the murderous facial expression and double-barreled bird-flipping seem to speak for themselves. Comments ranged from “you forgot to add with a chainsaw” on Hart’s “F[sic] Reagan” note, to my personal favorite, “star wars … up yours,” on Strauss’s. ...

“Yeah, f[sic] Reagan,” reiterates Hart one week after the reception. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so."

Someone whose lifestyle and agitation promote depravity and death calling someone who promoted Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness a "murderous fool"?

Now, that's ironic.

And that's all you need to know about the suicidal Left

Another reply to those delighting in the undermining of Western Civilization without realizing that when the American system of government is replaced finally with some sort of faux-secular or pseudo-religious ideology -- Communism, Socialism, Islam, or some other fascism, it doesn't really matter -- their rights will die, too:

Speaking of meds, if the anonymous coward Brainwashed or any of his multiple personalities offer something substantive, I'll respond as time allows. For now, a few points:

1) Unwilling or unable to address my arguments on the facts, and lacking the courage to admit the implications of his irrational self-loathing, Brainwashed turns to absurd ad hominem and name-calling, the (second-to-) last resort of tyrants.

2) For the record, Saudi ownership of a significant portion of Fox is not news to me (punny, but a baseless lie; Brainwashed must be desperate); jihad's agents have embedded themselves throughout all levels of American government, academia, and media. (See the bald-faced, outright lies at the California Science Center in Los Angeles and Obama's hosting the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated purpose is to bring down Western Civilization from within, for examples.)

If our brave friend had been paying attention at all, he would have known that many on the so-called Right are bought-and-sold to Islam (the natural convergence between the Left and Islam renders discussion of their ties superfluous):

-New Jersey governor Chris Christie appointed to public office a jihadist lawyer and mocked those expressing reservations about shari'a;

-Texas governor Rick Perry is in deep with a leading proponent of shari'a, having worked with him to develop Islamic propaganda for Texas schools;

-Texas representative Ron Paul thinks that if we leave Islam alone, it'll leave us alone. That flies in the face of nearly one-and-one-half millennia of the rape, slavery, and slaughter of non-Muslims in Allah's name around the world and our own experience:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"'It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.'"

(Jefferson reported this revelation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who reported it to Congress. America's oldest military monument is dedicated to our first effort against Islamic jihad.)

-apparent Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has spoken publicly about there being nothing inherent to Islam that inspires violence. (Though I have no reason to believe that he's a shill for shari'a, the one person most responsible for our national defense ought to know and speak the truth about the existential threat facing Western Civilization.)

-Grover Norquist, a darling of the Right, belongs to Islam heart-and-soul and has made discussion of our mortal foe verboten (see recent CPACs for examples).

In other words, the Enemy Within is found on both sides of the political divide.

3) How is it possible to "demonize" "Islamists," again? (Would Brainwashed have crowed about "the Nazis you demonize"?)

Muhammad sacralized genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, theft, extortion, polygyny, wife-beating, religious and gender apartheid, sedition, treason, and blasphemy, claiming that, "Allah made me do it, and you will too ... or else!"

If claiming that the God of the Bible chose Muhammad to make "holy" the violation of all Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and Christ's Bride, the Church isn't "demonic," then nothing is.

4) I defend our God-given, unalienable rights, and I oppose anti-Semitism, genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery on theological grounds, yet our felicitous scholar and pharmacist Brainwashed claims that I should "stick to topics [I] actually know something about."

If there had been any doubt, that tells us all we need to know about Brainwashed.

And it should tell Brainwashed something about himself.

Another domestic skirmish in defense of the West

So, have you heard the one about two guys go to a football 'blog and a political debate breaks out?

No, it's not funny (even so, it's more humorous than John Malkovich's Siri commercial), but neither is the nescient venom with which the suicidal Left attacks anyone who believes in Man's God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

From here:

@Brainwashed, Facts are facts, regardless of "belief system." Since I write in defense of every person's God-given, unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, and -- by your own admission -- you don't share my belief in those, then you are, by definition, "on the other side." Thanks for admitting that.

Now, since you're trying to impugn my character and judgment, let's consider my latest "rant": I noted that someone writing for the Miami Herald misrepresented the status of a bill intended to defend the citizens of Florida against shari'a.

Since that is a statement of fact, then you must support either "news organizations" lying to the public, or the implementation of shari'a, or both. Which is it? Whatever the case, you would clearly be "on the other side." (That's not a "tactic," that's called "logic.")

(To be clear, Brainwashed, I'm not defending Fox. But if I were, I'd have to thank you for admitting that stating facts is one of Fox's "tactics.")

I'd prefer we were on the same side in defense of Liberty.

An obvious case of presidential projection

Look out! Here comes some Hope and Change.

As the linked article points out, allowing massive illegal immigration takes jobs from less-skilled Americans in need of work. That's neither just nor wise as a matter of principle, but it's especially perverse during the "Greatest Economic Crisis Since the Great Depression."

According to The Daily Caller, in ignoring questions about his amnesty-by-executive-fiat, "Obama depicted the immigrants as Americans except for their legal status."

Who can blame him? That's how he got his current job.

Congratulations, Keith Olbermann! Osama hearts you

If firing Keith Olbermann displeases deranged, heartless murderers who worship a god which calls raping prepubescent nine-year-olds "beautiful," then shouldn't everyone be firing Keith Olbermann?

What's that word for giving one's enemies "Aid and Comfort," again?

Don't worry, Keith. You're in good company.

Possible captions:
A trusted resource to genocidal pedophiles everywhere.
Loved by the Worst Person in the World.
Gadahn hates Fox. bin Laden hates Fox. Why doesn't Olbermann like Fox?
How long until we find documents revealing that Adolf Hitler had a man-crush on Anderson Cooper?
Keith Olbermann, poster boy for the natural nexus between jihadists and their Useful Idiot leftists.

From the "Hello, and welcome to last decade" file:

Osama bin Laden pondered the merits of US television news channels as he considered how to extract the best propaganda benefit from the tenth anniversary of 9/11 last year, and concluded that CBS was "close to being unbiased". But an American-born media adviser for al-Qaeda warned Bin Laden to beware of the broadcasters' "cunning methods" as he described Fox News as a channel in the "abyss" that should "die in anger", CNN as too close to the US government and MSNBC as questionable after it fired one of its most prominent presenters, Keith Olbermann.

And that tells you all you need to know about the leftists in media.

The Miami Herald lies to protect shari'a from Florida's citizens

And that's not "news," is it?

The Herald claimed that a bill forbidding the use of foreign law in Florida courts was dead when it wasn't.

A few thoughts from here:

Why would anyone resist shari'a? It's firmly grounded in equality for all, regardless of creed or gender.

Isn't it?

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

And in response to a lying Muslima named "Anisah":

Your mendacity is embarrassingly-transparent.

The Ten Commandments -- along with the rest of the Bible -- are the foundation of Western Civilization, both of which your coreligionists have worked long to destroy.

Instead of demonizing Americans for wanting to defend their YHWH-given rights, you ought to be demonstrating from Qur'an, ahadith, and sira how shari'a is murderously-opposed to Western ideals of morality, Liberty, and equality.

Stop trying to divert attention from the illiterate and demoniacal ravings of an anti-Semitic, seventh-century, genocidal pedophile.

ABC News proves Newt's point about media bias

Of all the many photos they could have chosen to represent the candidates in their banner, look at the expressions ABC selected:

Which person should be our next president? The cheerful guy on the left or the one who has an actual chance at winning? I wonder what ABC thinks?

Don't count on A Biased Corporation -- or any of their co-ideologues -- to tell you the truth.

Ron Paul is not the answer; he thinks the Barbary Wars were George W. Bush's fault

America's oldest military monument, carved of marble from a quarry used by Michelangelo.
Dedicated to those who perished in our Republic's first War of Self-Defense Against Allah, the First Barbary War.

Interesting images on the monument dedicated to defending America against jihad.
Are those Buddhists? After all, why would Religionists of Peace appear on an American war memorial?

In response to some comments on an article regarding Obama's trampling of the Constitution:

I've always admired Ron Paul for his defense of the Constitution.

However, I cannot support him as Commander-in-Chief, since he's stated his belief that if we leave Islam alone, it will leave us alone.

Nothing is further from the truth. Islam exploded out of Arabia nearly one and one-half millennia ago and has since waged war against the non-Muslim world on the basis of universal, open-ended commands like "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Paul's position on jihad is essentially the Left's: When Muslims attack us, it's our fault.

If you really believe that, then how do explain the Barbary pirates attacking American shipping just after the Revolution? (George W. Bush wouldn't be born for another two centuries!) You historians will recall what Adams and Jefferson discovered when they asked our Muslim antagonists why they were attacking us, since we had done nothing to them:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"'It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once'" ("First Barbary War," Wikipedia; Jefferson reported this revelation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who reported it to Congress. America's oldest military monument is dedicated to our first effort against Islamic jihad).

Obama says, "Respect Islam." Paul says, "It's our fault." Romney says, "There's nothing inherently violent about Islam." That's utter nescience (or worse, treason).

We need to fill the Oval Office -- and the Congress! -- with citizens who understand not only that government exists to protect our rights (and not that we live as a resource for the State to exploit), but that while there may be moderate Muslims (research "taqiyya"), Islam itself is not "moderate."

Yahoo promotes those who would deny religious liberty to Christians (and other theists), but denies access to those pointing out the absurdity -- and intolerance -- of their position

Those enjoying the benefits of the freedom founded on Christ's teachings would deny that liberty to those who follow Christ. Shameful hypocrisy.

The article in question was approved by Yahoo's editors, but some comments critical of their intolerance have disappeared. My response to the nonsense hosted here:

To declare oneself an "atheist" is to declare a belief regarding deity. So, to be consistent, the author must advocate that only agnostics be allowed in government. They're the only ones not asserting a position on god(s).

Besides the obvious self-disqualification of his "argument," this atheist would protect religious liberty by denying it to Christians and other theists, the overwhelming majority of humanity. Brilliant.

It was Christians who founded a "nation conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Who professed the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

(What can you expect from someone who considers both the Skeptics Annotated Bible a reliable source of information and the slaughter of the most innocent and helpless among us something worth defending?)

Godless ideologies (Nazism, Communism) resulted in the extermination of tens of millions of innocents in the last century. On the other hand, it is the Bible's teachings that have resulted in the equality, liberty, and prosperity of Western Civilization.

The ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are the direct result of the Christian worldview of their creators. Even those Founders who were not some sort of traditional Christian (nearly all were) were shaped in their thinking by the Christianity which permeated their civilization. Recall Thomas Jefferson, cited often in arguments against Christianity and religion in public life, who called Christ's teachings the most sublime in human history and most freeing for Science, Liberty, and the human mind.

As for violence in the Bible, (besides accounts of human evil) none was committed in service to religious intolerance. Capital punishment under the Mosaic Law was for the people of Israel only, a contract into which they entered voluntarily. Divine judgment against Egypt was carried out by God, not Man. Judgment against Canaan was for unspeakable evil (child sacrifice in devotion to Molech, for example; it is worth noting that Israel itself later suffered the same fate for the same sins). Nowhere do you find commands to war against unbelievers to make the world Hebrew.

Defaming Christ has to be the most vile and ridiculous element of this slander. The Son of God committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies and going so far as to not only pray for His murderers, but to die for the sins of all (even those who hate Him). Jesus taught a separation between the civil and the religious ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's"), the equality of all ("Treat others as you want to be treated"), and the value of all ("What you do to the least of these, you do to Me.").

Perhaps it is the suicidal ignorance of the Christ-hating left who, in their zeal to destroy Christians and Christianity, will ally themselves with genocidal, totalitarian pedophiles, but there is one major "religion" which commands the enslavement and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. That's the only belief system which has -- for fourteen hundred years -- waged offensive warfare against "unbelievers." That's Islam.

No, Andrew Riggio's confused. His false moral equivalence between Christianity/Judaism and Islam is absurd and despicable. Don't throw Muhammad's dirty bath water on the Baby.

Verbum Domini 1.5: What is the true God like?

THE BIBLE SHOWS US GOD'S NATURE

For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed (Malachi 3:6).

God is unchanging; eternal.

But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

God is omnipotent (all-powerful).

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17).

for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything (1 John 3:20).

God is omniscient (all-knowing).

"Am I a God at hand, declares the LORD, and not a God far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD (Jeremiah 23:23-24).

God is omnipresent (present everywhere).

Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy (Leviticus 19:2).

God is holy.

The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness . . . (Exodus 34:6).

God is merciful, gracious, slow to anger (patient), always loving, and always faithful.

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love (1 John 4:8).

God is love ("loving").

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

God is faithful, just, and forgiving.

DOES GOD WANT TO SAVE ALL OR ONLY SOME?

who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

God wants ALL people to be saved.

ONE GOD, OR THREE?

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one (Deuteronomy 6:4).

The word translated as "God" here is "Elohiym"; literally "gods." The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge states regarding this verse:

Simeon ben Joachi says: "Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim. There are three degrees, and each degree is by itself alone, and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other."

This parallels part of the explanation of the Trinity in the Athanasian Creed:

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance . . . .

"Elohiym" is found also at the Creation:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" (Genesis 1:26).

(Some try to argue that "elohiym" used here is the royal "We" or that God is speaking to the angels. The latter doesn't fit at all, since God and the angels would be creating Man in their image and likeness.)

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20).

(New Advent notes regarding this passage:

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.)

Here Christ names the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Baptism.

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, Thus you shall bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them, The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace (Numbers 6:22-26).

And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory" (Isaiah 6:3)!

Just as with "elohiym," we see again the use of three in YHWH's blessing His people and in describing His nature.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Here the Apostle Paul names the Trinity in his benediction.

And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16-17).

In Christ's baptism, we see all three Persons of the Trinity present.

REVIEW
YHWH reveals Himself as one God, three Persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. All three are called "God," all three do the acts of God, and the characteristics of God apply to each equally.

Christians use the word "triune" to describe God: "Tri" means "three," "une" means "one." "Trinity" is the "Three-One."

The Church has summarized its understanding of YHWH in three major creeds, the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian. Here is the Athanasian Creed, from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library:

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic[*] faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

*"catholic" means "universal"

Now it's official: Obama befriends the Muslim Brotherhood

More good news, from here:

The Muslim Brotherhood? Even Mubarak knew they were bad news, outlawing them for their "Islamist ideology" (just plain "Islam") and historic ties to militants (read "obedient Muslims").

As Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America, how can Obama be unaware that the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within"?

Befriending those sworn to your destruction? Neville Chamberlain tried something similar. How'd that turn out?

This is like Jews befriending Hitler. Or Ukranians befriending Stalin. Or hens befriending the fox.

What is Obama thinking? First, he gives a speech from Al-Azhar, the head of Sunni Islam -- which, by the way, makes genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah's name "beautiful" -- and demands that the Brotherhood attend. Then he helps overthrow the despots of various Islamic states, the end result of which is the B'hood's rise to power. (But when the people of Iran protested against Islamic Allahocracy? Obama was eating ice cream.)

Now, he's making it official: B. Hussein Obama is Islamic terrorism's BFFWB*. He thinks that you're too stupid to realize it or too perverse to care. Obama's counting on your hatred of Christians and Jews to lead you to ignore the fact that ascendant Islam tolerates nothing but Islam. That means no atheists, homosexuals, progressives, etc.

Will you defend Obama's alliance with Islamic jihad and your own destruction?

*Best Friend Forever . . . With Benefits

Verbum Domini 1: God tells us about Himself

Is there a God?
An atheist says: “There is no god.”
An agnostic says: “I don’t know if there is a god.”

What does God say?

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good (Psalm 14:1).

THE NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
How can we know about God?

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork (Psalm 19:1).

For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God (Hebrews 3:4).

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

All people know about God from Nature.

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . (Romans 2:15).

And all people know about God from Conscience.

The natural knowledge of God tells us that there is a God Who is wise, powerful, and holy.

THE WEAKNESS OF THE NATURAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
What is the weakness of the Natural Knowledge of God? We don’t know:

1. Who the true God is
2. About the promised Savior from sin (Jesus)

Why does God give people natural knowledge about Himself?

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us . . . (Acts 17:24-27)

God gives people knowledge about Himself from Nature and Conscience to lead them to seek Him.

THE REVEALED KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
How can we know what God is really like?

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known (John 1:18).

Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father' (John 14:8-9)?

God shows us what He is really like through Jesus.

From where does this Revealed Knowledge come?

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me . . . (John 5:39).

no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:16-20).

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world (Hebrews 1:1-2).

God reveals Himself to us through the Scriptures. These were written by His Prophets and Apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Apostles told the world about what Jesus said and did.

"Bible" means "book."
"Scriptures" means "writings."

REVIEW
The Bible tells us:

"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22).

1. Who the true God is

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name [Jesus] under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

2. Who our Savior is: Jesus