Posts

Israeli Minister: “Citizens trained to use weapons are a multiplying force in our battle against terrorism”

Recent reports out of Israel show that that Israeli civilians aren’t taking a recent spate of terrorist violence lying down, they are arming themselves to fight back. Further, the Israeli government is cooperating by taking measures to ensure that more citizens will have access to the tools necessary to protect themselves and their communities.

In recent weeks, Israel has experienced a wave of attacks, primarily stabbings, carried out by individual Palestinians against Israeli civilians. According to the Washington Post, as of Wednesday, eight Israelis had been killed and dozens injured in this latest round of violence.

The Israeli government has taken drastic measures to combat the attacks, calling up reservists and deploying troops in cities. However, with the unpredictable nature of the violence, civilians are turning to private gun ownership for safety.

In describing the clamor for arms, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported “[c]ars are double- and even triple-parked outside a gun shop in Israel’s coastal city of Tel Aviv. Inside, customers jostle each other as they wait to be served.” The report goes on to quote store owner Iftash Ben-Yehuda, who said, “[t]he last time the shop was so busy was probably in the 1970s. I’ve never before seen such stress or panic.” The article also notes that applications for firearms licenses have risen “by tens of percent” in only 10 days.

Some seeking arms recognize that the effects of carrying go well beyond their own personal safety. Jerusalem resident Netanel Oberman told Bloomberg News, “I want a gun not so much because I’m worried for my own safety, but because I’ll be better prepared to protect other people from attack.”

Israel Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan seems to agree with this assessment. In a statement Wednesday, Erdan noted, “[i]n recent weeks, many citizens have helped the Israel Police subdue terrorists. Citizens trained to use weapons are a multiplying force in our battle against terrorism. Therefore, I have worked to ease conditions for obtaining firearms.”

Further, on Wednesday, the Ministry of Public Security issued relaxed guidelines on who is eligible for a firearm license. The move makes it easier for those on active or reserve military duty to acquire a license, as well as civilians who have completed a requisite security guard course.

Israel typically has very stringent firearm licensing requirements that have gotten progressively stricter over the course of the last two decades. However, just last year, government officials were forced to ease restrictions on carrying firearms following a brutal terrorist attack that resulted in the murder of four Orthodox Jewish men in a West Jerusalem Temple.

Unfortunately, as the Bloomberg News article makes clear, some law-abiding civilians are unable to get a firearms license even with the relaxed rules. Segev Gorbitz of Jerusalem told the outlet, “[i]t’s not right… I want a gun to defend myself and my family, and if you’re an Israeli like me who served in the army and have no criminal record, you should be able to get one.”

Remarkably, even given the present dire situation, Israel’s anti-gun activists are still out in force. The AFP article quoted a leader of an Israeli anti-gun coalition called Gun Free Kitchen Tables, who told the outlet, “[i]n the long run it is obvious that more weapons creates more danger, not more security but the opposite… Encouraging civilians to use firearms on the street could lead to very unfortunate results.” Similarly, according to Bloomberg, Galia Wallach of NA’AMAT, which holds anti-gun positions, protested her countrymen’s increased access to the tools of self-defense, telling a radio program, “I’m very concerned that easing licenses for guns might escalate violence.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Thirty Israeli students attacked during visit to Joseph’s tomb

Democratic Debate “Race to the Bottom” on anti-gun posturing

Hillary Clinton Calls us her Enemies, While Dan Gross Calls us Terrorists!

Hillary Clinton Supports Australia-style Gun Confiscation

VIDEO: Interfaith group working to colonize Connecticut with Syrian Muslim ‘refugees’

Council on American Islamic Relations becomes a player!

I’ve been reporting this morning (here) and in the last week (here and here) that there is a new player promoting the resettlement of third world refugees from countries where people hate us (from Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Burma and most recently Syria).

Having followed this issue for eight years I can attest to the fact that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), although stepping in to defend the ‘rights’ of Muslim refugees to, for instance, pray in the workplace, have not until just recently played an active (visible!) role in the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program.

It seems that all of that is changing, and this video news clip from Connecticut shows CAIR’s leadership role in Connecticut to colonize ten towns with Syrian refugees. And, readers, beware! these so-called ‘Interfaith groups’ are willing participants in changing the demographic make-up of your communities.  See CT Senator Richard Blumenthal (reduce security screening) in the clip!

“A group of leaders, activists and concerned people from various faith traditions in the region gathered on Oct. 11, Sunday, at Berlin Mosque, pushing for “Hope for Humanity” Syrian Refugee Initiative. The interfaith network includes representatives from Council on American-Islamic Relations, First Congregational Church of Old Lyme, Catholic Charities as well as refugee resettlement organizations including Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services and the International Institute of Connecticut.

‘Seeding’ ten cities as Connecticut colonization gets underway!

The group is looking to place ten Syrian refugee families in ten cities including New London and Old Lyme.”

Demand transparency!

The best advice I can give for Connecticut citizens (potential ‘Pockets of Resistance’) is for you to go to your local elected government and ask what the Mayor and council (or county commission) are going to do to demand, at minimum, transparency so that everyone in the city or county knows what they are in for as the cost to local and state taxpayers is enormous (not to mention the social costs of ‘welcoming’ diverse ethnic and religious immigrants who have no intention of assimilating).

Demand that the US State Department and its contractors present a plan to the local community that includes the cost of resettlement and describes the potential social and cultural impact to the community.

The mayor of Athens, Georgia demanded such a plan a year ago and as far as I know, no refugees have yet been resettled there.

See here where we learned that the U.S. State Department is telling reporters and Congress that there is “consultation” with the community.

Go to this list and find the resettlement contractors working in Connecticut.  Call them and ask for the R & P Abstract for FY2016 and ask them for a schedule of the upcoming “quarterly consultations” they hold with stakeholders (you, as tax payers, are stakeholders—maybe the most important stakeholders of all!)

By the way, Connecticut did resettle the largest number of refugees of the New England states in FY2015 which ended on Sept. 30th, see map here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

314 Criminal Illegal Aliens Arrested in Florida

CAIR steps into refugee debate in Redlands, CA

After visiting Lesbos, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin calls for 100,000 Syrians to be admitted to U.S.

ACT for America launches citizen action campaign urging 18 mayors to re-think their demand for more Syrian refugees

Netherlands’ NIMBYs: Dutch Jews do not want Middle Eastern refugees housed near them

Idaho petition drives underway to shut down refugee resettlement in Twin Falls, and in the whole state

VIDEO: New Film to Expose Muslim Persecution of Christians

The ethnic and religious purging of Christians today is exactly like Hitler’s ethnic cleansing of Jews in WWII,” [film director Peter] Spencer said. “True Christians are today obligated to rescue the perishing from the blades of [the Islamic State].”

Brave and bold words, and all too rare in America these days, where naming the evil is all but illegal. The ‘Orange Resistance Movement’ seem like a strong and creative response to Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East and Africa. Judging from the endorsements on Mr. Spencer’s site, the message seems to be catching on among Christians and Jews. Let’s hope so.

“Filmmaker’s ‘Chilling’ Warning About the Islamic State and His Message to ‘True Christians’ About Why They Must Fight Back,” by Billy Hallowell, The Blaze, September 17, 2015:

The writer and director of a feature film about a group of young people who fought to save the innocent during the Holocaust has unveiled a new movement aimed at raising awareness about the dire religious persecution of Christians in the Middle East.

Peter Spencer, director of “Return to the Hiding Place” — the sequel to Billy Graham’s “The Hiding Place” — exclusively told The Blaze about his new Orange Resistance effort to rescue Christians being harmed by the Islamic State, and the “chilling similarities” that he sees between what’s happening now and the horrors that unfolded during the Holocaust.

“The ethnic and religious purging of Christians today is exactly like Hitler’s ethnic cleansing of Jews in WWII,” Spencer said. “True Christians are today obligated to rescue the perishing from the blades of [the Islamic State].”

The Orange Resistance movement is named for the both the color of the jumpsuits worn by victims of Islamic State extremists and for the Netherlands’ historic association with orange; the setting of the ”Return to the Hiding Place,” which is based, in part, on Dutch Christian Corrie ten Boom’s heroic acts to save Jews in the Netherlands.

Spencer said that the campaign will employ a number of tactics to get the word out about the plight of Middle Eastern Christians.

“We are working with denominations across the country to schedule screenings of our film followed by a panel discussing the terrifying parallels between Nazi Germany’s extermination of the Jews and the current hate-onslaught of [the Islamic State] and their mission to liquidate Christians, starting in the Middle East,” he said. “Groups won’t even need to sell tickets to the event.”

“Return to the Hiding Place,” which is based on a true story, tells of ten Boom’s refuge for Jews, as well as an “army of untrained teenagers” who helped rescue the most vulnerable from the horrors of the Holocaust.

“We know viewers, often intimidated and discouraged by today’s frightening news will see this film and be mobilized, encouraged that there is hope,” Spencer told The Blaze. “Resistance is not futile … even one person can make a revolutionary difference.”

Spencer will also be selling Orange Resist shirts and bracelets in an effort to raise money to help organizations that are actively working to rescue Christians from the region, while also featuring these organizations in special video posts that will be distributed via social media.

The goal, Spencer said, is to cause “America to become aware and involved in politically vocalizing the need to intervene on behalf of Christians and Jews worldwide experiencing a second holocaust.”

“The only hope for coping is by taking action. The only way we can cope is if solutions are at hand,” he said. “These solutions will not present themselves — we have to stand and fight, get behind the cause, and put our resources into saving lives today.”

Spencer invited people to learn more about Orange Resistance here, and to purchase copies of “Return to the Hiding Place” here.

Watch the trailer for ‘Return To The Hiding Place’ here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Russian Foreign Ministry: Coalition only simulating anti-terrorist efforts

New York Muslim: “I’m ready to die for the Caliphate, prison is nothing”

Disobeying the Supreme Court

There is growing concern among the Christian community in America. The concern is that their Christian beliefs, which shall not be infringed, are under attack by the law givers. This has happened before during the rule of the pagan Roman Empire.

The question: Should Christians disobey the law givers?

I took the title of this column from an email I received from Dr. William Lane Craig, a noted Christian apologist. Dr. Craig in his email is responding to Nathan, an agnostic, who states, “Now, as of recent, with the legalization of gay marriage across the United States, someone pointed out to me that the Bible says that to resist the authorities would be directly against God’s wishes. To support this, he showed me Romans 13 verses 1-7. The verses seem to suggest that authority is placed by God, and we are to obey them because disobeying would be akin to disobeying God.”

Dr. Craig responds with:

Now as right-thinking people and as Christians, we cannot acquiesce in the Supreme Court’s attempt to re-define what marriage is. Five lawyers (as the dissenting justices called them) can no more change the essence of marriage than they can change the essence of a horse or a chair. So we now find ourselves in a society where there are legal marriages which are in actuality pseudo-marriages. These people are not really married, but they are legally married.

Now since, as you note, we Christians are to be submissive to the governing authorities of the society in which we find ourselves, we have to obey the laws unless they require us to do things which would be immoral, that is, contrary to God’s will or commands.

For example, when the Jerusalem authorities commanded the early apostles to quit preaching the name of Jesus, Peter and John boldly responded: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4.19-20). Similarly, when pagan Roman Emperors commanded Christians to burn incense to the pagan gods, Christians resolutely refused, undergoing unspeakable tortures and execution rather than violate their conscience.

[Emphasis added]

Is it time for a new wave Christian civil disobedience as we saw with Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, a Democrat, who emerged from a rural jail on Tuesday, September 8th, 2015, proclaiming praise for God and indicating that her fight against marriage licenses was worth the six days behind bars?

The Three forms of Civil Disobedience

There are three forms of civil disobedience, two of which are against God’s will.

  1. The anarchist view says that a person can choose to disobey the government whenever he likes and whenever he feels he is personally justified in doing so. Such a stance has no biblical support whatsoever, as evidenced in the writings of Paul in Romans 13.
  2. The extremist patriot says that a person should always follow and obey his country, no matter what the command. This view also does not have biblical support. Moreover, it is not supported in the history of nations. For example, during the Nuremberg trials, the attorneys for the Nazi war criminals attempted to use the defense that their clients were only following the direct orders of the government and therefore could not be held responsible for their actions. However, one of the judges dismissed their argument with the simple question: “But gentlemen, is there not a law above our laws?”
  3. The position the Scriptures uphold is one of biblical submission, with a Christian being allowed to act in civil disobedience to the government if it commands evil, such that it requires a Christian to act in a manner that is contrary to the clear teachings and requirements of God’s Word.

Peaceful Christian disobedience to evil commands is mandated by God. That is today’s lesson.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What’s Next for Freed Kentucky Clerk? Her Lawyer Speaks Out

At What Point Does the Homosexual Agenda Become a National Religion?

Why the Marriage Debate Isn’t Over: An Interview With Ryan T. Anderson

Multiculturalism and the Rise of Islamic Terrorism by Ralph Sidway

William Kilpatrick offers a broad analysis of how “the multicultural experiment of elevating other cultures by denigrating our own” fosters widespread detachment from our civilizational identity, and breeds allies for Islamic supremacism:  “As befits two movements with global ambitions, the leftist-Islamist alliances are cropping up all over the planet… Sometimes the alliance goes beyond moral and financial support and manifests itself in actual violence.”

“Multiculturalism and the Rise of Domestic Terrorism,” by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, August 18, 2015:

In a speech launching a five-year plan to combat homegrown terrorism, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said that “Many people born in Britain have little attachment to the country and that makes them vulnerable to radicalization.”

It’s not as though Muslims who live in Britain don’t eat fish and chips or root for their local football club. But, apparently, a not insignificant number can indulge in British pastimes and still feel unconnected to the country they live in. In her 2006 bookLondonistan, Melanie Phillips described how a separate and alien culture had developed in England as a result of Britain’s experiment in multiculturalism—an experiment that had been fostered by British elites in media, government, and even in churches.

The problem was, said Phillips, that in order to make room for other cultures, the elites had hollowed out their own culture so that “British society presented a moral and philosophical vacuum that was ripe for colonization by predatory Islamism.” She laid much of the blame on educators:

The British education system simply ceased transmitting either the values or the story of the nation to successive generations, delivering instead the message that truth was an illusion and that the nation and its values were whatever anyone wanted them to be.

A similar process has been underway for a long time in the U.S. For many years, America has been deeply invested in the same multicultural experiment of elevating other cultures by denigrating its own. Our educational, media, and entertainment establishments have subjected young people to decades of anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Christian conditioning. As it turned out, the flip side of “tolerance for diversity” was intolerance for one’s own culture and the things that make it distinctive.

The result? As Robert Spencer observed, “people who are ashamed of their culture will not defend it.” Such people might even feel that attacks on our country are justified by our history of slavery, racism, colonialism, and imperialism. Still others will feel justified in carrying out the attacks. In England, the police are now uncovering on average one jihadist plot per day.

The situation is not yet as desperate in America, but we seem nevertheless to be generating a steady supply of homegrown terrorists. On the surface, they blend in with the culture. Major Nidal Hasan was an Army psychiatrist, the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston were into sports and school, and Mohammod Abdulazeez, the Chattanooga shooter, seemed in many respects to be the all-American boy. On the outside, they appeared to be ordinary Americans. On the inside they were more like the pod people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers—aliens with alien ambitions.

The worrisome thing is, our educational system, along with other institutions of cultural formation, seems to be on course to creating a whole nation of pod people—people with little attachment to their country or countrymen.

This detachment can take three forms. In some cases, individuals turn away from involvement in their culture to self-absorption. To assuage the loneliness of the unconnected self, they might turn to drugs or pornography or serial sex. Except for the world of pop entertainment, they are unconscious of the larger world. Like the clueless young people interviewed on the Watters’ World segment of the O’Reilly Factor, they might be unsure who the first president was, in which century the Civil War was fought, or who John Kerry is. None of that seems important to them. If a group of bearded men wearing long robes and speaking Arabic moved into the apartment above, they’d probably think, “that’s cool” and light up another joint.

The second form that the detachment takes is a transfer of allegiance from one’s own history and culture to a neo-Marxist perspective. Thanks in large part to our educational system, a growing segment of our population has come to look upon its own culture as the root of all the world’s evils. Unlike the self-absorbed detachers, they are politically engaged, but their political aims have to do with undermining traditional society and radically transforming it. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement is representative of this group.

The third group, the one that Prime Minister Cameron is primarily concerned about, is composed of those whose first loyalty is to the ummah—the worldwide community of Muslim believers. They may live in the UK, France, or the U.S., but their allegiance lies elsewhere. They may have always felt this way, or they may have undergone a conversion. The majority in this category pose no direct threat to the larger society; they simply prefer to lead their lives separate from it. These separate communities do, however, provide the soil in which the radicals take root. They are, to use another metaphor, the sea in which the jihadis swim. The radical Muslims themselves are in some ways similar to the anti-Western Westerners who repudiate the Western tradition. The radicals not only reject Western culture, they see it as evil and they want to bring it down.

Because they have the same goals—the destruction of Western and Christian civilization—the members of the second group often act as enablers of Muslim radicals. I’ve written before about the leftist-Islamist alliance—the leftist professors who support the cause of Hamas, the left-leaning foundations which finance the “Islamophobia” campaign, and the left-leaning politicians who support the Muslim Brotherhood. But sometimes the alliance goes beyond moral and financial support and manifests itself in actual violence. The best example of this are the antifa or “antifascist” gangs in Europe who use brownshirt tactics to suppress any protest against Islamization or the leftist policies—such as mass immigration—which promote Islamization. Numerous anti-Islamization rallies and marches in Europe have been broken up by much larger groups of young antifas throwing punches and sometimes bricks and bottles.

As befits two movements with global ambitions, the leftist-Islamist alliances are cropping up all over the planet. In Australia recently, an organization called Reclaim Australia held a series of rallies to protest Islamization. They were met by violent “anti-racist” counter-demonstrators, some of them wearing face coverings. Here’s an account of one such encounter in Melbourne:

I made my way onto Spring Street, where there was an even larger mob, maybe 500 or 600 people, some with megaphones… There were a few late comers or stragglers attempting to get through to the ‘Reclaim Australia’ section. It was futile. As soon as anyone in the mob identified a person as a Reclaimer, a large horde of 20 or 40 of the mob would rush to them, and in many incidents I witnessed, assault them, knock them to the ground, and kick them on the ground. It became a mob mentality. Anyone with an Australian flag had it stolen from them and was assaulted. Almost every assault I witnessed was by twenty or more on one.

So if you’re worried about the advance of global jihad, it’s not just the young Muslim browsing radical sites on the Internet that you need to worry about. You also have to worry about all those college grads who majored in Marxism and Peace Studies, and are dead set on ridding the world of “racists” and “fascists.”

By comparison, the first group of detachers—those who are mainly into themselves—seems the least dangerous of the three. That’s generally true. On the other hand, the self-absorbed sometimes become disenchanted with the pursuit of self and seek to find their identity in a larger cause. Sometimes they end up in church, sometimes in the radical left, and sometimes in radical Islam. Judging by his blog posts, the Chattanooga jihadist, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez seems to have traveled this route. Having tried out drugs, drink, fast cars, and other vain pursuits, he finally found a purpose in jihad.

However, the main threat posed by those who seek constant diversion is that they are too distracted to notice the larger world and the dangers lurking in it. They are oblivious to anything outside their own pleasure zone. Thus, they can be of little help in resisting the twin threat posed by leftism and Islamism. The same can be said to a lesser degree of those we might call the semi-detached (or semi-attached, if you prefer). Such people don’t reject Western and Christian values, but they are not actively engaged in promoting or defending them. They don’t hate America, but they are too busy earning a living or raising a family to think much about existential threats to their society. Thanks to years of relentless indoctrination from the schools and the media, their links to core cultural principles are tenuous. The result is a certain passivity concerning events over which they supposedly have no control: “Ho-hum, I see there’s been another jihad attack. I hope the authorities will do something about it.”

An individual’s will to resist tyranny, whether of the leftist or Islamic variety, depends to a large extent on the strength of his attachments—particularly attachments to family, church, and country. But the liberal state does everything it can to weaken those ties. And once the ties that bind are slackened sufficiently, it’s difficult to care strongly about anything. If the current attacks on marriage, family, religion, and patriotism—up until recently the main glue of society—are as successful as the social engineers hope, there will soon be nothing left worth fighting for.

Which raises a question: What happens when the leaders of a society are themselves detached from that society? What happens, for instance, when the leaders of the U.S. government begin to see themselves not as representatives of the American people but as members of a worldwide order of global elites—a sort of non-religious “ummah”?…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi Muslim leaders oppose extradition of murderer: “He is an Islamic missionary”

West Virginia: “Support ISIS & The Taliban” sign left at war memorial

Saudi Arabia on Religious Freedom: Butt out. Stay out. Keep out. Got it?

blasphemy lawsSaudi Arabia shows its jaw-dropping hypocrisy as it moves to impose “anti-blasphemy” laws on the non-Muslim world.

That’s the message from Saudi Arabia. Do not meddle in their internal affairs.

If they want to lop off heads, leave them alone. If they want to flog their apostates, what’s that to you? And if they want to shred the hands of people reading the Bible, at least they’re not your hands.

So shut up.

Canadian officials heard that message loudly when they decided to criticize Saudi Arabia for torturing a blogger, Raif Badawi, with 1,000 lashes for criticizing the kingdom’s religious clerics.

The Saudi ambassador told Canada’s National Assembly that his country “does not accept any form of interference in its internal affairs.”

Sweden tried the same thing. Its foreign minister described the flogging of Badawi as a “cruel attempt to silence modern forms of expression.”

Sweden got the same royal treatment. Saudi Arabia stomped its feet in the sand and called the criticism a “flagrant interference in internal affairs.”

But just try building a church there.

We out here in the free world should all get it. Don’t try swimming in the sands of Saudi Arabia.

Then why should we pay any attention to a Saudi attempt to meddle in our affairs?

Last month the Saudi director-general for external relations called on all nations – yes, all nations – to adopt laws banning “blasphemy.”

In a wordy statement, Director-General Sheikh Abdul Majeed Al-Omari declared:

“We have made it clear that freedom of expression without limits or restrictions would lead to violation and abuse of religious and ideological rights. This requires everyone to criminalize insulting heavenly religions, prophets, holy books, religious symbols and places of worship.”

This is stupid on so many levels that the Kingdom should be renamed the King-dumb.

First, they voice concern that freedom of expression could somehow lead to the abuse of religious and ideological rights. They need to get down off their high camels and examine the stupidity of this statement.

Saudi Arabia doesn’t need to look “outside” to find freedom of expression leading to the abuse of religious and ideological rights.

It only needs to look inside. It can start by pointing its camel-nose directly at Raif Badawi, whose only crime was to write insulting blog posts about Saudi religious clerics.

So here’s the thinking, in all its Saudi logic. It’s the only way their statement could possibly make sense:

Raif Badawi wrote blog material that King-dumb authorities say involved “ridiculing Islamic religious figures” and “going beyond the realm of disobedience.”

For this crime of expressing himself freely, Badawi was sentenced to 1,000 lashes, to be meted out 50 lashes per week for 20 weeks. This is abuse – no doubt. So do you see? Freedom of expression can lead to the “abuse of religious and ideological rights.”

It’s twisted logic, but what else can we expect from the twisted minds of the Saudis, who still believe that Christians are “swine” and that Jews are “apes”?

In his demand that all nations adopt blasphemy laws, the director-general also wants to “criminalize insulting heavenly religions, prophets, holy books, religious symbols and places of worship.”

What? Noble? A girl?

This bold statement comes from a nation that criminalizes apostasy, carrying a Bible, building churches and – get this – naming a child Alice, Sandy or Lauren. These are “blasphemous names” in Saudi Arabia, which means that to bestow one of them on your offspring is to risk a date with the swordsman.

Alice is forbidden because it means “noble.” Only the Saudi royalty is noble, you understand, not some pipsqueak baby girl. Sandy means “defender of men.” So it’s obvious why that name is banned. Lauren means “crowned with laurels.” When’s the last time you’ve seen the Saudis crown a girl?

In fact, there are 50 “blasphemous” names in Saudi Arabia.

Should the Saudis really be in charge of leading the world on criminalizing blasphemy? This is a country that still will not let women drive. It’s punishable by up to 10 lashes.

Imagine what a Saudi-like, anti-blasphemy police force would be like:

“Ms. Patterson you are hereby guilty of carrying a Bible into a church while holding a baby named Sandy. That’s three strikes. And oh, by the way, are those car keys in your hand?”

In 2012, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.”

Does that not sound a little blasphemous to you? If I were to say that all mosques should be destroyed, I would be lined up right behind Ms. Patterson at the block in Chop-Chop Square.

So, to be clear, Saudi Arabia isn’t about criminalizing insults to all “places of worship.” It is only about criminalizing blasphemy against the places of Islamicworship. For in the twisted minds of the King-dumb, there is only one “place of worship,” which is the abode of Allah – not Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Father or the Holy Spirit.

Christian and Jewish places of worship? Have at it. These other “places of worship” do not exist and are therefore impossible to blaspheme.

Understanding the religious logic of the Saudis is not easy, unless you accept that “logic,” to them, is only that which benefits Islam. What might appear to be an edict protecting all religions is, in reality, only a deaf-dumb-and-blind safeguard for their own religion.

The King-dumb doesn’t want anyone meddling in their affairs, but they want to freely meddle in the affairs of others, and even dictate them.

I would like to call the Saudi royalty a bunch of yo-yos, but that would be an insult to the beloved child’s toy. A yo-yo at least knows how to stay on its own string.

Where is the Homeland for Christians?

With the rise of persecution, perhaps its time to call for a national homeland for Christians!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top Democrat on Bakers Fined $135K Over Wedding Cake: ‘You Shouldn’t Be Able to Turn People Away’

‘Cake Artist’ Fights in Court to Be Able to Refuse to Make Wedding Cakes for Gay Couples

Oklahoma Governor Rejects Supreme Court’s Ten Commandments Ruling [+video]

When the Feds Demand Same-Sex Marriage, What Will Our Bishops and Pastors Do? [+video]

The New Totalitarians Are Here

Syrian Archbishop: “We expect Christians in the West to help us. They do not”

Why don’t the Christians in the West help them? Because it might harm the dialogue: “Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.” —Robert McManus, Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, February 8, 2013

“Syrian Archbishop: ‘We expect Christians in the West to help us. They do not,’” by David Gibson, Religion News Service, May 4, 2015:

NEW YORK (RNS) Archbishop Jean-Clement Jeanbart of Aleppo is returning to the front line of the real war on Christians, which he calls home — that is, Aleppo in war-torn Syria, where his ancient church faces the threat of extinction.

I wrote here about Jeanbart, who was in the U.S. last week in an effort to raise awareness about the plight of Christians in Syria — they include his Eastern-rite Melkite Catholics as well or Eastern Orthodox and other churches — and to raise money for their survival.

The archbishop is a remarkable figure, facing the personal danger while trying to protect an entire community and tradition and way of life. He had controversial things to say (at least in the U.S. political context) about supporting Syrian president Assad; when faced with ISIS as the alternative, you understand his “devil-you-know” choice.

But Assad may be at risk of falling. Americans are not likely to shed a tear for him, and many have been pushing the administration to aid the Islamist rebels, who could wind up slaughtering what’s left of the Christians in Aleppo and elsewhere.

And American Christians know so little about their fellow believers in the region, or even that such Christians exist, that Middle East church leaders like Jeanbart face an uphill battle:

“We expect Christians in the West to help us. They do not,” as Jeanbart told Cardinal Timothy Dolan during the New York archbishop’s weekly radio show.

I couldn’t include all of the interview in the first version, so wanted to pick it up here with the question:
What does Archbishop Jeanbart want?

In short, he thinks the West, led by the U.S., should work to stop the flow of arms into the country. He does not want Western military intervention in terms of boots on the ground – just a ceasefire so that Syrians themselves have a chance to work out their problems in a way that respects each community. That’s how it was for centuries, and he says that’s how it can be again.

Most immediately, he wants material support for Syrian Christians.

A chief problem, church officials say, is that Christians who are among the nearly 8 million internally displaced people in Syria are afraid to go to refugee camps that receive the bulk of international humanitarian aid because they would have to register to enter and could then be pegged as Christians – and would be targets all over again.

So Christians wind up trying to stay put in war zones, or seek refuge in churches, Catholic hospitals or schools, or the homes of relatives. (Aid to the Church in Need has pledged $2.8 in emergency aid for Christians in Syria.)

“The church will support us in a way, morally and spiritually. But the church has very little material means,” Jeanbart said. “It doesn’t have armies. It doesn’t have budgets to help. Nobody has ever taken care of us.”

“We expect Christians in the West to help us. They do not,” Jeanbart, his voice rising in frustration, told Cardinal Timothy Dolan during the New York archbishop’s weekly radio show.

Jeanbart said that on the other hand, his Muslim neighbors and religious leaders in the city have often offered him a place to live or hold services….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer, PJM: Our Cartoon Contest Provoked Jihadis? Here’s News: They Were Already Provoked

Hamas-linked CAIR urges Michigan Muslims to take precautions after Islamic State threatens Pamela Geller and non-Muslims in U.S.

April 14, 2015: ‘Jew-Hate Day’ in the U.S. Congress

jew-hate-revised-geller

For a larger view click on the image.

On Tuesday April 14, 2015 Muslim Terror leaders with on organization called “American Muslims for Palestine” which specializes in Jew-Hatred and disinformation about Israel are walking around the United States Congress demanding that our elected Representatives change federal law thereby making it harder to investigate Muslim terrorists.

I know, crazy stuff, but it is happening right in broad daylight! Thank Allah that we at The United West are experts at investigating Muslim Brotherhood terrorists and exposing their influence operations for all Americans to understand and properly respond. To accomplish this we are launched a five-part investigative series entitled: “Muslim Terrorists Lobby 114th Congress.”

Our show today, features Clarion Project National Security Analyst, Ryan Mauro, who specifically identifies several Muslim Brotherhood terror leaders who are organizers of this Congressional influence operation. Moreover, Ryan will reveal documentation that links Republican Conservative icon, Grover Norquist to a terror rally that was held in front of the White House in October 2000.

This information reveals how far and wide this Muslim Brotherhood influence operation has been active.

Watch this show as it is FULL of critically important information to help all Americans properly, professionally and legally DEFEAT this Muslim Brotherhood political influence operation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netanyahu Not the Cause of Obama’s Dislike of Israel

Commentators On Arab TV: Obama Supports Iran Because His Father Was A Shi’ite

42% of Muslims in Canada think Islam and West “irreconcilable”

Islamic State beheads “blasphemer” with meat cleaver

Islamic State cartoon shows Obama beheaded by Jihadi John

UK Pro-jihad Muslim group boasts: “negotiating with Tory & Labour leadership”

Prayers for Kafirs (non-Muslims)

Since over half of Islamic doctrine is about Kafirs (non-Muslims), it follows that prayers would include Kafirs too, so every day, a Muslim prays for the punishment and suffering of all Kafirs. The prayers also follow the Koranic doctrine that Muslims are not to be a true friend of them. Muslims are to forsake and turn away from Kafirs.

Not only are all Kafirs to suffer punishment in hell, but Christians and Jews are singled out to be worthy of Allah’s anger and are condemned in their beliefs.

In the end, all references to Kafirs in Islamic prayer are negative, demeaning and hateful.

Pope Francis: “You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others…In freedom of expression there are limits”

The Pope is speaking generally of religions here, but clearly he is only talking about one religion, and not his own. For those who insult the Pope’s religion, and there are many, have no reason to “expect a punch” from believers, and the Pope must be aware of that. Moreover, in these remarks he flatly contradicts himself. He says: “Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good … we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending.” “Without offending”?

So the freedom, right and obligation to say what one thinks for the common good ends wherever someone else takes offense? But what if the offense is unreasonable or unwarranted? Is the fact that some people get offended to the point of murderous rage over a handful of cartoons really sufficient reason to curtail the freedom, right and obligation of others to say what they think for the common good? Then any tyrant can silence his critics by claiming that he is offended, and we will be ruled over, and indeed tyrannized, by the perpetually offended. And that is pretty much the situation we are heading toward these days.

“After Paris attacks, Pope speaks out against insulting religions,” by Philip Pullella, Reuters, January 15, 2015:

(Reuters) – Pope Francis, speaking of last week’s deadly attacks by Islamist militants in Paris, has defended freedom of expression, but said it was wrong to provoke others by insulting their religion and that one could “expect” a reaction to such abuse.

“You can’t provoke, you can’t insult the faith of others, you can’t make fun of faith,” he told reporters on Thursday, aboard a plane taking him from Sri Lanka to the Philippines to start the second leg off his Asian tour.

Francis, who has condemned the Paris attacks, was asked about the relationship between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

“I think both freedom of religion and freedom of expression are both fundamental human rights,” he said, adding that he was talking specifically about the Paris killings.

“Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good … we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending,” he said.

To illustrate his point, he turned to an aide and said: “It is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if (he) says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it’s normal.

“You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others,” he added. “These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits.”

Seventeen people, including journalists and police, were killed in three days of violence that began with a shooting attack on the political weekly Charlie Hebdo, known for its satirical attacks on Islam and other religions.

Referring to past religious wars, such as the Crusades sanctioned by the Catholic Church against Islam, the Pope said:

“Let’s consider our own history. How many wars of religion have we had? Even we were sinners but you can’t kill in the name of God. That is an aberration.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Oregon: Muslim repeatedly threatens deli owner: “You Israeli … I’ll blow up your store in the name of Allah!”

Pakistan: Muslims demand murder of Charlie Hebdo staff for committing “worst act of terrorism” by drawing Muhammad

Father of Muslim who plotted to bomb US Capitol says son is “peace-loving momma’s boy” set up by FBI

“We’ve averted a Belgian Charlie Hebdo”: Muslims fire on police

Vox claims no threats for posting Charlie Hebdo toons, many for covering “Islamophobia”

Pelosi to Name Muslim Brotherhood-linked Congressman to House Intel Committee

Common Core Assignment: Think Like a Nazi and Explain Why Jews Are Evil

[youtube]http://youtu.be/xD-Fm8P8Ig8[/youtube]

An essay assigned to 10th graders, at Albany High School, is at the center of controversy after students were asked to ‘think like a Nazi’. Students were assigned a persuasive writing essay where the teacher asked them to “pretend I’m a member of the government in Nazi Germany”, the handout obtained by CBS Channel 6 said.

The assignment went on to say “convince me you are loyal to the Nazis by writing an essay to convince me Jews are evil and the source of our problems.” Albany’ Superintendent, Dr. Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard, called the assignment “ill-conceived and inappropriate.” “How could you ask a student to justify prejudice leading to genocide,” said Dr. Vanden Wyngaard. “It is an illogical thing for a student to have to do. It doesn’t make any sense.” The teacher, whose name is not being released by the district, will not be teaching while a decision is being made on what consequences there will be, said Dr. Vanden Wyngaard. “It can go anywhere from a letter of council, a letter reprimand, all the way through to termination there is a broad spectrum,” said Dr. Vanden Wyngaard on the possible sanctions against the teacher. “I will not make that decision within the 24 hours because the spectrum is too big.”

The assignment didn’t make sense to the head of the Holocaust Survivors and Friends Education Center, in Albany, officials said Friday. They were disappointed but looked at the incident as an opportunity to educate both students and teachers going forward. “I was totally shocked when I learned this morning that anyone would have such an unbalanced lesson and grade students teaching racist anti semitic views,” said Shelly Shapiro, Director, Holocaust Survivors and Friends Education Center.

This story first broke back in April when The Times Union reported, via Poor Richard’s News:

Think like a Nazi, the assignment required students. Argue why Jews are evil.

Students in some Albany High School English classes were asked this week as part of a persuasive writing assignment to make an abhorrent argument: “You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!”

Students were asked to watch and read Nazi propaganda, then pretend their teacher was a Nazi government official who needed to be convinced of their loyalty. In five paragraphs, they were required to prove that Jews were the source of Germany’s problems.

The exercise was intended to challenge students to formulate a persuasive argument and was given to three classes, Albany Superintendent Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard said. She said the assignment should have been worded differently.

“I would apologize to our families,” she said. “I don’t believe there was malice or intent to cause any insensitivities to our families of Jewish faith.”

One-third of the students refused to complete the assignment, she said.

Vanden Wyngaard said the exercise reflects the type of writing expected of students under the new Common Core curriculum, the tough new academic standards that require more sophisticated writing. Such assignments attempt to connect English with history and social studies.