Showing posts with label Dhimmicrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dhimmicrats. Show all posts
2010/10/11
2010/09/11
Burning the Koran: The Sequel
Pastor Terry Jones' apparently never planned to burn any copies of the Koran. At least, that's what he says. He says the purpose of the entire stunt was to expose the dangerous aspect of Islam. In this respect, I regard his ploy as brilliant.
By way of the worldwide reaction he "facilitated" it's clear that Islam is indeed a serious threat. From the Islamic world's fury to the State Department's worldwide travel advisory, from the threats against the pastor himself to Gen. Petraeus' plea to abstain - this was brilliant all the way. For the last few days, everyone has been forced to acknowledege the violent nature of Muslims - this, even as many engaged in the conversation continued to delude themselves that there's a moderate wing of Islam to be found somewhere out there.
There isn't.
Many people cling to the gentler aspects of Islam, stated earlier in the Koran, while ignoring the Koran's clear instruction that with any contradictory aspect of the Koran, the passages found later in the text will be decisive. It's the only religious text in the world to supersede early peaceable statements with later violent ones as a matter of law.
And the matter of law is no small thing in Islam. I have written that religion and government are joint tenants in Islam, and that is precisely the case. Expanding on that analogy, I would add that government is the husband and religion is the obedient wife. It is obligatory for all Muslims to impose Sharia law - Islamic government - wherever they go. They are not to rest until it has spread worldwide. In this way, it is as expansionist a doctrine as communism, and just as brutally totalitarian.
Islamic law states unequivocally that all governments instituted by and for man must be abolished. Free speech does NOT exist, even conceptually. In fact, dissent with the Koran carries the death penalty. Obviously, freedom of religion does not exist either, nor do any of the other rights that distinguish us from slaves.
Under Sharia, homosexuals must be killed, thieves must have a hand cut off and men are to beat women. Honor killings are sanctioned, and such killings have already occurred in America.
All this spreads globally under sanctioned deceit. It is well known that the Koran sanctions lies to infidels (non Muslims) for the purpose of spreading Islam. In fact the Koran does more than sanction dishonesty - it mandates it. Thus, Muslims will stand there and lie to us for the purpose of defeating us. The fact that they lie as a matter of course is nowhere near as upsetting as the fact that so many westerners insist upon taking them at their word.
It's obvious that all Muslims must follow these tenets, or at the very least not speak out against them and act in support of those who do follow them to the letter. Philosophically, there are no moderate Muslims - Islam is a study in extremism, and it's simply not possible to follow the rules and be a moderate. When your leader and his written instructions are radical, so is your government/religion - period.
It's just as obvious that Islam is by definition at war with the entire non-Muslim world, and must remain so until our defeat or their extermination. And I didn't say this - they did!
Liberty is fragile. We've proven that here in America, without any help from Muslims. Now, they're at full throttle, assaulting our liberty right along with the best of our domestic enemies. That has led to a curious alliance between leftists and Muslims, despite the havoc Islamic law yearns to wreak on the behavior of the left. This is why I often call them Dhimmicrats.
I know that our government has long alliances with Al Qaida and other elements of Islam, and that those alliances are most unsavory. I know that our alliances are with the Sunni and that this is a big reason we are at loggerheads with Shiite Iran. It's a twisted web. And, I know that the Shia and the Sunni are at war with each other. It's on their own that I hope Iran uses their nascent nukes, and, who knows - they may oblige me. Regardless, the 1350 year track record of Islam supersedes those alliances and conflicts, and demands that we take Islam seriously as a threat in and of itself.
It strikes me that the rules of epidemiology should be applied to Islam. Wherever Islam takes root, the result is the same. They demand to be exempted from the law of the land, and to impose Sharia. Muslims multiply rapidly and recruit rabidly. (They have the shortest generational cycle on earth and they recruit at gunpoint.) Since it spreads virally, the appropriate response is to quarantine and disinfect, and all should take heed that antibiotics are useless against a virus once it has taken hold. The key is obviously prevention.
It is in no way an affront to our religious freedom to disallow the practice of Islam in America. In fact, a ban on Islam is the ONLY means of assuring that our First Amendment rights survive. It's a simple equation: they are free to practice their exclusive, all conquering, death dealing totalitarian "religion" elsewhere, so long as they leave us alone, and we remain free to practice our relatively benign melange of religions here.
Or we can surrender and convert.
Or we can kill them before they kill us, which is what it may come to anyway.
I don't see any other choices.
By way of the worldwide reaction he "facilitated" it's clear that Islam is indeed a serious threat. From the Islamic world's fury to the State Department's worldwide travel advisory, from the threats against the pastor himself to Gen. Petraeus' plea to abstain - this was brilliant all the way. For the last few days, everyone has been forced to acknowledege the violent nature of Muslims - this, even as many engaged in the conversation continued to delude themselves that there's a moderate wing of Islam to be found somewhere out there.
There isn't.
Many people cling to the gentler aspects of Islam, stated earlier in the Koran, while ignoring the Koran's clear instruction that with any contradictory aspect of the Koran, the passages found later in the text will be decisive. It's the only religious text in the world to supersede early peaceable statements with later violent ones as a matter of law.
And the matter of law is no small thing in Islam. I have written that religion and government are joint tenants in Islam, and that is precisely the case. Expanding on that analogy, I would add that government is the husband and religion is the obedient wife. It is obligatory for all Muslims to impose Sharia law - Islamic government - wherever they go. They are not to rest until it has spread worldwide. In this way, it is as expansionist a doctrine as communism, and just as brutally totalitarian.
Islamic law states unequivocally that all governments instituted by and for man must be abolished. Free speech does NOT exist, even conceptually. In fact, dissent with the Koran carries the death penalty. Obviously, freedom of religion does not exist either, nor do any of the other rights that distinguish us from slaves.
Under Sharia, homosexuals must be killed, thieves must have a hand cut off and men are to beat women. Honor killings are sanctioned, and such killings have already occurred in America.
All this spreads globally under sanctioned deceit. It is well known that the Koran sanctions lies to infidels (non Muslims) for the purpose of spreading Islam. In fact the Koran does more than sanction dishonesty - it mandates it. Thus, Muslims will stand there and lie to us for the purpose of defeating us. The fact that they lie as a matter of course is nowhere near as upsetting as the fact that so many westerners insist upon taking them at their word.
It's obvious that all Muslims must follow these tenets, or at the very least not speak out against them and act in support of those who do follow them to the letter. Philosophically, there are no moderate Muslims - Islam is a study in extremism, and it's simply not possible to follow the rules and be a moderate. When your leader and his written instructions are radical, so is your government/religion - period.
It's just as obvious that Islam is by definition at war with the entire non-Muslim world, and must remain so until our defeat or their extermination. And I didn't say this - they did!
Liberty is fragile. We've proven that here in America, without any help from Muslims. Now, they're at full throttle, assaulting our liberty right along with the best of our domestic enemies. That has led to a curious alliance between leftists and Muslims, despite the havoc Islamic law yearns to wreak on the behavior of the left. This is why I often call them Dhimmicrats.
I know that our government has long alliances with Al Qaida and other elements of Islam, and that those alliances are most unsavory. I know that our alliances are with the Sunni and that this is a big reason we are at loggerheads with Shiite Iran. It's a twisted web. And, I know that the Shia and the Sunni are at war with each other. It's on their own that I hope Iran uses their nascent nukes, and, who knows - they may oblige me. Regardless, the 1350 year track record of Islam supersedes those alliances and conflicts, and demands that we take Islam seriously as a threat in and of itself.
It strikes me that the rules of epidemiology should be applied to Islam. Wherever Islam takes root, the result is the same. They demand to be exempted from the law of the land, and to impose Sharia. Muslims multiply rapidly and recruit rabidly. (They have the shortest generational cycle on earth and they recruit at gunpoint.) Since it spreads virally, the appropriate response is to quarantine and disinfect, and all should take heed that antibiotics are useless against a virus once it has taken hold. The key is obviously prevention.
It is in no way an affront to our religious freedom to disallow the practice of Islam in America. In fact, a ban on Islam is the ONLY means of assuring that our First Amendment rights survive. It's a simple equation: they are free to practice their exclusive, all conquering, death dealing totalitarian "religion" elsewhere, so long as they leave us alone, and we remain free to practice our relatively benign melange of religions here.
Or we can surrender and convert.
Or we can kill them before they kill us, which is what it may come to anyway.
I don't see any other choices.
2010/08/22
Thoughts on the "Ground Zero" Mosque
What follows is a comment I attempted to post HERE. I'm not sure it will appear, because it was, in this form, longer than blogger would accept. When I pared it down and resubmitted, I got a strange error message along with the standard notice that it had been saved for moderation. We'll see if it appears, and if not I'll try again. Meanwhile, here you go: "If Islam were merely another religion, there would be little debate over the proposed mosque. Sadly, Islam is far from being just another faith. Religion and government are joint tenants in Islam, and in practice, Islam is a system of government first - a brutal, militaristic, totalitarian system of government - and a religion - a government religion - second. Wherever it goes it insists on observing it's own law, and Islamic law runs contrary to the entire concept of individual liberty - including religious freedom - that we hold dear. Islam is the leading practitioner of slavery in the world today - first and foremost by intellectually enslaving all its followers, second by physically enslaving half its own (women) and third by physically enslaving all the subjugated in conquered lands. It is not just intolerant of all opposing views, it has a track record of brutally lethal violence against those views.
Just call them Dhimmicrats: in an expedience borne of mental illness, the left manifests a bizarre ease with radical Islam. The left's enemy is America, obviously, and the enemy of their enemy is their friend, right? Never mind what Islam has to say and do about leftist sacred cows such as aberrant sexual partnerships or women's rights. No worries there. As with all historical alliances with evil, this arrangement will work fine for them right up until it doesn't. Then, long past the point of no return, what they've known all along will be undeniable: with Islam, you're either at the table or you're on the menu. Of course, there's no room for others at the Islam's table, and Quisling makes a fine entree...
The argument that approximately 60% of Muslims are "lukewarm" is of little comfort, if one bothers with the obvious math: the remaining (approximate) 40% - the acknowledged fanatics and their ardent supporters - number somewhere north of 400 million. Beyond that, 600 million lukewarm followers (consent) are far more dangerous than 600 million standing united against the oppression (dissent). Western civilization cannot, as claimed above, prevail against 400 million enemy fanatics by "leading an exemplary life, as a true follower of Christ." It is at best naive to think that any group of humans can lead an exemplary life anyway. (We had a better chance at this than most, and look what we've done with it.) Then comes the obvious truth that there are times when such passivity is not just inappropriate, but immoral. As His crucifixion drew near, Christ himself admonished his disciples to buy swords, even if it meant selling their clothes. This is just such a time. Turning the other cheek accomplishes nothing beyond exposing the jugular. Christianity is not a suicide pact with evil, regardless of perverse insinuations to the contrary.
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact either. It's actually quite the opposite. Only a jackass can claim to be honoring the First Amendment by welcoming practitioners of an enemy doctrine that spawns precisely the oppression it was written to prevent. It is not in any way contrary to the First Amendment to deny an oppressive state religion a foothold in America.
This is the difference between being legalistic, which we see everywhere these days, and being moral, which we hardly see at all. Any nation can write laws (they all do) but very few have ever produced a legitimately moral code. We did, and that's what once set us apart. America was built on that moral code, by the controlled immigration of people who wanted to actively live by that code and enjoy the freedom it produced. Quotas were set, and the importation of our enemies was once recognized for the madness it is. Such people came here, of course, but if they hated the place or couldn't make it, they mostly went back home. If they stayed, it meant they had found some measure of success and had succumbed to societal pressure to become part of things. No more. The notion that immigrants should assimilate has been replaced by a cowardly willingness to let them annihilate. Now we not only import the hostile, we look the other way as millions more sneak in. Once here, we educate them, subsidize them, build them foot baths at our airports and pretend it's OK that they impose themselves and their dark ways at any place and in every place, including ground zero.
It's not OK. Not at all.
Islam is not our greatest threat. Legalistic acceptance of the oppression it represents is what frightens me. I dread what's coming in America. With all the legalistic thinkers among us, embracing one form of oppression or another, we're gonna need real blind luck to avoid ushering in another police state after the current one collapses.
III
FPG"
Just call them Dhimmicrats: in an expedience borne of mental illness, the left manifests a bizarre ease with radical Islam. The left's enemy is America, obviously, and the enemy of their enemy is their friend, right? Never mind what Islam has to say and do about leftist sacred cows such as aberrant sexual partnerships or women's rights. No worries there. As with all historical alliances with evil, this arrangement will work fine for them right up until it doesn't. Then, long past the point of no return, what they've known all along will be undeniable: with Islam, you're either at the table or you're on the menu. Of course, there's no room for others at the Islam's table, and Quisling makes a fine entree...
The argument that approximately 60% of Muslims are "lukewarm" is of little comfort, if one bothers with the obvious math: the remaining (approximate) 40% - the acknowledged fanatics and their ardent supporters - number somewhere north of 400 million. Beyond that, 600 million lukewarm followers (consent) are far more dangerous than 600 million standing united against the oppression (dissent). Western civilization cannot, as claimed above, prevail against 400 million enemy fanatics by "leading an exemplary life, as a true follower of Christ." It is at best naive to think that any group of humans can lead an exemplary life anyway. (We had a better chance at this than most, and look what we've done with it.) Then comes the obvious truth that there are times when such passivity is not just inappropriate, but immoral. As His crucifixion drew near, Christ himself admonished his disciples to buy swords, even if it meant selling their clothes. This is just such a time. Turning the other cheek accomplishes nothing beyond exposing the jugular. Christianity is not a suicide pact with evil, regardless of perverse insinuations to the contrary.
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact either. It's actually quite the opposite. Only a jackass can claim to be honoring the First Amendment by welcoming practitioners of an enemy doctrine that spawns precisely the oppression it was written to prevent. It is not in any way contrary to the First Amendment to deny an oppressive state religion a foothold in America.
This is the difference between being legalistic, which we see everywhere these days, and being moral, which we hardly see at all. Any nation can write laws (they all do) but very few have ever produced a legitimately moral code. We did, and that's what once set us apart. America was built on that moral code, by the controlled immigration of people who wanted to actively live by that code and enjoy the freedom it produced. Quotas were set, and the importation of our enemies was once recognized for the madness it is. Such people came here, of course, but if they hated the place or couldn't make it, they mostly went back home. If they stayed, it meant they had found some measure of success and had succumbed to societal pressure to become part of things. No more. The notion that immigrants should assimilate has been replaced by a cowardly willingness to let them annihilate. Now we not only import the hostile, we look the other way as millions more sneak in. Once here, we educate them, subsidize them, build them foot baths at our airports and pretend it's OK that they impose themselves and their dark ways at any place and in every place, including ground zero.
It's not OK. Not at all.
Islam is not our greatest threat. Legalistic acceptance of the oppression it represents is what frightens me. I dread what's coming in America. With all the legalistic thinkers among us, embracing one form of oppression or another, we're gonna need real blind luck to avoid ushering in another police state after the current one collapses.
III
FPG"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
