Babylon Mystery Orchestra
@babylon-mystery-orchestra

Blog

Babylon Mystery Orchestra » Blog

Politics: 4

Islam: 1

Religion and Politics: 7

Crusades: 1

I Am The Walrus

By semjaza, 2008-07-11

I AM THE WALRUS   The assault on the American economy by socialism is increasing in its voracity with each passing day. The sovereignty of the United States, as well as our own individual liberty, has never been in greater danger than it is now. The appetite for economically stifling environmental litigation only grows with each meal it consumes. Global warming hysteria is dragging the socialist indoctrinated lemmings of our society over the edge of a doomsday precipice that will destroy our economy and our way of life, whilst having ZERO effect in changing the course of the earth's climate. With their foolishly surprising success at deceiving the Bush administration into listing the Polar Bear as a threatened species, despite the use of dubious data, the Church of the Global Apocalypse has moved on to a new "victim" of man made global warming...the Pacific walrus.

Well, you really didn't expect them to stop did you? Their bamboozle job with the Polar Bear was impressive. No, not for the quality of their argument, but for the fact that ANYONE would fall for it. The decision to list the Polar bear as "threatened" was based entirely on politics and not on science. Unproven computer models suggested that, as the polar ice continues to decline, the Polar Bear would likewise lose substantial portions of its habitat thus leading to a reduction in its population. This fantasy from the environmentalist insane asylum is ridiculously contrasted with the reality of what has happened to the Polar Bear over the last forty years. In spite of the fact that we have been told that Global warming has been reducing polar ice for years, the Polar Bear has apparently had a more amorous reaction to the supposed decline of its habitat, resulting in a population that has more than doubled, from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s, to the current population which numbers some 20,000 to 25,000 bears!   In a world where success only furthers greater ambition, it should come as no surprise that the environmentalist lawyers are now filing suit to get the Pacific Walrus listed as threatened too. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition in February to force federal action to list the walrus as threatened because of "threats from global warming and offshore petroleum development." Shaye Wolf, a biologist and lead author of the petition, said Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than the best predictions of climate models. "As the sea ice recedes, so does the future of the Pacific walrus," she said. And so the same organization that deceived the Bush administration in its misrepresentation of the Polar Bear's "dire" circumstances now moves forward on the walrus.   But how can they make the claim that the walrus population is threatened at all? The size of the Pacific walrus population is both unknown and very difficult to survey. Estimates place the population between 200,000 and 250,000 animals. The population estimates have stayed consistent for the last thirty years. Although Bruce Woods, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman in Anchorage, said the agency is close to finishing a new walrus survey. "We do have a population count from the 2006 survey that should be finalized soon," he said. "That will give us a better basis for evaluating the petition." Why does that statement make me skeptical?   Walruses are prone to gathering in large numbers on land and when startled, they stampede. This often results in a large number of deaths. One AP news article described how "scientists received reports of hundreds and hundreds of walruses dead of internal injuries suffered in stampedes" and quoted biologist Anatoly Kochnev of Russia's Pacific Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography as estimating that "3,000 to 4,000 walruses out of population of perhaps 200,000 died, or two or three times the usual number on shoreline haul-outs."   According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, Arctic sea ice last summer dwindled to 1.65 million square miles, the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979. The recession of the ice is being blamed for causing more and more walruses to congregate on shore and thereby creating a greater risk of stampeding. Over the last ten years, every fall, walruses have congregated on the Vankarem Cape, forming a "haul-out" just a half-mile from the village. Last fall some 20,000 to 30,000 walruses were piled up there. No one has actually counted them all, but the Vankarem residents are certain the number is growing. Walruses are more vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. Stampedes can, however, be caused by a variety of factors. Like cats in a group, they can be startled quite easy. Once out of control, the stampede is on. Also the presence of natural predators or low flying aircraft can initiate a stampede. The kind of low flying aircraft like the ones used by environmentalists to survey them per chance?   But is receding ice really a problem for the Pacific walrus...or could there be other considerations? Considerations like, say, hunters? Consider this excerpt from a Sea World link:   As the Pacific walrus population grew, annual subsistence catches by indigenous Arctic peoples ranged from about 3,000 to 16,000 walruses per year until about 1990, and then decreased to an average of 5,789 animals per year from 1996 to 2000.   Thats 3,000 to 16,000 killed by human hunters as compared to the 3,000 to 4,000 they claim (dubiously of course) are killed by stampeding...and yet they wish to claim that the walrus is threatened because of receding ice due to global warming. Of course there is another hunter of the Pacific walrus that has a taste for their calves, and the mere sight of one will often send a herd into a stampeding frenzy. Care to guess who the hunter is? C'mon, you can't make this stuff up, its too good to be true but, alas, it is. You guessed it...The Polar Bear. Yep, increased numbers of Polar Bears over the last 40 years have led to an increase in their harvest of both walrus calves and the remains of walruses that don't survive the stampedes they cause. Isn't that a precious "inconvenient" truth?   So lets be sure we understand this. The Pacific walrus should be listed as threatened, even though there is no evidence to suggest that its population is any smaller, or larger, than it has been over the last half century. But let us not be concerned with evidence that hunters, both human and beast, regularly get upwards of 20,000 animals per year WITHOUT altering the balance of the population. No, its global warming reducing the ice that is the culprit of this phantom crime that we are sure is either happening or is going to happen. Lack of proof notwithstanding. For some strange reason, this comes to mind: Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.   Perhaps as the United States drifts ever more into the realms of godlessness there are going to be more fools selling bunk like this to us. Unfortunately, these fools expect that a larger and larger portion of us are going to buy into this type of thing. Hey, it worked once already for the Polar Bear! Who would dare to bet against this now? Remember when Obi Wan Kenobi asked: "Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" My money is on the second fool. The fool who follows him. I can't stop the first fool but I can refuse to become the second one!   The cold hard truth about this is simple. Socialism is alive and well in the United States, as well as the rest of the world. This is how they intend to gain control over our societies once and for all, so that they can get along with the social engineering they have lusted over since the time of Bismarck. It is part of their "we're all in this together campaign" to save the planet from, well, ourselves. You, me, the walrus and the Polar bear all have equal worth in their eyes, and we all have to share and sacrifice for each other. Gives you a warm feeling all over doesn't it? The key word, however, is sacrifice. The bear and the walrus can't do that. That responsibility will fall to us...and there is the linchpin of the entire hoax.   Its very important to them to link these fraudulent species endangerments to the use of petroleum products and fossil fuels. Therefore they can use the legal system in an attempt to force draconian measures against us to combat global warming. The recently defeated Lieberman-Warner bill was the first such example of this sort of legislation. This bill would redistribute over $5.6 trillion from American consumers to pet congressional projects. Despite paying for the trillions of dollars mandated by this cap-and-trade scheme, American families and workers will only receive back $800 billion in consumer tax relief. That's $7 paid for every $1 returned. "The Lieberman-Warner bill was the largest pork bill ever considered by Congress. It was nothing more than a massive tax increase hidden behind the facade of "taking action to combat global warming." This bill was defeated. However, you can bet it will return again in some form. Both Obama and McCain claim to support action against the supposed effects of man-made global warming. Perhaps McCain will be more reasonable, but that remains unproven. When it comes to change, draconian measures are exactly what a President Obama has in mind:   "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." B.H. Obama   Mr. Appeasement appears to have a deep seeded desire to be liked by everyone. This is not a particularly desirable trait for a president to have. Self-perceived good intentions combined with their arrogance and hatred for industry, will bring forth a disaster to our economy. The draconian measures Obama and our socialist politicians want to implement will not have any effect on the planet's climate, but by enforcing such measures, as added taxes on fuel and businesses that consume energy, they will destroy our economy. This is an objective they have had all along. There is nothing a socialist hates so much as a free market capitalist economy. Increasing taxes is their method for confiscating our economic independence. Make no mistake about it, these policies will affect EVERYONE that uses gasoline and electricity in this country. Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you they are going to raise taxes on the rich. The rich can pay these extra costs, can you? And how about those geniuses who desire for us to pursue biofuels? This converts that which we use for food into fuel for vehicles. There is an idea that will raise food prices, as you have already seen, as farmers convert from food to the more profitable fuel crops. Do you think this idea is better for the rich, who can afford both the fuel and the higher priced food, or the poor who won't be able to afford either? Maybe the kool-aid drinking enviro-wackos actually believe in man-made global warming and get a warm (ironic isn't it) fuzzy feeling about saving polar bears and walruses, but the dyed-in-the-wool socialist couldn't care less about these creatures. They just want control. We must not give it to them!   This environmentalist litigation is nothing less than pre-emptive action to prevent any increase in domestic oil production. Because of the rising price of fuel and the fact that American wealth is being sent to foreign governments hostile to our interests, the American people are clamoring for more domestic drilling. The socialists, on the other hand, desire the higher fuel prices because they think the American people are too wealthy and they wish to punish us by destroying our economy. They are using these tactics to short circuit the public's demand for an increase in domestic oil production and exploration.   Congress has banned energy exploration in 85% of our country. China and Cuba are drilling for oil closer to our coastline than U.S. oil companies are allowed. How insane is that? It has been estimated that beneath the American coasts lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years! There is enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years! The Republican controlled congress of the 90's put a bill to allow drilling in Anwar Alaska on Bill Clinton's desk. He vetoed it. During the administration of G.W. Bush the democrats in congress have continued to block all legislation to allow drilling for oil in Anwar as well as continue to uphold restrictions on domestic oil production. This May, democrats in congress blocked the American Energy Production Act of 2008. The bill would have allowed for more domestic oil and natural gas exploration, more use of coal and liquefied coal and it would have tapped into America's vast oil shale fields. The result of such a plan, if enacted, would have been more oil and natural gas on the market, easing supply constraints and lowering prices. It also would have created tens of thousands of new jobs in America and go a long way toward reducing our dependence on energy from unstable and hostile foreign regimes, many of which are actively seeking our destruction.   Just this week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee On Interior and Environment voted not to bring forth a bill to lift domestic offshore drilling restrictions. The vote was on straight party lines with ALL the democrats voting against it and all the republicans voting for it. "We are kidding ourselves, as we routinely do in this town, if we think we can drill our way out of this problem," said Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin.   And what, praytell, did the democrats have to offer as an alternative to the American Energy Production Act of 2008? Their own proposal in Senate bill S3044 which called for a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies! They also wished to rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade. This has been tried before by the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter. The result was higher gas prices as the oil companies will just pass the extra tax down to the consumer at the pump. Worse, it also resulted in LESS domestic oil production as there was no incentive for oil companies to increase production. Way to go democrats! The Middle East may very well be holding us hostage to their oil prices but the democratic party has given them the gun to do it with!   Contrary to the claims of environmentalists, wildlife has expanded and flourished in and around Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. It has had no negative effect whatsoever. And do you want to hear another "inconvenient" truth? Of course you do. Two leading environmental groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy, actually allow oil and natural gas production on several of their own nature preserves. Why? For the money! Don't you know how much that stuff is going for these days?   If organizations such as these can see their way to allowing gas and oil production on their land, why can't we, the taxpayers, get the government off the backs of the oil companies and let them get at the oil we know exists in our own country? Increase the supply, decrease the price. Any fool knows that...well maybe not. Or maybe the socialists that we (well, obviously not me and probably not most of you reading this) have elected to congress are getting just what they want. Choking the life out of the U.S. economy and relieving us of the burden of our freedoms. If you don't believe there are socialists actively working for the destruction of our country you haven't been paying attention. Consider this statement from California Democratic Representative Maxine Waters to the president of a U.S. oil company at a recent hearing on oil prices:   "guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socializing -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."   I guess she gets all her ideas from Hugo Chavez who has done exactly that to the Venezuelan oil industry. You can't fault her for her honesty about her socialist desires, but we can and must stop her and others like her. These nonsensical declarations of species endangerment are just an excuse to deprive the U.S. economy of the fuel it needs to survive. The socialists don't want it, or us, to survive. The world will be a better place without us and they have told us so. What are we going to do about it...or them?   As the Psalmist said: "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Ask yourself, what good can come of these blatant attempts at deceiving us? What will become of us? Man-made global warming may very well destroy us all...but not in the way its being sold to us. Somewhere up north there are Pacific walruses holding their little thumb/fins up to their nose, laughing and leering at us...and don't you know what they are saying?... 
<div style="text-align: center;">COO COO KACHOO </div>

Posted in: Politics | 0 comments

No Representation Without Taxation

By semjaza, 2008-07-11

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION   It is a lie. It is probably the lie most often told by politicians of a particular persuasion, and repeated even more by their parasitic adherents in the press. "The rich do not pay their fair share." Class warfare has been the modus operandi for socialist movements all over the world, and it is a practice that is alive and well right here in the United States.

All of the candidates currently running for President will make various claims as to whose taxes they will raise and whose they will lower. The truth is, they all are lying. By themselves, they haven't the authority to do it. Or as article 1, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution says:   "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."     So the next time a Democrat claims she or he is going to repeal the "Bush Tax Cuts" it would be fair to remind them that President Bush only "suggested" them. It was the Congress that made them the law of the land. Congress had all the power in the U.S. law to resist them. And they can repeal them any time they want...if they really want to do it. We currently have a Democrat controlled House and Senate now. So what are they waiting for? Congressmen tend have a short career when they start raising taxes. Its an election year.   It is true, however, that we do have a lot of Presidential candidates eager to "redistribute" the wealth of the proverbial "rich" to the "less fortunate" in our society. Robin Hood is alive and well. This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt to buy the votes of those people who will be on the receiving end of that money. That is a primary motivating factor in the Democratic party's embracement of government controlled "Universal Health Care." The more people they can get on the "receiving" end of a government programs the more people will be inclined to vote for those people who supply those programs. Naturally, the money has to come from some place. Raising taxes is the common method of acquiring the financing. This is prototypical Socialism. Class warfare being used as a wedge to force in these expensive big government programs into existence. It's all about getting influence and control over the lives of the nation's population. The less money you have, the less control you have over your own life and the more dependent you are on government. It is typical socialist propaganda to claim the rich ought to pay more. Tax cuts, it is argued, only benefit the rich.   Well, it is a fact that you have to be paying taxes to benefit from a tax cut. It is also true that cutting taxes has the effect of increasing revenue. Why? Tax policy is the one way the government can truly effect the economy. When you cut taxes, you leave money (capital) in the economy that can then be used for investment. This leads to an expanding community that adds jobs and therefore adds more taxpayers and new businesses to the tax base. Raising taxes has absolutely the opposite effect by reducing capital in the economy and shrinking investment you therefore reduce the tax base. You would think this would be simple. Yet the Democrats feel emboldened to not only repeal the so called "Bush Tax Cuts," but also to increase taxes still more in order to finance their socialist government programs.   The argument against tax cuts is always the same. Tax cuts are for the rich and therefore if we are reducing their taxes then the burden of financing the government must be "unfairly" shifting onto the poor. But is that the truth? According to the most recent statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, it isn't even a distant relative of the truth.   In 2005 the top 1% of all income earners, which means all those whose annual income exceeds $365,000, paid a whopping 39% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 they were paying 35%. So not only are the richest 1% paying well over third of all federal income taxes, they are carrying an even greater share of the tax burden than they were under President Clinton. This AFTER the "Bush Tax Cuts!" Imagine that.   If we look at the top 5% of income earners, those with annual incomes over $145,000, we see they are paying 60% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 their share of the tax burden was 55%. Once again we see the tax burden of the wealthiest 5% of income earners increasing AFTER the tax cuts. Impressive.   It continues no matter how you look at the numbers. The top 10% of income earners, $103,000 and above, pay 70% of all federal taxes. The top 25%, $62,000 and above, pay 86% of federal taxes. And get this...the top 50% of income earners, those earning $31,000 and above, pay 97% of all federal income taxes!!   That leaves the 3% of income earners who earn less than $30,000 annually. They are currently paying 3% of all federal taxes but in 1999 they were responsible for 4%. So who is bearing the tax burden of the federal government? Have the tax cuts really shifted the tax burden in the direction of the poor? It would appear that tax cuts have brought nothing but desirable results all around. They have provided an expanding economy, more jobs and fair dispensation of the tax burden. Now the Democrats propose to improve this by raising taxes? Lunacy.   When it comes to unfairness in the tax system, the problem isn't the taxpayer. Any taxpayer. The problem arises from those who do not pay any taxes at all. If you have no financial stake in the government, your voting practices are going to reflect that fact. Tax cuts mean nothing to the non-taxpayer. However you might be led to believe that tax cuts could effect you negatively if you are dependent on government programs and government income. That is where the Democrats come in, providing misleading information to those dependent on the government for their wellbeing. Truthfully, tax cuts will benefit those dependent on this redistribution of income as well, but politicians practicing class warfare find these "less fortunate" people to be vulnerable to this misinformation. After all, if they have any education at all it was government provided public education. Remember, the idea is to mislead and gain control.   Consider these figures. 41%of whites, 56% of blacks, 59% of American Indians and 40% of Asians and pacific Islanders paid absolutely NO federal income taxes. They have ZERO tax liability. Yet each and every one of them has an equal voice at the ballot box as those who do fund the federal government. How "fair" is that?   The socialists, who continually present the argument that the rich do not pay their fair share, know all of this. They intentionally misrepresent this information in their attempt to gain power and influence over us. It is their desire to destroy the U.S. economy so as to eliminate the independence of the American people. It's all about control. It is a deception that has worked before when people who have a stake in government allow those who do not to participate as equals in the selection process of government officials. Once a population realizes it can vote itself money from the treasury it can hold the government hostage to its demands. We have arrived at that point in this country.   This country was founded by people who were sick and tired of paying taxes to England and not having a voice in its government. They were paying money to a government that was not responsive to their concerns. "No Taxation Without Representation" was the battle-cry of the revolutionaries. Well the pendulum has shifted too far the other direction now. People who are NOT paying taxes should NOT have as equal a say in the government as those who do! We as taxpayers are once again being governed by a government that is not responsive to our concerns. Our politicians are too busy doling out the treasury to non-producers in exchange for votes.   If more taxpayers were aware of how truly unfair and biased the tax system is against them, I believe they would insist on a "new revolution" to correct this "injustice." That is a word the socialists love. Injustice. They use it to validate all of their programs. "Social justice" is how they validate their demands for more money from the treasury to placate a variety of social ills. But "justice" for some is ultimately a crime against someone else.   Those receiving the "redistributed" benefits of the work of others should not be allowed to dictate the terms of that redistribution! When they are allowed to do so we are no longer "promoting the general welfare" of the population. Nor is this any form of charity. It's robbery! Why should the weakest, non productive element of our society be allowed to destroy our entire society with their demands? Perhaps a new battle cry is necessary to fix this "social injustice:" "NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!!"

Posted in: Politics | 0 comments

"Axis Of Evil" Essay II: Come Drink The Wrath

By semjaza, 2008-07-11

"Axis Of Evil" Essay II: COME DRINK THE WRATH   The phrase "once saved, always saved" is at the heart of one of Christianity's oldest and deepest running controversies. It is the belief that a person's salvation is a permanent condition. Many Christians, including Catholics, commonly deny this doctrine. Several Protestants, including Southern Baptists, embrace this belief. Still others fall in between holding to the argument that if one's salvation experience was indeed genuine, then that genuineness will be manifested in a secure salvation. In other words, if you backslide you were never truly repentant in the first place. Though I myself am a Southern Baptist, I have challenged this doctrine on the new Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD in a very big way. I have suggested that the infamous "mark of the beast" can, and will, be forced on people against their will. That especially includes Christians. I don't make this assertion carelessly.

The first person to espouse the idea of "once saved, always saved" was John Calvin in the mid-sixteenth century. Even Martin Luther didn't subscribe to the theory. Prior to Calvin, the unanimous consent of the early Christians was that a person is capable of losing his salvation by committing mortal sin, as in this scripture:   1 John 5:16-17 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.   In the first century, the Didache, commonly known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, said "Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time." -Didache 16 {A.D. 70]   In the second century, Irenaeus wrote, "To Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess' [Phil. 2:10-11] to him, and that he should execute just judgment towards all. The ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men shall go into everlasting fire; but he may, in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the beginning of their Christian course, and others from the date of their penance, and may surround them with everlasting glory." -Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]   Biblically speaking, arguments can be made for all three positions. Advocates of the "once saved, always saved" position often point to these scriptures: EPHESIANS 4:29-30 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. ROMANS 8:37-39 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. JOHN 10: 26-30 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.   Although there is a lot to be said for the comforting certainty that this approach to salvation provides it does harbor some fatal flaws. The implication is there that no MAN is able to pluck a person out of Gods hand. But we should remember this as well: Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.   Ahh yes, problem number one. It is not humans that are the problem here. It is the spiritual powers that control the world unseen. Although it would appear Paul is trying to console us that these powers cannot come between us and God in the ROMANS passage, I believe this is a tribute to the power of God and should not be misconstrued as a perpetual condition. To say that you can not lose your salvation would be the equivalent of saying that no one can pull you out of a car moving at 100 mph! Of course they can't! But you CAN jump out on your own. Therein lies the the great problem. There are those who, by deception or the lures of earthly reward might convince you to do the equivalent of jumping out of the moving car. This is what I propose. You can be led by the actions of spiritual beings and their earthly ambassadors to willingly and perhaps even unwillingly extinguish your salvation. I return to the most dangerous verses in the entire Bible: REVELATION 14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.   This is a passage that, unfortunately, does not allow for any misinterpretation. Absolutely everyone who receives this mark is entitled to the wrath of God. It therefore would be very important for our favorite fallen angel to find any and every way to get this mark on everyone. Much has been written of how this mark could come about. Things like implants that can be scanned much like a credit card but that could also contain all your medical and financial records. We already know that animals are implanted with these types of devices. Such an identification implant would be quite useful not only for eliminating all currency into one digital form, but it would also make quite a handy tracking mechanism. Remember, only God is omniscient. The other spirit beings have to find a way to keep track of you while operating in the earthly realm. It will not be that difficult to convince the non-Christian world to accept this "mark" in the name of modernization or even simple "law and order." But what about....Christians?   I have always believed that the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine was one of the methods used by Satan to deceive people into taking his mark. By convincing Christians that they are "entitled" to be removed from the earth prior to the events of the great tribulation he essentially has them lowering their guard for these forthcoming events. If you believe you aren't going to be here for it then perhaps you will simply view this mark as a form of social and economic identification, and therefore say to yourself: "this can't be the mark of the beast since I am still here." And of course you are instantly eternally doomed. I do believe this is the purpose of the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine, and it will work with many people, but there is more.   Many Christians believe that if someone put a gun to their head and said "take the mark or die" that they could easily choose death. If only it would be so easy. I propose an alternate probability. One that is far more vicious, violent and pure evil. For I believe that the entire tribulation and all the power at Satan's disposal will be aimed at Christians and Jews at this time, and we will be here for it.   It's one thing to deceive you into taking the mark, but first the question must be asked: can it be forced upon you? From a physical standpoint the answer is obviously yes. Scientists (not the toughest of people) regularly "tag" animals like elephants and tigers with relative ease. Shooting them with a tranquilizer suddenly makes the most physically challenging animals on earth very vulnerable. Since humans are much less physically imposing than tigers, we can easily say that the enforcers of the Anti-Christ's "New World Order" will have the technology at their disposal to actually capture and coerce the unwilling to accept the mark.   Now many people will argue that since the mark was not voluntarily accepted that it therefore will not count against you. I would not be so sure about that but if you truly believe that, it will be one of the greatest challenges to your faith you will ever have. There are these verses in the book of Matthew that have always bothered me. MATTHEW 18:7-9 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.   It seems to me, that Jesus is giving you the prescription for saving yourself from this very problem. Would it not stand to reason that the most offensive thing you could possess on your body would be the "mark of the beast?" It therefore stands to reason that if you find yourself involuntarily in possession of it then you KNOW what you must do. Considering this mark is said to be most often associated with the forehead, and we do possess the technology to make this mark unremovable (safely), it would appear that there is only one way to regain your acceptability in the sight of the Lord. Yes, I am suggesting that you just may have to ask someone else of equal faith in God...to remove your head. Many Christians out there will say this could never happen and isn't true but you must always remember that Satan is the instigator of confusion and deception. It may well be Biblically true that the mark forced upon you will not separate you from your salvation. But will you take the chance? Many of you will say that the Lord will protect his own and keep this situation from happening much like he kept Noah from drowning. By simply keeping these people away from you. That may also be true but to that I would also say this: MATTHEW 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.   What kind of Christian is Jesus addressing here? He is stating that many people who call themselves Christians are in fact not. Would not this kind of person be vulnerable to a forced application of the mark of the beast? And consider this: Would such a person who suddenly found him or herself forcibly abducted and marked likewise be blessed? What? Blessed you say!! Yes, and here is why. Isn't it quite possible that many of these people actually believe they are Christians? That they are right with God, only now to find themselves cursed by him? The liberalizing of modern day Christianity is to me the single biggest CAUSE of the tribulation. Thats right I said CAUSE. I firmly believe that if the faith of Christians remained strong then the tribulation would not even get started. Why? Because like in the story Sodom and Gomorrah. God waits until the last possible moment before he acts in judgement. Weak Christianity is the cause of the tribulation. Or as Paul said: 2 TIMOTHY 4:4-5 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 THESSALONIANS 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.   Here we see a weakening of faith being tied together with the arrival of the very personality that is going to be behind these events. Therefore I challenge you that a lot of people who think they are faithful Christians actually are not. These people have imperfect or just plain false knowledge about God and are therefore vulnerable to being forcibly marked by the Anti-Christ. However, they should also have knowledge of this mark, and once it has been placed on them, they just may find the humility to pursue the truth of God and they may then have the courage to remove the mark. Therefore it could be viewed as a blessing or a last chance for those who may not have known better? Because of the mark they can correct their situation and will now not be among those who Jesus tells to depart for he never knew them. Therefore...a blessing!   There is also another thing to consider. If you have the mark forcibly applied to you, whatever the state you believe your salvation to be, you will be tempted to use the mark and interact within the society. Think about that one a lot. Once the mark is applied, you will then have access to your bank accounts and medical records that you did not have without it. If you are sick and seek medical attention, you have voluntarily USED the mark. If you are hungry and go to a McDonalds and purchase a meal, you have USED the mark. It matters not at that point whether you willingly accepted it. Perhaps the spiritual ramifications of a hamburger were never so monumental!   So I have presented a case for certain people who could be forcibly marked. Remember the idea is to sew confusion and deception in the world. If I can think of these things, Lucifer is far ahead. But I have saved perhaps the worst of it for the last. What of the children?   For the pre-tribulation rapture believer this comes down to the question of whether or not the children of the non-Christians will be taken. It is pretty much given that the children of Christians would go with their parents. Many, including Jack Van Impe, say that ALL the children of the earth would be taken in the pre-tribulation rapture. However I would contend that this could not be the case. As I argued in the Axis of Evil Essay on Islam, Jesus called himself the "good shepherd" and as such he would be entitled to take that which belongs to him in his rapture. The children of his sheep certainly would qualify as belonging to him. But the children of other shepherds belong to those shepherds. If Jesus was willing to "render unto Caesar that which was his" would he not have to allow the other shepherds to claim that which is theirs? EXODUS 20: 5-6 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.   I believe that these two verses resolve the issue soundly. The children of non-Christians will be "left behind" because those without Jesus to intercede on their behalf are to be judged by the law...and the law is clear.   But wait! Haven't I established that I believe the very idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is a Satanic plant within the world of Christendom for the purposes of deception? Therefore if there is no pre-tribulation rapture...what of the children? MATTHEW 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!   This verse should bother you a lot as it comes right in the midst of Jesus describing the events leading up to his return. He specifically goes out of his way not to mention the children, but their parents. What could that be all about? Yes, it's that bad and I am going to say it.   What would you do if you were Satan? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Now is the time for you to do it. Even if you were willing to execute someone who refused to take the mark of the beast, would you be willing to kill their children? Of course not! You will take him or her alive into "state custody" where they will receive the mark, and with it, the promise of eternal damnation. It is the responsibility of the parents of those young children to see that their offspring are not captured...alive. Am I suggesting that Christians living through these events will kill their own children? For some, this will be their only option. I hate to offend the sensitivity of many of you Christians out there (Ok, actually I don't but I don't want you to think I am enjoying this), but its time to spiritually "grow up" and see the world for what it truly is. REVELATION 14:9-11 does not allow for exceptions. And before you go howling away about how God would never allow such a thing remember: God is not the one doing it to you! Satan is!! And Satan is mocking God!! Consider this example: GENESIS 22:1-12 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ****, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ****; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid [it] upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where [is] the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.   It is a long passage but an important one. Most people will tell you that God was testing the faith of Abraham. Certainly Abraham passed the test since he was willing to sacrifice his own flesh and blood son, as God had requested. But God did not allow him to follow through with the sacrifice. Seeing that his faith was true, God spared him from this terrible duty. However, it is not God who is insisting on putting an identification mark on the people of the earth in the last days. God has no need of a tracking mechanism. I tell you Satan will mock God and force you to prove your faith in those days. He will not show mercy and you will have to be stronger than him.   Keep in mind that this will actually help the cause of Christian persecution at this time. The newspapers will be full of stories about how Christians kill their own children rather than submit to what they believe is a benign example of modern technology designed to help preserve peace and security. Since persecution of Christians is the ultimate goal of both Satan and the Anti-Christ, it's a virtually fool-proof plan. And it has already been done in the past.   In the previous "Axis Of Evil" Essay on Islam, I suggested that Islam was in fact a religion of Satanic origin. Have you ever heard of the Janissaries? Lets look at them. The Janissaries became famous for their military skills, but also because they were staffed by youths conscripted from Christian families in the Balkans. After the conscription they were defined as the property of the sultan, and converted to Islam. That is right, Christian children were taken from their parents and raised as Muslims and as soldiers they were charged with fighting against the Christian society from which they were stolen. It's not the only time that Islam has stooped to this type of behavior. During the Armenian Genocide of 1915-22, Armenian children were taken from their families and likewise raised as Muslims. Do you really think the Anti-Christ will do less when it come to the children of Christians in his time? The children apprehended by this "Beast" will certainly have the mark placed upon them and be forever separated from God. Will you be willing to risk that with your own child? What will you be willing to do to prevent it? How far will you go? Now tell me, how strong is your faith? I tell you "The Great Tribulation" will be this bad...and even worse. 
<div style="text-align: center;">COME DRINK THE WRATH Sidney Allen Johnson (A.S.C.A.P.) Welcome to the free world, upon you I will feed I've come to place a mark on you that bonds your soul to me Don't act so surprised, you've known it all along This day would come when I will make you choose where you belong Come drink the wrath! Of Your God Come drink the wrath of your God Will your hand offend you? Or will it be your head? Great or small, rich or poor you'll all be just as dead Do you have the strength, to free you from my vice? Can you suffer death on earth to enter heaven's life? Come drink the wrath! Of your God Come drink the wrath of your God Do you love your children? I'll put you to the test! Is your love strong enough to put your child to death? No Jesus, these I will not kill Once my mark is on their head...you will! Come drink the wrath! Of your God Come drink the wrath of your God Now listen up you Christians I've got a special plan for youMy secret is sedation I'll get my mark of death on you Welcome tribulation, is it everything you fear? You'll kill for life and kill for love and all that you hold dear Don't act so surprised, you've known it all along This hour would come when I will drag you down where you belong Come drink the wrath! Of your God Come drink the wrath of your God Come drink the wrath! Of your God Come drink the wrath of your God Lift your glass, raise it high Now your soul is mine </div>

Posted in: Religion and Politics | 0 comments

"Axis Of Evil" Essay I: Islam

By semjaza, 2008-07-11

"AXIS OF EVIL" ESSAY I: ISLAM "There is no terror threat in this country. This is a lie. It's the biggest lie we have been told. And it was a lie told in service of stirring up Americans to accept a new Crusade. A Crusade sponsored and led by Christian theocrats who were working to take control of this country, institute Biblical law, and use America's immense might to launch their mission on a global scale."-Michael Moore, certified lunatic" We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world, except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew." -Radical Islamist Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris proving that Michael Moore is a lunatic.

One of the primary protagonists in the new Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD, "Axis Of Evil" is, unsurprisingly, Islam. I have been researching the subject a lot over the last few years and have already written several essays on the subject. There will be more to come as well. This one is aimed primarily at the claims made in this new work about Islam. This is not something I have undertaken frivolously. Quite the opposite. I have taken Islam to task both seriously and aggressively but without the fraudulent theatrics that often accompany other forms of music that regularly desecrate Christianity such as Black and Death Metal. I contend that Islam is not a religion, as we in the Christian West understand the meaning of religion. There is no separation of religion from the state in Islam as there is in Christianity. In fact the two are intentionally married together and are inseparable. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad was most definitely interested in an earthly kingdom and Islam is the apparatus he constructed to acquire and control it. Therefore Islam is better understood as a tool created for a certain purpose by a certain creator. And yes I do identify that creator...Satan. On the preceding CD, "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy Of Satanic Christianity," my intention was to display an active, if uninvited, negative spiritual influence in Christianity. Certainly if one is prepared to accept the reasonable, and obvious, premise of Satanic influence within the sphere of Christianity, it should not be difficult to understand that such an influence would be much easier to peddle in a world less interested in truly divine spiritual powers. I will return to a favorite metaphor for describing the influence of these spiritual forces and how they operate. It is the way Jesus referred to himself as the "Good Shepherd: JOHN 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. 6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. In this instance we see Jesus as the "Good Shepherd." Unfortunately there is another shepherd out there who is not so good. It seems reasonable to assume that if Jesus is the door that leads to the flock of sheep that shall be saved, that another door might produce substantially lowered expectations. And who might be the door to that flock and what kind of "sheep" might one expect to find therein? Would not these sheep be subject to the protection and nurturing that would be of a considerably more diabolical nature? At the risk of violating a lot of people's timid sensibilities I am going to say it clearly: Islam is comprised of the sheep of Satan. They belong to him. They serve only him. The god of Islam is...Satan. Learn it. Live it. If you were to try to construct a religion whose values would stand in perfect opposition to those established by Jesus, you could not do any better than Islam. Whereas Jesus was a nonviolent "martyr" who sacrificed his own life in a thoroughly humiliating and humble death so as to take the consequences for all the sins of mankind upon himself, Muhammad devoted his life to violence aimed at extracting vengeance from those who offended him by rejecting him as a prophet. Could there be more difference? Muhammad used violence as a tool to acquire the wealth that he needed to finance his new religion. We have a word for this sort of thing: piracy. He was humiliated by the Meccans who forced him to flee to Medina. Then he was offended by Jews who would not accept him as a prophet of God and had the annoying habit of pointing out his doctrinal errors. This, in spite of the fact that he went out of his way to steal many of their religious ideas, celebrations and traditions and incorporate them into Islam in an attempt to gain their favor. When they still rejected him as a prophet of God he felt himself justified in killing them and was compelled to justify the killing of them in his new religion. Qur'an 5:51 Believers, take neither Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers. Was it something they said? You bet it was. It would appear Muhammad did not handle rejection so well. Jesus allowed himself to be not only rejected but humiliated before the world. Most Christians would view this as a major display of both strength and love. However Islam doesn't view things this way. Karen Armstrong, an Islam apologist and author of many books on Muhammad and Islam, even had the audacity to ask the question: "is a Christ-like failure the only way to God?" Well Karen, the answer is yes. Though I would be careful about using that word "failure." Jesus lived a life unblemished by sin. He therefore was fit as a sacrifice to exchange his blood for ours and pave the way for our salvation. If he had even one sin attributed to him he would be unable to fulfill this purpose. This is in keeping with Old Testament laws about sacrifices that were made in the Temple. The sacrifice had to be unblemished or perfect. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that Muhammad is revered throughout the Islamic world as al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man? Apparently, however, there are two very differing views on perfection. The differences between the two examples of perfection are many: Muhammed's disciples killed for their faith; Christ's disciples were killed for their faith. Muhammed and his fellow warriors murdered thousands; Christ and his disciples murdered none but saved thousands. Muhammed's method was compulsion; Christ's method was voluntary conversion. Muhammed was a warrior; Christ is a deliverer. Muhammed was swift to shed blood for his gain. Christ shed His own blood for the salvation of others. No nation has ever willingly converted to Islam. None....Ever. Let that sink in, for it says everything you will ever need to know! We find the differences spelled out clearly in the "Holy" books from both competitors for your worship. The Bible and the Qur'an. Those who would claim that both religions are "equals" are misrepresenting the facts. There is no comparison. Islam is in complete opposition to Christianity. MATTHEW 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Qur'an 8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. MARK 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Qur'an 9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Qur'an 9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. As we can see from these and so many more examples, Islam is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. Coincidence? Not likely. This is direct proof of the involvement of the very spirit beings mentioned in the above verse from Ephesians. A religion entirely fabricated by Satan to be exactly what he is to this world. The opposition of all that is true and Holy. Satan is a liar and Islam is his lie. There is absolutely no equivalency between the religion of Christianity and Islam. They are polar opposites by diabolical design. There is also an all to common misconception about the equivalency of violence between Judeo-Christianity and Islam. This often revolves around the book of Joshua. In chapters 8-11 there is considerable killing. All justified by God himself. However, unless you are one of those people who inhabited that land God was giving over to Israel, this doesn't apply to you. Also God did explain why those people were not to be spared in the takeover. The violence in the Bible is descriptive of the events that took place at that time and at that place. They are in no way written as instructions for future people to use in any other situation. If anything it goes to great lengths to point out that this particular campaign was ordained by God for his purposes. Specific instructions were given to specific individuals to be carried out at a specific time and at a specific place. And only at that time and only at that place. Islam on the other hand endorses an open ended campaign of violence against non believers. The Qur'an clearly teaches its followers to commit acts of violence against them. Qur'an 2:190-193 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. Worse still, is Islam's intolerance of its own rejection. There is no allowance for turning away from or rejecting the "truth" of Islam. There is also no allowance for the toleration of other beliefs or the freedom of conscience to even entertain the idea of another system of belief. The hand of judgement for offences against Islam is not reserved for "Allah," but instead is the duty of every Muslim. Qur'an 4:89 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah From what is forbidden. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Contrast that with Jesus instructions for handling the rejection of his word. MATTHEW 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. MATTHEW 19: 21-22 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. There is something very important there. Jesus Christ, the son of God and Saviour of the world, did not chase down the man who walked away from him. He did not curse him. He did not authorize anyone to do any harm to him. And, perhaps even more importantly considering the "liberalizing" of modern day Christianity, he did not alter his message to make it more appealing to those who would reject him. What did Jesus do? He just let him go in peace. Islam cannot allow that kind of freedom of choice. Why? Because Muhammad is a false prophet and "Allah" is a false god. Power must be demonstrated through suppression and oppression. Jesus, on the other hand, is God. He knows you will answer to him. He has all the power in the universe and he has all the time in the universe to wait and give those who reject him every chance to hear the truth...and accept it. If only they will. Quite a difference. The Qur'an is a terrorist manual which condones and encourages fighting, conflict, terror, slaughter, and genocide against those who do not accept Islam. Muhammad was no martyr and neither are his followers who constantly view themselves as such. Using your own death as a weapon to kill others is not martyrdom. Its murder. It is perfectly acceptable to someone whose Kingdom is "of this earth" as is Muhammad's. He has his reward. It is foolish to look upon the violence in Islam as being the work of a few "Islamic Fundamentalists" who have hijacked an otherwise peaceful religion for their own purposes. It is true that the great majority of Muslims do not partake in violence but their silence or lack of participation should not be misinterpreted as disapproval of it. Though the jihadists are a minority within the larger Muslim community, they do insist that their actions are based in Islamic theology. Those hoping for some Muslim equivalent with the Christian "reformations," that led to the removal of a lot of institutional corruption within the Christian religions, will be very disappointed. The jihadists claim they ARE the reformers and it is they who are practicing the truest puritanical Islam. It is of interest to point out that nowhere in the Muslim world is there an anti-jihadist movement. Muslims all over the world rioted over the publishing of Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper, yet they danced in the streets in celebration of the destruction of the World Trade Center. They attacked non-Catholic Christian Churches in the Middle East after Pope Benedict quoted some unfavorable remarks about Islam, yet they never criticize Osama Bin Laden for hijacking their "peaceful" religion. Quite the opposite. There is no greater hero in the Muslim world today! So is Islam a religion of peace? No! Not now. Not ever. The Bible is a missionary manual to spread the gospel of peace to all the world. Jesus was a martyr who, in possession of all the power in the universe, allowed himself to be killed for the benefit of others. A real martyr. The concepts of the two religions cannot be in more total opposition. There is no equivalency between Islam and Christianity. Islam is death. Tolerance for Islam is tolerance for death. Yours! Religious ideology runs deep. The fact that you don't believe in their god or any god will not alter their reality. 1400 years of history cannot be ignored. Pursuing the myth of moderate Islam only provides them with more time, and they are fastidious in their use of time as a weapon. These people are more committed to their agenda than anyone else. They give their lives for it. Believe their own words: "Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established as they always have been, by pen and gun, by word and bullet, by tongue and teeth. Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals, or Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialog of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun."-Al-Qaeda Manual As of this writing a new milestone has just been reached. There have now been over 10,600 Islamic terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001. Not just terrorist attacks, but ISLAMIC terrorist attacks. 10,600!!! If Islam is a "religion of peace," how do you define war? Matthew 7:20 "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Indeed my Lord. We know them well. 
<div style="text-align: center;">ISLAMIC TOLERANCE </div>
<div style="text-align: center;"> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc276/allenjohnson_2007/?action=view&current=mecca-roadsign.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc276/allenjohnson_2007/mecca-roadsign.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">THE NEW BABYLON MYSTERY ORCHESTRA CD "AXIS OF EVIL" </div>
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc276/allenjohnson_2007/?action=view&current=axismerch.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc276/allenjohnson_2007/axismerch.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a></div>

Posted in: Religion and Politics | 0 comments

There's a Law For You 'uns and a Law For We 'uns...and They Ain't the same Law!

By semjaza, 2008-07-11

THERE'S A LAW FOR YOU 'UNS, AND A LAW FOR WE 'UNS...AND THEY AIN'T THE SAME LAW! It ended with nary a sound. The British Empire, that once ruled the seas and dominated the world came to an end without so much as a whimper. Though they once repulsed the Spanish Armada, vanquished Napoleon's armies and stood tall and alone against the **** blitzkrieg, they now do not stand at all. The British Lion has been declawed by its own misguided sense of tolerance. Now Muhammad's feral devils merely make demands and a toothless England acquiesces. Consider this story:

Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. Dr. Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr. Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue. An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger. He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes toward women as well". But Dr. Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger. There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."(Daily Mail, UK) This is not just anybody suggesting this. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a title respected around the world. Yet here he suggests that there should be a "constructive accommodation" with some aspects of Muslim Law. Muslim immigrants shouldn't have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty?" This sets the bar for "tolerance" mighty high. No sooner had this comment found its way to the front-burner of the news than a follow-up appeared that proved to be even more distressing. Sharia law "courts" are already dealing with crime on the streets of London, it emerged today. The revelation came after the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, called for an "accommodation" with parts of the Islamic legal code in a speech which attracted widespread condemnation. The Archbishop said parts of civil law could be dealt with under the sharia system but already some communities have gone much further - and it was revealed today that a teenage stabbing case among the Somali community in Woolwich had been dealt with by a Sharia "trial" Youth worker Aydarus Yusuf, 29, who was involved in setting up the hearing, said a group of Somali youths were arrested by police on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told officers the matter would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail. A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate the victim."All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologized for the wrongdoing." An Islamic Council in Leyton also revealed that it had dealt with more than 7,000 divorces while Sharia courts in the capital have settled hundreds of financial disputes. (Daily Mail, UK) That's right. You read it correctly. Sharia Law has been practiced and dispensed within the sovereign borders of a Western nation. Not just any old nation mind you. But England! A country once proudly and staunchly associated with the "rule of law," and with centuries of history to back up that association. Let that sink in. It is an atrocity of tolerance when immigrants are allowed to violate the laws of their host country, but here we have a case of Muslim immigrants not just violating the law, but setting up and operating an entirely separate legal apparatus within the borders of a sovereign WESTERN nation. Is this an invasion? Hell no! This is full blown conquest. England is lost! This Muslim hoard didn't ask for permission to do this, or even make a demand for it. They just did it. It begs another question. Do we know this hasn't already been done within the borders of the United States? Can we be sure? How can a society exist when there are two separate legal systems operating within its borders? The law cannot operate as a market that caters to its own particular clientele. The law must apply equally to all or else there is no law, and perhaps more importantly, no order. This makes Jim Crow and Apartheid seem like child's play. But what would you expect? Islam has 1400 years of practice at this sort of thing! That there have been 7000 divorces settled by Islamic courts within a Western country should give all women pause for concern. Real concern. No longer are we talking about the rights of women living in a foreign land. Now we are talking about the rights of women living within the bounds of, and theoretically at least, under the legal protection of Western culture. Islam has now usurped the laws of the West! And once again no one has done anything about it. Hell the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks it is a reasonable idea! Women have little to no standing under Islamic law. They are treated as the property of their husbands or fathers. Marriages are routinely arranged. Unlike here in the West, Islamic divorce laws almost exclusively favor the males by socio-religious design. Is this what feminists have fought for or against all these years? What are you going to do about it now? How about voting for U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama? He said in an interview with a French magazine that if he wins he wants to organize a summit of Muslim nations for "frank talks on bridging the divide between Muslims and the West." Ahh yes. Negotiations. His priority, of course, is ending the war in Iraq. According to him we can't get out of there fast enough.Obama said: "Once I'm elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West." He said he would ask Muslim heads of state to join the war against terrorism. (Note to Barack: They already have. They're the ones fighting it. Unfortunately they are the OTHER SIDE!!) "We must also listen to their concerns," continued Obama. The trouble with "their concerns" is that they are always wrapped up in a series of (the same) demands. You know the ones, stop supporting Israel, stop persecuting Islam by failing to join it, and of course...your favorite and mine...pay us to stop terrorizing you! Obama also wants direct talks with countries like Iran and Syria, the absolute worst exporters of terrorism worldwide. "We won't be able to stabilize the region if we don't talk to our enemies," Obama was quoted as saying. Well what do you think they want to talk about? Perchance to see about getting Islamic courts set up in America so that Muslims here will not be forced to live under the oppressive United States judicial system where they are treated the same as everyone else, instead of superior to them? Well we are a tolerant society aren't we? We certainly are not going to let England out tolerate us now are we? Who could possibly be opposed to letting Muslims have their own set of laws to live by? Why only women, homosexuals, drinkers, fornicators, non-Muslims, Muslim apostates, blasphemers, adulterers, dog owners etc. etc. etc. Have we left anyone out? And you thought it was only Christians and Jews that had something to fear. There is good news though! It takes the testimony of four male witnesses, or a confession, to prove rape under Islamic law. So men, don't waste time asking for a woman's permission for sex anymore. "No," no longer means "no." "No," means make sure that four Muslim men aren't around watching and just take whatever woman you want. Hey, its the law. I have warned you many times, Islam does not believe in a separation of Church and State. To Islam, they are one and the same. Islamic law applies to all aspects of life. The political as well as the personal and/or religious. To implement Sharia law is effectively to break down the fundamental principle of Separation of Church and State and it will destroy Western society. Western culture, particularly in Europe, arrogantly likes to portray itself as having "outgrown" religion. The existence of these Islamic courts prove they certainly haven't "outsmarted" it. It's too bad for England. Their "tolerance" has gotten the best of them. God will not be mocked. You will not turn your back on him. He will turn you over to "other gods" that do not ask for your worship...they demand it! Islam takes what it desires. It always has. It would be wise to notice that nowhere in the Muslim world are alternative points of view perceived to be of equal value. They are not tolerated at all. Islam has a lot of faults, but it isn't afflicted with the self destructive "tolerance" syndrome that has seduced and weakened the West. How many more warnings can the Christian West have left? Must we be next? The solution is simple. The time has come for Western nations to see Islam for what it is. A Government! It must be outlawed throughout Western Civilization. These people in England were not terrorists. They are not attacking anyone, yet they set up an entirely separate legal system within the borders of a sovereign nation. Why? Because ISLAM IS A SOVEREIGN NATION. Remember these words: We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy." -Syrian-born Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed This is exactly what they are doing. Using our democracies to destroy them! Islam is not a religion and therefore MUST be removed from our societies. Look around the Islamic world. Do they tolerate Western laws and practices in their lands? NO. Freedom of religion does not apply to Islam. This may sound tough, but Islam is a destroyer of cultures. They are good at this...as good as cancer. How many of you would have thought the classic western TV show Bonanza would have been so politically prescient? I tell you they don't make television shows like they used to. You could learn something watching TV in those days. There was an episode, titled "The Spitfire" in which an old lady was having a dispute with Ben Cartwright. Her name was Maud Hoad. She was part of a family migrating from the West Virginia mountains. In this particular episode Ma Hoad didn't see any point in going to the law in order to extract justice for the killing of her husband. Or, as she put it: "Nobody does a hurt to a Hoad without any pays for it." For those of you that don't speak "suthern" that means she felt like his killing merited another killing to even things out. She wanted to kill Little Joe Cartwright herself. Like a Muslim, she didn't have much appreciation for Western Law such as the laws of the Nevada territory. In fact she expressed it thusly: 
<div style="text-align: center;">"There's a law for you 'uns and a law for we 'uns...and they ain't the same law" <a href="http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q190/lynnlaur/?action=view&current=grandmahoad.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q190/lynnlaur/grandmahoad.jpg" border="0" alt="ma hoad" /></a> Funny, she doesn't look Muslim. I guess the hajib makes all the difference!</div>

Posted in: Religion and Politics | 0 comments

US Military Attacked!! From Within

By semjaza, 2008-07-10

U.S. MILITARY...ATTACKED! FROM WITHIN Two stories coming out in the same day show the growing danger of the influence of Islam within our own foolishly tolerant society. There are two dead soldiers today. Dead because there is no way to tell the difference between a radical jihadist and a so called "moderate" Muslim. Worse, however, is news that Islam's influence has reached within the walls of the Pentagon itself. Thus guaranteeing Islam will become a greater influence within the ranks of our own military. Still think Sharia Law can't happen here?

An Iraqi soldier has opened fire on American troops, killing two and wounding three others, US and Iraqi officials have said. The incident happened during a joint patrol in the north on 26 December, but fuller details have only now emerged. An Iraqi general said the patrol had come under fire from gunmen in the city of Mosul, but his soldier had "abused" the situation and shot the Americans. It is thought to be the first such case since the US-led invasion of 2003. The US initially reported the deaths of Capt Rowdy Inman, 38, and Sgt Benjamin Portell, 27, as resulting from hostile small arms fire. But Iraqi general Mutaa al-Khazraji said: "They (the joint patrol) were attacked by gunmen and the (Iraqi) soldier abused the situation and killed the two soldiers." He said the Iraqi serviceman had been "an insurgent infiltrator". He was arrested and is being questioned. (BBC News) Now who among us didn't see this coming? The gods of multiculturalism have demanded, and now extracted, their sacrifice. You can rest assured it will not be the last one. So much for the conventional wisdom that believes that giving these people jobs and a chance at a free life will make them dedicated to the cause of a unified free Iraq. It appears they have a belief system that runs a little deeper than even their own self interest. Now what do you think that could be? I have said before and will say again that religious beliefs run deeper than anything else in the human experience. People will do for a god what they would not even do for their families. They will even sacrifice their family members and themselves for the cause of their god. There must be within us who would resist them the courage to condemn a god that not only tolerates a perpetual war for world domination, but that actually demands it. That's right, I said condemn a god! I just got through watching senator, and presidential candidate, John McCain give a speech in New Hampshire. While giving this speech he had a group of men behind him. These men were World War 2 veterans. He constantly kept referring to their strength and resolve in the face of the monumental challenge of their lifetime when freedom was in jeopardy of being crushed at the hands of fascist idealism. Well the Japanese and **** fascists were nothing more than "johnny come latelies" in the in the history of oppression. They have nothing on 14 centuries of Islamic oppression. However, our ancestors did understand how to defeat such an enemy and, more importantly, they had the courage to implement tough measures to get them through the conflict. One of those tough measures was to keep many Japanese Americans under guard at internment camps during the war. This has been, over time, a much maligned and controversial decision on the part of the "greatest generation." But it did show that they understood that a multi ethnic society like the United States faces unique challenges when prosecuting a war. World War 2 was a war of survival, and they survived. They realized there was no foolproof way to discern the difference between a loyal Japanese American and a spy working on behalf of Japan. The War Department called for the discharge of all soldiers of Japanese ancestry from active service in early 1942. Even though some Japanese Americans did inevitably fight in the great war, they were generally forbidden from being involved in combat in the Pacific theater. Another tough decision. Another correct one as well. So now I ask you: how do you tell a "moderate" Muslim, assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing even exists, from a jihadist? You know the answer to that. You don't have any reliable method for doing so. It is a fatal flaw in the plan for Iraq's unity. It is actually quite surprising that this hasn't happened more often. But it has happened before, not by an Iraqi soldier, but an American one. Remember the story of Sgt. Asan Akbar from 2003? Soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division grappled with the notion Sunday that one of their own was apparently solely responsible for the morning's gory grenade and rifle attack at a brigade headquarters here, killing a captain and injuring 15 others, including a brigade commander. The slain officer was identified as Army Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert, 27, originally of Williams Township, Pa. He was sleeping in his tent when the attack occurred. Officers said the attacker apparently acted alone, and the suspect was identified as Sgt. Asan Akbar, 31, of the 326th Engineer Battalion. The Army released two Kuwaiti interpreters who were detained soon after the attack. Akbar, who is separated from his wife and has no children, has served with the Airborne's 326th Engineering Battalion for four years. Fellow soldiers described him as a loner who was not particularly good at his job. Akbar came to 2nd Platoon a year ago as a "rehabilitative transfer," an Army term for moving a soldier to another unit because he doesn't get along with his colleagues or may benefit from a change in leadership. Akbar, an American citizen born Mark Fidel Kools, apparently grew up in California and was living in Moreno Valley, Calif., in 1999. He was a convert to Islam. A perfectly predictable situation. His loyalty to Islam was greater than his loyalty to his country. Small wonder when you consider that Islam is its own government and does not allow for the recognition of "man-made" laws or "man-made" states. Yet who would dare even suggest, in our politically incorrect world, that Muslim soldiers should be carefully screened before being allowed to accompany their units into a Muslim dominated part of the world? This in spite of the fact that such "profiling" almost certainly would have prevented this particular incident. As tragic as these easily preventable deaths are, there is another story that is even worse. Worse because the infiltration of the Muslim ideology has found itself a home not just within the ranks of the military, but within the upper echelons where important policy is formulated. This story is damning! Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government's most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it. He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism. Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism. The officials said Mr. Coughlin was let go because he had become "too hot" or controversial within the Pentagon. Misguided Pentagon officials, including Mr. Islam and Mr. England, have initiated an aggressive "outreach" program to U.S. Muslim groups that critics say is lending credibility to what has been identified as a budding support network for Islamist extremists, including front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Coughlin wrote a memorandum several months ago based on documents made public in a federal trial in Dallas that revealed a covert plan by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian-origin Islamist extremist group, to subvert the United States using front groups. Members of one of the identified front groups, the Islamic Society of North America, has been hosted by Mr. England at the Pentagon. After word of the confrontation between Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Islam was made public, support for Mr. Coughlin skyrocketed among those in and out of government who feared the worst, namely that pro-Muslim officials in the Pentagon were after Mr. Coughlin's scalp, and that his departure would be a major setback for the Pentagon's struggling efforts to develop a war of ideas against extremism. Blogs lit up with hundreds of postings, some suggesting that Mr. England's office is "penetrated" by the enemy in the war on terrorism. Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for Mr. England, said "no one in the deputy's office had any input into this decision" by the Joint Staff to end Mr. Coughlin's contract. A Joint Staff spokesman had no immediate comment. (Washington Times) Thats right, you read that correctly. A Muslim apologist, Hasham Islam, has enough influence to get a Pentagon official FIRED from his job. Apparently Mr. Coughlin is capable of seeing through the facade of many Muslim organizations WITHIN the United States that are actively working on behalf of the STATE OF ISLAM. And make no mistake about it. That's how Muslims view Islam. It is the only government they recognize. They have infiltrated our country at a level that has now caused a decision to be made that will have alarming consequences. Tough decisions about Islamic Jihad will not be made by those looking out for Islam's best interest over ours! Our own country is betraying us In favor of the STATE OF ISLAM! This is not the first time high level operatives have used their influence to alter policy in favor of a direction detrimental to American interests. Consider the story of Solomon Adler, a Treasury Department official, and John Stewart Service, an American diplomat who served in the Foreign Service in China prior to and during the World War 2. Both were American citizens and both were Soviet spies. they used their positions during the Truman administration to author report after report condemning the anti-communist leader Chiang Kai-shek as corrupt and unworthy of American support, while fawning over the virtues of communist leader Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai. We all know how well that worked out for us now don't we? All along there was a denial by the democratic administration that there was any real threat of communist infiltration of the government. With the opening of the FBI files in 1995 we have learned a lot about this incident and many others that prove that the Soviets had successfully penetrated the U.S. government at the highest levels. It was no myth. McCarthy has long since been vindicated. Do not underestimate the ability of Muslims to alter American policy in the same manner. Islam demands loyalty but to one state, ISLAM. Their is not any allowance for a separation of Islam from the government. Islam is the government. Tough decisions will have to be made in order to keep our freedom. WE must separate Islam from our state. They have already achieved the firing of a Pentagon official who was too "critical" of them. This was done in the open for all to see. Hashan Islam isn't even a spy! Why is any Muslim allowed such a voice within our government? Did you think they could do such a thing? Now I ask you again: Do you still think Sharia Law can't happen here? Are you willing to do what is necessary to stop it?

Posted in: Religion and Politics | 0 comments

Suffer Not The Children

By semjaza, 2008-07-10

SUFFER NOT THE CHILDREN? "We cannot let culture supercede religion, If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it." -Sheikh Alaa Elsayed Tol·er·ance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. Prej·u·dice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. Anyone who doubts that a clash of cultures between Western Civilization and Islam is inevitable will find it hard to explain why we as a society should "tolerate" and allow the free existence of such teachings as these within our midst. The following stories are, unfortunately, true.

A Mississauga, Ontario man will be formally charged on Tuesday with murder in connection with the death of his 16-year-old daughter. The girl, Aqsa Parvez, was in critical condition on Monday after being strangled, apparently after a dispute with her family over her refusal to wear the hijab, the Islamic headscarf worn by some Muslim women. However Peel Regional Police said Tuesday the girl died late Monday night. Police arrested the victim's 57-year-old father, Muhammad Parvez on Monday morning after receiving a 911 call from a Mississauga home from a man saying he had killed his daughter. He is due to appear on Tuesday in a Brampton, Ontario court. The victim's 26-year-old brother, Waqas Parvez, was also charged with obstructing police. Friends of the teenager, a Grade 11 student at Applewood Heights high school, said Monday they were shocked by the attack on the outgoing, likeable girl, but said she had been threatened by her strictly religious family before. Ebonie Mitchell, 16, a friend of the victim, said the conflict with her father over wearing Islamic dress came to a head at the beginning of this school year. "She just wanted to dress like we do," she said. "Last year, she wore like the Islamic stuff and everything, the hijab, and this year she's all western. She just wanted to look like everyone else." This would be a tragic event if only it wasn't so predictable. This kind of thing is not uncommon in Islamic countries where discipline of this sort is EXPECTED from the parents of "rebellious" and "disobedient" children. Often it is seen as a matter of restoring "honor" to a family that perceives itself to have been slighted by the child's behavior, hence the name "honor killing." However seeing this behavior within the confines of a Western country should be cause for alarm for here is a clear case of Islamic immigrants so devoted to NOT assimilating into our culture as to allow themselves to perpetrate such a vile act in clear sight of everyone and with an indignant sense of entitlement and pro-piety! At a news conference at the Islamic Society of North America Canada headquarters in Mississauga, held three days after the strangling death of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez, Sheikh Alaa Elsayed said "We cannot let culture supercede religion, If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it." Naturally Islam apologists C.A.I.R. were quick to try to claim it is not an Islamic problem but instead is a typical teenage situation. "There should be zero tolerance for violence of any kind against women or girls," said Shahina Siddiqui, the president of the Islamic Social Services Association. "The strangulation death of Ms. Parvez was the result of domestic violence, a problem that cuts across Canadian society and is blind to colour or creed. We call for the strongest possible prosecution of Ms. Parvez's alleged attacker,"- Faisal Kutty, the legal counsel for the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations. Unfortunately it is Islam that is not "blind to color or creed." Islam is, and has always been, INTOLERANT to all non Muslims! CAIR-CANADA's Sameer Zuberi had this add: "Teen rebellion is something that exists in all households in Canada and is not unique to any culture or background, Domestic violence is also not unique to Muslims." Teen rebellion? Domestic violence? Thats right, many parents kill their children over poor choices in clothing. If this were true there would probably be a massive murder spree here in the United States in order to quell the rise of the "sagging pants syndrome" that has been infesting our culture. And what parent hasn't wanted to kill their child for getting an earring or a tattoo? It happens all the time...doesn't it? It gets better! Muhammad Elmasry, President of the Canadian Islamic Congress had this to say about the murder. "I don't want the public to think that this is really an Islamic issue or an immigrant issue. It is a teenager issue." So it had nothing to do with Islam or Islamic immigrants...could've happened to anybody right? Damn teenagers! Somebody ought to...Oh, I guess he did. United Muslim Women of Canada's Anisa Ali threw in with this statement: "The public shouldn't assume that honour killings only happen in the Muslim community. Honor killings are not limited to Islamic countries like Pakistan, Jordan, Syria and Afghanistan." Ahh, so what you are saying is that other people are doing it. We tend to not like the "everyone else is doing it so why can't I" defense here in the civilized world. It kind of sounds like something a teenager would say. Unfortunately the teenager in this story is dead. I guess, however, it is true that such things don't just happen in Islamic countries. Aqsa lived in Canada, certainly not an Islamic country, but one that is flawed by a desire to be perceived as tolerant of a profane religion called "Islam." And how about this story from our friends in England, another non-Islamic country...at least not yet. The daughter of a British Imam is living under police protection after receiving death threats from her father for converting to Christianity. The 31-year-old, whose father is the leader of a mosque in Lancashire, has moved house an astonishing 45 times after relatives pledged to hunt her down and kill her. The British-born university graduate, who uses the pseudonym Hannah for her own safety, said she renounced the Muslim faith to escape being forced into an arranged marriage when she was 16. She has been in hiding for more than a decade but called in police only a few months ago after receiving a text message from her brother. In it, he said he would not be held responsible for his actions if she failed to return to Islam. Officers have agreed to offer her protection in case of an attempt on her life. Last night the woman said: "I'm determined to live my life the way I want to because I should have that freedom in this country. "If you make the choice to come to this country, as my parents did from Pakistan, you have to abide by the laws of this country and that means respecting the freedoms of other people. "I know the Koran says anyone who goes away from Islam should be killed as an apostate, so in some ways my family are following the Koran. They are following Islam to the word. "But I do not think every Muslim would act on that. "My situation is frightening, but I'm not going to let it frighten me to the extent I can't live my life. A study this year found that 36 per cent of British Muslims between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another religion should be punished by death. In July an Iranian immigrant to Britain, who converted to Christianity, was saved from deportation after it emerged she would be stoned to death in her own country. Apparently our Muslim friends have a problem with independent women and still desire to continue the time honored tradition of arranged marriages. Where, one may ask is the assimilation into British society? One thing Islam does not "tolerate" is apostasy from the faith. The only way out of Islam is through death. Doesn't that sound familiar? Every street gang worth it's salt has a blood in, blood out rule. So that pretty much puts Islam on an even keel with the Crips and the Bloods. Good company, huh? And yet there is more! Everyone of these examples collected by the National Post occurred in non-Islamic Western countries!! -Rajinder Singh Atwal stabbed his 17-year-old daughter, Amandeep, 17 times after he discovered she was dating a boy he disapproved of. Atwal was convicted of second-degree murder in British Columbia in March, 2005. He automatically received a life sentence of 25 years in prison. -A devout Muslim's strict religious beliefs drove him to murder his favourite daughter when he found her "secret" boyfriend in her bedroom, a jury in the U.K. heard in February, 2002, the Manchester Evening News reported. Faqir Mohammed, a father of 10 children, stabbed the 24-year-old student in the head after finding the man when he came home unexpectedly. His original target was the boyfriend, student Bilal Amin, but he escaped by jumping from the bedroom window. The father chased him, but when his daughter tried to stop him, he took hold of her and stabbed her repeatedly, reports stated. "According to the law it was not right, but according to religion it was right," he told detectives. -Hina Saleem, 21, was found buried in the backyard of her family's home in Italy. Four men, including her father and uncle, were accused of premeditated murder and hiding the body, lawyer Carlo Bonardi was quoted as saying in an Associated Press story in August, 2006. Ms. Saleem's mother, Bushra Begun Saleem, told AP her daughter was disobedient — often out late without saying where she was or when she was coming home. She also said she did not forgive her husband for his alleged participation in the killing. -A Kurdish immigrant in Sweden, who killed his daughter because he did not like her modern way of life, pleaded guilty to the murder in March, 2002. Rahmi Sahindal said he had not planned the killing but lost his temper when he came across his daughter, Fadime, while she was paying a secret visit to her mother and sisters in January. He gunned her down at point-blank range before their eyes. Fadime, 26, had fled the family home to escape from her father and other male relatives who did not want her to mix freely in Swedish society. Sahindal was trying to arrange a marriage for her in Turkey and threatened her when he found out she had been dating a Swedish man. I bet you think such things can't happen here in America? Well, think again my friends. One of the best of these 'honor killings" happened right here in the United States. I say best because this one was caught on tape! In November 1989 in St. Louis, the FBI inadvertently tape recorded the entire episode of a teenage girl's being killed by her Palestinian father and Brazilian mother (the Feds were looking for evidence of terrorism, which they also found). In a ghastly eight-minute sequence, Zein Isa stabbed his daughter Palestina thirteen times with a butcher's knife as his wife held the girl down and responded to Palestina's pleas for help with a brutal "Shut up!" The killing ends with Zein screaming "Die! Die quickly! Die quickly! . . . Quiet, little one! Die, my daughter, die!" By this time, she is dead. The jury deliberated more than four hours before asking for the death penalty against Zein Isa and his wife, Maria. The jurors had convicted them in the death of their daughter Tina, the father for stabbing her and the mother for holding her down. The girl's screams and moans as she begged her parents not to kill her were captured by devices secretly planted in the apartment by Federal agents who were looking into possible illegal activities by Mr. Isa on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Instead of international intrigue, the tapes captured a sometimes chilling, sometimes heartbreaking family drama involving clashes of cultures - Mr. Isa was born in Palestine and his wife in Brazil - and the parents' attempts to control their daughter who, it seems, wanted to be an American teen-ager. The seven-minute tape of the killing, on which the father is heard shouting in Arabic "Die quickly!" in answer to his daughter's cries, chilled the jury of seven women and five men and shocked court officials who thought they had seen and heard everything. "It's worse than any movie, any film, anything I thought that I would ever hear in my life," said Bob Craddick, an assistant prosecutor for seven years, who has heard the tape seven or eight times. …On the night of her death, Tina's parents express anger on the tape that she was at work, then seem not to believe that she was at work at all. Then Tina's father says: "Here, listen, my dear daughter, do you know that this is the last day. Tonight, you're going to die?" Tina responds: "Huh?" Zein Isa replies: "Do you know that you are going to die tonight?" The girl's mother asks her questions about items in her schoolbag. In the midst of her conversation with her mother, Tina begins to shriek in fear. "Keep still, Tina!" says her father. "Mother, please help me!" "Huh? What do you mean?" the mother says. "Help! Help!" "What help?" the mother responds. Tina screams, and Maria says: "Are you going to listen? Are you going to listen?" Screaming louder, Tina gasps: "Yes! Yes! Yes, I am!" then coughs and adds, "No. Please!" The mother says, "Shut up!" Tina continues to cry, but her voice is unintelligible. "Die! Die quickly! Die quickly!" the father says.The girl moans, seems to quiet, then screams one last time. "Quiet, little one! Die my daughter, die!" the father says. Tina was stabbed six times in the chest with a boning knife, which pierced her heart, one lung, and liver. Now explain to me why we should "tolerate" Islam. Sure, all Muslims do not behave this way. But where are the ones condemning this practice? I guess they are being drowned out by the noise of all those Muslims condemning jihadist terrorism. Are we guilty of prejudice if we choose not to tolerate this behavior, or the religion that encourages it, within our society? No, for we are not acting "without knowledge, thought, or reason." We are acting with it! Also, we have plenty of indisputable evidence to back it up. Intolerance and prejudice are, in fact, embedded in Islam like a cancer. It has already destroyed them. It need not destroy us as well. "We cannot let culture super-cede religion, If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it." -Sheikh Alaa Elsayed 
<div style="text-align: left;">"If we tolerate the teachings of Islam, WE will pay for it." -Sidney Allen Johnson 
<div style="text-align: center;">Aqsa Parvez, killed by ISLAM <a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc276/allenjohnson_2007/2aqsa.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket" /></a></div>
</div>

Posted in: Religion and Politics | 0 comments

All The News Thats Printed To Fit

By semjaza, 2008-07-10

ALL THE NEWS THATS PRINTED TO FIT

You people are going to have to step up to the plate and do your fair share. You need to go find yourself a homosexual or a Muslim (or, perchance, a Homosexual Muslim) and give him, or her, a proper beatdown. If you don't particularly dislike Homosexuals or Muslims you can go beat up on some of the old standby downtrodden and discriminated factions of our society, but the media would prefer you stick to the current agenda. You see, there just isn't enough genuine racism and bigotry in America anymore. As a result you are making the poor media have to go out and create some "artificial" bigotry. But hey, that will do when you have a great idea for a story and are just lacking a few minor things like facts, truth and well, news. Sometimes bad news is hard to find. Shocked that I would say such a thing? Do read on... From WBRC TV in Birmingham Alabama comes this wonderful story:

ABC is doing a social experiment in Birmingham that includes having same-sex couples show affection for each other in public, according to Birmingham police department sources. FOX6 first learned about this story from a Southside merchant who pointed out an RV parked at the corner of 20th Street and 11th Avenue South. The merchant said ABC was working on a week-long project to see how people would react to things like public displays of affection by **** and lesbian couples. A FOX6 news reporter approached the RV and talked with an "actor" who said, "Yes, we are working for ABC News."
A South Precinct officer who spoke anonymously said he had received at least three or four reports from people who said they were disgusted over two men kissing in public. That officer says the ABC project is not a violation of the law and that ABC has a permit to park the RV. An attempt to reach ABC News for comment has been unsuccessful.

What's this? Is ABC News attempting to create a news story out of thin air? Do you think they were looking for passersby to celebrate the "cultural diversity" of American social life as they witness these unsolicited public displays of homosexual affection? Or were they hoping for some rednecks to come by and take a swat at them? All of it, of course, to be captured on camera as an example of intolerance against the current "discriminated minority" they have championed as needing special protection, and therefore special rights, to save them from ignorant hatemongers. So what if the news media had to use "actors" as bait to lure the hatemongers out into the open. The subsequent reactions of hatred would still be real...wouldn't they?
Naturally Birmingham Alabama is the perfect place to set up their little sting operation because everyone knows the South persecutes **** people. And wasn't Birmingham the sight of some of the finest examples of discriminatory violence ever caught on tape? Yeah, FOURTY years ago. But who am I to critique investigative journalism? I am sure I should be offended.
If you can't find the news to tell the story you want, why not just go out and hire some actors and fake it? I find it interesting that they saw fit to use actors and not real **** people. I guess when you are staging phoney news your pride must insist on total fabrication. I can understand that in an Alabama sort of way. I know I prefer to catch a fish on a plastic worm rather than a real one. It makes me feel superior to the stupid fish to know he never was chasing anything real. So by hiring actors instead of real **** people, ABC News is showing their total superiority over the stupid citizens of Birmingham Alabama. Well, except for one little problem...they got caught.
As we all know, competition between the network news organizations is fierce and ABC must have felt the need to prove they were superior to their rivals at NBC News. I am sure you all remember how last year NBC attempted this same sort of thing, only they were not as elaborately deceptive as ABC. They attempted the equivalent of fishing with real bait when last year the program "Dateline NBC" sent what they described as "Muslim-looking men" to a NASCAR race in Virginia. Of course they were accompanied by a camera crew to film the expected fan reactions. Reactions they felt confident they could easily get at this hotbed of Red State "elitist" culture. Apparently they intended to air a segment on anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. The uncooperativeness of the American population at engaging in these acts of hostility during the transactions of their day to day lives in the post 911 world forced them to try to instigate it themselves. What better place than a NASCAR race to "incubate" such a worthy social experiment? It was a work of genius. Well, except for one little problem...they got caught.
A NASCAR spokesman had this to say about it:

"It is outrageous that a news organization of NBC's stature would stoop to the level of going out to create news instead of reporting news. "Any legitimate journalist in America should be embarrassed by this stunt. The obvious intent by NBC was to evoke reaction, and we are confident our fans won't take the bait," he said.

Unfortunately for NBC the NASCAR fans didn't take the bait. Instead of manufacturing a news story, they became one. Some days the fish just aren't biting and then some days you fall out of the boat. Did I say boat? Who could forget NBC reporter Michelle Kosinski giving a live report, while floating in a boat, from the flooded streets of Wayne, New Jersey when two men walked between her and the camera, revealing that the water where she was floating was barely ankle-deep. Later, an NBC News spokeswoman explained that Kosinski had been riding in deeper water near an overflowing river down the street, but there were concerns that the current was too strong for her. "It's not like we were trying to pass it off as something it wasn't," said spokeswoman Lauren Kapp. Of course not.
Such shenanigans are not just limited to the major TV networks. The fabricating of news stories is a thriving and driving force in the print media as well. The New Republic magazine managed to get itself busted recently when Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, author of the heavily disputed "Shock Troops" article in their July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns, signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations, falsehoods and fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth." It was a clever idea to pay a real soldier to write a story about the treacherous behavior of soldiers fighting in Iraq. It added a wonderful aura of authenticity to an otherwise solid piece of bulls***. Certainly Senator John Kerry must be proud, as he set the standard for this sort of thing. And really, what does the truth matter if by telling a lie you can effect a change for the greater good of mankind? Well, except for one little problem...they got caught.
These unfortunately are not isolated or rare incidents. This is now the modus operandi for a media determined to "change the world." Reporting the news is so last century. Journalists now see themselves as "social engineers" and our society is just a mechanism for them to tweak...for our own good of course. But you can rest easy for the future is in good hands as this recent news item can attest:

A student journalist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., admitted that she had drawn swastikas on her own dorm room door. Sarah Marshak signed a confession after security cameras caught her in the act. The campus publication, The Hatchet, said she told the staff that she "only drew the final three of six swastikas on her door in an attempt to highlight what she characterized as the University's inaction."

No, say it ain't so. Like I said, the future of journalism is in good hands. I know it warms your heart to know that there is another young journalist who is well on her way to an outstanding career engineering our society for the better. Well, except for one little problem...she got caught.

"It's not like we were trying to pass it off as something it wasn't,"

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Posted in: Politics | 0 comments

About

Followers 4
Following 0
Updates 1

Read Full Stats

Contact Joined July 11, 2008

Biography

DEFIANCE...It is the heart and soul of rock music. Rock music has always stood against cultural and musical elitism. But what happens when rock music itself...

Read Full Biography

Rating