Blogs

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

"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

"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

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

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

Damien Nash Benefit Pool Party & Concert

By sta2ff, 2008-07-10

Posted in: Hope Hop | 2 comments

DEEPERSPACES

By sly puppy, 2008-07-10

Lonilness is an emotional state in which a person can experience powerful feelings of emptiness and complete isolation.Loneliness is more than the feeling of wanting companionship or wanting to do something with another person. Loneliness is a feeling of being cut off, disonnected and alienated from other people. A lonely person may find it difficult or even impossible to have any form of meaningful human contact. Lonely people oftn experience a subjective sense of inner emptiness or hollowness, with feelings of separation or isolation from the world.
Loneliness can play a part in alchololism. In both children and adults, loneliness often has a negative impact on learning and memory. Its effect on sleep patterns can have a devastating effect on the ability to function in everyday life.
Deeperspaces sets out to explore the feelings of isolation the high and the low of realsim.
I wrote this piece last year in response to a biography I had read but that version of the piece wasn't as I intended it to be.This however is a version which is powerfull and damned in equal measure.
Sly

Please listen with open mind.
Try to imagine the feelings of isolation.
Sly

Posted in: music | 0 comments

Two New Tracks (Sort of)

By Phillip Hartley, 2008-07-10

Hi Everyone.
I just uploaded two new tracks. Well one new track that I recorded a couple of weeks ago and an older track (that is new to this site) that I recorded a couple of years or so ago when I was brand new to digital recording.
They are both traditional song. Loch Lomond is an old Scottish song which I have coupled hear with an old Pipe-tune; The Banks Of Sicily. The Wild Geese is an Irish song that I learned (though not in this arrangement) when I first started playing at folk clubs and sessions. It was taught to me by my friend Mick Rafferty when I was a very shy and nervous novice. Sadly Mick died last year and it was also my late Mum's favourite. So I sing it now in memory of them both. It took me a long time to find an arrangement for this song that I was moderately happy with. I think it must be my 4th or 5th attempt to record it. Anyway, please have a listen and let me know what you think.
Cheers, Phil.

Posted in: New Song | 0 comments

Firestorm

By Mach, 2008-07-10

Back in 1901, a huge fire broke out and burned most of downtown Jacksonville, Florida. Right after I moved to the area I read the story about the fire and thought it would be a good idea to tell the story in song. I wrote the lyrics to this song and now 18 years later I finally get it recorded.

Here's a link on the history...<a href="http://jaxhistory.com/greatfire2.htm" target="_blank" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"> http://jaxhistory.com/greatfire2.htm</a>
A big thanks goes out to Michael Nunley (FocusPlayer) for suppyling his most excellent vocal talents to the song. He did such an amazing job and gave it that emotional touch it needed for the type of content involved.
<a href="http://www.mixposure.com/Mach/music.php?p=2">http://www.mixposure.com/Mach/music.php?p=2</a>

Posted in: default | 0 comments

There Is No God But Allah (The Truth About Islam pt. 2)

By semjaza, 2008-07-10

"THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH" The Truth About Islam pt. 2 
    It was an amusing beginning to a not so amusing story. In the year 610AD Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, a 40 year old merchant from the town of Mecca on the Arabian peninsula, was awakened from his sleep (in a cave no less) by a heavenly(?) voice telling him he was the messenger from God. This man, who would go on to establish one of the largest, most militaristic and intolerant religions ever concieved, reacted the way any cold and calculating conqueror would.....he hid under his wife until it went away!! Thus, Islam was born.

Muhammad was born on approximately August 20, 570 AD. His father died soon after his birth and his mother died when he was six leaving the future prophet to be raised as a shepherd by his uncle Abu-Talib. At the age of 25 he cleverly married a rich widow 15 years his senior named Khadeejah. They spawned six children, all of whom died young except for a daughter, Fatima. The Arabia of the time was populated by warring tribes (sectarian violence anyone?) who took a particular delight in raiding one another's caravans. Muhammad was a member of the Quraysh tribe and had participated in two local wars with the Banu Hawazin tribe. He was subjected to epileptic seizures, and addicted to prayer and fasting even before his "divine" visitations with the angel he identified as Gabriel had begun. He was also familiar, though somewhat erroneously, with the traditions and customs of the Jewish and Christian people that also inhabited the region. After his initial encounter with the "angel," he worried that he was actually being pursued by demons and feared he was becoming possessed by them. His wife encouraged him that these apparitions were real and that he should open himself up to be the prophet of God. This made her his first convert and, as could be expected, his immediate family tended make up his initial following. He began preaching to his own Quraysh tribe about one god and, from the very beginning, was adamant about his role as this god's one true prophet. Initially the Meccans were relatively indifferent to his preaching. Their society was a pluralistic one so they were somewhat accustomed to a variety gods and religions. This was further enhanced by their trade relations which likewise kept them aware of "alternative" belief systems. It wasn't even particularly unusual to declare himself a divine prophet as there were actually quite a few "would be" prophets making the rounds in the Middle East of that time. Since the citizenry of Mecca weren't responding particularly well to his preaching, Muhammad decided he needed to step up his rhetoric and began assailing the popular pagan gods of the region, as well as to promote the idea that their ancestors may have earned a less than heavenly reward for having died in their disbelief of the one true god. Faced with a "hellfire" preacher in their midst the Quraysh lost their tolerance. His situation deteriorated rapidly when Muhammad's uncle Abu Talib, head of his Banu Hashem clan, died and was replaced with another of his uncles, Abu Lahab. This uncle particularly disliked Muhammad and his teachings so much that he earned a special mention in the, as yet unwritten, Qur'an. Qur'an 111 1. Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he! 2. No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! 3. Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame! 4. His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - As fuel!- 5. A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck! As you can see he did not take this rejection well. Intolerance of criticism is a trait that his religion retains to this day. This rejection, and the ensuing persecution of Muhammad and his approximately 40 followers, led to what the Muslims now call the Hejira. He left Mecca and fled to a nearby village called Medina, in hopes of finding a climate more suitable to incubate his new religion. It is in Medina that Muhammad would truly get his act together and would transform himself from a relatively unsuccessful private preacher to a political and military leader. He established the "Constitution Of Medina" which organized the the new local following, and those who followed in the migation to Medina, into one community called an umma. This one document essentially laid the foundation for all of Islamic law and order to follow. It established the religion of Islam as the source of all social and political organization. This firmly married the religion to the state and they have been INSEPARABLE ever since! It was in Medina that Muhammad would also begin his military career. Although initially, this amounted mostly to piracy as he and his followers raided the caravans of the Quraysh. These raids provided both a source of income and an opportunity for training his followers. This training would serve a theological purpose as well as the more obvious military one. One particular raid on a caravan at Nakhla was done during the sacred month of Rajab, when such fighting is not permitted. However, not surprisingly, a new "revelation" came from Allah that allowed the raid to be justified because the opposition of the Quraysh to Muhammad was a greater transgression than violating the prohibition against violence during the sacred month. To reject Muhammad is the moral equivalent of persecuting Islam, and accordingly, is worse than killing. Thus the "situational ethics" of Islam is born. Qur'an Surah 2:216-217: Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. There are those Islam apologists who will tell you that Islam actually prohibits the targeting of innocent people in conflicts. However the "Doctine of Nakhla" is one of the justifications for doing exactly that. Since non-believers by definition are guilty of persecuting Islam, fighting that persecution, by any means neccessary, is not only tolerated, it is expected. This is not an extremist position. This is mainstream Islam! This is why they celebrate in the streets and rejoice when two buildings full of innocent people come crashing down at the hands of Osama Bin Ladin's terrorists. It is also why mainstream Islam fails to condemn the actions of terrorists. Quite the opposite, in mosques all over the world (including the United States!) they encourage violence against civilians. Moral absolutes do not exist in Islam. That which benefits Islam at the expense of Islam's enemies is the whole of the law....And if you are not for them, you are against them. Shortly after the Nakhla raid, Muhammad and his Muslims fought their first major battle when they attacked a Quraysh caravan at Badr. What first looked like an easy target for the Muslims turned into a much bigger affair when Muhammad's 300 men found themselves facing a force of over 1000. Yet the Muslims surprisingly routed the Quraysh. The prophet even went so far as to claim that Allah had sent an army of angels to insure that the Muslims prevailed in the engagement. The victory at Badr came at a convenient time for Muhammad as his influence in Medina had actually been on the wane. He thus used the victory at Badr to consolidate his authority and move against his opposition. The first to find themselves in the line of fire were the Jews of Medina. They had refused to acknowledge him, or his "revelations," as coming from God. Upon migrating to Medina, Muhammad tried to convert the local Jewish population by pointing out the similarities (some might call it plagiarism) between Islam and Judaism. He even adopted certain Jewish practices such as the fast of Yom Kippur and the Day of Atonement. It is also interesting to note that originally Muslims faced toward Jerusalem for their daily prayers. Instead of being impressed by all these overtures toward their faith, the Jews turned into his biggest critics. They consistently pointed out the errors and inconsistencies of his teachings. Now Muhammad was going to "correct" them. Since the three Jewish tribes living in Medina also happened to be wealthy, this provided Muhammad with another opportunity for plundering. He banished from Medina the Qainuqu tribe, with whom he had a truce, citing their unwillingness to recognize him as the prophet of God. He then divided up their property among the Muslims. This of course, had the effect of providing the Muslims with an incentive continue to follow Muhammad's instructions as they tended to profit from them. He even authorized murder when a young Muslim volunteered to fulfill his wishes to kill a Jewish poet, who was accused by Muhammad of insulting Muslim women. Not all of Muhammad's military ventures were successful. After a defeat in the battle of Uhud, Muhammad attributed the loss to a lack of faith on the part of his followers. Qur'an 3:152 GOD has fulfilled His promise to you, and you defeated them by His leave. But then you wavered, disputed among yourselves, and disobeyed after He had shown you (the victory) you had longed for. But then, some of you became distracted by the spoils of this world, while others were rightly concerned with the Hereafter. He then diverted you from them to test you. He has pardoned you. GOD showers the believers with His grace. Muhammad's prestige was dented by this setback so he used this as an opportunity to strike against another Jewish tribe. The Nadir. He banished them from Medina and, once again, divided their land and property among the Muslims. However it would be the third Jewish tribe, the Quraiza, that would suffer the worst, as a scapegoat for Muhammad's greater ambitions. In 627AD, 10,000 Meccan bedouins laid seige to Medina. Apparently they had tolerated all they could from Muhammad and his Muslim raiders and were determined to rid themselves of the problem once and for all. Unfortunately their military enterprise quickly turned into a disaster. Muhammad had cleverly dug trenches around the city where it would have been vulnerable to calvary attack. Since the cavalry was the strength of the Quraysh army, this rendered their attacks ineffective and, after only two weeks, they left. Muhammad subsequently accused the Quraiza, the richest and most powerful of the original three Jewish tribes of Medina, of collaborating with the Meccans. The 800 men of the tribe were coerced into digging a trench and then told to sit on the edge of it. Then, one by one, they were sytematically beheaded and their bodies tossed into the trench. They then sold their women and children into slavery and, of course, divided the proceeds among the Muslims. From this point on, Muhammad would only regard the Jews as trecherous and evil people. He claimed it was they who falsified scriptures and taught doctrines in error. He changed the Sabbath from saturday to friday as well as changing the direction of daily prayers from Jerusalem to Mecca. Its good to know the history of how these things came about...isn't it? After the failed seige of Medina, Muhammad had a "revelation" of making a pilgrimage to Mecca. This was, in fact, a current pagan tradition that he wanted to apply to Islam. We see once again the fluidity of logic that allows Muhammad to plagiarize ideas from other religions and absorb them into his own. Now he would claim that the holy shrine of the Kaaba, in Mecca, was actually built by Abraham and his son Ishmael. Most Arabs are descendents of Ishmael, the illegitimate elder son of Abraham and his wife's handmaiden Hagar. The Jews, of course, are descended from Abraham's "legitimate" son by his wife Sarah, who was named Isaac. There is no evidence that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba but it was clever of Muhammad to make this claim and showed his shrewdness in constructing the Islamic myth through his conveniently opportunistic "revelations." In 628AD Muhammad led 1500 men on a "pilgrimage" to Mecca. However, the Meccans made it clear they would not let him enter the city. He then negotiated the infamous "Treaty Of Hudaybiyya." With this treaty, Muhammad agreed to go home but Muslims would be allowed to make the pilgrimage the next year. He even agreed to some terms that most Muslims found distressing. Quraysh men seeking asylum with the Muslims were to be returned to the Quraysh, but Muslims seeking asylum with the Quraysh did not have to be returned. Even worse to the Muslims, Muhammad agreed to not identify himself as "Muhammad the Prophet Of God," instead he would identify himself as his father's son in the traditional manner. Despite the extremely unfavorable terms that Muhammad had negotiated, he had the audacity to claim the treaty was, in fact, a victory for both himself and the Muslims. Because most Muslims viewed this negotiated "victory" a lot less favorably than he did, Muhammad had to find some way of distracting the dissenters among his people. Since turning against the Jews had proved to be a profitable distraction in the past, he decided to stay true to the formula. But alas, there were no more Jews remaining in Medina for him to persecute. He would have to find them elsewhere. Therefore he attacked and laid seige to the Jewish community at Khaibar. When they inevitably surrendered, he followed the now well established tradition of stripping them of their property and dividing it among the Muslims. Initially he wanted to force them to leave, however there weren't enough Muslims to work the land. Conveniently he was blessed with another "revelation" that instructed him on how to properly subjugate the Jewish population.....To the considerable profit of the Muslims of course. The "Treaty Of Hudaybiyya" is probably more well known, not for Muhammad's willingness to make such overwhelming concessions, but for the relative ease with which he would discard its terms. Soon after agreeing to the treaty, a Quraysh woman, Umm Kulthum, came to the Muslims of Medina seeking refuge. When her brothers came for her and demanded she be returned according to the terms of the treaty, Muhammad refused. He claimed Allah forbade it. You see, he had a new "revelation:" Qur'an 60:10 O you who believe, when believing women (abandon the enemy and) ask for asylum with you, you shall test them. GOD is fully aware of their belief. Once you establish that they are believers, you shall not return them to the disbelievers. They are not lawful to remain married to them, nor shall the disbelievers be allowed to marry them. Give back the dowries that the disbelievers have paid. You commit no error by marrying them, so long as you pay them their due dowries. Do not keep disbelieving wives (if they wish to join the enemy). You may ask them for the dowry you had paid, and they may ask for what they paid. This is GOD's rule; He rules among you. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.. In 629AD Muhammad finally made his pilgrimage to Mecca. He made a relatively strong impression and managed gather a host of new converts along the way. The next year, when a Muslim was killed by a Meccan in a dispute that had nothing to do with the Muslim/Quraysh rivalry, Muhammad used the incident as a pretext for totally discarding the Hudaybiyya Treaty. He advanced on Mecca and, without serious resistance, they surrendered the city to him. This established, for all time, an important principle for Muslims. All truces and treaties forthwith were to be negotiated for no more than ten years, and only entered into to afford a weakened Muslim situation time to strengthen itself, and then it is to be discarded. To his credit, or more likely, his shrewdness, Muhammad did not force the Meccans to convert to Islam immediately, although he did take to smashing numerous idols to pagan gods. He established the pilgrimage to Mecca as an annual event, now known as the Hajj, and insisted every Muslim must make the journey at least once in their lifetime. In 632AD Muhammad made his first and last "annual" pilgrimage to Mecca. Three months later Muhammad, complaining of headaches and fever, ended his existence on this earth on June 8, 0632AD. The life of Muhammad is extremely important to understanding how we should interact with Islam in the modern world. 1400 years later he has a much greater influence on the world than he had during his lifetime. In this, and this alone, he shares a similarity with Jesus. As I have shown in this very brief overview of his life, Muhammad established Islam, not just as a religion, but as the basis for all social, political and military associations. It has been that way from the very beginning. Worse, he used the religious aspect of Islam to validate all the morally questionable actions he undertook. This is particularly illuminating with respect to his military expeditions that, all too often, had the objective of providing a source of income for the Muslims as well as suppressing opposition. Jesus, by contrast, spoke of a kingdom "not of this earth" and said to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." This is the origin of the concept of a separation between church and state. It is an entirely and uniquely Christian principle! Muhammad, on the other hand, set about acquiring an earthly kingdom and dispensing heavenly justice on earth. There is absolutely no moral equivalence between the two philosophies! Christianity survived for three centuries as a shunned and persecuted philosophy. Only with Constantine's Edict of Milan, in 313AD, did Christianity gain tolerance within the Roman system. Contrary to popular belief, Constantine did NOT establish Christianity as the official religion of Rome. That was done in 380AD by Flavius Theodosius. This gives Christianity almost 400 years of incubation as a persecuted cult. By contrast, Islam's first 400 years saw it conquer the Middle East, Persia, Spain, as well as much of the Byzantine empire. All this would be done in the name of Jihad or "holy war." It would be the year 1095 with the first Crusade before the concept of 'holy war" would rear its head in the Christian world....and that would be as a direct result of contact with Islam! Once the Christian church got a taste of the power and influence it could wield over the populations of Europe through the Crusades, the same corruptions always present in Islam began to take hold in the Christian church. This would eventually work itself out, unfortunately violently, with both the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter Reformation. Eventually Christianity would extract itself from direct participation in government and political affairs as much for its own sake as for that of state sovereignty. However this was accomplished largely through one major act. That of Martin Luther translating the Bible into his own native language, and then utilizing the then new technology of the printing press to distribute it. Thus making the words of, and life of, Jesus available for all to read for themselves. Then informed faithful congregations could "reform" the church themselves. They were no longer vulnerable to those who exploited and profited from their ignorance. This worked because of the life Jesus led and the words he said. This is going to be a problem for those who are looking for an "Islamic Reformation." President Bush, shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, tried to quell a potential backlash against Islam in this country by saying that we worship the same God. There are also those who would have you believe in the concept of "Radical Islam" or "Political Islam" as though they are somehow different and separate from the "Real Islam." As we can see by looking at the life of Muhammad, Islam is a religion that justifies violence, not only to spread its influence, but as a means of providing a financial income as well. Anyone who is not a believer is automatically guilty of persecuting Islam and therefore justified as their prey. Osama Bin Laden is perfectly correct in his behavior according to a true and accurate understanding of Muhammad and Islamic law. How can we realistically hope for so called "moderates" to reform Islam? On what will they base this reform? In truth, there is nothing to reform! Christianity had the example of a peaceful martyr who laid down HIS life for the salvation of others. Muhammad was no martyr and he was definitely not a peaceful man. He was an opportunistic pirate who was clever enough exploit religion for his own advantage. In this he has much in common with David Koresh and Jim Jones. There is much to suggest, particularly in the successful worldwide expansion of Islam after his death, that his "revelations" may have been the result of real contact with a spiritual being. But it definitely was NOT authorized by the God of Abraham, Moses or Jesus. Whether or not Islam is a Satanic counterfeit religion (which I do believe) or simply the result of a very charismatic fraud, almost doesn't matter at this point. The die is cast. It's interesting to note that when Jesus was asked about the sign of his return, he warned his disciples of false religions, explaining that false prophets and even false messianic figures would arise. Check this one off as another fulfilled prophecy. Considering Islam sustained itself during Muhammad's life through small raids on caravans, the modern terrorist can find much inspiration to fuel an effective justification of small quick attacks on both local government entities as well as U.S. led coalition forces. Its just the type of warfare they have been engaging in from the very beginning. It is entirely JUSTIFIED by Islam and ISLAM IS THE LAW!! They have been entirely consistent with the teachings and examples of Muhammad. Islam as a religion is a predator. It requires external enemies to provide them with a purpose and to serve as prey. It does not matter what we are fighting for, or if we fight at all. Their's is a struggle that can not end until we submit to them. It is war they have been fighting for almost 1400 years. The word "Islam" translated means to surrender or submit to the will of God......THEIR GOD! Their God is NOT the same God as the Christian God. Unfortunately, even the President of the United States does not properly understand this fact. I wish he did. If you have read all of this, then perhaps you now understand it. Islam is at war with the world. It always has been. It is a religious war. It always has been. Still don't think so? Do you still believe we can "talk" to these people? Dialog? Negotiations? I will leave you with their own words: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah.'" Muhammad, 632AD. "I shall cross this sea to their islands to pursue them till there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah" Saladin 1189AD "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no God but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad." Osama Bin Laden 2001AD. With all apologies to Bob Dylan, "The Times They Are NOT A-Changin!'"

Posted in: Islam | 0 comments

/ 539