Tag Archives: Muslims

Robert Spencer: Osama bin Laden’s Miscalculations 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Robert Spencer

Did each side misjudge the other?

A fascinating article in the New York Post Monday reveals that “Osama bin Laden had been ‘very eager to replicate the 9/11 attacks’ against the US — and actively plotted to blow up oil tankers, derail trains and use private jets as weapons, according to a trove of seized documents.” Yet while there have been numerous jihad attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, none matched its magnitude. Osama wasn’t able to replicate, for as it turns out, he misjudged the U.S. as drastically as the U.S. misjudged him and his movement.

“The plots,” the Post reported, “were spelled out in more than 500,000 letters and files seized by the Navy SEAL team that executed the mass-murdering al Qaeda leader in 2011, according to Nelly Lahoud, an Islamic scholar who spent years carefully studying the trove.” In his eagerness to bring about another 9/11, but aware that airport security had dramatically increased, bin Laden told his followers to “consider chartering private jets to attack the US.” He also “spelled out a detailed plan to slaughter American commuters on a train.” Osama “wanted to have around 40 feet of track removed so that a ‘train could be derailed.’”

The jihad mastermind had other ideas as well: “In 2010, a year before his death, bin Laden plotted to target multiple crude oil tankers and major shipping routes around the Middle East and Africa.” This was because, according to Lahoud, Osama saw “the importance of oil for the industrialized economy” as “similar to blood for human beings. So, if you cause somebody to bleed excessively, even if you don’t kill him you will at least weaken him. He really wanted to do to the American economy.”

He certainly did severe damage to the American economy. The war on terror cost the United States trillions of dollars, and all it gave us was a diminished presence on the world stage, an onerous and irritating security apparatus in airports, and an emboldened jihad force worldwide that continues to pose a problem for governments around the world (often self-inflicted, in the form of mass Muslim migration).

But apparently Osama thought that his victory would be more comprehensive and immediate. According to Lahoud, he made a “huge miscalculation” in predicting how the U.S. would respond to 9/11. “He thought,” she says, “that the American people would take to the streets, replicate the anti-Vietnam war protests and they would put pressure on their government to withdraw from Muslim majority states.” All he expected as retaliation for taking down the Twin Towers was “a limited airstrike.”

A huge miscalculation indeed. But the U.S. miscalculated as well. Six days after 9/11, George W. Bush went into a mosque in Washington, accompanied by the head of a Hamas-linked group and another Muslim leader who is now in prison for financing al-Qaeda, and proclaimed that “Islam is peace.” This discouraged those who were trying to understand the beliefs, motives, and goals of the jihadis from investigating even the jihadis’ own statements, for fear of giving the impression that 9/11, and jihad terrorism in general, had something to do with Islam. The false assumption that Islam was a religion of peace deformed the American response to 9/11 in numerous ways, leading to wrongheaded policies on both the domestic and international fronts, with consequences that have yet to play out fully.

When Donald Trump tried to correct one of those wrongheaded policies by restricting immigration from several Muslim countries that would not or could not provide adequate information about the people who wanted to enter the United States, he was roundly denounced as an “Islamophobe,” as those who have spoken honestly about the motivating ideology behind jihad terror have been for years, and Joe Biden repealed the policy on his first day in office. How many jihad terrorists, including al-Qaeda members, are in the country now as a result of this, awaiting their best opportunity? We’ll find out.

There were miscalculations on both sides. Both thought that the other posed a threat that was smaller than it actually was. The Post notes that “al Qaeda had just $200,000 in its coffers in 2006 and was unable to support its increasingly fractious jihad.” It would be another miscalculation, however, to take that as a sign that the jihad is largely a spent force. Al-Qaeda is just one of many jihad groups around the world. Since the death of bin Laden, his group has been largely eclipsed by another jihad group that emerged from it, the Islamic State (ISIS). Bin Laden may have underestimated America in 2001; other jihadis are sizing America up in 2022, and it would be much harder to underestimate us now.

FPM: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/05/osama-bin-ladens-miscalculations-robert-spencer/

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Bill Lockwood: Identity Politics, Mind Pathogens, and Ketanji Brown Jackson 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

President Biden televised his phone call to Judge Ketanji Brown in which he informed her that she was nominated by him to the Supreme Court. In this short call Biden made clear the criterion by which he chose her. Diversity. As a black woman, she would help the Supreme Court to “look like much of America.”

Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) observed “Not a single justice has been a black woman. You, Judge Jackson, can be the first.”

He went on to say “It’s not easy being the first. Often, you have to be the best. In some ways, the bravest. Many are not prepared to face that kind of heat, that kind of scrutiny, that ordeal and glare of the national spotlight.” Then Durbin added, “We can be confident that the court, its role, and its decisions will be more understandable to the American public.”

Sen. Dick Blumenthal (D-Conn.) gushed, “The appointment of the first black woman to the Supreme Court—let’s be honest—should have happened years ago.” Her nomination “is a giant leap int the present for our country. Your service will make the court look more like America.”

What About This?

This is unabashed irrational identity politics. Appointing an individual to a legal position primarily because she is a black woman, regardless of her qualifications—whatever they may or may not be. She must “look like America” in order for her “decisions” to be “understandable” or acceptable to the American people.

First, this is the opposite of what Dick Durbin stated. He implies that opposition to her will be based upon the fact that she is a black woman, showing a glimpse into the race card that Democrats will use if Republicans oppose her. She doesn’t have to “be the best,” Dick—she will rely primarily upon her race for her selection. What bravery is there in that?

Second, this is a tacit admission by Democrats that Constitutional and case law will be interpreted with bias. This is what liberals prefer. Forget Lady Justice being blind-folded. This destructive mindset demands Lady Justice take off the blindfold and “interpret” law and make decisions based upon the color of one’s skin and one’s gender.

But legal interpretation is supposed to be a “rational process by which we understand” a text– “scrutinizing” the text of the Constitution. Instead, Democrats are endorsing a biased, colored view.

Author and professor Gad Saad, in his The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense, shows that this is the result of a culture that promotes “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” above excellence and merit. To see how this mental orientation is a “collective malady” that destroys one’s ability and capacity to think rationally—which Saad calls “idea pathogens,” consider the following example.

In April 2017, the inaugural March for Science rally was held across hundreds of cities around the world to reaffirm the “importance of science.” The key website for this event in 2017 read this way.

At the March for Science, we are committed to centralizing, highlighting, standing in solidarity with, and acting as accomplices with black, Latinx, Asian and Pacific Islander, indigenous, non-Christian, women, people with disabilities, poor, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, trans, non-binary, agender, and intersex scientists and science advocates. We must work to make science available to everyone and encouraging individuals of all backgrounds to pursue science careers, especially in advanced degrees and positions. A diverse group of scientists produces increasingly diverse research, which broadens, strengthens, and enriches scientific inquiry, and therefore, our understanding of the world.

As Saad comments, this is “anti-science gibberish.” “By definition, science is, or should be, an apolitical process. Scientific truths and natural laws exist independent of researchers’ identities.”

Satirically, he adds, “the distribution of prime numbers does not change as a function of whether the mathematician is a white heterosexual Christian man or a transgendered, Muslim, differently sized (obese) individual.” Neither does the “periodic table of elements” depend on “whether or not the chemist is a Latinx queer or a cis-normative Hasidic Jew.”

These foolish notions promoted by the March for Science highlight that in the ecosystem of university campuses “mind pathogens” spread like wildfire. It is a pathogen because “… the manner by which scientific information is codified within the pantheon of human knowledge is not culture-specific.”

“Science does not care about the privileged position of ‘ancestral wisdom,’ ‘tribal knowledge,’ and ‘the ways of the elders.’’ There are no revealed truths in science. There is no Lebanese-Jewish way of knowing any more than there is an indigenous way of knowing.”

The same holds true of law and legal interpretation. Although one may argue that there are various theories of legal interpretation, a fair evaluation of these shows that without ‘original intent’ there might as well not be a legal text at all, in the Constitution or statutory law. Application of law is color-blind and is not culture-specific. There is not a “variety” of “equally valid forms of discovery” and interpretation.

What Democrats are confessing is that we are laying aside rational and logical thinking in favor of equity, diversity, and inclusion. Since this is the case, we might as well not have a Constitution.

Bill Lockwood: How Did We Become a Socialist Nation? 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

It is shocking, but true. America is already a socialist nation—for the most part. All the earmarks of socialism are incorporated into our society. From the globalist socialist United Nations controlling our shameful foreign policy machine to Big Tech monitoring and censoring free speech to confiscatory taxation—America has fallen very low on the freedom scale.

Classic socialism started out being defined as “government ownership of the means of production.” This is why the government of the Soviet Union confiscated all the businesses, factories, farms and other means of production, murdering millions in the process.

However, the above definition is not an accurate definition of socialism today. Just as classic Marxism, built on atheism, has now morphed into Neo-Marxism and the Critical Race Theory, so the definition of socialism has evolved.

Frederich Hayek wrote that the definition of socialism has come to mean income redistribution in pursuit of “equality”, not through government ownership of the means of production, but through the institutions of the welfare state and the “progressive” income tax. As America is discovering, this is all so much poison for a society.

The shift began to occur particularly during the Woodrow Wilson administration, then was put on steroids during the Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) and Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) period. “It was under FDR that the Bill of Rights suffered a severe, and potentially lethal, mutilation that has progressively (double entendre intended) weakened it ever since. FDR attempted to redefine rights, asserting that every American has a ‘right to a useful and remunerative job,’ ‘a decent home,’ ‘adequate medical care,’ ‘a good education,’ and so on.”

A visitor to the FDR memorial in Washington, D.C. will be treated to this Orwellian redefinition of rights: “Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear.” Note the shift.

According to the Founders, rights were natural rights bestowed by God and merely protected by the government. Government did not grant any right. This is emphatically clear in our own founding documents. The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States formally states that the people retain all rights absent specific enumeration in the Bill of Rights.  In other words, God gave us rights and we only ceded a certain enumerated few to the government in order for more protection of them. But make no mistake, said the founders, if we have overlooked some of these rights in our enumeration, the people still owned those also!

Franklin Roosevelt deceptively changed all of that. Freedom of speech, for example, is far different than freedom from want. The only way one can be free from “want” (housing, food, medical treatment) is to forcibly redistribute what one segment of society produces and give it to another. But for government to forcibly redistribute actually means that it forcibly removes my personal production to meet the personal needs of others. This is not freedom. This is slavery, to one degree or another.

Now, decades later, we cannot seem to escape the clutch of this wicked socialism. The only debate seems to be how much or how little money we can unconstitutionally steal from one portion of society to give to another. Or, how much can we confiscate from our own citizens to give to foreign countries. This is to bribe them with liberal Marxist ideals such as “women’s studies” in Muslim countries or to put pressure on foreign nations to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. We are in the clutches of socialism.

Wayne Allyn Root: Hey NFL, Why Not Start Games with the Jewish National Anthem? 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Wayne Allyn Root

Did you hear the NFL is planning to play the “Black National Anthem” before each football game? This is the most bizarre, insulting, idiotic, ignorant, offensive and most importantly- RACIST- decision in the history of sports.

I was clearly wrong.

A national anthem for only one race of people sure sounds insulting, offensive and racist to me. I’m glad it’s not my race promoting such a divisive and intolerant idea.

But as long as the NFL is playing this insulting game…

Is the NFL creating a caste system? Is the NFL saying blacks are superior to Jews? More important than Jews? More important than any other race or culture?

I can’t be the only one feeling left out. Why isn’t the NFL playing a White National Anthem? Or Hispanic National Anthem? How about Christians, Muslims and Hindus? How about my friends who are Italian-American, Irish-American, Polish-American and Asian American? Don’t they all deserve recognition before NFL games?

A recent NFL TV ad campaign reported “The NFL is gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.” So, where are their national anthems before games?

Have I left anyone out?

Should we have NFL battles between the Polish-Americans and the Italian-Americans? The Jews vs the Christians?

Or here’s a guaranteed crowd pleaser- how about an NFL championship game between whites and blacks. I’m betting that would sell out in 15 minutes, with seats selling for a small fortune.

Personally, I’m hoping for the NFL championship game between the San Francisco Gays vs. the New York Transgenders. I can’t wait to see the cheerleaders!

Why not start games with 100 national anthems? Let’s just have a 3-hour pregame ceremony with flags and anthems for every group, race and sex in America. Like the opening ceremony of the Olympics before each NFL game.

And you thought Covid produced empty stadiums?

P.S. While you’re busy adding a Jewish National Anthem to every pregame show, it might be time for the NFL to address a burning “social justice” issue. Where are all the Jewish wide receivers? And Jewish running backs? And Jewish quarterbacks?

By the way, here’s another controversy the NFL just created. I’ll bet the NFL never thought of this one. How will black players feel when white fans who are angry, offended and insulted by this racist decision, respond to the “Black National Anthem” by KNEELING?

Now that should make pregames interesting.

Great job! The geniuses running the NFL just turned their games into angry, bitter, divided, emotional war zones.

GWP: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/wayne-root-hey-nfl-not-start-games-jewish-national-anthem/

Wayne Allyn Root is known as “the Conservative Warrior.” Wayne is the author of the new #1 national bestselling book, “TRUMP RULES”. Wayne is a CEO, entrepreneur and host of the nationally-syndicated “Wayne Allyn Root: Raw & Unfiltered” on USA Radio Network, daily from 6 PM to 9 PM EST and the “WAR RAW” podcast. Visit ROOTforAmerica.com, or listen live at http://usaradio.com/wayne-allyn-root/ or “on demand” 24/7 at iHeartRadio.com.

 

Robert Spencer: In Iraq, pope views mosques and churches destroyed by the Islamic State, laments ‘our cruelty’ 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Robert Spencer

The pope was making a theological point, that all human beings are sinful, and that this destruction is a manifestation of that sinfulness. But it is also noteworthy that he ascribed the destruction he saw to all of humanity, and decried nations that sell weapons, but never said a word about why the ruined buildings he saw were destroyed in the first place. The Islamic State destroyed mosques because the people who attended them did not accept their authority, and were thus apostates in rebellion against the caliphate. It destroyed churches because they were places of unbelief (see Qur’an 5:17, 9:30, etc.) and shirk, the association of partners with Allah in worship. But there was never any possibility that the pope might ask the assembled Muslim leaders to fight against jihad violence and teach their people to refrain from jihad violence. After all, the pope has committed himself and the Catholic Church to the proposition that Islam is peaceful and has nothing to do with terrorism, so as far as he was concerned, there was nothing for him to ask the Muslim leaders about. And that rendered the trip a useless and indeed counterproductive exercise.

“Pope Francis dismisses ‘heresy’ charges for his commitment to Christian-Muslim dialogue,” by Claire Giangravé, Religion News Service, March 8, 2021:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — Aboard the papal flight back from Iraq, the first papal trip since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Pope Francis addressed criticism of those who have accused him of being “one step away from heresy” in his commitment to promoting human fraternity among the world’s faiths.

“There are some critics who say the pope is not brave but reckless, that he’s taking steps against Catholic doctrine, that he’s one step from heresy,” the pope told journalists on Monday (March 8).

Francis said that his decision to speak with Muslim religious leaders and promote interreligious dialogue is “always made in prayer, in dialogue, asking for advice.” He said that his efforts to mend Christian-Muslim relations, far from being “capricious,” are in keeping with the doctrine laid out by the Second Vatican Council….

On Saturday (March 6), the pope met in Najaf, a holy city to Shia Muslims, with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most prominent Shiite leader. The historic meeting, which lasted roughly 45 minutes, was the first official meeting between a pope and a prominent Shiite representative.

The pope described al-Sistani as “a humble man” who has “wisdom and prudence,” adding that “it was good for my soul to encounter him.” Francis said the meeting was “a duty in his pilgrimage of faith” to promote human fraternity among religions….

It was the tragic decimation of the Yazidi ethnic community by the Islamic State group following the 2014 occupation of Northern Iraq that inspired the pope to make the trip, he said. The book “The Last Girl” by Nobel Peace Prize-winner Nadia Murad, which described the suffering of the Yazidi people, “provided the background for the decision,” he said.

On Sunday (March 7), Francis viewed the ruins of mosques and churches in Mosul, the capital of the Islamic State during the occupation. He said he “had no words” after seeing the scale of destruction. “Human cruelty, our cruelty, is impossible to believe,” he added.

The pope also criticized those nations selling weapons, though he didn’t single out any particular country….

Among the topics addressed by the pope during the trip was the question of the suffering of immigrants, which has been a main focus of this pontificate. Francis met with the father of a 3-year-old boy who died attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea. The picture of Alan Kurdi’s body became a symbol of the plight of immigrants and refugees in Europe and beyond….

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter here. 

John Kachelman, Jr.: As the election approaches it is time to 
“Praise the Lord AND Pass the Ammunition!” 4.8 (5)

Posted on by 2 comments

by John Kachelman, Jr.

“Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition And – We’ll – All – Stay – Free!”

An absolute truism of history and conflict states that “desperate times call for desperate measures.” The desperate times stir the heart with resolve and fortify one’s commitment with courage. The desperate times force men to move from mere words to courageous actions.

The United States of America currently faces a desperate situation requiring “desperate measures.” Our nation needs its citizens to rise up and courageously confront the evil threatening our freedom. It is NOT time to sit back and blithely say “well the Lord is in control and there is nothing I can do.” Such a comment is blatantly wrong. Such confesses one’s blindness to what ought to be done. Such is not just wrong but wrong multiplied—it is foolishness “gone to seed”! One making this statement is surrendering to evil; conceding the very faith that he supposedly is advocating! This is unashamed complicity in surrendering God’s values to the Devil. This retreat using vague words is actually a treasonous act in the midst of battle. Read your Bible and show me a single instance where God was pleased when His people struck their colors and surrendered to the enemy? NEVER once does God approve of a complacent embrace of evil excusing it as “God is in control.”

This point is illustrated by Jeremiah’s lament spoken to those leaving Jerusalem in smoldering ruin, “Is it nothing to all you who pass this way?” (Read Lamentations 1 for the complete account). Ancient Jerusalem had settled into a comfortable convenience saying “This is the city of God and He will protect it so we will not fret about what is happening.” Their comfortable convenience turned into a horrid historical fact. Their unwillingness to engage and confront brought a horrible torture, death and destruction to their family! Their refusal to engage caused them to sacrifice their children. This illustrates what happens when people sit back in resignation and neither says nor do anything while their nation disintegrates before their very eyes!

Now consider the song “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” Remember the undeniable truth that “desperate times call for desperate measures.”

The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 is known as the single greatest loss of American lives (it is now joined with the Muslim terrorist attacks known as 9/11). On the morning of the attack the US Pacific Fleet was wounded (the attack damaged the fleet but within months most of the damaged ships had been repaired and deemed sea worthy).

During the attack an Army chaplain was among the defenders returning small-arms and machine gun fire on the oncoming fighters. In the heat of the battle, he was asked by the men to say a prayer for them, as they were afraid that those were the last moments of their lives. It is said that the chaplain lay down his Bible, manned one of the machine guns and shouted: “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.” This gesture boosted the morale of the soldiers and they continued the defense of the harbor.

The legend behind this song says the song was dedicated to the fighting chaplain, by Frank Loesser in 1942.

The true story is a bit different from the legend. According to the facts of the event a chaplain named Lieutenant Howell Forgy was involved. Forgy was aboard the USS New Orleans at the time of the attack. The story was reconstructed from several sources, one of them being Forgy himself. The officer in charge of the ammunition line on the USS New Orleans reported that he originally heard the phrase during the attack.

When he heard it, he turned around and saw Chaplain Forgy walking towards him through the line of scared man, patting them on the back and saying the famous sentence: “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” The officer reported that it had a positive effect on the man and on him also, because he felt comforted and prepared.

The story became the basis of a patriotic inspirational song for American soldiers on the battlefields, but also for the people on the home front.

After the recording of the song, another lieutenant who served in Howell Forgy’s outfit made a remark how they used to kid him about the event, encouraging him to claim the phrase and stop the counterfeit of the story. According to the same officer, the chaplain was a modest man and he believed the story should remain uncredited to him or any other particular person, for that matter, since this way as a legend it could inspire the soldiers more.

Jack McDowell noted that the press became more interested in the story and eventually got the permission to interview the crew members of the USS New Orleans to learn the identity of the man. Chaplain Forgy’s superior officers set up a meeting with members of the press and at last, the real story of the song and the man who had inspired it was confirmed. Later, after the war, Forgy made an appearance on the popular game show “I’ve got a secret,” where he recalled and told the entire event:

“Well, I was stationed aboard the USS New Orleans, and we were tied up at 1010 dock in Pearl Harbor when the attacked began. We were having a turbine lifted, and all of our electrical power wasn’t on, and so when we went to lift the ammunition by the hoist, we had to form lines of men — a bucket brigade — and we began to carry the ammunition up through the quarterdeck into the gurneys, and I stood there and directed some of the boys down the port side and some down the starboard side, and as they were getting a little tired, I just happened to say, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” That’s all there was to it.”

The song was often played and released by multiple covers. It reached the number 1 position on the Billboard Chart in 1942.

The message and historical background of this song should alarm those today who are silent and complacent in the face of the evil facing our nation. Many have friends, family and associates who either uphold the evil political platform for the coming election or who silently “like” the atrocious immorality that is advocated by continuing to fund the recognized censorship of social media platforms! People do not understand that their “hiding” and “dislike—thumbs down” supports the platform that is dedicated to destroying the “Republic for which it stands”! A malevolent deception and many are willing cohorts of Satan in this platform. They love the platform more than they love God!

It is NOT time to sit complacently. It is NOT time to mutter meaningless words of faith without action. It is NOT time to say “the USA is God’s nation and He will take care of it.”

If you want a stinging rebuttal to this attitude of complacent surrender excusing one’s inactivity, then turn to (Judges 5:23). There God’s nation was in a desperate condition and urgently needed desperate action by God’s People. However, one village sat inactive. They excused their involvement. In military terms they did not “engage” in enemy. What is God’s opinion of such action? “‘Curse Meroz,’ said the angel of the Lord, ‘Utterly curse its inhabitants; Because they did not come to the help of the Lord, To the help of the Lord against the warriors.’”

Modern America is facing a desperate situation. The nation is divided by those pursuing an anti-God Marxist agenda and urging citizens to embrace the most heinous immorality. The troubling reality is that our nation’s soul is in peril. Let us trust in God BUT do not let us excuse our silent rejoinders to those advocating support and acceptance of the Democratic platform. Those who choose to be silent and sit inactively while professing an inexcusable “faith in God” to deliver, will historically join the defeated Jerusalem citizens who would not answer the Prophet’s query, “Is it nothing to all you who pass this way?”

Consider another historical anecdote from Ancient Judah. The background is King Asa’s reign. Zerah the Ethiopian came out against them with an army of one million men and 300 chariots. King Asa had an army of 300,000 from Judah 280,000 from Benjamin. The recon reports were demoralizing. The superior strength of the enemy exaggerated the obvious weakness of King Asa.

What did Asa do? Did he sit back, cowering in a corner wringing his hands whimpering, “What can I do? Look at all that is happening. Well…God in control and I cannot do anything.” Did he allow the voices of defeat and compromise to paralyze his response?

No.

History records that Asa mobilized his army, engaged the enemy and defeated the Ethiopians with an amazing victory. “Asa went out to meet him, and they drew up in battle formation in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah.” But in addition to his active response in engaging the enemy, history says, “Then Asa called to the Lord his God and said, ‘Lord, there is no one besides You to help in the battle between the powerful and those who have no strength; so help us, O Lord our God, for we trust in You, and in Your name have come against this multitude. O Lord, You are our God; let not man prevail against You.’  So the Lord routed the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled.”

In terms of Pearl Harbor 1942, Asa praised the Lord and passed the ammunition!

Where are YOU in this battle for America’s soul? Are you too embarrassed to make your commitment to God and His principles known to others? Do you justify your cowardice to engage saying “It will not matter what I say.” Are you a closeted believer whose faith is intimidated to silence so you allow family, friends and associates spew vile support for ungodly political platforms? Are you sitting back, cowering in a corner wringing your hands whimpering, “What can I do? Look at all that is happening. Well…God is in control and I cannot do anything.” Are you allowing the voices of defeat and compromise to paralyze your response to ungodly posts and comments?

On the battlefield there is absolutely NO tolerance for the cowering soldier. Such action jeopardizes the safety of the unit and allows for compromise of values and offers encouragement to the enemy. In the spiritual war, God will not allow such betrayal to go unpunished. “Be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Peter 3:17).

The Proverb writer urges man to practice behaviors that are “stately; becoming; admirable.” One of these is found in 30:30 where man is urged to emulate the Lion “which is mighty among beasts and does not retreat before any.”

It is past time to speak up and stand out as God’s soldier! It is time to engage and confront those who have casually accepted the evil’s that are embraced in the current election by the Democratic Party and its ancillaries BLM/ANTIFA.

John Kachelman, Jr. is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.

John Kachelman, Jr.: Civilization’s Tragic Redundancy 4.5 (2)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by John Kachelman, Jr.

Even the briefest survey of man’s civilization highlights a redundancy of the “rise and fall” of world Empires. History validates that many World Powers rested securely because they possessed the most modern weaponry, astute military strategists, astonishing engineering feats, renowned politicians and a worldwide economy. But the unimagined occurred…the World Power lost its power.

There is one historical constant—a nation ascends to the apex of the world’s power. Its economy is the desire of all, its strength is envied and it presents the promise that if any can live within its borders then all problems will vanish. However, this constant has an ominous corollary—with every “rise” comes a “fall.” National greatness is fragile. Many great Empires have been erased and shuffled to obscurity (i.e. the Hittite Empire). National greatness celebrated by one generation can be surrendered by the next generation.

The history of civilization validates the troubling fact that nations focused on self are destined for the dust bins of history. The very instant that the national attention is turned toward personal gratification and moral standards are ignored, a decay of that nation begins. Consequently, all of their great accomplishments (politically, economically, militarily and religiously) become a tragic footnote in the evolving chronicle of earth’s history.

There is only ONE absolute means for total security of a nation. That security is a national adherence to and willing consent with the Almighty God’s directions. “Blessed (happy, fortunate, to be envied) is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His heritage” (Psalm 33:12).

The tragic redundancy of civilization’s rise and fall is being repeated in our “modern” era. The record of the sociological movement of the world (and particularly our nation) traces a number of events that have decimated the God-ordained family unit, erased the morality and ethos of civil behavior, and repudiated the necessary trust for divine strength and protection. An observable move away from a focus on the Lord God Almighty of the Bible and toward mortal knowledge has been recorded. Personally, I think the movement possibly began with the repudiation of God and the supernatural at the turn on the 18th Century. This rejection of God became evident with World War 1. The aftermath of the Great War brought sociological shifts of unimagined damage to those seeking “freedom” from God.

The current Presidential election is a cultural war that will decide the fate of the United States of America. After November 3, 2020, Americans will see either the total “transformation” of our nation or the opportunity of the citizenry to reclaim the “greatness” that characterizes the “exceptionalism” of America. I believe this is a valid point that many ignore.

Today’s cultural war has been highlighted with specificity in the comments of the presumed Democratic Presidential candidate—Joe Biden. Biden, and the Democratic Party, proposes a number of disastrous promises. The final form of the Democratic platform of the campaign is yet to be released but we are given strong hints as to their real objectives. This article highlights perhaps the most destructive objective of the Democratic Party.

I recall in public high school homeroom every day we would stand and face the flag of the United States of America place our hands over our hearts and recite the pledge of ALLEGIANCE to this nation. Then we would be seated as a classmate would select his/her favorite biblical text, go to the front of the class and read that text from a Bible that was always openly displayed on the teacher’s desk. The daily Bible readings were simply scheduled—we would go down the desk rows and each day the reading would be given and the next sitting in the row would be expected to come to homeroom with his/her Bible reading ready. After the Bible reading the homeroom teacher would lead the entire class in the Lord’s Prayer. In this fashion, the public educational system reminded pupils of our heritage of faith and their required fidelity to uphold elementary civics.

But, in 1962 the United States Supreme Court held, in Engel v. Vitale, that it was unconstitutional for students to be required to recite official prayers in the public schools. That ruling slowly disseminated until today it is impossible to mention basic Judeo-Christian beliefs or profess allegiance to our nation’s Constitution.

This heinous development is now highlighted by the Democratic Party’s presumed Presidential candidate.
Monday 20 July 2020 Joe Biden spoke to the Million Muslim Votes Summit. On a video call with Sharia law advocate and radical Islamic activist Linda Sarsour, Biden said, “If I have the honor of being president, I will end the Muslim ban on day one, day one.”

Adding to this flagrant repudiation of America’s basic foundations, Biden said that American children should be taught more about Islam in schools. “One of the things I think is important, I wish we taught more in our schools about the Islamic faith.”

Biden continued praising Islam: “Hadith from the Prophet Muhammad instructs, ‘Whomever among you sees a wrong, let him change it with his hand. If he is not able, then with his tongue. If he is not able, then with his heart.'” Muhammad, the founder of Islam owned slaves, partook in the slave trade, viewed women as a possession on the same level as a camel, commanded terror and ruthlessness toward any one not a Muslim. And these evils are now simply redefined as actions of the Islamic “heart.”

Joe Biden’s stated position is clear: “I wish we taught more in our schools about the Islamic faith.”
The United States of America was founded upon the principles enunciated by the Lord God Almighty—Jehovah of the Bible. NOT by the angry Allah of Islam who delights in blood, gore and oppression.

How benevolent is this Islamic religion which Joe Biden wishes to upon our public schools? It is a religion marked by terror, hatred, bloodshed, bigotry, cruelty, arrogance, and all other evil attitudes and actions of Satan. It has stood against every humane principle upon which our great nation was founded.

Recently the Daily Caller News Foundation published an article with this title: “Islamic school tortures and chains kids between 2 and 10 years old, Children finally free form horrific nightmare” (July 22, 2020). It reported an incident in Nigeria. I have experience in Nigeria and specifically with the Boko Harem. Dealing with Islam always involves conflict just as reported in this article. Fifteen children were freed after being held and tortured at an informal Koran school in Nigeria. The children were found with scars and wounds, indicating they were tortured. Three chains used to tie the children’s legs were recovered. The children’s ages ranged between two and ten. Unregulated Islamic schools are common in Nigeria and often exposed for gross mistreatment of students.

Now, do YOU understand that this is the reality which Joe Biden, and the Democratic Party, seek to bring to the public schools of the USA? This is the coming reality of the Muslim objective in Michigan when the police are defunded and no law exists, THEN Sharia Law will be installed!

Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are delighted that public prayers to Jehovah God and the readings of the Bible are banned. They are delighted in contemplating the introduction, teaching and enforcement of Islamic Sharia Law! They blasphemously reject Jehovah God of the Bible and eagerly embrace Allah of the Koran!

God’s judgment will come upon our nation just as it has historically fallen upon any nation that rejects Him. The most modern weaponry, astute military strategists, astonishing engineering feats, renowned politicians and a worldwide economy cannot forestall this judgment! God’s prophet spoke to such a nation saying, “You are of no account, and your work amounts to nothing; he who chooses you is an abomination…Behold, all of them are false; their works are worthless. They are wind and emptiness” (The Bible, Isaiah 41:24, 29).

Note: John Kachelman, Jr. is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.

Bill Lockwood: Stealth Jihad and the Islamization of America 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Islam divides the entire world into two sectors: “Dar-al-Islam” (House of Islam) and “Dar-al-Harb” (House of War). The only countries that are considered to be at peace with Islam are those which enforce Shari’a Law. This is because Islam does not recognize the right of any other religion to exist. America at large is thus a part of the “House of War.”

World Domination

Muslim leaders world-wide have been bold and blatant that their efforts are toward an Islamic-dominated world. Iranian leader Ahmadenejad declared it (2006); Leading Muslim cleric in the UK Anjem Choudary insisted that the Muslim flag will one day “fly over the White House;” the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) chair Omar Ahmad confessed in 1998 that the Islamic goal is “to become dominant worldwide;” and the Muslim Brotherhood has given us “The Project”—a 100 year-plan to establish “Islamic government on earth.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, created in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, claims to have more than 70 affiliated terrorist organizations throughout the world. It states that “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Note that they define “jihad” for us. It involves “dying in the way of Allah.”

“Jihad” is the sacred obligation to impose Islam upon the entire world. This is not the creation of a few extremists or the hijacking of a peaceful religion by a handful of radicals. Jihad is mandated in the writings of the Quran, was practiced in bloody earnest by the false prophet Muhammad, and is overwhelmingly defined by classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists as a military concept of “waging war.”

According to the eminent scholar of Islamic history and culture at Princeton University, Bernard Lewis, the late Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton,
[the] term ‘jihad’ has usually been understood as meaning ‘to wage war.’ The great collection of hadith all contain a section devoted to jihad in which the military meaning predominates. …According to Muslim teaching, jihad is one of the basic commandments of the faith, an obligation imposed upon all Muslims by God, through revelation … It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state.

Students in public schools today learn the “5 Pillars of Islam” inclusive of prayer, alms, pilgrimage, and so forth. However, the instructional materials in our public schools normally do not include the 6th Pillar. Jihad is the 6th Pillar. So important was “Jihad” (Religious fighting for Allah) that Muhammad declared it the second most important deed in Islam. (Hadith by Bukhari, Vol. 1, no. 25).

Some Muslim clerics inform us that “jihad” can mean “inner struggle” as in a person who “struggles” for inner mastery over sin. This definition is “taqiyya”—or lying. Jihad, in the authoritative materials of Islam, uniformly means fighting for political mastery.

Muhammad himself stated that “The person who participates in Jihad (Holy Battles) for Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed.)” (Vol. 1:35).

Some Muslims may ignore jihad or disregard it—and we are glad they do– but it is certainly not defined in the authoritative Islamic texts as “inner struggle.” Further, this is not a matter of “interpretation”—but of either acceptance or rejection by Muslims.

It is very difficult for Christians to understand, but Islam is a militant movement which has as its primary aim not spiritual, but political goals. The ultimate purpose of Islam is the establishment by force of a worldwide Islamic state where Shari’a law is enforced.

Muslim Brotherhood

This brings us back to the Muslim Brotherhood. Their outlined strategies for western world takeover include the “appearance of moderation,” the “use of deception to mask good,” the “extensive usage of social networks,” and to “cultivate Islamist intellectual community;” “using Western institutions until they convert them into the service of Islam.”

Changing the laws of the United States is the primary target. Stealth Jihad. As Muslim Brotherhood leader Qaradowi stated, “jihad can be fought with the pen, then the sword.”

The great world-class scholar and former president John Quincy Adams warned America regarding Islam. His comment was that Muhammad had

poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature. … Between these two religions [Islam and Christianity], a war of twelve hundred years has already waged. The war is yet flagrant … while the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motive to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.

Bill Lockwood: Islam, Christianity, and Roman Catholicism 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Julia Ioffe, writing in Foreignpolicy.com, makes a classic mistake in an article entitled “If Islam is a Religion of Violence, So Is Christianity” (6-14-2016). Apparently miffed that the general populace draws such conclusions as that “Islam is bad and Christianity is good” in the wake of mass shootings in America, Ioffe says it is a “hateful hypocrisy” to “single out Islam.”

She overtly blares out “I am tired of hearing, from Bill Maher and from Donald Trump, that Islam is inherently violent. “I am even more tired of hearing that Christianity is inherently peaceful.”

And how does she demonstrate that Christianity can be a “religion of violence”, and that Islam can be peaceful? She slogs through history, recent and ancient, to show atrocities committed by those who claimed to follow Christ, such as the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. On the other hand, she gives illustrations of peace-loving Muslims. “Islam, as it was practiced in medieval Span, was beautiful and peaceful, too.”

Since Ioffe’s investigative method is flawed, she erroneously concludes, “No religion is inherently peaceful or violent, nor is it inherently other than what its followers make it out to be.”

What About These Things?

While it is true that observers of religious people judge and asses the religion itself by the examples that people live before them, this does not explain the religion itself, nor the formative teachings of that religion. This methodology is about as thin as seeking to determine the official Democratic Party platform by asking Democrats on the street what are their feelings about the issues of the day.

This is clumsiness, to say the least. Many atheists have used this same flawed principle in defending atheism. Many atheists live admirable lives, they tell us. No argument here—but their morality does not derive from their atheism. It is bootlegged straight out of Christianity.

Severed branches of trees have enough sap left to keep the leaves green for a while. So also, atheists have enough “moral sap” leftover to keep them moral–but neither humanism nor atheism provide in and of themselves any moral substance.

This illustration now sets us up to examine Ioffe’s assertions.

Christianity

How should one assess a religious standard? How should one examine what that religion teaches? How can one determine what a religion “inherently is?” Ioffe condemns that Christianity can be violent. How so? She uses the illustration of Dylan Roof, who killed nine people in the middle of a Bible study in Charleston, S.C. but who declared allegiance to “the white supremacist cause” and “pointing to the Council of Conservative Citizens” which claims to “adhere to ‘Christian beliefs and values.’”

Christianity cannot be accurately assessed by examining people who did not live up to the standard set by Christ in the New Testament, regardless of the institutions to which they belong. The Lord Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, taught completely the opposite of what Roof practiced, including love your neighbor as yourself.

The same is true regarding the endless pointing to the Middle Age Roman Catholic Church and its atrocities, which Ioffe does in her article. She does this to point to bloodletting committed by Catholics in the “name of Christ.” She is not alone here—men such as Bill Maher do the same thing.

The American people need desperately to learn that the Roman Catholic Church is not a representative of Christ upon the earth, nor is it the church about which one reads on the pages of the New Testament, regardless of what the papacy asserts, and regardless of what name is invoked while perpetrating crime.

The Roman Catholic Church is the direct result of a brazen apostasy from the New Testament over the ages. Read the New Testament yourself and see that there is no pope, no papal infallibility, no Vatican State, no infant baptism, no baptism of desire, no baptism of blood, no rule of celibacy, no monasticism, no inherited sin, no immaculate conception, no bodily assumption of Mary, no praying to the saints, no rosary, no purgatory, no indulgences, no canonized saints, no veneration of saints, no sacraments, no lent, etc.

Official Roman Catechism’s and Encyclopedia’s admit that these doctrines “developed over the centuries.” The Roman Church through the ages simply adopted myriads of foreign doctrines, then wedded itself to a state apparatus and became a mixture of “church and state” which even sent armies into the field to shed blood on behalf of the Vatican!

Yet, this is what Ioffe uses to say that “Christianity” can be violent. It is interesting that journalists are supposed to go original sources. But not in this case. She wants us all to assess the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Rome. We are not so easily misled.

Islam

Here we come to something entirely different. Muslims as a group, behave in different ways, depending upon how many of them occupy a territory or nation. As percentages to population rises, so does violence. Why is this? Once again—go back to the original source, Ioffe. What do you find?

The one perfect Muslim was Mohammed. What did he do? How did he behave? Multiple verses in the Koran command the use of the sword (Surah 9:5; 9:73; 47:4, etc.). Islam, in its inception, waged war on all who did not accept Allah and Mohammed as his prophet. Mohammed was a war-lord of the Middle Ages style who led his followers in numerous battles. Violence is not an “apostasy” from a peace-loving Mohammed, but an imitation of him and his “inspired” commands from Allah.

When Mohammed died, not one person on the entire peninsula of Arabia disagreed with the man. This is not explained on the basis of freedom. His dying words were to carry on to “fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Surah 9:29).

Note the choices the founder of Islam gives to conquered peoples. One, Accept Islam. Two, pay the jizya (poll-tax on non-Muslims). This is the cornerstone of the entire system of humiliating regulations that institutionalize inferior status for non-Muslims in Islamic law. Three, prepare to war with Muslims.

Peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society, of which Ioffe writes, is not one of the choices.

Does any of this sound anything like what was taught by the Savior of the world? No, Julia Ioffe. The religions of the world are inherently what their founders actually taught, not what later followers may or may not do. It is interesting that Ms. Ioffe did not once reference Christ Himself or His teaching when cross-examining Him. Nor did she look to see what Mohammed actually taught. Both are easily referenced.

It is something for which we ought to be thankful that not all Muslims faithfully carry out Mohammed’s “inspired” orders. But this is only because they do not live down to the standard set by their founder. On the other hand, it is sad that many professed Christians do not live up to the standards set by the Lord Jesus Christ found on the pages of the New Testament.

« Older Entries