School Kids Taught To Praise Obama

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"



Here's the creepy - er - creepier part...

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!

When I was a kid, I think we sang something like that about Jesus, in church of course, you can't sing about Jesus in school.

Stalin would be proud.

Read More: Another Indoctrination Video

Faith Powers' Call to Arms

I recieved a very nice email from a lady asking me to plug her new book, so here goes...

My latest book, "Call to Arms" has been released 9/2/09!

My hope is that my "Prayer for America" will be read from my book throughout this great nation.

Thank you for being the true American that you are. God's best only to you.

"When man works man works, but when man prays God works."

Faith Powers

Flattery will get you just about anywhere. Good luck with the book Ms. (appropriately named) Faith Powers.

Read More: Call to Arms

Home Bible Study Banned

From FOXNews.com

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a bible study - unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

"On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county." David Jones told FOX News.

"We told them this is not really a religious assembly - this is just a bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all," Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," the couple's attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

For David and Mary Jones, it's about more than a question of money.

Questions? I have a couple; what about every American's constitutional right to peaceful assembly and the free exercise of religion?

Read More: Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home

Jesus or John Galt?

From Capitalism Magazine

In the aftermath of the substantial Democratic victory in last November’s election, Republicans nationwide are reported to be doing a great deal of “soul searching.” Indeed they should. After all, times are not looking good for the Republican Party. Former President Bush left office with record-low support, and both houses of Congress, along with the White House, are now solidly Democratic. Michael Steele, a former lieutenant governor and recently elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, attributed the Republican loss in the last election to a lack of understanding of what the party stood for. In his words, “We didn’t have anything to say to the American people other than, ‘We’re not Democrats.’” Saxby Chambliss, the newly re-elected Republican senator from Georgia, has echoed Steele, calling on the party to return to its principles.

But what principles are those? Historically, the political philosophy of the Republican Party has been an amalgam of advocacy for small government and capitalism, combined with support for religion and traditional values. The more capitalist element of the party tends to concern itself primarily with economic policy, traditionally supporting less government spending, lower taxes and deregulation. By contrast, the religionist element of the party tends to focus on social policy. It is the driving force behind Republican support for increasing the role of religion in public life, the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and various attempts to ban gay marriage.

But the line between economic and social policies has become increasingly blurred. Though the capitalist and religionist elements have each tried to grant the other autonomy within its own area of interest, the differences in their fundamental principles have resulted in conflicting policy approaches. Most religionists, for example, don’t seem to have a problem with the growth of the welfare state, as long as faith-based initiatives get a piece of the pie (as they did in the case of the Bush Administration’s “social service grants” for religious organizations, which handed out $2.2 billion in one year alone). The capitalist Republicans, on the other hand, tend to advocate for reducing government programs and handouts. A reduction in welfare recipients, for example, was a key ingredient of the Republican Party platform in the mid-90s.

Read More: Jesus Christ or John Galt? The Republican Party's Identity Crisis.

American Torture

My favorite line, "Hey sweetie!... Let's go waterboarding this weekend."

Steven Crowder's YouTube Channel and Website.

Black Liberation Theology

Senator Barack Obama spent over twenty years at the church of reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama credits reverend Wright with introducing him to his Christian faith; but, what does that really mean?

Visit 1000sundays.com to learn more.

Troubling Texts at Virginia's Saudi Academy

From FOXNews.com

Textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday.

Other passages in the school's textbooks state that "the Jews conspired against Islam and its people" and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed "polytheists."

The passages were found in selected textbooks used during the 2007-08 school year by the Islamic Saudi Academy, which teaches 900 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax and receives much of its funding from the Saudi government.

Read the full story here...

The Archbishop of Canterbury

Rowan Williams' Dangerous Claptrap
By Christopher Hitchens - Slate.com

In December 1931, George Orwell got himself arrested in the slums of East London in order to find out about conditions "inside," and then he wrote an essay about the people he met while in detention. One of them was a buyer for a kosher butcher who had embezzled some of his boss's money. To Orwell's surprise, the man told him that "his employer would probably get into trouble at the synagogue for prosecuting him. It appears that the Jews have arbitration courts of their own, and a Jew is not supposed to prosecute another Jew, at least in a breach-of-trust case like this, without first submitting it to the arbitration court."

You might think that such relics of the medieval ghetto, and of the rabbinical control that was part of ghetto life, had more or less disappeared in England in the 21st century. And you would largely be right. There exists a "Beth Din," or religious court, in the prosperous North London suburb of Finchley to which the ultra-Orthodox submit some of their more arcane disputes. (This little world is very amusingly described by Naomi Alderman in her lovely novel Disobedience.) But to speak in general, Jews in Britain consider themselves, and are considered, to be answerable to the same laws as everybody else. Should I mention any of the numerous reasons why it would be extremely nerve-racking if this were not true?

But now the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has cited the Beth Din as one of his reasons for believing that sharia, or Islamic law, can and should become a part of what he called "plural jurisdiction" in Britain. His reasoning, if one may call it that, is clear: Other faiths already have their own legal authorities, so why not the Muslims, too? What could be more tolerant and diverse? This same argument has been used already, and will be used again, to demand that laws governing "blasphemy," originally written to protect only Christians from being upset, should now, in a nondiscriminatory way, be amended to cover Muslims as well. The alternative--don't have any blasphemy laws and let religious people's feelings be hurt, just as the feelings of the secular are regularly offended by religion--doesn't occur to the archbishop and people who think like him.

A BBC interview with Williams had him saying that the opening to sharia would "help maintain social cohesion." If that phrase is even intended to mean anything, it can only imply that a concession of this kind would lessen the propensity to violence among Muslims. But such abjectness is not the only definition of social cohesion that we have. By a nice coincidence, a London think tank called the Center for Social Cohesion issued a report just days before the leader of the world's Anglicans and Episcopalians capitulated to Islamic demands. Titled "Crimes of the Community: Honour-Based Violence in the UK," and written by James Brandon and Salam Hafez, it set out a shocking account of the rapid spread of theocratic crime. The main headings were murder and beating of women, genital mutilation, forced marriage, and vigilante methods employed against those who complained. It could well be--since we are becoming every day more familiar with the first three--that the fourth is the one that should concern us most.

Read More...

The King, The Pope, The Sword

By Youssef Ibrahim - The New York Sun

Saudi Arabia's king visited the pope at the Vatican this week, and the leader of Catholicism expressed grief over the draconian discrimination experienced by Christian minorities in some Muslim lands.

During the unprecedented and historic encounter, Benedict XVI gave the Saudi monarch an old painting of the Vatican. The king's gift to the pontiff: a sword.

As a gift from from a leading Islamic fundamentalist nation, a sword is about as clear a symbol of intolerance as there can be; and indeed, swords are used for public decapitations in Saudi Arabia on Fridays. The U.S. State Department's yearly human rights report cites Saudi Arabia for bigotry toward non-Muslims, including "harassment, abuse, and even killings at the hands of the Muttawa (religious police)."

The newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said the Vatican hoped the meeting with the Saudi king would produce a frank dialogue on Christian worship — in Saudi kingdom and in the wider Arab world, where Christians' basic rights to practice their religion have been curtailed by Islamist terror of the same brand preached and practiced in Saudi Arabia. The pope pleaded for equal treatment for Christians as is granted to millions of Muslims in the West.

Abdullah, for his part, insisted on a joint statement that supports a just solution for the Middle East crisis — which is Morse code for Saudi Arabia's desire to see a Hamas-style Islamic state take over Israel. The Saudis also asked for a resumption of the Muslim-Christian dialogue that this pope ended as he came to office, noting that the discussion had turned into a monologue on Islam's supremacy.

In short, nothing happened in what was billed as the first encounter of the head of the Catholic church and the leader of an Islamic fundamentalist nation. Nothing substantial could have happened anyway on this first visit by the Saudi monarch to key European nations conducted with an air of triumphalism ignoring reality.

Before departing to Britain, the king told the British Broadcasting Corp. that the British government had ignored "multiple warnings" of jihadists' attacks, suggesting the Britons basically deserved what they got when suicide bombers blew up their subways in July 2005. Even the enormously liberal Guardian newspaper ran an editorial wondering how the ruler of a country that creates and funds terrorists via so-called charities and jihadist ideologies can be so brazen.

In a recent essay, the director of Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Fouad Ajami, noted that the distinction between the Islamism of Al Qaeda and the "secularism" of the leadership in several so-called American-allied regimes — such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt — is a distinction without a difference.

The king of Saudi Arabia, along with his ruling royals and allies such as President Mubarak of Egypt, preside over cultures suffused with anti-modernism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism, which they deliberately propagate via religious channels to deflect wrath directed as their despotically corrupt regimes.

Abdullah victoriously toured Britain and Germany — places where millions of Saudi oil dollars are pouring in to erect cathedral-size mosques, Saudi schools, and theology institutions designed and funded as bridgeheads of Islamist militancy into the heart of Europe.

In that sense, the Saudi monarch request for resumption of the so-called Islamic-Christian dialogue is a facilitating tool for proselytizing invasions, which in his capacity as custodian of Mecca and Medina and commander in chief of Islamic jihad, he effectively leads.

Paradoxically, even as the king made his push for more love inside the Vatican, his creed prohibits diplomatic relations with the Holy See. A Vatican embassy in Saudi Arabia cannot be allowed, as it would raise a cross. Expatriate Christians are not even allowed to wear one, hold a private church service in their homes, or retain bibles, all of which are confiscated at the border.

Clearly, Benedict consented to pseudo-dialogue to soothe millions of moderate Muslims angered by his 2006 prescient remarks linking Islam to violence. In reality, it is far more incumbent upon those moderates to stand up to their fundamentalist preachers and Islamist radicals and the flood of Saudi money funding both.

Abdullah had visited the Vatican twice before, as crown prince and deputy prime minister. The next time he returns, it might be best to leave the sword behind.

Primer on Islamic Imperialism

By Greg Richards - American Thinker

One of the alleged sins held against the West by Islamic radicalism - which has declared war on us through Osama bin Laden's fatwa issued in 1998 in London - is imperialism: the imperialism of the Dutch, the British and the French from the 17th to the 20th centuries. (For some reason, Russian imperialism in Central Asia gets a pass - so far.) Israel is allegedly an outpost of European imperialism.

The original western imperial enterprise in the radical Islamic narrative was the Crusades. The First Crusade began in 1095. The Crusades were undertaken to reclaim the Holy Land for Christendom. Reclaim it from whom? From the Muslims.

But Mohammed died in Medina in 632 as ruler of the Hijaz, the northwest section of Arabia along the Red Sea which includes the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. But if they controlled the Hijaz in 632, what were the Muslims doing in Jerusalem in 1100?

Of course, they were there by conquest! They were they by virtue of Islamic imperialism - the extension of the Land of Islam (Dar al-Islam) by holy war: jihad (notwithstanding the other meanings of this term).

Let's review. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was a warrior and ruler who conquered Mecca and the Hijaz from his base in Medina. Following The Prophet's death in 632, Islam was spread by Arab and Muslim conquest. There are Muslims who are not Arabs, but the first phase of expansion was Arab expansion. The ruler of the Muslim world, the successor to Muhammad, was the Caliph - "the shadow of God on earth."

The Caliph was both the religious and political head of the Muslim world which, unlike the Christian world, draws no distinction between the two. In North Africa and the Middle East, the lands that the Arab Muslim world expanded into were controlled by the Byzantine Empire, the successor to the Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople. These were Christian lands. To the East, between the Middle East and India, was the Persian Empire with a different religious tradition.

At the death of Muhammad in 632, the realm of Islam consisted of northwest Arabia. To the north and west is Christian Byzantium, to the east is Persia. Neither of these are Arab; neither of them are Muslim. But within 100 years, the territory from Persia to Spain is controlled by Muslim Arabs. How did this happen? Egypt, for instance, was not in 632 an Arab country. It was of a different ethnic stock and had been in existence for 3600 years!

What happened was conquest, one of the most impressive in history.

Here's a Brief Timeline...

Jihad and the American Left

By J.R. Dunn - American Thinker

At first glance, it might appear unlikely, the Jihadis being noted for such non-progressive activities as oppression of women, persecution of minorities, and the execution of homosexuals. But that kind of thing has never stopped the left before - their sole criterion has always been whether or not the other party is useful. It can safely be assumed that the mullahs feel the same way.

Up until now, the left has satisfied itself in responding to the War on Terror by attacking government actions, employing the Vietnam myth, and inciting as much domestic paranoia as humanly possible. But they're getting more frantic. Time has passed, and they have failed to generate anything like a mass movement, while recent successes in guarantee they never will. There's plenty of precedent for left-wing support of Islamic radicals, scattered and sporadic, but undeniable all the same. Recall Michael Moore's characterization of Al-Queda in Iraq as "Minutemen." Consider the left's defense of John Walker Lindh. Consider the self-styled "human shields" who raced to protect Saddam Hussein. Or the effort that has been put into undermining U.S. programs to combat the terrorist threat, such as rendition, wiretapping, and profiling.

Read More...

Neighbourhood Bully (The truth about Israel)

"An amazing compendium of some of the many instances in which Israel has provided aid to countries around the world. Including many whom are enemies. For those who still think there is anything to the nonsense that Israel is a 'racist' country, you will note that many (maybe even most) of the aid beneficiaries in the video are people of color.

read more digg story

No More Apologies

It's time for the tolerant West to stop apologizing to intolerant Muslims. Read More...

"Toilet Koran"

Let me introduce "Toilet Koran." Please, hold your applause, this magnificent work of art is, after all, unfinished. Read More...

Pace University Koran Case

I’ve received an email from Stanislav Shmulevich, who has been arrested in New York for putting a Koran in a toilet at Pace University. And his case is even more outrageous than we first reported. Read More...

"Is Our Response To Falwell's Death Hurting Our Cause?"

Some of the NUtroots at the Democratic Underground are now worried that their orgy of hate expressed against Jerry Falwell following the news of his death might be counterproductive. A few are terribly worried that their dancing on Falwell's grave might produce a voter backlash against the Left next year. President Romney will be thanking them.

Read More...