Friday, August 27, 2010

Obama needs his License Revoked

"After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No. You can't drive. We don't want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out."

- Barack Obama, attempting to prove that his party should be re-elected (And proving that he thinks you, the average voter, has no idea what's going on.)

Someone should go tell Obama to go take a look at his poll numbers. He's not doing so hot - and neither is Congress. He had this cute little metaphor that if you want to go forward you put the car in 'D' not 'R'. In this little metaphor, Obama is saying that if you vote Democrat, he can get you out of the ditch, but not if you vote Republican. Of course, this little metaphor might work better if he hadn't put the car into gear and then drove it into the ditch.

Obama has once again proved how out of touch with reality he is. The economy failed in the latter end of George Bush's term largely because of the housing bubble, which was built up by Democrats to start with! Then Obama came along promising change and put the car even further in the ditch by killing job wherever he found them and terrorizing the economy.

He's attempted to kill drilling jobs with his oil drilling moratorium. He's killed jobs at tanning salons by raising new taxes on them. He's trying to limit how many fish fisherman can catch and therefore reduce the profits the fishermen get. And those are just a few examples of what he's done to ruin this economy.

Back when he was running for President, Obama made another incredibly stupid remark, this one about wanting trickle-up economics. It's been a while since I took economics and heaven knows I'm no businesswoman, but even I know a dumb idea when I hear it. That dumb statement doesn't just defy economics, it also defies gravity.

In nature, when water flows down from a lake, it waters everything on the way down. It never trickles back up to where it came from. And the same principle works in economics. (Which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Obama failed.) Rich people have money, and when they're not running scared that the government will take their money away from them, they invest it in the stock market. This gives companies more money which allows them to expand and hire more people. As money trickles down it helps everyone. It can't trickle up; poor people don't invest in the economy enough to make a difference.

So thanks for nothing Obama. You did NOT ever get that car back out of the ditch, you got it stuck in there deeper, and you're happy about it because it lets you push your dumb socialist agenda.

It's time to revoke Obama's licence. November 2012 can't come fast enough.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

FL Church Promises to Burn Korans, Muslims Respond in Typical Fashion

1 Corinthians 6:12a

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful."

First of all, Pastor, none of those things you listed are isolated incidents. Not one. they are all part of the Islamization of America. And I do agree that it needs to be stopped.

Second, if this doesn't make those idiots in the media shut up about 'religion of Peace' already, nothing ever will. See how this pastor is receiving death threats? You get two guesses as to who is sending them, and I'll give you two hints:

1. Not Christians.

2. Not Jews.

Christians don't send death threats. Muslims do, though.

Now this is controversial for many reasons, and I probably won't get to them all here. First of all, the question is, Is it a good idea for this church to do this? Part of me desperately wants to say yes because I'm tired of creeping Islam. Yes, this should be done. Everyone out at that book burning should be carrying a gun in case CAIR tries something and why are you just burning Korans? You haven't gone far enough. You'd better serve ham at this thing - bonus points if you cook it over the fire you make from the Korans, and you need to have instrumental music playing in the background, too. The Battle Hymn of the Republic, or something.

But the other part of me wants to know if this is the right thing to do. Is this a good testimony for us Christians? I don't know. But I do wonder, particularly when I remember the Crusades.

How much longer are we going to sit down and take it while Muslims demand that we
give them everything they want? I've blogged on here about the idiot Muslim cook who tried to sue his employers when they wanted him to cook pork. If you don't want to cook pork, then maybe you shoulda been a desert chef or something. Muslims are creeping into our culture and they are not assimilating - they expect us to assimilate to them.

I'm tired of Islam. Right now they're trying to build a VICTORY MOSQUE TO COMMEMORATE THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ON 9/11. Let's not beat around the bush, we'll call the Hamasque of the Usual Suspects what it is: a VICTORY MOSQUE TO COMMEMORATE THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ON 9/11. Okay? And I'm tired of it. Building a mosque in a business district - it's not because you need a place to worship, it's because you want to COMMEMORATE THE DEATH OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, well, you get the point.

And then, Bibles. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to own one of these. Oh, yeah, real tolerant religion going on there. Burn a flag, burn people to death, burn a church, burn a Bible, Muslims don't blink. Burn a Koran, and they scream like stuck pigs.(By the way, I think it's worth mentioning that church burning is the second-favorite pastime of Muslims.)

Now, there is endless debate going on now about whether or not this is the right thing to do. There is no easy now. The easiest thing to do would be to not let any more Muslims over here, ever. After 9/11 immigration from the Middle East should have been stopped, with the only exception being the Jews. Only Jews, not Muslims who lived in Israel.

Now, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful." It falls under free speech laws that these people can burn Korans, but is it helpful? Or will it be another black mark against Christians? At this point I would have to say that there's not much you can do that will make Christianity look any better in the media's eyes. Determined to make Islam the religion of peace, they've left Christianity to be transforming into a 'violent religion.' We're not, by the way. but the media will never listen to that.

As to whether or not the church should burn Korans, because I'm still evenly divided over what to do, I'll leave that one up to them. But one thing that I think is worth mentioning is the Crusades. At this rate, we're going to need a few more of these.

Contrary to what you've heard from your teachers or from watching Kingdom of Heaven, the Crusades were not a bunch of Christians going out to terrorize Muslims. the Crusades were a bunch of Christians going out to stop Muslim aggression and prevent said Muslims from taking over Europe.

Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?

Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action -- one that was long overdue.

As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.

"For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.

"If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them."

He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no response from the Christian world until the Crusades.

Huh. No response until the crusades. The media won't acknowledge Islam for what it is, and it'll take Crusades now to stop this spread of Islam. Methinks history might be slated to repeat itself.

Q: What are some popular misconceptions about the Crusades?

Spencer: One of the most common is the idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world.

In fact, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution.

Early in the eighth century 60 Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies -- except for a small number who converted to Islam.

Muslims also demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay.

Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the tax on non-Muslims -- jizya -- that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of their own children and fellow believers.

Early in the ninth century the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled for Constantinople and other Christian cities. In 937, Muslims went on a rampage in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

In 1004, the Fatimid Caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. Over the next 10 years 30,000 churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives.

In 1009, al-Hakim commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches, including the Church of the Resurrection. In 1056, the Muslims expelled 300 Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

When the Seljuk Turks took Jerusalem in 1077, the Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.

Another common misconception is that the Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force. Glaringly absent from every report about Pope Urban's address at the Council of Claremont is any command to the Crusaders to convert Muslims.

It was not until over 100 years after the First Crusade, in the 13th century, that European Christians made any organized attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, when the Franciscans began missionary work among Muslims in lands held by the Crusaders. This effort was largely unsuccessful.

Yet another misconception revolves around the Crusaders' bloody sack of Jerusalem in 1099.

The capture of Jerusalem is often portrayed as unique in medieval history, and as the cause of Muslim mistrust of the West. It might be more accurate to say that it was the start of a millennium of anti-Western grievance mongering and propaganda.

The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem was a heinous crime -- particularly in light of the
religious and moral principles they professed to uphold. However, by the military standards of the day, it was not actually anything out of the ordinary.

In those days, it was a generally accepted principle of warfare that if a city under siege resisted capture, it could be sacked, and while if it did not resist, mercy would be shown. It is a matter of record that Muslim armies frequently behaved in exactly the same way when entering a conquered city.

This is not to excuse the Crusaders' conduct by pointing to similar actions. One atrocity does not excuse another. But it does illustrate that the Crusaders' behavior in Jerusalem was consistent with that of other armies of the period -- since all states subscribed to the same notions of siege and resistance.

In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitate to order the killing of every Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took Antioch from the Crusaders, Baybars was annoyed to find that the Crusader ruler had already left the city -- so he wrote to him bragging of his massacres of Christians.

Most notorious of all may be the jihadists' entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when they, according to historian Steven Runciman, "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination."

Finally, it is a misconception that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades. He did not.

There is no doubt that the belief that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades is widespread. When he died, the Washington Post reminded its readers "during his long reign, Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican's associations with the Mafia and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo."

However, John Paul II never actually apologized for the Crusades. The closest he came was on March 12, 2000, the "Day of Pardon."

During his homily he said: "We cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken toward the followers of other religions."

This is hardly a clear apology for the Crusades.

Don't think for one minute that if the Muslims could force us all to stop worshiping God and teaching each other - even each other! - about the Bible, they wouldn't do it. It would not surprise me if very shortly we are in for the fight of lives just to keep our freedoms.

I'm glad the Pope didn't apologize. At least someone has a brain.

In Europe things have already started to reach a breaking point. No one over there wants the Muslims anymore simply because of the way act and how they demand to be treated better then everyone else. Whether this is because their skin is brown or what I don't know or honestly care.

These people are already trying to infiltrate our culture and force us to play by their rules, and I don't appreciate that much. The Muslims are consistently doing outrageous things, so maybe it's time that the rest of us be just as outrageous.

Maybe. Maybe doing this isn't right at all.

Or maybe it's what we need - the beginning of another Crusade.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Finally, Something Obama DIDN'T Apoligize For

Or send someone over to apologize in his place. From FOX News:

The U.S. delegation will not offer an apology for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when it attends a ceremony in Japan on Friday marking the 65th anniversary of the attacks, which brought World War II to an end.

State Department spokesman Noel Clay said no apology will be offered by the delegation, to be led by U.S. Ambassador John Roos, at the ceremony in Hiroshima.

Gene Tibbets, son of Brig. Gen. Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., seen here, says Friday's visit to Hiroshima by U.S. Ambassador John Roos is an act of contrition that his late father would never have approved.

The U.S. delegation will not offer an apology for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when it attends a ceremony in Japan on Friday marking the 65th anniversary of the attacks, which brought World War II to an end.

State Department spokesman Noel Clay said no apology will be offered by the
delegation, to be led by U.S. Ambassador John Roos, at the ceremony in Hiroshima.

"As Assistant Secretary [P.J.] Crowley stated, at this particular point, we thought it was the right thing to do," Clay said in an e-mail on Thursday. "Ambassador Roos will attend the ceremony to express respect for all the victims of World War II. From the tragedy of that war, the U.S. and Japan have become close friends and allies. We must continue to work together to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again."

Some survivors of the bombing had indicated that they hoped Roos would offer an apology at the ceremony.

Terumi Tanaka, who survived the 1945 atomic bombing of Nagasaki at age 13 and is now secretary-general of the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Associations, said the "best thing" the delegation could do would be to apologize for the two bombings, which killed roughly 220,000 people.

"We welcome the visit," he told The Associated Press. "But without an apology, it is difficult for us. We aren't asking for reparations. We simply want the U.S. to apologize and get rid of its nuclear arsenal."

"We want America to get rid of all nukes!" Now doesn't that just figure. Some other things come to me out of this, including, did the government consider making the apology or did the Japanese ask them to make it?

The son of one of the men who dropped a bomb said that we were apologizing just by being there. I don't know. Maybe he's right.

On the IMAO post, which is where I first learned about this, one of the commentors pointed out that the Japanese haven't apologized for Pearl Harbor yet. It's a good point, and I'd like to add one more: where's our apology for the Bataan Death March? I don't think the Japanese have to much of a right to be after an apology.

One more thing: just in case Obummer doesn't know about this yet, let's not tell him that no one's apologizing until after this memorial is over.