Sheik in Egypt Says: “if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari’a”

This is the so-called "religion of peace". Huh. How are we of other faiths supposed to negotiate with such a narrow-minded intolerant people? 

Q: “But we Egyptians have never regarded the Christians as infidels. [In fact,] many of us have Christian friends even closer than our Muslim friends.”

Shehato: “As a Muslim, I must support the Muslim and oppose the Christian. If there is a Christian who does me no harm, I will maintain limited contact with him. Islam [discusses] certain degrees of contact with the Christian, namely: keeping promises [that were made him], dealing honestly with him, treating him kindly, and befriending him. The first three are allowed, but the fourth [i.e., befriending the Christian] is deemed dangerous, for it contravenes the verse that says, ‘O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth’ [Koran 60:1]. It is inconceivable that they should serve in judiciary or executive posts, for instance in the army or the police.”

Q: “Are you against blowing up churches?”

Shehato: “Yes and no. The Christian is free to worship his god in his church, but if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari’a, and it stipulates that they must pay the jizya tax while in a state of humiliation…”

Q: “These positions of yours frighten us, as Egyptians.”

Shehato: “I will not act [in ways] that contradict my faith just in order to please the people… We say to the Christians, convert to Islam or pay the jizya, otherwise we will fight you. The shari’a is not based on [human] logic but on divine law. That is why we oppose universal, manmade constitutions.”

If the Muslims Rise to Power in Egypt, They Will Form Muslim Battalions to Enforce the Shari’a Worldwide

Q: “If you rise to power in Egypt, will you launch a campaign of Islamic conquest?”

Shehato: “Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari’a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see the shari’a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah’s help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]…”

Q: “You said that you endorse the ideology of Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Does this mean that your way of implementing shari’a in Egypt will be through violence and war, like their [way]?”

Shehato: “No, we will implement the shari’a through da’wa [preaching], while violence will be directed only at the infidel Arab rulers. In their case, there is no choice but to use force, though the shari’a does not call it ‘violence’ but ‘jihad for the sake of Allah.’ There is no other way… because they have power and weapons…”

FYI, U.S. taxpayers have wasted given upwards of $64 BILLION in taxpayer dollars to Egypt - the majority for military assistance. When one reads Shehato, and this US lawmaker, it sure sounds like jizya.

H/T Creeping Sharia 

Refusal to Compromise on Fiscal Responsibility is "Dangerous" and "Unchristian"

Now the Christian Left is accusing Wisconsin's Governor Walker of being a bad Christian because he cut off the unions' means to keep the bottomless pit of money and cushy benefits fund keep on coming - a.k.a. collective bargaining, even though the collective bargaining tactics employed by unions have hurt hard working taxpayers for years.  Diane Butler Bass accused Gov. Walker of being "dangerous" and unchristian" for being unwilling to compromise when it came to fiscal responsibility with regards to the budget.  Gov. Walker's fiscal policy is in fact responsible, pragmatic, harmless and ethically sound.



Then we have Jim Wallis asking What Would Jesus Cut?  Of course he's against the GOP making cuts to both domestic spending and international aid.  He claims that these cuts will hurt the poor and are unfair. He complains about the tax cuts for 2 percent of Americans and the fact that Republicans support an increase in military spending.  For some reason Jim Wallis makes the assumption that the high taxes imposed under Clinton were just and that the lower taxes imposed under Bush were unjust.  Both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan made tax cuts which spurred job growth and helped many people, including the poor, to obtain jobs.

Hunter Baker tackles Jim Wallis' claim that cuts in spending is a sub-Christian position:

"The implication is that this is obviously a sub-Christian position. But is it? Probably the most essential purpose of government is to protect the life and freedom of citizens. The government achieves this goal through military means. Unless one takes the position that Christianity implies corporate pacificism, then it is unclear the Republicans have blundered according to Christian ethics. Now, match the question of military spending versus international aid and/or domestic spending. Are the latter obviously superior to the former? No. It depends on not only what the stated objective is for the different types of spending, but whether they actually achieve their purposes. To simply state that the Republicans want to bolster military spending while cutting international aid and domestic spending is to achieve nothing at all by way of an indictment."

Here Hunter Baker deals with Wallis' position on taxes and asks " If there is a community need, is it righteous to grab a rich person and employ the power of legal coercion to extract the needed funds?" 


Then, Hunter Baker explains what's wrong with Jim Wallis' redistributionist philosophy: 


"Still another problem with this redistributionist attitude about taxes and spending is that it assumes a zero sum state of affairs. For example, one could assume that the most people would be better off under a system like the old Soviet Union that spread resources out to citizens in a way that prized equality of rations. The United States system didn’t do that nearly as much, not nearly at all. But which of the two systems provided a better life for people? The answer is easy. The United States and its emphasis on liberty did. Why? A more free economic system produces far more wealth than an unfree one. If your equality system produces a little, bitty pie, it may give you a lot of philosophical satisfaction, but it doesn’t do as much actual good for people as the system that prizes free productivity and success over equality." 


No, fair isn't better. It just means equally poor or equally miserable but not equally better off in society.  If so, then Communism would have worked in the past, but the cold hard facts have proven that Communism has always caused lives to be drastically worse rather than better wherever it has been implemented.  At the very least Communism harms.  Communism has also killed many people.  

According to Courtois who wrote The Black Book of Communism here is the breakdown of the number of deaths which have occurred under Communism: 

• 65 million in the People's Republic of China
• 20 million in the Soviet Union
• 2 million in Cambodia
• 2 million in North Korea
• 1.7 million in Africa
• 1.5 million in Afghanistan
• 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
• 1 million in Vietnam
• 150,000 in Latin America
• 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."

Do federal programs achieve what they set out to do?  Is there government waste or is the money allocated properly and used efficiently?  Well, the Government Accountability Office found wasteful spending on ending homelessness.

From Fox News:

The Government Accountability Office report found that in 2009, federal agencies spent about $2.9 billion on more than 20 programs that targeted homelessness. If that money were to be targeted toward the building of homes, at say, $200,000 per home, it could theoretically produce 145,000 houses.

"Take that money directly and give them sort of a voucher so they can go get housing on their own, or get some mental health benefits," Brian Darling, director of government studies at the Heritage Foundation suggested. "But the way it is now when you have all of these different government agencies administering the same program, you have government waste."

It is self-evident that government programs aren't efficient and in fact don't achieve what they set out to do.  Our government can do better with less money.  This government waste needs to stop.  Plus, the assertion that Governor Walker is a bad Christian is absurd.  He is exercising fiscal responsibility which is a good thing.

Obama's Faith: Muslim, Christian, or Neither?

Here is a great article I found via Shawsblog:

Now that Barack Obama has decided to be for the Ground Zero mosque before being implicitly against it (perhaps), discussion about his faith has once again reached a fever pitch. To many, his stance proves he's a Muslim, with a recent poll showing that almost 20 percent of Americans hold that opinion; to others, it just reflects a desire to be faithful to the Constitution (now, that would be change). The truth, however, is a bit more nuanced. Obama is not religiously Muslim. Culturally, though...well, that's a different matter altogether.

In reality, calling Obama a "Muslim" gives him too much credit. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end." The truth, however, is that few people have thought thoroughly and to a definite end. And Obama is no exception. He hasn't even thought matters through enough to understand the folly of statism. Even more to the point, he is a moral relativist, a position the antithesis of any absolutist faith. Inherent in Islam is that belief that Allah, not man, has authored right and wrong and that, consequently, it isn't a matter of opinion. Thus, Obama cannot truly believe in Islam -- or in Christianity or Judaism, for that matter.

Oh, and since some will ask, how do I know Obama is a relativist? It's simple: Virtually all leftists are, as the denial of moral reality that is relativism lies at the heart of liberalism.

Speaking of relativists, this matter of Obama's "faith" much reminds me of Adolf Hitler and paganism. Like Obama, Hitler sometimes feigned a belief in Christianity, but in reality he held the religion in contempt. He believed it was "the greatest trick the Jews ever played on Western civilization" and lamented that it was not a warrior creed like Islam or the ancient Germanic paganism with which the Nazis wanted to replace Christianity (I wrote about this here). Yet while Hitler's second in command, Heinrich Himmler, certainly believed in the ancient pagan myths -- going so far as to launch expeditions to the Far East to prove them, à la Raiders of the Lost Ark -- it's silly to think that the leader himself viewed them as anything but a utilitarian device. He wasn't quite that romantic.

But what about culturally? For sure, Hitler preferred seeing Swastikas and runes (respectively, pagan symbols and letters) to crosses and crèches, rebuilt Germanic pagan temples to churches. That was where his passions lay. (If some are upset at a comparison between Hitler and Obama, know that I'd never call the president a National Socialist. He's an international socialist. Also, Hitler was patriotic.)

Obama also has passions, and there is no question as to where they lie. As journalist Todd Fitchette wrote in "The un-faith of Obama,"

... he continues to openly praise Islam; he bows to Muslim leaders; he claims that the Muslim call to prayer is "the most beautiful sound in the world;" he regularly quotes from the Koran and cites it for directing his life; ...

In the past year alone he made a big deal out of hosting a celebratory dinner to open the month of Ramadan -- held in the state dining room; he refused to attendthe 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts (an avowed Christian organization), and, refused to attend the National Day of Prayer because he claimed to do so would be offensive to non-Christians.

Then there is that king of Freudian slips, when Obama matter-of-factly said to interviewer George Stephanopoulos, "You're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith," and he didn't seem headed for a correction until Stephanopoulos interjected. (Note: This doesn't contradict my assertion that Obama has no real faith. Nancy Pelosi has spoken of her Catholic faith, but, as she is also a relativist, it can be nothing more than part of her cultural tapestry.) CONTINUED   

Christianity and Voting for Obama: Compatible?

We are big fans of the Quinn and Rose morning show out of Pittsburgh. On the 28th of July, Rose read an email from an old acquaintance who was taking her to task for a particular controversial position she has aired in recent weeks - that a person cannot be a true Christian and an Obama voter, and that people of faith who voted for Obama need to repent and apologize for their lapse. On the surface, it is easy for a conservative pro-life Christian to agree. But what does Rose really mean by that? On one level, it seems clear that support of abortion is incompatible with faith in Jesus Christ and His teachings. But it is not so clear that every person of faith who voted for Obama was thinking “The hell with the babies, I want government-run health care,” or “Who cares about murdering infants in the womb - we need a black president.” It’s just possible that a person of faith who voted for Obama might focus their thoughts on the second halves of statements like that without considering the abortion issue at all. One might judge their action in this regard as terribly irresponsible and imprudent, and we would not disagree. We might even go as far as to call it a sin - of omission if not one of commission. And there is a limited sense in which any sin is incompatible with faith. But in a broader sense, one which allows for people who love our Lord but still fall into sin on occasion, there remains some doubt whether voting for Obama is on par with driving a pregnant girl to an abortion clinic. Is it really an excommunicable offense? Or is Rose saying something else? I am pretty sure she is not Catholic, so it is open to question whether she believes in the traditional (and Biblical, but that’s another argument) doctrine of mortal sin, a sin that is so serious that by committing such an act a believer can voluntarily extinguish in his or her own soul the light of grace ignited by God, a light that no external force or pressure could be strong enough to put out without the saved soul’s consent. It may be that Rose embraces instead a notion of salvation that would exclude the possibility of a soul truly saved ever being able to commit such a sin, so that if someone does do something really bad, one might say that such a person was never actually saved in the first place (that position renders nonsensical the Protestant Assurance of Salvation doctrine that goes hand in hand with the theological position heretofore described, but, again, that is an argument for another day). In that case, she might think that someone who voted for Obama might not be a believer because that person might never have been saved in the first place. Such an assumption, taken dogmatically, is incompatible with the Catholic faith. It would also be uncharitable to assume any believer who voted for Obama committed a mortal sin. That would necessarily involve a presumption of certain subjective elements in the conscience of the voter which might not have been there and for whose absence they might not be entirely culpable. But if Rose’s assertion is understood as simply saying that no believer in Christ who voted for Obama could have done so in total moral innocence, having fully considered everything that he or she should have before casting such a vote, we wholeheartedly agree with that assertion, so understood. Regardless of whether there is a subjective innocence, there is an objective moral law by which persons who voted for Obama will be judged by God if they do not repent.

- Teresa and Kevin Rice (Teresamerica and The Naked Ontologist)


Here is the audio of that particular segment
of the Quinn and Rose Morning Show:

Janet Boynes: Former Lesbian Leaves the Lifestyle & Embraces God

This is a truly inspiring true story. She lived a homosexual lifestyle for 14 years until an encounter in a grocery store parking lot led her back.

From CBN: "Janet Boynes grew up in a family of seven kids, by four different fathers. The man who raised her was an alcoholic. The Boynes family always had the police outside. Janet’s mother was abused as she grew up."



"I think what you have a tendency of doing is repeating what was done to you," Janet said. "I know she wanted the best for me, but the abuse was beyond measure. I can’t remember to this day as a kid that my mother ever, you know, hugged me or told me that she loved me."CONT

Here is her book -- Called Out: A Former Lesbian's Discovery of Freedom

Obama Mocks and Makes Fun of The Bible -- Would a Christian Do That?

Are Rosary Beads Gang Related?

Are rosary beads gang related?  Is either a cross with rosary-like cloth beads or a rosary really a representation of gangs or as a norm associated with gangs? I would think not. Both the rosary and the cross are a sign of the Christian faith, represent Christ, and are to be revered and are not to be feared because of their misassociation with gangs. The gangs are denigrating the rosary and the cross when they wear them while promoting violence and committing acts of violence in our society. Recently, there have been two cases where one student was wearing a rosary, the other wearing a cross with rosary-like cloth beads, and the students were asked to take them off by school officials because the school officials felt that the beads were gang related. The two boys ended up getting suspended for refusing to take them off. But, the boys were also wearing the rosary beads to remember loved ones who had died- a soldier in Iraq and the other one's brother had died a few years ago and uncle passed away a couple of months ago. This is resulting because many adults today have no common sense. There is a way to distinguish between a gang member and some person who is wearing these items in a peaceful manner. Plus, these kids were not bothering anyone or causing any harm to anyone by wearing the beads. One of the students was pummeled by some gang members because they thought that he was in another gang, but there is no proof that he is in a gang. From what I know neither child is in a gang. But, with regards to the child who was beaten up in school, what if a Muslim student was carrying the Koran and a bunch of students beat him/her up because they thought he or she was a terrorist? Would the school ban the Koran from being brought into school? Or, would the school be facing a lawsuit for religious discrimination? I just think this is ludicrous. Plus, the schools are looking only at the objects misrepresentation and saying all other people are going to misrepresent it also.



H/T Fox Radio

Freedom From Religion Attacks Freedom Of Religion

Since I couldn't get the embed code to work here are two links to the video:
http://www.citizenlink.org/videofeatures/A000012480.cfm
H/T goes to The Conservative Lady


Judge Crabb spreads her crabbiness across this land, along with her fakakta nature, hostility and disdainfulness to religious freedom is violating the Constitution  while displaying her ignoramity to the history of the United States.

"This is an egregious and revealing decision," Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said. "It shows the brooding hostility toward religion that exists at some levels of federal, state and local government in this country.

The case began in 2008 when the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming that the day of prayer violates the separation of church and state.

This charge is Hooey, Complete Hooey!!  Drabby the crabby Judge is full of Hooey!! Anti-Religious fanatic!!!

In 1952, President Truman signed into law a joint resolution of Congress to set aside an annual National Day of Prayer, and Congress amended the law in 1988 to establish a more particular date.


The law reads, "The president shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups and as individuals."

The National Day of Prayer Task Force, in a news release April 15, noted that the tradition of designating an official day of prayer actually began with the Continental Congress in 1775, after which President Washington issued a National Day of Thanksgiving Proclamation.

Ever since, the task force said, American presidents have made similar proclamations and "appeals to the Almighty." Historically, all 50 governors, along with presidents, have issued proclamations in honor of the National Day of Prayer. More at BPnews

Judge Crotchety needs to be relievedetey of her duties immediately for impuning both the bench  and good names of contitutionalist judges all across America. Her political chicanery and Leftist activism violates every citizens' FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

On CNS.com Jay Sekulow stated, "It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.



"This decision runs counter to well established legal precedent and we're confident that this flawed decision ultimately will be overturned. We will be filing a brief representing members of Congress challenging this federal district court decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,” Sekulow said in a statement.

‘If National Day of Prayer Is Unconstitutional, the Constitution Is Unconstitutional’  Are we no longer a nation that values our Christian heritage? Do people want to ignore several years of U.S. history and throw prayer out the window?  This is an attack on religious freedom and our Constitution and everyone who is truly a Christian and for religious rights should be appalled at Judge Crabb's ruling.

Here is a History of The National Day of Prayer




Watch Save the National Day of Prayer in Faith & Lifestyle  

  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
 
Let's send Judge Crabb who has her head stuck in the sand in the muddy waters, like a crab stuck in its own shell ignoring both reality and history, a clear message-that this Leftist anti-freedom political activism is unacceptable and we patriots will fight to keep our religious freedom alive in America.

Historian David Barton -- Is America a Christian Nation?

This is a most informative speech by David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders, who explains about the Christian Foundation of America.  The videos are in total about 45 minutes long and well worth listening to.  Barton is a historian who is extremely knowledgable about the Founding of America.


Out of the 56 that signed the Declaration of Independence, 29 had seminary degrees.


The first public school law in America in 1647 – The Old Deluder Satan Act – They believed that people should be able to read the Bible (which Satan didn’t want), so they wanted to teach children to read and write. For the next 320 years, the Bible was part of public education.
















H/T goes to Right Scoop

Fr. Jonathan Morris Explains Observance of Lent and Importance of Suffering

Obama The Anything but Christian President

I just recently saw a video of Congressman Randy Forbes discussing how this nation was built on Judeo -Christian principles and is still a Judeo-Christian nation today. He takes issue with certain anti-Christian Obama rhetoric. Seeing the video of Congressman Randy Forbes brought back my repugnance for Obama's anti-Christian words. Obama on April 6, 2009 said "U.S. is not more a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation." He has also said "We are no longer a Christian nation." With this statement Obama is trying to minimize the importance and the fact that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. He is trying to further his anti-Christian agenda by disregarding the importance of this nation being founded on Godly principles.



Excuse me but the President is distorting reality. Obama may want to decree from the top down that we are no longer a Christian nation but the reality is that the United States has many Americans today that still practice a Judeo-Christian way of life. The Judeo-Christian principles are very much alive today. Has Obama chosen to make his version of the U.S. not a Christian nation? Obama's native birthplace may be mainly a Muslim nation but the United States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and is still mainly a Judeo-Christian nation today. Obama, the anti-Christian President, may want to change or distort that reality but he is going to have a fight on his hands before he corrupts and destroys the morality of this great nation we call the United States of America. I will fight like hell to keep the belief in Christianity alive so that we are not taken down a path filled with moral relativism. Obama, as the Anti-Christian President is distorting reality today in order to promote his secularist or Anti-Christian agenda. He does not exemplify the experience, morality or ethics required to be President of the United States. One example is how he responded stupidly to the question regarding the Cambridge Police and Professor Gates. He is not qualified to be President of the U.S. but unfortunately we had a bunch of stupid oprahbots following their orders to vote for their first African-American President. Obama is trying to change this nation into a secularist society. He has no regard for respecting our Godly Judeo-Christian principles of both past and present. All these liberals like to do is distort reality in order to promote their corrupt agenda. On the campaign trail Obama called for transparency but has not adhered to that promise since being President. In fact, he has been about as transparent as a brick wall. Since Obama has been elected he has consistently been responsible for the demoralization of the United States and promoted an anti-Christian agenda for the United States during speeches both in the United States and overseas.



Evidence that we are still a Judeo-Christian today:

According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 76% of Americans identify themselves associate themselves with Christianity.

Chaplains daily prayer in the Senate started in 1789 and Congress still today has a chaplain start the day with a prayer in Congress.

George W. Bush quotes:

"I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit. That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit. "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord."

"Through prayer, our faith is strengthened, our hearts are humbled, and our lives are transformed. May our Nation always have the humility to trust in the goodness of God's plans."

"The right to have religious beliefs and to freely practice such beliefs are among the most fundamental freedoms we possess."

"Because the Framers placed the guarantee of religious freedom before other cherished rights, religious liberty in America is often called the first freedom."

FDR's D-Day Prayer







Here is some evidence that the United States was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian principles:



In the Declaration of Independence,

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Bill of Rights Article 3:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Articles of Confederation:

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.



"Can the liberties of a nation be secure, when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" —Thomas Jefferson



These are quotes from George Washington:

"What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." --George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779



"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."



"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]



"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."