Tag Archives: Islam

Mail Call for September 17, 2011

Mail’s in!

Dear GOP: This is what is known as infiltration. It is a process in which individuals (or small groups) penetrate an area (especially the military penetration of enemy positions without detection). This is something islam has been doing for centuries. It is a means of gaining control. No you do realize this don’t you? You really aren’t that stupid are you?  (Source) OMG! You are! You really are that stupid!

Dear New York Times: Have you ever heard the term “Sleeping with the Enemy”?  (Source)

Dear World: Welcome to Islam. (Source)

Dear Congress: Can you please explain why Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama have not yet been brought up on charges of accessory to murder? (Source)

Dear President Obama: Can you please explain why your administration wants our military to use a product that is known to interfere with their GPS systems? Wouldn’t using this product prevent them from effectively sending GPS guided missiles against our enemies? Just wondering. By the way, your kufi is showing again. (Source)

Dear President Obama: Is this a portent of things to come? Huh, Barry? Got something against Christians, do you? You good little muzzie you!   (Source)

Dear Mayor Bloomberg: I assume you were leading the march? And wearing your new cute little kufi too I suppose. (Source)

Dear Johnny: You know that whole debt ceiling limit thing? Well, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours! *wink, wink*. Love ya, Barry   (Source)

Dear U.N.: And you want to give these cockroaches their own state, why? (Source)

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Mail Call

Mail Call, September 10, 2011

The Mail’s in!

Dear Associated Press: It’s not true. Don’t believe it. We are peaceful. Really. On the name of our prophet Mohammed ibn Himar I swear it isn’t true. We are a religion of pieces peace. All our love, Abdul Gewad, C/O Al Qaeda Cultural Center, Islamburg, NY (Source)

Dear Mr. Soros: It’s not that we hate muslims, we just hate muslim terrorists. We also hate those who collaborate with them  as well, which of course includes you. (Source)

Dear Mrs. Obama: I just wanted to pass along to you, that illegal aliens no longer fear much of anything, since your husband became president. In fact, neither do terrorists. (Source)

Dear President Obama: I realize sir that you are on vacation, and probably have yet to receive the memo, but North Korea has just downed one of our military planes. I believe this is your cue to play golf, sir, so if you could please begin moving toward the golf cart. Yes sir, it’s that small car looking thing. No sir, not that one, that is your Chevy volt. It’s the other one. Thank you sir. (Source)

Dear President Obama: Thank you for supporting us over here in Libya! We could not have done this without you!  We have recently been shopping and have found the perfect gift to repay you for your kindness. We will be sending it soon. All our love, Mohammed ibn Himar and the rest of the Libyan Rebels. (Source)

P.S.: By the way, it’s not true that I am still with Al Qaeda. I promise. Really. I swear I mean it this time. Honest.

Dear Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.: If you are going to threaten me, please have the intestinal fortitude to do it in person, preferably in front of my house as that is where I have my range markers set. (Source)

Dear Janet Napolitano: I am not sure if you are aware of this, but it was ISLAMIC terrorists who attacked this country on Sept. 11, 2001. It was not mentally ill Canadians, it was not toddlers, it was not wheelchair bound terminally ill grandmothers, and it was not elderly nuns. It was ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. (Source)

P.S.: They (the ISLAMIC TERRORISTS) can currently be found in Central and South America in various groups and cells (no not jail cells). These would be countries SOUTH of the United States. You know, on the other side of the border you refuse to secure.

Dear Uncle Omar: I told you not to worry! Love, Barry (Source)

Dear President Obama: Your plan worked. (Source)

Dear Anthony Weiner: You’re still a putz. Just so you know.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Mail Call, Politics

Ron Paul Needs A Lesson in the History of Islam

Ron Paul seems to think that 9/11 was caused by America. He says the motivation for the attacks came from America being in the Middle East, specifically in those countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others which support terrorists and terrorism. I say the motivation for the attacks came from the koran, and from nowhere else. To support this, I offer this little history lesson on just what the koran has caused over the centuries. The first article in this little history lesson is called “The Muslim PR Game Called ‘The Crusades’.”

The muslim PR game called “The Crusades”

(Note: In order to give credit where credit is due, this article was written by Armin Vamberian and Robert Sibley. It is reprinted here by permission of Mr. Vamberian.)

The Muslim Game:

Muslims love talking about the Crusades, and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.”

The Truth:

Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

The crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event n European history.

The Crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

The West may now dominate the Islamic world, but that has only been the case since the late 18th century, when a young general, Napoleon Bonaparte, conquered Egypt and temporarily imposed French rule. This initial European penetration into one of the heartlands of Islam was “a terrible shock” to Muslims, says historian Bernard Lewis. Until then, they had thought of themselves as the victors in the Crusades.

That assumption is understandable. Muslim rulers held the preponderance of power as far as Europe was concerned until the 17th century and had done so, more or less, since the Prophet Muhammad issued Islam’s initial declaration of war against other religious faiths in the seventh century. The Prophet wrote the Christian Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor of Persia to suggest they surrender to his rule because, well, their day was done.

“I have now brought God’s final message,” the Prophet declared. “Your time has passed. Your beliefs are superseded. Accept my mission and my faith or resign or submit … you are finished.”

This claim propelled the armies of Islam to take on the rest of the world.

Muslim armies charged out of the Arabian Peninsula to conquer Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt — all of which, as part of the late Roman Empire, were officially Christian. By the eighth century, Christian North Africa was under Muslim control.

Islam soon swept into Europe, grabbing Spain, Portugal and southern Italy. In the 11th century, the Seljuk Turks conquered much of Asia Minor, or Turkey.

Here are some quick facts about the Crusades:

The first Crusade began in 1095, 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In theory, the Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Mecca pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.

The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. The Muslim occupation is in its 1,372nd year.

The period of Crusader “aggression” compresses to about 20 years of actual military campaign, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250).

By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Christian Europe certainly fought back. In the eighth century, campaigns to recover the Iberian Peninsula began, but it wasn’t until the end of the 15th century that the Reconquista swept Islam out of Spain and Portugal. Other counterattacks were made, the most famous of which were the war-pilgrimages known as the Crusades.

In 1095, Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade. He urged Europeans to aid fellow Christians who were being slaughtered by Muslims. “They (the Muslim Turks) have invaded the lands of those Christians and have depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; they have lead away a part of the captives into their own country, and a part they have destroyed by cruel tortures.”

The Crusader army marched deep into enemy territory to reclaim the ancient Christian cities of Nicaea and Antioch, and on July 15, 1099, Jerusalem.

Admittedly it wasn’t a pleasant reclamation. As was standard practice when a city resisted, much of population was slaughtered. That, however, doesn’t mean the threat to which the Crusades were a response wasn’t real.

The Crusades were a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam.

Unfortunately, subsequent Crusades over the next three centuries weren’t as successful. By the end of the 13th century, the Christian Crusaders had been chased from the Middle East. From then on the concern was no longer about reclaiming Christian homelands, but about saving Europe.

In 1453, Muslims captured the capital of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople (or Istanbul, as it is now known). In the late 15th century, Rome was evacuated when Muslim armies landed at Otranto in an unsuccessful invasion of Italy. By the 16th century, the Ottoman Turk Empire stretched from North Africa and Arabia to the Near East and Asia Minor. They penetrated deep into Europe, conquering Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Albania, Croatia and Serbia. In 1529, the Ottomans laid siege to Vienna. Luckily for Europe, the siege failed; otherwise the door to Germany would have been open. It wasn’t until 1572, when the Catholic Holy League defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto, that Islam’s threat to the West finally ended, at least until the late 20th century when the doors to Europe were once again opened to Muslims.

Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over. Islam unquestionably won the Crusades, even though Europe was ultimately able to reassert itself and dominate the world. The reasons for this success are much debated, but it’s reasonable to conclude that the West won the war of ideas.

Notions of individualism and freedom, capitalism and technology, and, most of all, the West’s turn from theology to science, carried the day. Religion became in the West an essentially private concern. It is on this “modern” turn that the anti-Crusade attitude developed.

During the Protestant Reformation, when the authority of the Catholic church was under attack, the Crusades began to be regarded as a ploy by power-hungry Popes and land-hungry aristocrats. This judgment was extended by the Enlightenment philosophers, who used the Crusades as a cudgel with which to beat the church.

The Enlightenment view of the Crusades still holds sway. After the Second World War, with western intellectuals feeling guilty about imperialism and European politicians desperate to abandon colonial responsibilities, the Crusades became intellectually unfashionable.

Historian Steven Runciman reflected this attitude in his three-volume study, A History of the Crusades, published in the early 1950s. He cast the Crusades as “morally repugnant acts of intolerance in the name of God.”

Almost single-handedly Runciman managed to define the modern popular view of the Crusades.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Islam

A Fifth Column Move?

Recently, one Abdul Hassan has petitioned the Federal Election Commission to give an opinion as to whether or not he can legitimately run for President of the United States. Hassan is asking because although he is an American citizen, he was not born in this country. He was born in Guyana in 1974, thus, he is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the United States Constitution.

Hassan's Petition pg1 - Click to Enlarge

Hassan's Petition pg2 - Click to Enlarge

What is interesting about this situation is that not only is the Federal Election Commission not authorized to make this sort of determination (they are authorized to monitor campaign finances, and investigate and prosecute should any violation of campaign finance laws occur), but even more interesting is that if the FEC does agree that Hassan can run for President, a dangerous, a very dangerous precedent will be set.

Not that I think for even a second that Hassan could ever win the White House, nor do I believe his candidacy is even about becoming President. I believe that the single and solitary reason this situation exists is to see if the Supreme Court and Congress will step in and overrule any opinions the FEC gives in support of Hassan.

If the FEC does give an opinion in support of Hassan’s candidacy, and if it goes unchallenged, then the “natural born citizen” requirement as stated in the U.S. Constitution is null and void. If Hassan does run (which I am sure he will if he receives the FEC’s support), then although he will lose the election, I am certain that his campaign will be closely monitored as well as the reaction of the American people to ascertain whether or not it would be possible to elect a foreign born citizen to the White House.

Is this something as innocent as a patriotic foreign born citizen desiring to serve his country? It is possible. I am sure there are many in this country who fit that description, as evidenced by those serving in our armed forces. However, this could also be a “testing of the waters” so to speak, by a fifth column movement within our country. Specifically, an islamic fifth column.

Now maybe I have read too many Brad Thor and Vince Flynn novels (but I do love reading them!), and maybe I am falling into a conspiracy theory hole. Anything is possible here. That being said, however, I am nonetheless suspicious of this unknown foreign born citizen popping up out of the woodwork and declaring his candidacy. What makes me even more suspicious is that I cannot seem to find anything about him other than his petition to the FEC and his presidential candidacy website. I cannot seem to even find a photograph of the man, not even on his website, and that alone seems strange to me.

All in all, I believe this situation calls for extreme scrutiny.

Source

Source

Source

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 election, Politics, Uncategorized

Obama Returns to His Roots

The Associated Press reports that President Obama will be hosting an Iftar dinner tonight to celebrate the islamic month of ramadan. (Source) Not that I have a particular problem with muslims celebrating ramadan, nor any other of their religious holidays. What I do have a problem with is Obama insisting that he is a Christian, while at the same time acknowledging the validity of the mohammedan god allah.

As a Christian, I believe the Bible to be the inspired, or “God Breathed” Word of God. The only true God, the only Real God. I believe that all other gods are false gods, the invention of men. And this includes allah. I firmly believe that islam, the koran, and allah are all the invention of men, primarily mohammed. Whether or not he had help in writing the koran I cannot say. I do believe that as the years rolled by other men added their own beliefs to the book, and I do believe that it is in no way divinely inspired, nor holy. The religion of islam is, to me, no different than any other man-made religion born of the greed and desires of mortal men. I think L. Ron Hubbard explained it best when he said, “If you want to get rich, you start a religion.” (Source), and that is exactly what mohammed did.

That being said, the Bible is replete with warnings to God’s people throughout both the old and new testaments, to stay away from false gods as they are deceitful and lead only to destruction. And yet, Obama, whilst claiming to be a Christian, repeatedly insists upon at least claiming that the false god allah is legitimate, if not outright worshiping him.

Although I am not completely convinced that Obama is a muslim (although I suspect he is), I am convinced that he is not a Christian, in spite of what he says.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized