Alas, as was the case in the “Richard Dawkins Takes Another Life” thread of November 24, 2008, again I have miscalculated in having projected a conclusion to this subject with two posts. There will be a 3rd and concluding post on this topic next week.

That said, I’ll proceed on this note: While I’m confident that I addressed the full spectrum of New Atheist philosophy in the post I refer to above, regular readers of this blog know that I have consistently deferred to the knowledge of theological scholars far more qualified than myself to elucidate on matters pertinent to the essence of Christian faith, and, in this case, specifically to where that faith regards the “question” of the existence of God.

Therefore, I yield to Thomas D. Williams, L C, ThD to address many of the arguments which have been put forth by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett. In his book, “Greater Than You Think”, written specifically to counter and dismantle the “diatribes” propagated by Christopher Hitchens in “God Is Not Great,” Williams, at the same time takes on Dawkins, Harris and Dennett, with equal weight, calling into question inconsistencies and fallacious logic in their writings as well. The following paragraphs are excerpted from Williams’s book:

“In God Is Not Great,” Christopher Hitchens asserts that, whereas religion depends “upon ignorance and superstition,” he and his atheist colleagues respect “free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.” He paints religion as an irrational embrace of rediculous superstitions, as opposed to atheists’ objective, patient sifting through of ideas. As it turns out, however, neither of these caricatures does justice to reality.”

” Richard Dawkins’s description of God deserves to be quoted in full. Alert readers may notice that Dawkins permits himself to stray slightly from the objective, antiseptic language we have come to expect from the scientific community: “

“ ” The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” “

” The ethnic cleansing and sadomasochism are one thing, but a control freak? Come on! Dawkins peppers his treatice with further divine name-calling. The biblical God is “interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering, ” a “psychotic delinquent,” and a “monster.” 

” Interventionist ” could be reexpressed as caring, ” sin-punishing ” as just, and ” thought-reading ” as sensitive. Calling God ” miracle-wreaking ” presents a facinating  juxtoposition of terms. When Jesus cured the paralytic or multiplied the loaves and fishes, for example, was that an example of ” miracle-wreaking “? If so, bring it on! As for the accusation of being ” prayer-answering, ” I am hard-pressed to see what Dawkins finds so sinister here. “

” What they do, rather, is select a few texts where God comes off looking like the big bad wolf and paste them together as if they were the whole picture. What they fail to notice–willfully or not–is that the God revealed in the Old Testament is above all a just and faithful God, One who keeps His promises and forgives the many transgressions of His people. “

” I have searched in vain through these atheistic tracts for a balanced treatment of the biblical text. Where, for instance, are the numerous references to God’s tenderness, His mercy, His love for His children, His patience, His desire for their well-being? “

” Christians believe that God’s self-revelation was progressive. The Bible didn’t fall from heaven ready-made but was written over time. Israel’s knowledge of God grew as well, as they contemplated His action in their history and meditated on His words. This self-revelation culminates in the person of Jesus Christ. As Paul wrote, “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Galatians 4:4-5). It is in Christ that the limitlessness of God’s love for humanity is made fully clear. “

” Though none of these authors received formal training in theology or biblical exegesis, they allow themselves categorical assertions that would be unthinkable in other disciplines. In chapter 3 of “The God Delusion, for example, Richard Dawkins puts on the hat of the biblicist and presumes to teach theologians about the Good Book. The outright errors in the section titled “Arguments from Scripture” are simply too many to enumerate here, but a few examples may prove illuminating.”

” Dawkins states: “Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world.” “

” One wonders how many theological works Dawkins read in order to make such a bold assertion. Never mind that he had already disqualified theology as a science; what he says here is simply false. While one can find biblical scholars to support virtually any interpetation of Scripture, there is nothing near unanimity in dismissing the historical value of the Gospel accounts. The Catholic position on this question, representing a mere 1.1 billion Christian believers, is stated succinctly in the 1965 dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum: “[The] Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named , whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). “

” Regarding the genesis of the canon of Sacred Scripture, Dawkins claims that the canonical Gospels “were chosen, more or less arbitrarily, out of a larger sample of at least a dozen including the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus, Philip, Bartholomew and Mary Magdalen.” Here it appears that he was taking theology classes from Dan Brown, since this summary of the formation of the New Testament looks as if it were lifted straight from “The Da Vinci Code.” He naively assumes that the mere title of “gospel” puts all the ancient texts on an equal footing, the same mistake made by Dan Brown and other purveyors of religious sensationalism. The fact is that the apocryphal “gospels” of Thomas, Philip, Mary, and others were rejected for serious reasons, such as the fact that they were written long after the accepted accounts, by non-eyewitnesses, to advance a dubious gnostic agenda. “

” Dawkins then states: “Nobody knows who the four evangelists were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus personally. Much of what they wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history but was simply rehashed from the Old Testament, because the gospel-makers were devoutly convinced that the life of Jesus must fulfill Old Testament prophesies.” Where does he come up with this? On what authority can he state that the evangelists never knew Jesus? More incredible still, how can he judge the “honesty” of persons whose identity supposedly remains in the shadows of history? “

” Grave historical errors that can be begrudgingly swallowed in a work of “fiction” like Dan Brown’s become downright unconscionable for someone claiming to be a rigorous scientist. If an author such as Dawkins were to work with such sloppy methodology in biology, he would find himself booed out of the academy and looking for a job. I don’t know what he  would say if I–who have no more training in evolutionary biology than he does in theology–started pontificating on disputed questions of mammalogy, ornithology, or herpetology. “

” The fact remains that the four gospels continue to this day to be the best historical documents we have relating to the life and deeds of Jesus Christ. We have more than five thousand New Testament manuscripts, and many are dated within a few years of their authors’ lives, which means that the historical documentary evidence for the New Testament far surpasses that of any other work of its time. Recent scholarship has shown moreover that the Gospels were penned much closer to the time of Jesus’ death than previously thought, most certainly by eyewitnesses in the case of of three out of four. Strong evidence points to a completion of the entire text of the New Testament before the year A D 100. The first three Gospels, for example, prophesied the fall of the temple of Jerusalem, which occurred in A D 70. However, the fulfillment of the prophesy is never mentioned, which suggests that it hadn’t happened as of the writing of the text. There is a broad academic literature attesting to the historosity of the Gospels, such as Craig L. Blomberg’s “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels” and F.F. Bruce’s “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? “ to name just two. “ 

” It is said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. It appears that sometimes scientists and journalists make the same mistake. “

” Not content with knocking Sacred Texts,  our atheists  cast doubt on the very existence of  Jesus as a historical person. Dawkins, for instance, writes that it is possible “to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all.” For his part, Christopher Hitchens states that Jesus’ existence is “highly questionable.” What seems rather “highly questionable” is the rigor of Hitchens’s fact-checking, since his work is strewn with factual errors.”

” The simple fact of the matter is that we “know” Jesus really existed insofar as we can know any historical fact. “…But the historical record is as conclusive as we could possibly hope for.”

” Plenty of scholars have undertaken to collect all ancient historical references to Jesus. “…The celebrated Roman historian Tacitus wrote of superstitious “Christians” who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to the emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century. “

” The Jewish historical record confirms Jesus’ existence as well. The most famous ancient Jewish historian was Flavious Josephus, who, in his “Antiquities,” refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”

” Flavious Josephus also writes the following in “Antiquities”: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. “

” All of these writers, without exception, lived in or close to the time of Jesus. None were Christian or had anything evident to gain from reporting about Jesus. The rapid spred of Christianity after Jesus’ death and resurrection is amazing enough, in that it evidences the credibility (in Jesus’ case) of the incredible claim that a human being–one known to the believers –is God Himself. But it is difficult indeed to imagine that Jesus’ disciples, a handful of fishermen, succeeded in deluding so many serious writers of their own time about the very existence of their Messiah! “

” Still, perhaps the clearest evidence  of Jesus’ historical existence is the witness of literally thousands of Christians in the first century A D, including the twelve apostles, who were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. They could have escaped death by disowning Christ or stepping forward to say that it all had been a hoax. This didn’t happen. Some people will die for what they believe to be true; no one will die for what they know to be a lie. “

” Writing in the first century, the apostle Paul refers to the “church” (ekklesia) some five dozen times in his letters, and there is no record of anyone standing up and accusing him of innovating something that Jesus never intended. He speaks variously of the visable church as Christ’s body, as Christ’s spotless bride, as the community of Christian believers, as the household of God , as the pillar and bulwark of the truth. He moreover writes of “deacons,” “presbyters,” and “bishops”–giving good evidence that a differentiated Christian clergy was in existence as of the first century. “

” The apostle John uses the term “church” several times in his third epistle, and another twenty-odd times in the book of Revelation, whose authorship is generally attributed to him. The apostle Peter uses the term “church” in his first letter, and it can be found in the Letter of James as well. All three of these men formed part of the original band of twelve apostles, who, according to Christopher Hitchens, “had no idea that anyone would ever found a church.” Either they quickly gathered in a conspiracy to undermine their Lord’s wishes, for which there is no historical evidence, or Hitchens has got the story dead wrong. “

” But let us turn to the witness of Jesus Himself. Hitchens doesn’t even acknowledge the text that most clearly contradicts his claim. Matthew’s Gospel records Jesus saying to Peter, in front of the other disciples, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). “

” What other evidence can be found of Jesus’ project? He carefully selected twelve “apostles” and set them apart from His many followers. He gave them special training as well as explaining many things to them in private that He didn’t announce to more general gatherings. This number twelve mirrored the twelve tribes of Israel, the people of God and expresses an intention to establish a new Israel. “

” The atheistic authors ‘ attempts at biblical exegesis fall flat, and the best advice they could receive is not to give up their day jobs. Jesus not only intended to found a church–He really did so. “ 

Christopher Hitchens pontificates in his book, “God Is Not Great,” that, organized religion is “…violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.”

By means of a sentence steeped in odious absolutes, and obvious elitism, we are to conclude with certainty, one assumes, that billions of religious people worldwide exhibit these “well-defined” characteristics.

The most glaring thing about Hitchens’s book is the title itself. The title, “God Is Not Great” is taken from Saddam Hussein’s words: “Allahuh Akhbar” (“God Is Great”). Not only does the title subliminally liken all religion to Islamic fanaticism, but, predictably, Hitchens is all over the place within the context of the book, speaking of Christians at one point, and then of Hindus, and then, on to Muslims, painting all three belief systems with one broad brush.

The following paragraphs are excerpted from my December 10, 2008 post in the “Richard Dawkins Takes Another Life” thread of November 24, 2008 at this blog:

One of the most thorough reviews of “God Is Not Great,” was written by Stephen Prothero, chair of Boston University’s religion department and the author of: Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know–and Doesn’t.” While Prothero’s review is scathing, interestingly, he also says of Hitchens: “…there is no living  journalist I more enjoy reading.” A partial transcript of Prothero’s review now follows:

“Hitchens claims that some of his best friends are believers. If so, he doesn’t know much about his best friends. He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about “Negroes”–with feigned knowing and a sneer. God Is Not Great assumes a childish definition of religion and then criticizes religious people for believing such foolery. But it is Hitchens who is the naif. To read this oddly innocent book as gospel is to believe that ordinary Catholics are proud of the Inquisition, that ordinary Hindus view masturbation as an offense against Krishna, or that ordinary Jews cheer when a renegade Orthodox rebbe sucks the blood off a freshly circumcised penis. It is to believe that faith is always blind and rituals always empty–that there is no difference between taking communion and drinking Kool-Aid (a beverage Hitchens feels compelled to mention no fewer than three times).”

“Hitchens describes the religious mind as “literal and limited” and the atheistic mind as “ironic and inquiring.” Readers with any sense of irony–and here I do not exclude believers–will be surprised to see how little inquiring Hitchens has done and how limited and literal is his own ill-prepared reduction of religion.”

“Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man, and there is no living journalist I more enjoy reading. But I have never encountered a book who’s author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject. In the end, this maddenlingly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens’s pet themes–the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep.”

Hitchens, and the other “acclaimed” New Atheist authors utilize a common ploy in classifying “religion” or “organized religion” as if it were an easily defined monolith.

Richard Dawkins is as smug, pompous and imperious as is Hitchens in saying: “I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they may have been or will be invented.

Daniel Dennett weighs in equally “authoritatively” with his “scholarly” insight into what religion is. He defines it as: “…social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.”

Sam Harris, perhaps the most irrational of the neo-sophist athiests, and the fourth “member” of the so called “Four Horsemen” of New Atheism (See their glib and sophist “conclave” of the same name at You Tube), proclaims in his book, “The End of Faith,” that, belief in God must be stamped out forceably: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.”

These are the guys over whom a large segment of the mainstream media swoon, and proclaim as “geniuses” on the subject of religious belief.

Do they really think that self-indulgence and a “do-your-own-thing” general philosophy is beneficial for future generations of Americans and citizens of the world?

I believe, rather, that the “philosophy” they espouse is, in large part, responsible for the recent finding by a Washington-based “think-tank” that, 75% of young Americans are unfit for military service.

What I know, viscerally, and what I can state with confidence, is that, atheism is an unnatural, learned mindset. I think the more valid question is, not how one comes to believe in God, but, rather how a person logically embraces atheism.

I see atheism, plainly, as a willful rejection of God. How many contentious books have been written about other phenomena in which one has no belief? Only God seems to evoke such ferocity.

So that readers of this thread are better able to discern my “arguments” in future commentary in defense of Christianity, and in opposition to the New Atheist “agenda” I felt it was important to compile a “thumbnail” sketch of the philosophy of these authors.

Don Surber’s joke has swabs of dark humor contained within it:

Nancy Pelosi was touring the countryside in a chauffeur-driven car. Suddenly, a cow jumps out into the road, they hit it full on, and the car comes to a stop. Nancy, in her usual charming manner, says to the chauffeur: ‘You get out and check – you were driving.’

The chauffeur gets out, checks, and reports that the animal is dead but it was old.

‘You were driving; go and tell the farmer,’ says Nancy.

Two hours later, the chauffeur returns totally plastered, hair ruffled with a big grin on his face.

‘My God, what happened to you?’ asks Nancy.

The chauffeur replies: ‘When I got there, the farmer opened his best bottle of malt whiskey, the wife gave me a slap-up meal and the daughter made love to me.’

‘What on earth did you say?’ asks Nancy. ‘I just knocked on the door and when it was answered, I said to them: ‘I’m Nancy Pelosi’s chauffeur, and I’ve just killed the old cow.’

Considering that the majority of Americans view Nancy Pelosi unfavorably, Nancy Pelosi’s death would be a great thing for America. Her death would prevent several catastrophic events from occuring: poor Americans would not be forced at gunpoint by the government to purchase health insurance via the individual mandate, leaving 18 million uninsured; excise taxes will not be imposed on those who wish to have high quality insurance (do you really think that worker wages would increase over 6 years, liberal retards?); the insurance industry will not be forced to abide by antitrust laws; our private industry will not be competing against a taxpayer-funded, expensive public option; wealthy people will not be forced to pay the health care bills of the bilious vermin of our society. The only worthwile thing to come out of health care ‘reform’ so far is the Stupak Amendment, but even that can’t seem to make it into the Senate bill. So, what are we left with to stop Nancy Pelosi?

We are left with a simple weapon, but a formidable one: the power of prayer. Mass amounts of prayer will certainly work; this is because the Holy Bible has specific passages warning that the manure of cows, such as Nancy Pelosi, is related to nationwide famine (as it did with the Israelites):

Ezekiel 4:12-15: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. “Thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man.” And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them. Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

In its original context, the LORD meant for Ezekiel to eat the untainted, scrumptious cow dung because he was faithful, while the blasphemous Israelis would be forced to eat the tainted, disease-ridden human scat. However, all Bible verses not only describe the past, they also predict the future; thus, with American atheism on the rise, we can easily see that a similar event shall unfold. The ‘human scat’, of course, will be private health insurance; once a necessity, it will now be a burden on all who hold it. The cow scat, on the other hand, will be that of Nancy Pelosi’s brand new public option and the individual mandate, subsidies, and excise taxes that come with it; the taxpayer will be forced to give excessive money to sustain this cow scat, and it will manage to provide for those who have it. It is important for us to realize that the LORD is implementing this precarious system upon us because our nation has waned in its faith; were we to be a nation comprised entirely of Christians, we would have private health insurance that would provide based on the amount of hard work put in to life. It is equally important to realize that private health insurance is not only represented by human scat; in a sinless world, it would be represented by purified, holy bread that Jesus Christ Himself created to feed the masses.

The Bible warns specifically of Nancy Pelosi in Leviticus 5:2 :If a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be… a carcase of unclean cattle… and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. Thus, attempting to ‘touch’ Nancy Pelosi’s health care plan before we become a nation solely of Christians will be punished quite severely by God, as it shows that we have not converted the lost and exterminated the evil from our society. Skulking about while eagerly awaiting some mythical ‘Rapture’ is NOT the way to please your LORD; only through active evangelicalism and political euthanization of Leftists and Secularists can we hope to take America back. Once we complete America’s Christianization, however, God Himself will banish Pelosi’s health care plan to the realm of Hellfire, and Americans shall be free once more.

Admin: This is a post from Bob Evans. This was written before he created his WP account; now, his posts will appear on the front page. The post is unaltered, save for some links that have been added.

A Clarion Wake-Up-Call to All Americans:

The following paragraphs are excerpted from a recent WorldNetDaily article:

“WorldNetDaily Exclusive”

“Muslim Mafia”

“CAIR speaker to Muslims: OK to attack Fort Bragg”

“Exhorts Islamic faithful to target planes carrying ‘82nd Airborne’

“Posted: November 11, 2009
1:48 Eastern am”

“A Council on American-Islamic-Relations adviser and regular speaker at its events has suggested Islamic law permits Muslims to attack C-130 military transport planes carrying the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, N.C., according to a stunning new book exposing Washington-based CAIR’s inner workings.”

“Radical Islamic cleric Zaid Shakir, a frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audiences: “Jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad.””

“Acceptible targets of jihad, he says, include U.S. military aircraft.”

“”Islam doesn’t permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people,” Shakir once told a Muslim audience. However, “if you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that’s something else.””

“The 82nd Airborne Division’s elite paratroopers fly out of Fort Bragg, N.C., which is part of North Carolina state Senator Larry Shaw’s district. Shaw is CAIR’s new chairman.”

“The recording of the lecture, which Shakir gave earlier this decade to a Muslim audience in the San Francisco Bay area, was obtained by the authors of the bestselling “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

“The bombshell revelation comes in the wake of the worst military massacre at a domestic U.S. military base in American history, and the worst Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.”

“Imam Shakir also gives his blessing to the use of bombs as a weapon of jihad, as long as the explosives hit “select” targets and are not indiscriminate in their destruction. Civilians can be a legitimate target, he says, if “there’s a benefit in that,” according to “Muslim Mafia,” co-authored by former federal agent P. David Gaubatz. and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, author of “Infiltration.”

“…Shakir, a black convert, has been portrayed as a moderate in the mainstream media, including the New York Times, which recently ran a positive profile of him. His pro-jihad statements revealed in “Muslim Mafia” have not been previously reported. CAIR has sued and obtained a temporary restraining order to censor the book’s documentary evidence detailing CAIR’s support of terrorism and obstruction of FBI investigations.”

“Longtime CAIR advisory board member and chief fundraiser Siraj Wahhaj echoes his friend Shakirs interpretation of jihad.”

“”If we go to war, brothers and sisters–and one day we will, believe me–that’s why your commanded [to fightin] jihad,” the imam has told his flock in Brooklyn. “When Allah demands us to fight, we’re not stopping and nobody’s stopping us.””

“World Trade Center bombing”

“CAIR has invited Shakir back to speak at its events even after the FBI questioned him about a copy of one of his incendiary pamphlets found in the apartment of a suspect in the first World Trade Center bombing. The pro-jihad pamphlet lauded the “armed struggle” that brought about the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are dying in record numbers from Taliban and al Qaida ambushes.”

“Shakir, who recently confided to the New York Times that he’d like to see the U.S. “become a Muslim country” ruled by Islamic law, is a regular speaker at CAIR as well as Islamic Society of North America events. (Federal prosecutors say CAIR and ISNA are fronts for the terrorist group Hamas and its parent the radical Muslim Brotherhood, and the sister organizations, which were recently listed as unindicted terrorist co-conspirators in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history.) Recently, Shakir helped host workshops and delivered keynote speeches at banquets held at CAIR chapters in Chicago, Orlando, and San Diego, among others.”

“Imam Zaid’s speeches are very practical and bring the best out of his listeners, said former CAIR official Ibrahim Moiz, a close personal friend who invited Shakir to speak to Muslims in Maryland, according to “Muslim Mafia.”

“The cleric has not tempered his jihadist views.”

“I don’t regret anything I’ve done or said,” Shakir has insisted.”

“…The American Muslim cleric also preaches treason against the U.S., according to the book, which hit No. 5 on Amazon.com’s non-fiction best-seller list the day after it was released last month. It currently ranks No. 1 in books on terrorism and Islam.”

“Shakir advises the Muslim community in America to wage a cultural jihad now, and a violent jihad later–once the proper “infrastructure” is in place.”

“He says Muslims should respect American democracy insofar as it can be exploited to help the Brotherhood one day assume power here.”

“And the only thing that could stop the Islamization of America, he notes, is if its people rose up and denied the subversive movement the unbridled freedom it’s heretofore enjoyed.”

“However, if Americans were to do that, Muslims would then be obligated, he says, to exercise their supposedly “divine legal right” to rise up and wage violent jihad, reveals the book “Muslim Mafia.”

“What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims,” sermonized Shakir, who continues to be a marquee speaker at CAIR functions.”

“”For now, he said, following the radical Muslim Brotherhood playbook, Muslims must continue to “create a state within a state.””

If Shakir is an Islamic “moderate,” I shudder to think about how many “hard-core” Islamic “radicals” lurk within our borders as “sleeper” cells, awaiting the call to wreak death and destruction upon selected American cities.

Alarmingly, the facts revealed in this WorldNet Daily article, reveal the extent to which, political “correctness” is now compromising our national security.

The article sheds great light on the fact that, we are “asleep-at-the switch” in this regard.

The revelations of the article follow recent lamentations by Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, who, increduously, in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre, stated his “concern”, that, Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s murderous deed could undermine “diversity” within the ranks of the U.S. Army.

Said Casey, last Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “Our diversity, not only in the Army, but in our country, is a strength. And, as horriffic as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think thats worse.”

President Obama’s reaction to the act of terrorism was equally tepid. The President cautioned the nation not to “jump to conclusions” as to the motive of the shooter.

The fact that the statements by Shakir, revealed in the article, have not been known, until now, is also telling. Why haven’t loyal American Muslims, in particular, those in attendance at Shakir’s lectures, over the last decade, “blown-the-whistle” on him over the better part of a decade?

Bernie Goldberg, who, like myself, believes that the majority of Muslim Americans do not condone Islamic terrorism, or violent jihad, suggested on the “O’Reilly Factor” last night, his wish, that, patriotic Muslims stage a “million-man” march on Washington in protest of the Islamist act of terrorism at Fort Hood.

I think that Bernie’s “vision” is a bit far-fetched. But, my question is this: Where are the voices among the American Muslim community condemning, or expressing outrage at the “crime” perpetrated by Major Hasan? In fact, they’ve been near invisible. The silence among this community has been “deafening.”

It is clear that Sesame Street’s miscreants are required to be defunded by the United States Constitution. By the Holy Bible, the miscreants ought to be puking up their own blood as they watch their bodies become separate from their heads.

Public television and public radio are unconstitutional and unholy. Let’s drive a nail through the heart of this predator once and for all.

It looks like homosexuals are finally going to get what they deserve in Uganda:

The proposed bill would:

* Reaffirm the lifetime sentence currently provided upon conviction of homosexuality, and extends the definition from sexual activity to merely “touch[ing] another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.”
* Create a new category of “aggravated homosexuality” which provides for the death penalty for “repeat offenders” and for cases where the individual is HIV-positive.
* Criminalizes all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda with fines and imprisonment of between five and seven years.
* Criminalizes the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment.
* Adds a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment of up to three years.
* Adds an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.

If the bill proposes to do all of these things, it will be a good day for Uganda. Homosexuals and the people within their ranks, such as BDSM advocates, pedophiles, furries, gudo porn advocates, and other malfunctioning misfits will no longer able to make progress in their society, since they are prevented from even gathering. It also requires the community to take stamping out homosexuality into their own hands, something which would be a great thing to begin doing in America. And, finally, it prevents these deviants from fleeing abroad, and shows Uganda’s commitment to making the international community a better place.

It is worth noting that Uganda’s anti-homosexual policies, its widespread Christianity, and its abstinence-only education policy has made it a benchmark for African countries attempting to stop the spread of HIV. Without liberals being allowed influence in their country, they will surely reduce HIV even further.

The LORD shall surely reward Uganda for this. In the meantime, those of us in countries supportive of this deviancy must ask ourselves why we cannot control our sexual activity like the Ugandans can. Were we to take the same policy on sex as Uganda, we would probably have zero cases of HIV. Think about this for a moment, liberals.

Hahahahaha!

A group of rich Germans has launched a petition calling for the government to make wealthy people pay higher taxes.

The group say they have more money than they need, and the extra revenue could fund economic and social programmes to aid Germany’s economic recovery.

Germany could raise 100bn euros (£91bn) if the richest people paid a 5% wealth tax for two years, they say.

The petition has 44 signatories so far, and will be presented to newly re-elected Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The group say the financial crisis is leading to an increase in unemployment, poverty and social inequality.

Simply donating money to deal with the problems is not enough, they want a change in the whole approach.

“The path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice,” they say in the petition.

Those who had “made a fortune through inheritance, hard work, hard-working, successful entrepreneurship, or investment” should contribute by paying more to alleviate the crisis.

The man behind the petition, Dieter Lehmkuhl, told Berlin’s Tagesspiegel that there were 2.2 million people in Germany with a fortune of more than 500,000 euros.

If they all paid the tax for two years, Germany could raise 100bn euros to fund ecological programmes, education and social projects, said the retired doctor and heir to a brewery.

Signatory Peter Vollmer told AFP news agency he was supporting the proposal because he had inherited “a lot of money I do not need”.

He said the tax would be “a viable and socially acceptable way out of the flagrant budget crisis”.

The group held a demonstration in Berlin on Wednesday to draw attention to their plans, throwing fake banknotes into the air.

Mr Vollmer said it was “really strange that so few people came”.

If this is the best Germany has to offer, I don’t think we should feel bad impairing their ability to participate in the global economy or the UN. If this retardation continues to develop, we may have to bomb these ninnies off the face of the Earth.

Christian churches have done more to cure poverty in a week than all the governments in the world combined have ever accomplished. So has the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Andrew Carnegie foundation, and so on. Charity works, compulsory government involvement doesn’t. Just ask some refugees in a third world country who has done the most to improve their lives. You will probably never get an answer praising the United Nations, the United States, or their country’s government.

I had thought that the only people who believed this twaddle were first world freeloaders and conniving communists. I can only hope that this is some elaborate hoax.

Here’s the evidence:

Vaccinations are, by their very definition, illogical. Injecting oneself with strains of the virus we are trying to prevent is ostensibly an idiotic decision, and this lady is paying the price for the decision likely forced on her by her idiotic Human Resources department. Since viruses are products of Satan, injecting oneself with Satan-created material will only worsen the situation.

The entire concept of vaccinations are based around the faulty theory of evolution. The idea behind vaccinations, according to the snake-oil peddlers, is that tricking the body’s immune system into thinking that it has acquired said disease will cause it to ‘evolve’ mechanisms to fight the disease well before it is acquired. If you are apt to take in garbage from unscientific “studies”, then you would foolishly believe that the elderly have some acquired immunity to H1N1 by previous exposure to influenza/H1N1 strains. This is, of course, total garbage. People keep receiving the common cold every year, and anyone who has actually experienced sequences of colds can tell you that they are no less aggravating in adulthood than they are in childhood. The immune system actually deteriorates with each new disease it is exposed to.

It is quite amusing, however, that the University of California attempts to separate the elderly from the younger demographics. By now, we are all familiar with the death panels that the Kenyan-born qadi is trying to ram down our throats. While the death panel already exists and is being pushed forward by less prominent RINO Johnny Iskason, the language in the death panel provision cannot be easily adjusted to annihilate the younger among us who dare to stand strong against Communism. This is where vaccinations come in.

What makes this discussion so unusual is that, traditionally, the Left has been the area where the vaccination nonsense has been refuted; intelligent articles like this one are the rules, not the exceptions, on the Huffington Post. When Bill Maher sounds like a reasonable person and Bill Frist sounds like a Nazi, you know that something funny is going on:

However, since Bill Ayers’ mental midget minion took over the White House, the right wing is realizing that Obama’s endorsement of the H1N1 vaccine calls it into question. Glenn Beck had an excellent episode where he smacked down the vaccine idiots. Here’s part one of 5; the rest of the show can be found by going to the YouTube channel:

Vaccinations have been shown to cause muscular dystrophy and brain damage via the mercury in them (misdiagnosed as autism, unfortunately). Keep your children away from those who have been vaccinated at all costs. Even if you have to force a vaccinated child into a containment facility or kill a vaccinated person who insists on going in public, it will still be worth the risk of containing particles of Satanism from infecting other poor souls.

They would be more than happy to let something like this happen.

While Iraq Hussein Osama may not wish to carry out his Presidential duty by going to Ground Zero, instead preferring to shelter his Communist buttbuddy, Van Jones, the rest of us have not forgotten.

Because every last liberal and several conservatives have forgotten why 9/11 happened, I feel that it is appropriate to remind them. We are in a war against radical Islam, an ideology that seeks to utterly destroy America, Christianity, and capitalism. Denying the validity of Muhammad’s claims of divinity will lead a Christian to execution in one of their countries; the radical Islamists wish to make that the case in all countries, and our liberals, under the guise of ‘multiculturalism’, are more than happy to let Islam spread. Capitalism is constantly critiqued in Muslim countries; almost every Muslim political party describes itself as Socialist, and aspiring entrepreneurs have no hope to succeed in Muslim countries.

At the same time, we should all wonder why radical Islam managed to attack 9/11, and how their countries manage to maintain a semblance of morality. Thankfully, Sharia law is not terribly different from Levitical law, although the differences that do exist showcase Islam as a religion of violence. They manage to keep their crime rates low because they severely punish the slightest infraction; if we chopped off the hands of thieves and executed fornicators like they do, then we would have considerably less crime. A country with high crime rates is also a country with numerous terrorist attacks, but the liberals are more concerned with bizarre ideas of ‘individual liberty’ than they are over the security of its citizens. They would rather a million homes get bombed than a single home be wiretapped; they would rather have an individual murdered on the streets than a murderer be executed; they would rather have gas fill every last D.C. metro than have a single terrorist, suspected or confirmed, be waterboarded; they would rather have a gang of terrorists hijack a plane and crash it into a building than they would have a single member of that plane be armed.

Liberals may adamantly deny the accusations I give them, but their policies are the ones that led to 9/11 in the first place. It has been proven time and time again that a society with harsher penalties has less crime, that a society that confronts the Islamists boldly and mercilessly will have less terrorist attacks, that a well armed society is a polite society, and that the NSA has stopped terrorist attacks, yet the liberals go headstrong against these policies.

While President Bush managed to dispose of Saddam, and shut down radical extremism in Iraq, he never managed to finish the fight, because the radical liberals stood strong against him until he finally cracked. Iran and North Korea still threaten us daily; Islam and Communism remain strong forces, and the latter movement just about infiltrated our economy (although, thankfully, Van Jones now rots and wallows in his own failures, thanks to the tireless efforts of Glenn Beck).

Another 9/11 will happen under Obama’s watch, mark my words. If we do not annihilate ACORN in all its totality, then we will continue to have terrorist attacks. Patriotism is about respecting those who have fallen by ruthlessly dealing with their murderers and all who facilitate them. Obama, being a facilitator, can never be a patriot.