Category → Immigration
Why isn’t the Koran ‘hate speech’?
After a stroll down the international headlines this Sunday morning, one thing I took away is that Muslims really hate non-Muslims, and they are motivated by the explicitly hateful, violent, sexist, racist words of the Koran.
In the Koran, Christians and Jews are called “pigs,” “monkeys,” “donkeys,” and “cows,” and incitement to kill Christians and Jews is rife throughout this supposedly “holy” book.
You gotta ask yourself: What kind of a “holy” book calls for genocide against people of faith who are your next door neighbors and work colleagues?
To me, in my innately American mindset, a book that calls for the murder and enslavement of Jews and Christians is more Satanic than holy.
Think about how the Biblical prohibition against male homosexual sex is treated by the general media: Open disbelief! Open rejection! And excoriation for any American who says they believe in the injunction. But somehow the Koran’s calls for murder and rape are acceptable to the same people who cast aspersions on the Bible?
And you gotta ask yourself: What kind of government do we have, at the local, state, and national level, that allows the Koran’s cruel hatred to be broadcast?
Somehow, Americans have been brainwashed into being so open-minded that they now accept the viciousness of the Koran to stand on an equal basis with the Bible, and to be taught in our schools. We may be reminded that the Bible, both the Hebrew Torah and the Christian Scripture, are the basis for Western Civilization and all that is good in America. There’s no equivalence between the Bible and the Koran.
Americans are now so tolerant that they are tolerant of the grossest intolerance. That makes no sense, and is turning the whole principle of openness on its head. At some point, America has to stand for something, and standing against genocide is probably a pretty good place to begin.
Does this tolerance of intolerance make sense to you, logically? Why are we allowing the Koran’s open intolerance of everything that is America to infiltrate America and shape its culture?
Near my home is an Ahmadiya mosque, recently opened in an old Lutheran church. The cross still stands on top of the building, but the gradual conversion of the outward signs is taking place.
It’s not an alarming experience, however, as Ahmadiya Muslims are about as popular in Pakistan as are Jews and Christians, which is to say that their faith is officially outlawed, and their members are subject to murder, rape, and forced conversion (a la the Koran).
Ahmadiya Muslims are a different bunch. They have found the peaceful aspects of the Koran to inspire them, and they have largely written out the racist aspects. If Islam were so widely configured, then it would be a movement that fits into America.
However, as it stands today, the Koran is the worst of modern hate speech, advocating unimaginable cruelty, genocide, sexism, and bigotry. Why does the Koran receive preferential treatment?
Isn’t it time that our elected leaders stand up and demand that the Koran be treated the same as any other book?
My Flight 93 Crash Site Experience, In a Nutshell
Why We Must Protect Flight 93’s Landscape
September 6, 2011
By Josh First
From October 2001 through October 2003, I led the effort to conserve the Flight 93 crash site for an eventual national memorial. At that crucial time in its development, I was working for a national non-profit land protection group, and the National Park Service asked me to help out, just weeks after September 11, 2001.
During that formative two years, I took a lot of criticism for targeting a relatively large area that needed to be protected. It’s nice now to see the Flight 93 memorial taking shape around those boundaries, not just because I feel personally vindicated, but because it’s unquestionable that the American public expects our national monuments and memorials to be fully representative of greatness, including that of Flight 93.
People have asked me why the memorial needed to be such a large area, roughly 2,200 acres, and my response used to be “Go to Gettysburg battlefield and see what kind of an experience you would have there, standing on just six acres.”
In other words, can the importance and mechanics of something that occurred on a large scale be boiled down to its essence in a physically small area? My answer is No, it cannot, and I think that anyone who is interested in what happened at Gettysburg or at any other famous American battlefield will agree. At each location, the local story unfolded across a landscape, and in each landscape certain facts occurred. These places become important to the public because the interplay between the facts and the landscape are important. They tell a story that represents heroism, determination, American grit, qualities that we all want to recognize and immortalize. These qualities and symbols make us quintessentially American, and we are proud of them.
At Gettysburg, Antietam, Yorktown, Pearl Harbor, and Flight 93, heroes defended America. What took hours, days, or weeks at some took only seconds at Flight 93’s final resting place. Having interviewed all of the landowners at Flight 93, each one offered me a different recollection of the plane’s final seconds. We all know now that those final seconds were a frenzied battle for control of the cockpit, led by Americans who knew that their nation was under attack and who were determined not to let their plane become a missile to hit the Capitol or the White House. Phone records and the recollections of family members who spoke with their loved ones point to a truly heroic effort that the passengers knew was likely to be suicidal. Nevertheless, they broke into the cockpit and duked it out, American style.
Flight 93 landed upside down after yawing and veering wildly across the landscape. It nearly clipped a large oxygen tank that fueled hand-held torches used to dismantle junk metal, and the workers below involuntarily fell to their knees as the enormous plane roared by, just feet above their heads. We all know that the last living views of our heroic passengers was Pennsylvania’s green countryside, the bowl-shaped landscape that surrounds the crash site. That area is now mostly protected, and it gives current and future visitors the opportunity to visualize and memorialize for themselves what happened on Flight 93. No homes, motels, or theme parks will ever press against this hallowed ground.
Again, if you’ve ever been to Gettysburg battlefield, and you’ve looked from Little Round Top across to Devil’s Den, and visualized the brave soldiers who fought there, then you know why the immediate landscape around Flight 93’s resting place must be conserved. Future generations of Americans deserve the same inspiration that we now take for granted. Just as past generations protected Gettysburg’s landscape for us, long before it became a pressured commercial area, so we must also do in Shanksville for generations of Americans to come.
It’s Official: Britannica Gives Up and Dies
Islamic leaders establish “Shariah Zones” in London, where women, gays, Hindus, Jews, and Christians are stripped of their rights under British law, and morally relative multiculturalism reigns supreme.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146482
The Method to the Obama Administration’s Mad Foreign Policy
The Method to the Obama Administration’s Mad Foreign Policy
By Josh First
May 16, 2011
Keeping one’s powder dry for over a month, while Obama’s approval ratings dropped lower and lower with a distinct “Cha-Ching” chime each Friday, and then watching the Obama Administration dance and spin with its friendly mainstream media pals, well…it was tough to stay tight-lipped, and now yours truly feels truly compelled to write. We don’t get this kind of analysis too many other places, just in blogs and small, independent news services, and certainly not in the mainstream media, which appear to be owned by the Obama Administration and who are doing their utmost to officially protect and promote the administration.
So, let’s evaluate the administration’s recent foreign policy by summing up its Attaboys and Awshuckses over the past couple of months, shall we?
Attaboys to the Obama Administration for (1) bombing Libya, and (2) for successfully closing out President Bush’s effort to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice, one way or another. That’s a total of two Attaboys.
But….Awshucks #1 for having pledged to bring Gaddafi to justice without force but with much sweet talk and then scolding, then by using actual force, and then saying the US was out of the Libya effort just as the military force was having an effect, and then saying that, actually, America was back in the military force effort and that the mission was open-ended in time and scope. This three-week-long flip-flop-flip is not good foreign policy. It looks care free and careless, an elliptical byproduct of a pacifist confronted with reality. Or, like a liberal who keeps getting mugged, these several recent times by Islamic countries like Libya. Or, like a liberal who has the silent approval of his array of political allies in Congress and political activists, who otherwise never saw a war, military adventure, or foreign invasion conducted by a Republican that they could support, but who now are whistling while casually looking up at the sky and admiring the nice spring weather.
Awshucks #2 for having held Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak to one quickly developed standard, and then to another standard that was quickly developed by the citizens of Tunisia and Yemen, and then holding him to yet one more: Instead of moving on with his life, Mubarak must stand trial. OK, we get it, President Obama, you are trying to demonstrate that you are committed to the rule of law and freedom. The problem is, your inconsistent messaging has sent confusing signals to both allies and enemies, which is not good foreign policy, and those mixed signals have consequences….
Awshucks #3 is the administration’s continued inconsistency on Bashar Assad of Syria, where as soon as the citizens Syria took to the streets, demanding their own freedom and representative government like their counterparts had in Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt, all of whom had Obama’s support, the Obama Administration went silent, like he did two years ago when Iran’s citizens took to their streets. Syria is the latest missed opportunity for this administration.
Some have speculated that Obama is such an absolute statist that he identifies only with those who hold dictatorial power, and that, therefore, he is disinclined to criticize or undermine dictators, a la Ahmadinejad then and Syria’s thug-in-chief Bashar Assad, now. Some others have simply stated that the Obama administration lacks a cohesive doctrine or position on the Middle East as a whole, a common, convenient fall-back position for political watchers with degrees in political science.
However, based on the totality of Obama’s actions and statements, it is most likely that Obama is unwilling to make the same demands of Assad, or to hold him to the same high standard to which Mubarak, Gaddafi, et al were held, because without Assad (and Iran and Pakistan) pressuring Israel, Obama cannot accomplish his most likely and consistent goal: Undermining Israel and forcing Israel to make suicidal concessions to its homicidal neighbors.
Obama waited to comment while freedom-loving Iranians were being mowed down, tortured, and disappeared and he ultimately did not really criticize Iran’s Ahmadinejad, nor has he stated the obvious about Pakistan: Osama Bin Laden was hiding in plain view in a Pakistani military garrison town, with one AK 47 in his possession, because the Pakistani military was obviously protecting him. Pakistan has nuclear bombs that can be handed off to Iran or Hezbollah or any other enemy of Israel, and therefore, in the unique logic guiding Obama’s mind, it serves a role of pressuring Israel. Egypt went from moderate under Mubarak to now headed toward war with Israel under its current leadership and their likely political heirs, the Muslim Brotherhood (whom Obama has praised). Removing Mubarak served Obama’s larger goal, which is pressuring Israel.
Obama knows of no other way to work with Israel than to pressure it, to force it, to get Israel to make unsustainable concessions. Any nation or actor that has the potential to directly pressure Israel either gets a pass from Obama, like Iran, Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Pakistan, or an actual nod, like the new Fatah-Hamas unity government that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist but which is Obama’s choice for peace partner. By allowing Syria to muddle along under Assad, Israel’s arch-enemy Hezbollah keeps its next door ally and stays strong, and actual peace remains elusive. So, what looks like an Awshucks to normal Americans is actually a purposeful decision by Obama.
Thus, even though the Obama Administration gets three negatives to two positives and loses the pitching count, there is actually a method to Obama’s madness; there is careful reasoning behind his apparent indecision in the Middle East. His actual goal is to force and pound and pressure Israel into indefensible submission, and he needs certain countries and regimes around in order to achieve that. And we all know the old Muslim adage that Obama is now living by: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Right now, Obama’s best friends in the Middle East are the Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, Pakistan, and Iran.
First Slams Obama on Immigration Sell-Out
U.S. president Barack Hussein Obama spoke today about “immigration reform,” pitching a sell-out of America. Obama has suspended the rule of law, refusing to protect our borders while actually using the U.S. Justice Department to sue Arizona. Obama hopes to force the issue by weakening America, forcing those who love America to make concessions in order to save it in the short-term.
Arizona’s new immigration law has filled the breach of the federal government’s failure. The federal government has purposefully failed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants over the southern border, trying to force “reform” that grants amnesty to about fifteen million illegal aliens. Granting amnesty will add more liberal Democrat votes and bolster Democrat holds on certain states.
If there was ever a demonstrated need for checks and balances, a balance of power in government, this is it. With Congress and the presidency controlled by one party, and an unqualified far-left Liberal (Elena Kagan) proposed by the Obama administration for the Supreme Court, our great nation hangs by a thread. Subject to radical, history-altering decisions forced on an unwilling populace by Obama and his allies, I urge my supporters to vote Republican and support Republican candidates this election and make a difference. Congressman Tim Holden must go.