Islamic Fundamentals

Much has been made of late about extremist or radical Muslims and their campaign of terror, then the commentators will say that “moderate” Muslims abhor what the radicals are doing.

But what is an extremist or radical Muslim? That is someone who would be taking their religion to the extreme or executing it to a radical degree. Is that what is happening? Absolutely not. Those so-called extremist and radicals are only carrying out what the Koran tells them to do: Convert or kill all non-believers. The Muslim prophet, Mohammed, told his followers to kill non-believers.

There have been stories, anecdotal, not confirmed but highly believable of ISIS Muslims beheading young children for not converting to Islam. If true, and I believe them to be true, then the ISIS Muslims are just following an age old tradition of true, fundamental Islamic religion.

These Muslims are not radical nor are they extremists, they are merely fundamental Muslims doing what their god and their prophet told them to do. The goal of the Islamic religion is, and always has been, the conversion or killing of all non-believers in the world. (There is a third option, living as a special tax-paying, second-class citizen who can never rise up in society, but mostly, Muslims like to kill the non-believers.) Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Harum, among other fundamentalist Islamic groups are only doing what their prophet and their god have told them to do.

You have to ask yourself, what kind of inhuman, unfeeling, evil person must a man be to murder innocent children? That is the very bottom of the pit of human depravity. Their god is an evil, ravaging, flesh-eating monster and yet they call Islam the religion of peace. They can’t even have peace among themselves. Sunnis kill Shiites and Shiites kill Sunnis, like Catholics and Protestants used to go to war and kill each other. The only thing is, the Christians got over it. The Muslims are no where close to getting over it.

As to the so-called moderate Muslims, in order to trust them they must openly and publicly repudiate the parts of the Koran, as well as the words of Mohammed, that call for violent jihad and/or the conversion or killing of people who do not accept the Islamic religion. They must repudiate “honor killings” and the unequal status of women and they must repudiate slavery, among other things that their holy book and their prophet tells them is proper Muslim conduct. That would be the Islamic equivalent of The Reformation of the Christian religion. After that, they must be willing to fight to the death against the fundamentalist Muslims until they either repudiate violent jihad or are eradicated from the Earth.

I know this will never happen and the cancer of Islam will be with us for generations, eating away at the more free and open democracies of the modern world. So be afraid, be very afraid, because the governments of the modern, open societies, keep trying to placate the monster and lie to us when they say that Islam is really a religion of peace, after which, the monster laughs and takes another bite. At base, Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of violence, hatred, intolerance, misogyny, and ignorance.

Sources:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/raymond-ibrahim-the-historical-reality-of-the-muslim-conquests

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Top-10-Reasons.htm

http://nypost.com/2014/12/12/christian-leader-isis-savages-behead-four-children/

http://chersonandmolschky.com/category/spotlight-articles/

http://nocompulsion.com/a-warning-to-the-west-a-voice-from-the-heart-of-the-islamic-world/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm

http://www.allaboutmuhammad.com/honor-killings.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/the-next-successor-to-the-saudi-throne-will-be-the-son-of-a-slave-girl/

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm

Islam Is Not a Religion of Peace

President Obama, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and many others state that Islam is a religion of peace.

Where the hell did they come up with that? Do they not know the history of the spread of Islam. It was spread by the sword. Basically, our God is better than your God and if you don't agree and convert we will kill you. And that is how Islam spread from China to Europe.

No so-called moderate Muslims are standing up to claim that the Islamic terrorists, Al Qaeda, ISIS/ISIL, and other terrorist groups are bad. Oh yes, finally, the Arabs have said ISIS is bad. Whoopee. The Arabs still behead unmarried princesses who have sex. And in public. Yes, a religion of tolerance and peace. Not to mention "honor" killings in America, Canada, and Europe.

The Muslim religion, Islam, is a religion of hate, oppression, misogyny, intolerance, and did I say hate.

Study, research, find out how the Muslim religion was spread and how they oppress women and how they want to establish a one world Caliphate. Convert or die. Pay the head tax (for people of the book--Jews and Christians) or die. That is the very basis of this so-called religion of peace, the core reason for existence of this religion of peace. And no so-called moderate Muslim wants to admit this because, well, it would show the world just what Islam is, that it is not a religion of peace. Besides, if a Muslim opposed this world view of Islam and opposed it vocally, he or she would be a target for murder by the more radicalized Muslims. The Muslims hate, and hate deeply anyone who opposes them. That is part and parcel of their religion.

Be afraid. Be very afraid of all Muslims. If they are not radicalized and are coming directly for you, then they stand to one side and allow it to happen.

The Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome

White on black crime becomes big news. You can't get away from it. But black on white crime is played down. You hardly every hear of it. Right now, in Ferguson, Missouri, there has been night after night of rioting and violence and looting because a white cop shot and killed an unarmed black teen, Michael Brown.

We don't know what happened in the Michael Brown case yet. There are conflicting reports of what happened, but the black community is protesting every day and night about it. Did any black people protest over the horrible, brutal murders of two white people, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome, at the hands of several black people? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom)
No, they did not. Also, the white community did not riot and loot and protest. But maybe they should have. Click on the link and read about what was done to that young white couple by evil black people. And I use the word evil correctly. What those evil people did to that young white couple was evil by anyone's definition. If white people had done that to a young black couple there would have been riots, and looting, and murders of other white people, as well as 24-hour news coverage. But only the crickets were heard when black people did it to white people.

Channon and Christopher were car-jacked, raped, tortured, and murder, but you don't even know their names. Why? You know who Trayvon Martin is. You know who Michael Brown is. But you have no idea who Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome were. Am I anti-black? Am I a racist? No. I harbor no animosity towards any person for their skin color. However I am against the one-sided news about white on black crime (if what happened in Ferguson was a crime) and the lack of newsworthiness of black on white crime. (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/223696071.html)

Can we say liberals? Can we say leftists? Can we say biased news outlets?

It is my studied belief that one of the biggest problems of the black community was the passage of Lyndon Johnson's policies, commonly know as the War on Poverty, which effectively destroyed the black family and destroyed the incentive to do better. (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/01/23/why-we-lost-the-war-on-poverty/)

I remember reading an article years ago about how the Swedish government (a socialist government) handled teen pregnancies. A teen-aged girl, living at home with her parents who became pregnant could not receive government assistance. Her parents had to provide for her and her child. A working woman, unmarried, who became pregnant could get government assistance. As a result, teen pregnancy in Sweden was low, even though teen sexual activity was high.

Our welfare system rewards unwed mothers--unwed teen mothers especially--and pushes fathers out of the home. It rewards having sex for the sake of having children because the taxpayer will support those unwed mothers and their children and the fathers have no responsibility. That is the definition of perverse. All children do better with both parents in the home. All communities do better when there is a high rate of married couples. The U.S. model of helping poor people destroys families and engenders poverty and crime.

As to Ferguson, Missouri, it is, reportedly, 70% black by population. The black people could vote, if they wanted to, and they could vote in more black city council people, or a black mayor. They could demand more black policemen. But they haven't. Why? Why now do they complain about the racial problems in their town, without having voted to fix it?

I don't know what happened in the Michael Brown case. I do know that the black people are protesting and rioting and looting. But how many black people spoke up for Channon and Christopher? Where were Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson to condemn what the evil black people did to those two innocent white people? How many white people protested, rioted, and looted over Channon and Christopher? How come you didn't even know about them and their horrible, brutal deaths?

My Analogy on the Israeli-Hamas War

The Israeli-Hamas war is still going on. Several hours before an agreed upon cease-fire was to expire, several rockets were shot into Israel from Gaza and the Israelis, of course, responded.

I called it the Israeli-Hamas war, using the name Hamas rather than Palestinian because I don't believe all Palestinians want to fight the war. But here's my analogy. 

A man pulls out a semi-automatic pistol and fires several shots at you, but does not hit you. You pull out your semi-automatic pistol and fire several shots back at him, wounding him several times. The man, and his friends, then claim that it's unfair because you wounded him but he didn't wound you. Furthermore, he wants you to stop shooting at him so he can reload and shoot more bullets at you.

The point being, the second man would not have shot at the first man if the first man hand not shot at the second man. So whose fault is it that the first man got wounded?

If the innocent, non-war-like Palestinians (if such exist) don't want to get caught in the cross-fire between Israel and the Hamas terrorist group, which has brought this war down on them, then they need to get rid of Hamas.

Marijuana Does Not Kill Brain Cells

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013, Gretchen Carlson on the Fox News show, The Real Story, brought up the issue of pot-smoking teenagers. I felt compelled to send her an email, which she will probably not read. The following is what I sent to her.

Dear Ms. Carlson:

I just watched your Wednesday, December 18th program in which you brought up the subject of adolescents smoking marijuana. I believe you and at least two of your panel stated that, of course, marijuana kills brain cells. This article from Vanderbilt University states quite clearly that marijuana does not kill brain cells. That does not mean that it is completely harmless however. But then even moderate drinking of alcohol has it's own set of problems.

Marijuana is an intoxicant. Minors should not be using any intoxicants (and adults should not be driving or operating machinery under the influence of intoxicants). The brains of children go through a growth spurt at about the time of puberty, as this article from PBS explains, then the brain begins pruning back the weak neuron connections and reinforcing others for the next several years. That is, the adolescent brain is a mess until it sorts itself out in early adulthood and adding any intoxicant to that mess can only slow and interfere with that process.

The author of the PBS article quoted Dr. Jay Geidd, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD: "If a teen is doing music or sports or academics, those are the cells and connections that will be hardwired. If they're lying on the couch or playing video games or MTV, those are the cells and connections that are going to survive." That would be with or without marijuana. 

I do not smoke marijuana. I tried it several times as a young man (my first time I was 18) but never really liked it so I stopped using it although nearly everyone I knew and associated with smoked it. The vast majority of those people went on to have successful careers and families. Most of the ones who didn't generally had a bigger alcohol problem.

The linked articles above should be read in their entirety. Hopefully, you, or someone associated with The Real Story can do that so that you have more factual information.

I do not promote drug use, including alcohol among adults. I am totally against recreational drug use by adolescents or any minors. The brain is a beautiful but delicate instrument that needs to be properly nourished and stimulated in order for the child to have a chance at fully developing his or her potential as an adult. Having said that, however, if we truly have inalienable rights, then, as adults, we have the right to any behavior that does not violate the rights of others even if that behavior is or may be harmful to us. Again, as adults, not minors. That would include smoking marijuana regardless if others believe it is wrong and immoral. As Lysander Spooner said: "Vices are not crimes."

I like your program, Ms. Carlson. Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

D.M. Mitchell 

Monsanto and Genetically Modified Organisms

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is usually a plant, like corn or soybeans, although scientists have been messing around with animals too. (Messing around is a scientific term that means we don’t know what’s going to happen but, gee, let’s find out.)

Monsanto is one of a few giant multi-national corporations in the GMO industry, they also make the herbicide Roundup whose main ingredient is glyphosate. Many of the GMO crops were designed to withstand large applications of Roundup to kill other plants without harming the GMO crops.

Below is a photo of rats that were fed GMO foods. (Click on this and the next image to see it in full.)

The next image shows how Monsanto and government work hand-in-hand.

I really think we have a serious problem here. But that’s why Monsanto and others don’t want you to have food labels showing if any GMO’s are in your food.

If you want to learn more about the Monsanto/GMO problems, here are a few links.

Weston A. Price Foundation:

http://www.westonaprice.org/environmental-toxins/genetically-engineered-foods-may-be-far-more-harmful-than-we-thought?qh=YTozOntpOjA7czozOiJnbW8iO2k6MTtzOjU6ImdtbydzIjtpOjI7czo0OiJnbW9zIjt9

Dr. Mercola:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/27/19-studies-link-gmo-foods-to-organ-disruption.aspx

Greenmedinfo:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/cry1ab-protein-insecticidal-toxin-found-within-gmo-corn-and-soy-found-within-pregnant-women

Institute for Responsible Technology:

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

Jury Nullification

I just finished reading an article online from Reason Magazine. It was about the ancient English and American legal premise of jury nullification. Judges in this nation used to instruct the juries that they had the right and the power to nullify a law that they thought was a bad law or if they thought that the law in a particular case should not be applied.

A famous case in America, when it was still thirteen colonies of England, is the trial of John Zenger in 1735. Zenger was accused of printing seditious libels against the Governor of the Colony of New York. Alexander Hamilton defended Zenger and a jury of twelve men found him not guilty in spite of the fact that it was clearly evident that he did print the seditious material. 

The first Chief Justice of this nation, John Jay, stated that juries had the right to judge both the facts and the law. (See the second link, above.) But why would the Founding Fathers of this nation want juries to decide both the facts and the law? 

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

However, the (in)justice system and the courts began to shy away from letting the jurors know about this ancient principle beginning with the trials under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. That Act allowed slave owners or their agents to come into free states and if they found a runaway slave, that person would be put in irons and sent back to his owner.

By the late 1800's courts informing juries of their right to nullification was pretty much dead. "In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws." The final nails in the coffin jury nullification happened after the prohibition of alcohol when many juries wouldn't convict know local bootleggers and moonshine still operators.

Was jury nullification always a good thing. No. In many cases in the South, all white juries would find defendants not guilty of murdering blacks even though the evidence was clear and convincing. But that was then. This is now. It would be much harder for that type of jury misconduct to happen now. Even in the South, today, it would be hard to get an all white jury. And even if that did happen, there are fewer overtly bigoted white people in the South than there were fifty years ago. Besides, "judges retain the rights both to decide sentences and to disregard juries' guilty verdicts, acting as a check against malicious juries."

Jury nullification is a right of the people to keep bad laws and bad prosecutors under control. Unless, of course, you are one of those who believe that the government can do no wrong. (If you are one of those you need to check out this site  from the Innocence Project.)

The people need to petition the government (state and federal) to demand that judges specifically tell the juries that they have the right to decide both the facts and the law. Juries are our last defense between citizens and an overzealous, overreaching government that is more and more willing to disregard the inalienable rights of citizens and establish its "absolute authority." (Or, as I like to say: "All hail the Imperial Government. Dissenters will be shot.)

Everybody Wants to Pay More Taxes

Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, recently made this statement: Everybody … including the rich people, are willing to pay more. They want to pay more. He was talking about taxes, that everyone wants to pay more taxes to the federal government.

Besides the fact that his statement was so incredible as to be ludicrous, bordering on serious delusional behavior, I had to wonder about the taxes that Harry Reid pays.

The arcane, esoteric, convoluted, and impossible to know IRS code allows for many deductions that allow people, like Harry Reid, to lower their effective tax rate—that is, to pay less tax. Now, if Harry Reid is part of “everybody” and not part of the new aristocracy then he wants to pay more taxes.

Therefore, Harry Reid probably doesn’t take advantage of the deductions that are in the IRS code that apply to him, of which I’m sure there are several. Of course, if he does take advantage of those deductions then… well then Harry Reid would be a hypocrite. 

Of course, he is a politician so that’s nothing new. Congress did exempt themselves from the rigors of the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare. Obamacare is just for the commoners… uh, that is, the regular citizens… uh, you know, the people of the United States that aren't in Congress or appointed to office or working for those that are.

So how about it Senator Reid, do you pay all the taxes you can and not take any deductions to lower how much you pay to the federal government, since you are part of the “everybody” you said wants to do that? Or, are you really just a hypocrite and think you are so darned lucky to be part of the new aristocracy and take advantage of all the deductions you can, as well as not having to participate in all the laws you help pass, like a co-equal citizen?

What do your tax returns say?