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.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2014
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Moderate Muslims No Help
Muslim apologizers try to convince us that only the militant and extremist muslims are a danger. The Taliban is a member group of the militant and extremist Muslims who would like to take the whole world back to the dark ages. The apologizers say that the moderate Muslims are okay and they out number the extremists. I believe the moderate Muslims will be of no help in stopping the extremist. (This is a rather long article. You can scroll down to "Muslim Beliefs," and begin there.)
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012, a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl was shot and seriously wounded in an assasination attempt by the Taliban. The girl, Malala Yousufzai, had gained notice for speaking out against the Taliban and militant Muslim groups, for which she gained both national and international attention.
Malala lived in the Swat Valley of Pakistan, according to Reuters. In 2009 the Taliban had control of the Swat and set up courts, executed residents and closed girls' schools, including the one that Malala attended.
Lataer, in 2009, the Pakistani government took back that area. But Malala received several death threats. Tuesday, the Taliban tried to make good on its threats. The young girl was shot in the neck and the head. Two other girls with her were also wounded.
Sharia Law, which is what the Taliban and Muslims around the world would like to see installed in all nations, globablly, is Dark Ages mentality. Under it, women are to be kept barefoot, pregnant, and uneducated. Women under Shariah Law are literally property. Moderate Muslims accept Shariah Law also.
The extremist Muslim attitude is this: If you believe differently than me, will not accept the Muslim religion and Sharia Law, and will not change, then I will kill you, as they tried to do to one brave little girl who just wanted to live her own life without harming others. (Malala had said in a documentary that she wanted to be a doctor.)
So where is the moderate Muslim outrage about this cowardly deed? Where is the news coverage in the mainstream media, pointing out the evils of this religion that, at base, is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of murder if you dare to disagree with their extremist leaders.
There is no moderate Muslim outrage for one reason and one reason only. Any Muslim who would dare to speak out, and strongly, against this attempted assasination of a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl would become a target himself.
Sharia Law already has a toehold in America and a strong grip in the United Kingdom and European Union. Incidents like this should make all freedom- and liberty-loving Americans write to, or otherwise contact their government representatives and tell them in no uncertain words that we will not tolerate Shariah Law in the United States. The extreme Muslim position and Sharia Law does not tolerate free-will, free-thinking, free-acting people and it makes actual slaves of women.
Ironically, I will quote a saying from the Middle East: If you let the nose of the camel under the tent, soon the whole camel will be in the tent. The nose of the camel is pushing to get under tent in America. We must stop it now and forever.
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012, a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl was shot and seriously wounded in an assasination attempt by the Taliban. The girl, Malala Yousufzai, had gained notice for speaking out against the Taliban and militant Muslim groups, for which she gained both national and international attention.
Malala lived in the Swat Valley of Pakistan, according to Reuters. In 2009 the Taliban had control of the Swat and set up courts, executed residents and closed girls' schools, including the one that Malala attended.
Lataer, in 2009, the Pakistani government took back that area. But Malala received several death threats. Tuesday, the Taliban tried to make good on its threats. The young girl was shot in the neck and the head. Two other girls with her were also wounded.
Sharia Law, which is what the Taliban and Muslims around the world would like to see installed in all nations, globablly, is Dark Ages mentality. Under it, women are to be kept barefoot, pregnant, and uneducated. Women under Shariah Law are literally property. Moderate Muslims accept Shariah Law also.
The extremist Muslim attitude is this: If you believe differently than me, will not accept the Muslim religion and Sharia Law, and will not change, then I will kill you, as they tried to do to one brave little girl who just wanted to live her own life without harming others. (Malala had said in a documentary that she wanted to be a doctor.)
So where is the moderate Muslim outrage about this cowardly deed? Where is the news coverage in the mainstream media, pointing out the evils of this religion that, at base, is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of murder if you dare to disagree with their extremist leaders.
There is no moderate Muslim outrage for one reason and one reason only. Any Muslim who would dare to speak out, and strongly, against this attempted assasination of a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl would become a target himself.
Sharia Law already has a toehold in America and a strong grip in the United Kingdom and European Union. Incidents like this should make all freedom- and liberty-loving Americans write to, or otherwise contact their government representatives and tell them in no uncertain words that we will not tolerate Shariah Law in the United States. The extreme Muslim position and Sharia Law does not tolerate free-will, free-thinking, free-acting people and it makes actual slaves of women.
Ironically, I will quote a saying from the Middle East: If you let the nose of the camel under the tent, soon the whole camel will be in the tent. The nose of the camel is pushing to get under tent in America. We must stop it now and forever.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
The Two-fold Purpose of the War on Drugs
There are two reasons for the war on drugs. The first is to keep the violent drug cartels, the violent street gangs, and the global terrorists in business and flush with American money. The second is to feed the prison industrial complex. All those prison builders, prison suppliers, prison staff, not to mention the private prison stockholders, have to have jobs and make money some way, don't they?
If, somehow, by some miraculous act, Congress took their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and repealed the biggest rights-violating scheme of laws in the United States (the war on drugs) and re-established the principle of inalienable rights, the drug cartels, street gangs and global terrorists would be put out of business immediately. And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that, especially, the major drug cartels have money in this game to keep the war on drugs going. They have too much to lose otherwise.
The prison-industrial complex also lobbies Congress hard for mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes. It's their bread and butter. Long sentences equal job security. And, for the prison guards, non-violent prisoners also means job safety.
But, if you are intellectually and philosophically honest, you have to ask yourself how non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior, which almost all drug behavior is, can be consider a crime. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. It is well-documented that the vast majority of drug users are honest, peaceful citizens who just like to alter their perceptions with a drug other than alcohol. You may find it to be immoral, but that's a religious concept and, I'm sure, there are many things you find to be immoral in our nation today that are legal . . . because they don't violate the rights of others.
You might say we have to protect the children. But that's just the problem. The war on drugs actually makes these substances more available to minors. The dealers don't care who buys them as long as they have the money to pay for them. That is a direct parallel with the war on alcohol--prohibition.
Prior to prohibition, saloon-keepers could have been put out of business if caught selling alcohol to minors. After prohibition, the people making and selling booze didn't care who bought it, just as long as they had the money to pay for it. The alcoholic rate among teen-agers went up during prohibition, as well as a disregard for the law.
The issue of drug use, including alcohol and tobacco, is a personal morals issue, not a secular, criminal one. An adult, under the principle of inalienable rights, owns his or her body completely and can, or should, be able to do with it whatever he or she wants to do, just so long as in so doing they do not violate the rights of others. How does the mere use of a drug violate the rights of others? Almost all of the violence associated with the presently illegal drugs is caused by their being illegal. However, the drug alcohol is the drug most associated with violent behavior merely from its use. Ask any honest cop.
The anti-drug-use laws are based on the moral principles of certain religious people. (Check out who lobbied the hardest for the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914.) Basically, certain religious groups got their version of morality passed into federal secular law. (Which would seem to be a violation of the First Amendment's "establishment" clause.)
Let me give you an example. If a man sits in his house all day drinking whiskey and smoking cigarettes and not bothering any one, he can drink until he pukes and passes out and there are no legal grounds to arrest him, even if the neighbors know what he is doing and tells the police. However, if the same man was in his house, again, not bothering anyone, smoking pot, or even snorting coke, and his neighbors knew it and told the police, then the police could get a search warrant, bust down the man's door and, if they found the presently illegal drugs, they would arrest that man and they could confiscate his house, too. Two examples of non-violent, consensual adult drug use with two very different outcomes. The law does not equal justice.
By the way, did you know that prior to 1914 and the Harrison Narcotics Act, there was no criminal justice problems associated with the use of the drugs that are now illegal. The drugs were legal, cheap, and there was no violence or threat of violence in the purchase or use of them. That is, the government created the problems that we now associated with the drug trade. Now that's criminal.
So, yes, the drug war is being fought to protect the money that the drug cartels, street gangs, and global terrorists are making and to protect and preserve the prison-industrial complex. Despite anything a politician or policeman might say about protecting society, those are the only two reason for the continuation of the war on drugs because the war on drugs is not only a failure, it has also created more harm and misery than any harm and misery it was meant to prevent. And anyone with half a mind knows it.
America has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's imprisoned population. We stopped being the land of the free and the land of liberty long ago. And it's all predicated on the war on drugs which, in reality is a war on the right of all adults to the full and complete ownership of his or her body and mind.
http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/
If, somehow, by some miraculous act, Congress took their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and repealed the biggest rights-violating scheme of laws in the United States (the war on drugs) and re-established the principle of inalienable rights, the drug cartels, street gangs and global terrorists would be put out of business immediately. And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that, especially, the major drug cartels have money in this game to keep the war on drugs going. They have too much to lose otherwise.
The prison-industrial complex also lobbies Congress hard for mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes. It's their bread and butter. Long sentences equal job security. And, for the prison guards, non-violent prisoners also means job safety.
But, if you are intellectually and philosophically honest, you have to ask yourself how non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior, which almost all drug behavior is, can be consider a crime. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. It is well-documented that the vast majority of drug users are honest, peaceful citizens who just like to alter their perceptions with a drug other than alcohol. You may find it to be immoral, but that's a religious concept and, I'm sure, there are many things you find to be immoral in our nation today that are legal . . . because they don't violate the rights of others.
You might say we have to protect the children. But that's just the problem. The war on drugs actually makes these substances more available to minors. The dealers don't care who buys them as long as they have the money to pay for them. That is a direct parallel with the war on alcohol--prohibition.
Prior to prohibition, saloon-keepers could have been put out of business if caught selling alcohol to minors. After prohibition, the people making and selling booze didn't care who bought it, just as long as they had the money to pay for it. The alcoholic rate among teen-agers went up during prohibition, as well as a disregard for the law.
The issue of drug use, including alcohol and tobacco, is a personal morals issue, not a secular, criminal one. An adult, under the principle of inalienable rights, owns his or her body completely and can, or should, be able to do with it whatever he or she wants to do, just so long as in so doing they do not violate the rights of others. How does the mere use of a drug violate the rights of others? Almost all of the violence associated with the presently illegal drugs is caused by their being illegal. However, the drug alcohol is the drug most associated with violent behavior merely from its use. Ask any honest cop.
The anti-drug-use laws are based on the moral principles of certain religious people. (Check out who lobbied the hardest for the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914.) Basically, certain religious groups got their version of morality passed into federal secular law. (Which would seem to be a violation of the First Amendment's "establishment" clause.)
Let me give you an example. If a man sits in his house all day drinking whiskey and smoking cigarettes and not bothering any one, he can drink until he pukes and passes out and there are no legal grounds to arrest him, even if the neighbors know what he is doing and tells the police. However, if the same man was in his house, again, not bothering anyone, smoking pot, or even snorting coke, and his neighbors knew it and told the police, then the police could get a search warrant, bust down the man's door and, if they found the presently illegal drugs, they would arrest that man and they could confiscate his house, too. Two examples of non-violent, consensual adult drug use with two very different outcomes. The law does not equal justice.
By the way, did you know that prior to 1914 and the Harrison Narcotics Act, there was no criminal justice problems associated with the use of the drugs that are now illegal. The drugs were legal, cheap, and there was no violence or threat of violence in the purchase or use of them. That is, the government created the problems that we now associated with the drug trade. Now that's criminal.
So, yes, the drug war is being fought to protect the money that the drug cartels, street gangs, and global terrorists are making and to protect and preserve the prison-industrial complex. Despite anything a politician or policeman might say about protecting society, those are the only two reason for the continuation of the war on drugs because the war on drugs is not only a failure, it has also created more harm and misery than any harm and misery it was meant to prevent. And anyone with half a mind knows it.
America has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's imprisoned population. We stopped being the land of the free and the land of liberty long ago. And it's all predicated on the war on drugs which, in reality is a war on the right of all adults to the full and complete ownership of his or her body and mind.
http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
