In Citizen Tom’s blog, he wrote a post entitled “Three Things You Probably Don’t Know about Islam.” In the discussion that followed, Citizen Tom wrote:
What makes the Bible different is that it promotes freedom of religion. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what Caesar’s and God what is God’s. The Bible says that what we each believe about God is a personal responsibility. Those on a quest for power hate that, of course. That’s why Christianity is so unpopular with power-hungry politicians.
The National Lawyers Guild
Just a few days ago, I mentioned the National Lawyers Guild (using its abbreviation NLG) to a person who portrayed himself as a lawyer involved with Constitutional issues. The NLG is a group of largely communist, America-hating lawyers and activists founded (along with the ACLU) by liberals and communists including Soviet KGB front people in the 1930s , and have spent the intervening time using the US Constitution to attack America any way they can.
I am communicating with Matthew VanDyke, described as “an American who fought with Libyan rebels to oust Gaddafi.” He wrote to Business Insider right after the Benghazi consulate attack with a theory about what happened, and again this week stating that he’d been proven largely correct. He is a Mensa member, and there is a LinkedIn forum only accessible to members. Here’s what he said there:
Why can’t we all just get along?
People are quick to blame “Islamophobia” for attacks on the US. If we would just accept that the Islam culture is different, they’d just leave us alone. Somehow, terrorism is the fault of Americans. Religious Americans, of course. (This is, oddly, the approximate position of Ron Paul as well: That American activities are the cause of jihadist attacks, and that they’d leave us alone if we “pulled out of their countries.”) A commenter on Citizen Tom’s fine blog seemed to evince such a belief:
What’s the difference between 110,000,000 people and 5,000 people?
In one way of looking at it, one of these numbers is 22,000 times as large as the other. But the real difference in these two groups of Americans that have had their phone records obtained by the US Government without prior court approval, is probable cause. From the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment:
The Egyptian army has reportedly relieved Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi of his authority, informing the Muslim Brotherhood-linked official at 7 p.m. local time that he was no longer president. At a press conference called shortly afterward, Abdul Fatah Khalil Al-Sisi outlined a roadmap that the army said would “put an end to the state of division” that has existed in the country, marked most recently by anti-government protests that began last Wednesday and peaked on Sunday as millions of Egyptians called for Morsi’s ouster and the removal of Muslim Brotherhood influence from public life. In the year since taking office, Morsi has seen his support plummet following a series of power grabs designed to centralize the Muslim Brotherhood and control and impose Islamic norms and laws on sectors of Egyptian life. The army roadmap involves provisionally suspending the Egyptian constitution, which has become a key source of friction between Egyptian Islamists and secularists since it was hastily and controversially drafted and passed last year. Pending new presidential elections, the army installed the chief justice of Egypt’s constitutional court to run the state’s affairs and announced the formation of a technocratic government. The moves came this evening after Morsi had pledged to die rather than accede to an ultimatum issued by the army to heed the protesters’ demands, with the opposition declaring his statements to be a declaration of “civil war.” The army will now move to try to prevent Muslim Brotherhood supporters from instigating violence. A top Muslim Brotherhood leader already on Tuesday called on the movement’s supporters to “sacrifice your soul to defend Mohamed Morsy’s legitimacy.”
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
A brief note on a telling dichotomy:
When the left describes something they don’t like about Christianity or Judaism, they are not shy about it. They’ll even pin bombings or shootings on “Christian terrorists” or “Tea party” people ( which to many on the left seems synonymous), before any evidence is in hand at all. But they are often strangely gently and circumspect when it comes to handling Islam:
On Steve Goddard’s RealScience site, he links an article describing (in 1989) our supplying of arms to jihadists in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union:
U.S. Is Reported to Send Arms To Revive Afghan Rebels’ Drive
By ROBERT PEAR, Special to The New York Times
Published: July 17, 1989
American officials said today that the United States was sending new mine-clearing equipment, missiles, mortars, artillery shells and other weapons to the Afghan guerrillas in the hope that they could regain momentum in fighting Afghan Government troops.
Steve Goddard leads into this with the line, “In 1989, the US sent weaponry to an al Qaeda rebel named Osama bin Laden.” I responded:
This wasn’t quite as bad as you’re thinking, it seems to me. (Though doing it now is inexcusable!) By the time of the article above, we’d been doing this for a decade, and Usama bin Ladin had only just formed al Qaida as an evolution of MAK. Perhaps no one in the US had yet heard the phrase, outside of a very few in intelligence circles (still reeling from the Church Committee cuts to their ranks).
The difference here is that these people were not already “al Qaida, the force behind the attacks on the embassies, the Cole, 9/11, et cetera”. They were radical hotheads imported from various countries specifically to go after the Soviets (instead of our own direct involvement), and that strategy worked. It also produced a surprising level of cooperation across the Middle East, a Carter success that he squandered very shortly thereafter in the Shah/revolution fiasco.
The mujahideen imported into Afghanistan did not like the US much, even then. Thus, these weapons typically were channeled through intermediaries. Usama bin Ladin (educated in an elite Saudi school by Muslim Brotherhood leader’s brother Muhammad Qutb) famously would not touch anything he thought was supplied directly by the US. We did not see what was going to happen in the future. (Sort of ironically, bin Ladin’s people were running mosques in New York City which were important resources for him for years. But these were not US government resources, they were fellow Muslim Brotherhood jihadists and thus acceptable.)
Now, we are supplying weapons to jihadists after all of these attacks upon us. Many of the rebels involved (and this was true of Libya as well) got fighting experience attempting to kill US soldiers in Iraq, and slaughtering Iraqi citizens.If someone complains that we should have seen this coming in the 1980s, what can they say about supplying these same jihadists in 2013?
Now we know exactly what we’re getting into. And we’re doing it anyway.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
(Hat tip to Marmoe who alerted me to the Congressional report.)
The Obama administration has pushed its intelligence agencies into purging their training materials of “anything that might be offensive to anyone, particularly anyone of Islamic faith” (a quote from the purge order).
So what, exactly, would that amount to? Apparently, any reference to Islam at all in connection with terrorists. Even calling jihadists “terrorists is” offensive to them.