“Robert spencer will be DEAD before August 2016 it will be brutal”

This comment came in Thursday to this thread here at Jihad Watch:

English-speaking_Islamic State jihadi

Robert says

February 25, 2016 at 9:09 pm

Robert spencer will be DEAD before August 2016 it will be brutal

The email address attached to this comment is the refreshingly ingenuous jihadwatchmurder@gmail.com, and the IP address is 92.22.14.177, which appears to emanate from Scotland, although I somehow doubt it comes from a tartaned Highlander.

Anyway, I may indeed be dead before August 2016, but one thing I will never be is bowed down and surrendered to evil.

Source : Jihad Watch


America at War and Conservative Thinker

May be Dead by then Too!!!

But just like Robert……. I may be dead, but I won’t be intimidated or afraid to tell the Truth by a bunch of thugs and murderers!!! I may get shot too, but it won’t be for lack of shooting back!!!

And you can take that one to the bank!!!

Comments Off on “Robert spencer will be DEAD before August 2016 it will be brutal” Posted in Political

The Income Tax is Immoral and Unconstitutional – and Not (Just) for the Reason You Think

irs

Before you read the story I want to point out that Ted Cruz has promised to abolish the IRS and get America on a much more sensible Flat tax system.


taxes

Guest Post by Robin Koerner

I have just paid my biggest bill of the year. The invoice was for a cool 9% of my entire annual income – or my “Adjusted Gross Income” (AGI) as it appears on my tax returns, which have just been filed. And that invoice was from my accountant who just filed them for me.

I have a pretty modest income – so modest, in fact, that my AGI is of the order of a half of the median household income across the United States – the kind of income that triggers significant subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Even the “top line” of my income falls short of that median: so it’s not as if I’m earning loads and deducting huge amounts.

My financial life last year was pretty simple: my earnings derived from a modest real estate portfolio and some freelance/consulting work. My income is earned through my small business, which, for those who know about these things, is an S-corporation. I have no employees. I do no payroll.

Yet, I have just paid my accountant more than a month’s worth of income to complete my tax returns.

How many pages of tax returns do you think that I, a single individual, and my S-corporation (a small business) had to file, bearing in mind the small amount of income in question?

Frankly, there’s no good reason the answer is not one or two. But you already know the answer is more than that, don’t you?

Ten? Try again.

Twenty? Keep going.

Surely not 50?

You’re still not close.

Did I hear you say 100 – you’re going for three digits now? Wow.

Still not there.

The answer, my fellow American tax victims, is 149.

Just take a moment to absorb that. A sub median-earning American taxpayer, engaged in simple business activities, has a 149 page tax return. And if he doesn’t get it right, his error is punishable. Of that 149, about 100 go to the Feds.Business Woman Climbing a Pile of Files

Completing 149 pages of tax forms/schedules/supporting statements is a lot of work. And I know exactly how much it is, because of that big invoice from the accountant that I already mentioned.

It’s $2000 of work – my aforementioned largest bill of the year. And it’s $2000 of work I in no way could have done myself.

I’m no high school drop-out. I have a first class degree in physics from one of the best universities in the world. I like numbers. I like logic. I like intellectual rigor. I even have a nerdy love of spreadsheets (which tells me, for example, exactly how much I spent on groceries this month five years ago ($173.41, as it happens. I’m low-maintenance)).

But I could not reverse engineer those 149 pages of tax returns if my life depended on it. And I would defy anyone without a CPA qualification to be able to do so.

I have no complaint about my accountant, who provided very good service this year, but even he couldn’t get it right first time. As I type this article, I am awaiting “corrected” state returns (which are no shorter).

Moreover, as any small businessman knows, my accountant can only generate those 149 pages of returns after I have compiled all the necessary numbers and data in neat spreadsheets, nicely itemized and comprehensively annotated (two or three days’ work, right there, perhaps?). I know for sure that most tax payers are not as proficient with Excel as I am – so my accountants have an easy time of it with me. (He even told me so.)

Here’s the reality of the American tax system for modestly earning individuals who run small businesses:

My government has put me in a position where I must either pay 9% of my income to a professional just to enable me to avoid punishment, asset garnishment and even imprisonment. Supposedly, I can “do my own taxes”, but that is a joke. No one who has not gone to school for it could accurately complete those 149 pages with any honest degree of confidence – and I don’t care what software he’s using. Moreover, even if it were do-able, the time taken lots of benjaminsto learn how to do it and then do it properly would be measured in weeks, not hours. And we don’t get to invoice the IRS for our time.

Look in wonder, America, at the most regressive aspect of any taxation system in the world – its utter complexity to the point of Kafkaesque absurdity. And if you think it must be like that, literally a few days ago, the British chancellor announced the abolition of the annual tax return in the United Kingdom.

Can anyone, conservative or progressive, justify the need for self-employed individual to spend 9 percent of his income just to remain a free citizen in good standing or, should he not have the money to spare, to go to school to navigate his way through whichever of the 74,000 pages of the tax code apply to him?

If the tax code were sufficiently sensible that I could do my own taxes (which, as someone who likes money, spreadsheets and math, I’d be very happy to do), I could have paid the Feds double my actual tax bill – and still have been a thousand dollars better off on the money I’d have saved on tax preparation. Relative to the current situation, both I and the country would have been significantly better off.

It is established Constitutional Law (by Supreme Court precedent), basic morality and simple common sense that the government may not place an undue burden on a fundamental right – such as the right to stay out of prison even if one doesn’t have an accounting degree and the right not be forced to expend one’s property on anything other than actual taxes owed.

To quantify the absurdity, here’s a comparison I’ve never seen made before.

In the course of a year, my assets and non-business activities generate nine times as much tax (in the form chiefly of property taxes and sales taxes), as my end-of-year check to the IRS. The cost to me of compliance on that first nine-tenths of my tax burden is zero, while the cost to me of compliance with the other one tenth is about double the amount I actually owe.

You really can’t make it up.

Let me offer these thoughts, then, not as an article, but as an open letter to our government, the IRS and any Constitutional attorneys out there.

To the government, I am notifying you of the undue burden that you are placing on law-abiding citizens whose income, it happens, is deemed by recent legislation to be sufficiently modest that it wishes to subsidize my healthcare: the cost of this undue burden more than cancels out all such subsidies.

To the IRS, I ask this question. What will you do if I save my $2000 in preparation fees, pay you 50% more than I did this year, and I don’t complete those forms? A bonus to me of doing this would be that I don’t have to lie any more. Because we all know that you are forcing me to lie when I sign that paper saying “I declare that I have examined a copy of my electronic individual income tax return and accompanying schedules and statements for the tax year ending December 31, 2014, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete.”

end irs2… The real truth is that, “to the best of my knowledge and belief”, no person who is not trained, certified and engaged in daily work in the business of tax preparation, could possibly expect that he could generate a correct 149 pages of this stuff – regardless of how well he tried. And, moreover, the fact that he cannot is exactly why he can’t be expected to vouch for the work of the accountants whom he’d not have to hire if he did understand what on earth was going on in the first place.

Finally, and most importantly – to any Constitutional attorney: I can’t pay you (see above), but I have a tax return that will make your eyes bleed. Get me in front of a jury or, better yet, the Supreme Court, and let us ask 12 or nine reasonable people if the burden of completing this particular tax return – a requirement I must meet to retain my liberty and my property – is reasonable or not. And if just one of the jury or bench believes that a reasonably educated person could accurately complete my tax return in a reasonable period, I’ll be happily defeated – as long as he shows me how.

Otherwise, use me as a legal guinea pig to pull down this entire rotten structure that turns good people into unwilling law breakers or liars of both, reserving its very worst for those of us on modest means who wish to rise in the spirit of the American Dream, which our government and its agents seem all too willing to crush.

Our tax code is so complex that people our government deems too poor to buy their own health insurance must fork over nearly a tenth of their income just to comply with it. I cannot be the only one.
If I could reasonably compute my own tax – and it’s a matter of common law, surely, that a typical citizen must reasonably be able to meet all impositions of the state by his own means – I’d willingly pay double my current income tax because of all the money I’d save on compliance: I’d save enough to visit my family in England twice in a year; I’d save almost my entire year’s grocery bill; I’d save the cost of the roof over my head for two months.

I can afford my tax bill. I just cannot afford to calculate it. And as you can see from my short list, the complexity of this calculation has a very real impact on my life.

This complexity of our Federal tax system is crushingly regressive; it is impoverishing, and it is morally indefensible.

Simplifying the tax code would be simply the most immediately effective, progressive and moral low-hanging fruit Congress could pick. More importantly, the Constitutional requirement of not attaching undue burdens to our fundamental rights – whose protection, according to our Declaration of Independence, is the very justification of the existence of the state – legally and morally demands it.

 

robinwsRobin Koerner is a political and economic commentator for the Huffington Post, Ben Swann, the Daily Paul, and other sites. He is best known for coining the term “Blue Republican” to refer to liberals and independents who joined the GOP to support Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency in 2012. His article launched the biggest coalition for Ron Paul and a movement that outlived his candidacy, which now focuses on winning supporters for liberty (rather than just arguments), by finding common ground among Americans of various political persuasions. He is also the founder of WatchingAmerica.com, where 300 volunteers translate opinion about the US from all over the world.

Source : KrisAnneHall.com


I want to urge everyone to vote for Ted Cruz in the Primary and for President. He is the only non-establishment Republican in the race. He has the Constitution memorized, he also stands strong for religious freedom, the 2nd amendment, and abolishing the IRS.

Donald Trump is running as a Republican, when all available evidence says he is a liberal. Don’t let America fall under the control of another liberal America!

Vote Ted Cruz!!!

 

 

Dear Trump Fan, So You Want Someone To ‘Tell It Like It Is’? OK, Here You Go.

Matt Walsh is a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.

 

Dear Donald Trump Fan,

I’m going to tell you the truth, friend.

You say you want the truth. You say you want someone who speaks boldly and brashly and bluntly and “tells it like it is” and so on. According to exit polls in South Carolina, voters who want a president who “tells it like it is” are an essential demographic for Trump, just as they’re an essential demographic for Judge Judy and Dr. Phil. You say you want abrupt and matter-of-fact honesty, and you want it so much, you’ll make a man president for it regardless of whether he defies every principle and value you claim to hold.

Personally, I think you’re lying, and I’m going to test my theory. In fact, I believe I’ve already proven my theory because you’re now offended that I called you a liar. But Trump has called half of the Earth’s population a liar at some point over the past seven months, and you loved every second of it. You said you loved it not out of cruelty or spite, but out of admiration for a man who’s willing to call people liars — even if he’s lying when he does it.

Yet here I am employing the same tactic — accurately, I might add — and you recoil indignantly. Over the course of this campaign season I’ve said many harsh words about you and your leader, all of which I stand by, but you’ve never respected my harsh words, or the harsh words of any Trump critic. Indeed, you insist that our tough criticism of you only vindicates your support of Trump, while Trump’s vulgar and dishonest criticism of everyone else also vindicates your support of Trump. You’re tired of people being critical, but you love Trump because he’s critical. You say you like Trump for his style, but you hate his style when it’s directed at him or you.

You say you like Trump for his style, but you hate his style when it’s directed at him or you.

You say you want someone who’s politically incorrect. You’re so desperate for political incorrectness — a supremely ridiculous reason to vote a guy into the Oval Office, but never mind — that your esteem for him only grows when he belittles the disabled, mocks American prisoners of war, calls women dogs, calls his opponents p*ssies, calls for the assassination of women and children, says he’d like to have sex with his daughter, brags about his adultery, etc.

You’re excited by the most vile statements and most cretinous behavior imaginable — not remotely deterred by any of it, no matter how many times he gloats over infidelity, curses his opponents, and publicly ogles his own children — because, you say, it’s politically incorrect. That is how unfathomably desperate you are for someone to come along and just say what’s on their mind, you claim. You’re so fed up with political correctness that you celebrate political incorrectness without distinguishing between the healthy sort and the “LOL I slept with married women and I’m not sorry” sort. It doesn’t matter if you don’t personally agree, you say, you just respect the hell out of someone who’s willing to shoot straight, even when ”shooting straight” means comparing Ben Carson to a child molester, calling the entire electorate of Iowa stupid, and referring to women as “pieces of ass.”

Trump won South Carolina on the support of Evangelical Christians who were so impressed with his alleged straight talk that they overlooked the fact that he’s a crass, cruel, unrepentant philanderer who says he does not need God’s forgiveness, and who praises Planned Parenthood as “wonderful” and his radically pro-abortion sister as a “phenomenal” candidate for the Supreme Court. That’s how much you pretend to admire bluntness in a man. So much that it overrides literally everything else.

Screenshot

By your logic, then, you should be filled with an immense and irresistible affection for me when I call Donald Trump a crooked, underhanded con artist and you a reckless, ignorant dupe. You should fall madly in love with me when I accuse Donald Trump of being a spoiled, overgrown brat and you of being a cultish groupie enamored with fame. You should well up with pride and salute me as I mentioned that Donald Trump is a stuffed and soiled diaper sagging in the pants of American politics and you’re the poor, pitiful sap trying to elect it president. You don’t have to agree, but man, isn’t it refreshing that I’m willing to tell you what’s on my mind? Shouldn’t you leave a thousand comments under this article praising me for being politically incorrect, willing to attack not only Donald Trump but his blue collar supporters? In fact, if you’re sincere in your alleged regard for the bold and audacious approach, I expect you’ll have launched a nationwide write-in campaign for me by tomorrow morning.

But that’s not how this works, is it? You’ve already melted into a boiling puddle of rage and self-pity, haven’t you? You’re incensed and offended that I could be so “judgmental” and “dismissive” and “critical,” and 100 other qualities you find so orgasmically satisfying when they’re displayed by The Great Trump. You say you want some straight-shooting, honest, politically incorrect tough talk, but that’s simply a lie. If it were true, my inbox would not be filled to capacity with cartoonishly shocked and outraged Trump fans every time I utter a word of criticism in his direction. It shouldn’t matter that my criticisms are sharp and severe; you ought to revere me all the more for it. I thought you were tired of people walking on egg shells?

It turns out you don’t want Donald Trump to walk on egg shells, but you have fortified your own perimeter with a thick layer of egg shells and you expect anyone who comes near it to tip toe with extreme caution. It turns out you want to be coddled and cuddled and pandered to and excused. You’re in favor of whatever Trump says because Trump said it, but when it comes to how people talk about you and him, you expect to be treated like a soft and delicate flower.

 

You flock eagerly to a flamboyant, authoritarian billionaire fascist, and you feel you ought to be completely insulated from criticism while you do so. Everyone else ought to be subject to relentless and profane invective from an elderly Manhattan real estate heir, but you and he should be above reproach.

Tell it like it is? I’ll tell you like it is: In my life I’ve never encountered a group of people more averse to being told how it is. Of course, you believe you’re entitled to this attitude because you’re “angry.” Your “anger” indulges you with the moral authority to take leave of your reason and your common sense. Your anger, you believe, places you beyond judgment, even as you attempt to drag this country into a future of (more) tyranny and cultism. You believe the rest of us ought to take your supposedly righteous rage into account while you refuse to take anything but your own infatuation with spectacle and celebrity into account. Whatever concerns we raise, including the ones I’m raising now, can be written off in an instant. “WE’RE TIRED OF POLITICS AS USUAL! WE’RE ANGRY!” And that’s supposed to be some kind of rhetorical hall pass, permitting you to do and say what you please unchallenged.

Well let me be the first and perhaps the only to say this out loud, although millions of people share this sentiment quietly: I don’t care about your anger. There’s some more truth for you, friend. There’s some more “tellin’ it like it is.” Two can play at this game, you know. And the only difference is that I’m right.

I couldn’t take your anger seriously even if I wanted to. After all, you say you’re angry that people are too afraid to speak their minds, but, as we’ve established, you don’t really want anyone but Donald Trump to speak his mind.

You say you’re angry about the corruption in Washington, but you support a slimy swindler and fraudster who boasts of his bribery schemes and makes no apologies for shamelessly exploiting political corruption for personal gain.

Michael Powlowsky of Hudson cheers at early poll numbers favoring republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at Trump's election night rally Tuesday.  (Matthew Cavanaugh/Getty Images)

You say you’re angry about illegal immigration, but you rally around a guy who supported amnesty as recently as 2013, employed illegal immigrants, and donated millions of dollars to open borders politicians like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton.

You say you’re angry about the establishment, but you worship a candidate who said only a few weeks ago that “you got to be a little establishment” in order to get things done, and who admits he “was the establishment” right until he ran for president.

You say you’re angry that Republicans won’t fight, but you hail as a warrior the same guy who says he’ll happily “work with the Democrats,” which probably explains why Sen. Harry Reid praised him and Jimmy Carter called him “malleable.” It is not uncommon for me to hear from Trump fans that they’re angry at “GOPe” Republicans for “cutting deals” and “compromising” in one breath, and in the very next that they want Trump because he’s really good at cutting deals and compromising.

Right down the list, you are blithely embracing every single thing you say you’re so angry about. Trump is the very embodiment of corruption, deception, cowardice, and elitism. He is precisely the sort of man you supposedly detest. Trump is exploiting America’s frustration with men like Trump. Trump is running against Trump. You are voting for Trump because you hate Trump. You are angry at politicians because they act like Trump and make deals like Trump and go to cocktail parties with men like Trump and look down on the little guy like Trump and possess the integrity of Trump, and so you’re solution is to elect Trump. Your anger at Trump leads you to Trump. Perhaps this explains why you’re so worried about politicians who are “controlled by donors,” but you aren’t at all concerned about a politicians who is the very donor you didn’t want controlling the political process. “I’m sick of these donors influencing the government! I have an idea: let’s make one president!” 

Trump is the very embodiment of corruption, deception, cowardice, and elitism.

It seems more like schizophrenia than anger. Aside from chronic mental illness, there are only two explanations for a person who avidly supports the continuation of a thing because he’s angry at that thing: either he’s fantastically stupid, or he’s not actually angry at all.

Friend, I should tell you the most popular theory among non-Trump supporters is that you fall into the former category. When we talk to each other in private, almost everyone agrees you’re stupid. Again, you should, by your own words, hold me in the highest esteem for telling you this uncomfortable fact. People think you’re stupid, just as they thought about Barack Obama supporters in 2008.

The parallels between the two groups are indeed profound, as exit polls attest. Once again, people are voting because “they want change,” unconcerned by the fact that the change is ambiguous, non-specific, and, in fact, not really ”change” at all. A lot of people, grasping for an explanation as to how voters might be suckered by the same shtick three times in a row, just chalk it up to stupidity.

By the way, you should doubly love what I’m doing here because it appears very close to apophasis, which is a rhetorical device where the speaker coyly makes an accusation or insult in the context of denying or distancing himself from the unkind remark. “Many people believe my neighbor Jim is a thieving jerk who borrowed my garden hose last July and didn’t return it, but I’m not going to talk about it.” That kind of thing.

It’s a strategy Trump employs all the time, and you always go along with it, like when he called Megyn Kelly a bimbo by saying “I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo because that would be politically incorrect.” Like clockwork, you insisted that he didn’t call Megyn Kelly a bimbo; he merely brought up the fact that he would call her a bimbo if it weren’t so rude to do so.

JANUARY 26: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waits to be introduced during a campaign event at the University of Iowa on January 26, 2016 in Iowa City, Iowa. Trump continues his quest to become the Republican presidential nominee. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Well, in similar fashion, I’m not calling you stupid, I’m just saying that other people call you stupid. You should therefore defend me against any accusation that I’ve called you stupid, just as you would Trump. But the difference is that I’m not being coy here. I really don’t think you’re stupid. I certainly don’t think I’m any smarter than you. I subscribe to the second theory: I don’t believe you’re really all that angry.

Your anger, to whatever extent it exists at all, is surface level. It’s a purely emotional experience, fed by a mob mentality. You’re angry in the way a rioter or looter is angry. Your temper might be flaring and your heart rate jumping and you might be filled with the uncontrollable urge to break a window, but underneath that anger is really something much closer to boredom and apathy. You don’t feel a real, intense, profound, deep and meaningful disgust at the corruption and malfeasance in Washington, because if you did there is simply no way you would support a man like Trump.

Unless, like I said, you’re stupid. But you aren’t stupid, and a non-stupid person, a serious person, who truly, deeply, intensely loathes the current state of affairs, who genuinely desires that his country be revived for the sake of his children, would not be turning to a blustery, boorish reality TV character with a catchphrase and a fake tan for answers.

I’m just telling it like it is here, friend. I’m telling you what’s on my mind. I’m being completely and painfully honest with you. I don’t believe your anger.  I think you want a spectacle, not a solution. A celebrity, not a statesman. A circus performer, not a leader. I think you want to be entertained. I think you’re not taking this seriously enough. I think you’re intellectually lazy so you’ve accepted authoritarianism as a stand-in for strength. I think you’re following the trend of the day. I think you’re wrapped up in media hype.

In other words, I think your anger, if it exists, is misplaced. You should be angry at yourself, because if this country falls finally and irrevocably into despotism, it’ll be your fault. You’ll have chosen it. You’ll have elected it and applauded it. That, my friend, is what makes me angry.

And that’s just how it is.

To request Matt for a speaking engagement, email Contact@TheMattWalshBlog.com. For all other comments and death wishes, email MattWalsh@TheMattWalshBlog.com

Source : The Blaze


America at War and Conservative Thinking Americans on Facebook   salutes Matt Walsh for this Trumpatoon Truth!!!

Fox to cure “Islamophobia” with Muslim sitcom | Jihad Watch

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Fox to cure “Islamophobia” with Muslim sitcom

Over at PJ Media I discuss the imminent arrival of the long-awaited Muslim situation comedy:

nasim-pedrad

Here it is at last: the long-desired Muslim family situation comedy that is going to cure “Islamophobia” by showing racist, ignorant, xenophobic Americans that, hey, Muslims are just like us. Deadline Hollywood reported last week:

Fox has given a late pilot order to Chad: An American Boy, a single-camera Middle Eastern family comedy co-created by and starring Saturday Night Live alumna Nasim Pedrad and directed by Jason Winer.…

[A] 14-year-old boy (Pedrad) in the throes of adolescence is tasked with being the man of the house, which leaves him with all the responsibilities of being an adult without any of the perks.

Pedrad is actually a 34-year-old woman. She made the intention of the show abundantly clear:

I’m thrilled to be able to portray a Middle Eastern family not working for or against Jack Bauer on network TV.

This show has been a long time coming. Katie Couric called for it during the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, saying that America needed a Muslim Cosby Show. Now that Bill Cosby is so resoundingly discredited, Reza Aslan, with his typical clumsiness, called for a Muslim All in the Family, apparently not realizing that the central character of that show was held up as a bigoted object of ridicule.

But clearly both calls meant the same thing: if Americans could just see Muslims outside of the context of jihad terrorism, they would love them, and “Islamophobia” would evanesce.

Then Barack Obama said last week at the Islamic Society of Baltimore:

Our TV shows should have Muslim characters that are unrelated to national security.

The fallacy of this reasoning? When The Cosby Show aired, there were no international black terror groups mounting terror attacks in the U.S. and around the world, boasting of their imminent conquest of the country. The suspicion that Americans have of Islam comes from jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, not from racism and bigotry.

Americans know this distinction despite the best efforts of Couric, Aslan, and others to obscure it, to make people feel guilt for opposing jihad terror. Some slick TV show depicting funny, warm, attractive, cuddly Muslims would not end jihad terror, or blunt concern about it — it would only serve to further the idea that resisting jihad violence was somehow “bigoted.”

Nonetheless, now we have it. Will it work? Will it make Americans drop their concerns about jihad terror? Unlikely. The whole idea that Muslims are threatened, harassed, and discriminated against in the U.S. is a creation of the Islamic advocacy industry, which knows well how well it pays to be a victim in the U.S. today.

Those groups — Hamas-linked CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, and the rest — will still need to play the victimhood game even while this sitcom is running, and after its run has ended. So we will continue to see fake hate crimes and claims of discrimination, and the failure of this show to stem the tide of “Islamophobia” will be touted as a reason why Muslims deserve special privileges and the further weakening of counter-terror measures.

Meanwhile, how a 34-year-old woman is going to be convincing playing a 14-year-old boy is an open question, but whether or not Nasim Pedrad can pull it off, it is noteworthy that this Muslim sitcom will feature a 14-year-old boy who has to serve as the man of the house. That suggests that it will not feature the individual who is the center and dominant figure of most real Muslim families: an adult male.

That makes it likely that the show will not depict in any remotely realistic manner the way women are treated in observant Muslim homes….

Source Jihad Watch


My Thoughts on it……

I would like to point out, as Robert did in the story, their seemingly will be no male “Head of the Household” character from their description. So naturally their will be nothing realistic about the show. It will not have to deal with the complete and total submission of women and their not being allowed to get an education………….genital mutilations and honor killings. I wonder if they will attend the local mosque where jihad will be front and center. Do you think CAIR will represent them in any lawsuits against America and it’s laws???

I’ve got it!!! They can have an episode where the 14 year old “boy” builds a device looking just like a timer operated bomb, and a teacher at the school can get alarmed and call authorities to examine the device, and afterwards the boy can get invited to the White House for being such a genius, and CAIR can represent him in the $15,000,000 lawsuit!!!

mg_obamawatch_comp02

Nawwwwww………….. it’s been done!!!

CT

“Islam can’t be modernized,” says world’s “greatest Arabic poet”

“When asked if he receives death threats from radical Islamists Adonis said: ‘Of course, but I do not care. For certain convictions people should risk their lives.’” Bravo.

adonisasbar

“‘Islam Can’t Be Modernised’ Says World’s ‘Greatest Arabic Poet,’” by Chris Tomlinson, Breitbart, February 19, 2016:

The writer regarded as the greatest Arabic language poet alive today has said Islam cannot be modernised.

Adunis Asbar, known by his pen name Adonis, is a Syrian-born writer often considered one of the greatest living poets of the Arabic language. He has come under criticism for comments he made recently about Islam before receiving the Erich Maria Remarque Peace Prize, named after the famous pacifist and author of the classic World War One novel ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’.

In an interview with Die Welt he talked about one of the most pressing issues in Germany since the migrant crisis began, the idea of being able to integrate migrants from predominately Muslim countries into European societies.

Being raised a Muslim himself and having one of the greatest understandings of the language of the Quran, Adonis said: “You can not reform a religion. If they are reformed, [the original meaning] is separated from it. Therefore, modern Muslims and a modern Islam is already impossible. If there is no separation between religion and state, there will be no democracy especially without equality for women. Then we will keep a theocratic system. So it will end.”

Laying down a heavy critique of the Islamic world, he added: “Arabs have no more creative force. Islam does not contribute to intellectual life, it suggests no discussion. It is no longer thought. It produces no thinking, no art, no science, no vision that could change the world. This repetition is the sign of its end. The Arabs will continue to exist, but they will not make the world better.”

The remarks are in reference to the broader questions of how he sees the Middle East, and specifically his native Syria which has been in a state of civil war for years. Adonis describes the totality of Islam in the life of people in the Islamic world saying Muslim society is “based on a totalitarian system. The religion dictates everything: How to run, how to go to the toilet, who one has to love…”…

“I have long been an opponent of Assad. The Assad regime has transformed the country into a prison. But his opponents, the so-called revolutionaries, commit mass murder, cut people’s heads off, sell women in cages as goods and trample human dignity underfoot.”

Adonis was referring to the Islamic State and the Al-Nusra front (an Al Qaeda affiliate) who have become the largest opposition force to Assad over the course of the civil war.

Breitbart London has already reported that attempts to house and integrate Muslim migrants will cost Germans and other European countries billions of euros, and according to Adonis’ opinion it could be a useless endeavour.

When asked if he receives death threats from radical Islamists Adonis said: “Of course, but I do not care. For certain convictions people should risk their lives.”

Source Jihad Watch

Voting Trump amounts to voting for “Hillary by Proxy” | CFP has lost me

 

11903759_947353878661624_3313527740210820127_nI agree with everything Trump SAYS about immigration and Islam and putting political correctness on hold etc…. The problem I have with the man is this : He’s a lifelong ‪#‎Democrat‬ who just decided to turn ‪#‎Republican‬ since Obama was elected. Trump voted for Obama, he’ll tell you himself that he was “Obama’s biggest cheerleader”. He’s good friends with Bill and ‪#‎Hillary‬ ‪#‎Clinton‬. He’s one of the largest contributors to the corrupt Clinton Foundation. He has no problem morally with using eminent domain to steal a little old ladies lifetime home to build a parking lot for a casino. The bottom line is that Trump is a spoiler candidate supported by BOTH ‪#‎Democrats‬ AND ‪#‎Establishment‬ Republicans, the people we are trying to rid ourselves of!!! A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for ‪#‎HillaryByProxy‬ !!! WHY would you vote for ANYONE but Ted Cruz??? The one candidate FEARED by Democrats and establishment Republicans!!! Trump is CHEERED by Democrats and establishment Republicans (Even Jimmy Carter) And Ted Cruz is FEARED by these same groups!!! A vote for Trump is a vote for more of the same…..SOS different day. Use your head for more than a hat rack and VOTE TED CRUZ!!!

I don’t think CFP is going to post my comment on their story, so I’m posting it here also. At one time I was a big fan of Canada Free Press, but the blind following of Trump has led me away from their posts.

USE YOUR HEADS PEOPLE!!! The man is a life long #Democrat who says things you want to hear.

But he is supported by EVERYONE we want to throw out of government!!! Does that not tell you something???

Ted Cruz is the guy FEARED by the ‪#‎WashingtonCartel‬!!! #Democrats and ‪#‎Republicans‬ who have been stealing you blind for 30 or 40 years ALL FEAR ‪#‎CRUZ‬!!! But they SUPPORT ‪#‎TRUMP‬!!!

DID YOU HEAR ME??? They support ‪#‎DonaldTrump‬!!! Vote ‪#‎TedCruz‬!!!

Wake up America!!! ‪#‎CruzCrew‬‪#‎CruzCountry‬‪#‎CruzControl‬‪#‎CruzUSA‬‪#‎CruzToVictory‬‪#‎CruzMissile‬‪#‎Cruz2016‬

11234046_930681340328878_8314496133532781122_n

This is the story that set me off, found on Canada Free Press which historically has been one of my favorites, but they lost me when they went Trump. Have you ever heard the saying “A Zebra don’t change it’s stripes”??? Well folks the Trumpra has been a Democrat most of his life, and even voted for Obama!!! Do you know why the saying about the zebra and it’s stripes is so popular??? BECAUSE IT’S TRUE!!! THEY DON’T CHANGE!!!

Here is the story (And ones like it) responsible for my ending my subscription to Canada Free Press

Why a Rock-Ribbed Conservative Like Me Supports Donald Trump 100% 

A zebra (or Trumpra) just don’t change their stripes. The man was Obama’s BIGGEST CHEERLEADER and EVERY CAREER POLITICIAN BACKS HIM!!! The Democrats back him, the establishment backs him, Jimmy Carter even backs him!!!

Use the sense God gave you, and stop being manipulated by the press (Who ALSO promoted Trump from day 1)    and vote for Ted Cruz!!!

trump_infog_v2_3

 

 

 

Rochester, NY school organizes ‘Hijab Day’ for non-Muslim students | Jihad Watch

 

February 12, 2016 2:07 pm By

“A district spokesman told the site officials consulted with an attorney about the World Hijab Day event, and were advised that ‘there would be more of a legal issue if the school said no to the event’ than to hold lessons on the Muslim scarf.” Really? What kind of a legal issue? Would the school be brought up on charges of “Islamophobia”? Is that trumped-up propaganda term a crime now?

School board president Van Henri White said of the Hijab Day organizer, student Eman Muthana: “She’s not trying to make anybody else anything other than who they are, but she wants people to accept who she is.” How wonderful. How incandescently multicultural, with a soupçon of victimhood thrown in: young Eman just wants acceptance, you greasy Islamophobes. Can’t you just accept her?

I’ll lead the way. Eman Muthana, I accept you. If you want to wear the hijab, please don’t think that I have the slightest objection; I don’t. What I do wonder is when Rochester’s World School of Inquiry will be holding World Uncovered Hair Day, in honor of Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. When will Rochester’s World School of Inquiry be celebrating the memory of Aqsa and Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab? And of the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; and of Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; and of Amira Osman Hamid, who faces whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; and of the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized for her family for refusing to wear the hijab; and of the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told that they had to wear the hijab or be fired; and of the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; and of the women also in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; and of the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; and of the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; and of the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; and of the women in Iran who protested against the regime by daring to take off their legally-required hijab; and of the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; and of the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents, and all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab?

When is their day? When will anyone stand in solidarity with them? Those who taunt or brutalize hijab-wearing women are louts and creeps, and should be prosecuted if they commit any acts of violence. At the same time, the women who don’t wear hijab in Muslim countries are far more likely to be victims of violence than hijabis in the West. Who speaks for them?

hijabday

“NY school organizes ‘Hijab Day’ for non-Muslim students,” by Victor Skinner, EAG News, February 9, 2016 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

ROCHESTER, N.Y. – Officials at Rochester’s World School of Inquiry spent last week fielding dozens of calls from parents angry about a “World Hijab Day” event that encouraged girls to wear the Muslim religious head covering.

Sophomore Eman Muthana wears a hijab to school and wrote a letter to principal Sheela Webster asking if the school can put on its own World Hijab Day at the school last Friday, WHAM reports.

Webster approved the event – designed to educate students about the religious purposes behind the hijab – but did not inform parents until after the media reports of the event sparked backlash online, and angry calls to the school, according to WHEC.

“As a high school teacher for over 30 years, let me say that this is wrong on so many levels,” Jim Farnholz wrote, according to the news site.

“All religions are taught in our global studies classes. That being said, that is where understanding, tolerance and the good and bad of religion and history are taught. This, however, is a clear violation of separation of church and state.”

WHEC reports teachers brought in about 150 scarves in on Friday and wrapped up volunteers before the first bell. The school set up tables in the cafeteria, where girls tried on a hijab and boys were given carnations for support, according to WHEC, which described the event as “student run.”

“We wanted them to experience it and feel how we feel,” Muthana, originally of Yemen, told the site. “I just feel proud that I’m sharing my culture.”

“I love that we’re having the open conversation. I think that’s the first step into making it a more open and tolerant environment. I think this is the perfect school for it,” English-as-a-Second-Language teacher Kelly Lalonde told WHAM.

A district spokesman told the site officials consulted with an attorney about the World Hijab Day event, and were advised that “there would be more of a legal issue if the school said no to the event” than to hold lessons on the Muslim scarf.

Regardless, Webster, who also donned a hijab, was adamant the school did not promote religion, but rather cultural acceptance.

“Our perspective in it was not religious – it was really about experiential,” she told WHAM. “We are an experiential school; we engage kids in all kinds of activities and projects all of the time, so the perspective of being able to learn what a hijab is, why some women choose to wear it and why some women don’t choose to wear it, and we provide the opportunity to experience it; it is well within protocol of experiential learning.”

She told WHEC the lessons on the hijab had nothing to do with the Muslim religion, it “was actually around learning about the cloth.”

School board president Van Henri White didn’t seem to have a problem with the hijab day when he stopped in on the event Friday.

“She’s not trying to make anybody else anything other than who they are,” White said of Muthana, “but she wants people to accept who she is.”…

“What lesson will they wear a Yarmulke in? Or the Christian cross? Or the Hindu turban?” Dan Lane posted. “Funny how it always seems to be the Muslims they learn about, even in Common Core.”

“How disgusting and irresponsible for any educator to encourage a child to wear a symbol of oppression, whether it be religious or cultural,” Rebecca Sluman wrote…

Source : Jihad Watch


 

 

France to Shut Down 100 to 160 Mosques; War-grade Weapons Found in Some | The New American

eaa95f540abad22db8b270c9de289d6c_m

Written by 

Wednesday, 10 February 2016

George W. Bush and others have often emphasized that Islam is a “religion of peace.” Others view Islam as a “religion of the sword,” and they include traditionalist-minded Muslims and mosques. This is evident after the French government recently raided Muslim houses of worship in the country and found “one third of the quantity of war-grade weapons that are normally seized in a year,” as Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve put it.

The mosques implicated themselves “because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech,” Hassan El Alaoui, one of France’s chief imams, toldAl Jazeera on Wednesday; “takfiri” speech is that which levels accusations of apostasy at other Muslims. El Alaoui also reported that the government will shut down between 100 and 160 mosques, approximately five percent of the nation’s 2,600 total. In addition, authorities searched 2,235 Muslim businesses and homes and arrested 232 individuals.

In the wake of the November 13 Paris jihadist attacks that killed 130 people, however, it was the hardware found that was especially alarming. Writes Christine Niles at ChurchMilitant.com:

[S]everal of these [100-plus] mosques have been raided, revealing a “staggering” number of weapons and ammunition. Sunday, authorities conducted a raid on a mosque in Lagny-sur-Marne, 18 miles east of Paris, and uncovered 334 weapons and a large quantity of 7.62mm Kalashnikov ammunition, along with ISIS propaganda videos.

Police also turned up recordings of chants “glorifying the martyrs of jihad linked to the terrorist organization Jabhat al-Nusra,” the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda. The chants were found among teaching materials for youth in a madrassa, or private religious school for boys, connected to the mosque.

Although this story has not been widely reported, it should further fuel debate about the nature of Islam and the effects of wide-scale Muslim migration into the West. This has been a major topic recently, with presidential contender Donald Trump suggesting that Muslim immigration should be suspended until we can “figure out what’s going on.”

And with the West being awash in relativism — and its correlative religious-equivalence doctrine, stating that all religions are morally equal — broaching this topic brings accusations of bigotry and “Islamophobia.” But Truth doesn’t bend to political correctness, and there’s certainly something “going on.” Consider, for instance, a German study released in 2010 and which involved 45,000 young people. It found that while increasing religiosity among Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among Muslim ones actually made them more violent.

And anecdotes to this effect abound. The Daily Telegraphreports today about 18-year-old Australian convert to Islam Alo-Bridget Namoa, who is allegedly now a supporter of Da’esh (ISIS), prays five times daily to Allah, and has said referring to herself and her Muslim husband, “I want to do an Islamic Bonnie and Clyde on the kaffir” (non-Muslim). The Daily Mailtold the story yesterday of 33-year-old U.S. Army deserter and Muslim convert Daniel Seth Franey of Montesano, Washington, “who called Osama bin Laden ‘a beautiful man,’ made pro-Islamic State statements and called for the death of American troops,” the paper related. Then there was convert “John T. Booker Jr., 21, an American citizen also known as Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, …who vowed to ‘bring the Islamic State straight to your doorstep’ [and] pleaded guilty Wednesday to attempting to detonate a car bomb at Fort Riley military base in Kansas,” wrote CNN Feb. 4. And just two days before that, the Associated Press reported that North Carolina convert Justin Nojan Sullivan, 19, had “killed his neighbor and stole the man’s money so he could buy an assault rifle to carry out an Islamic State-inspired shooting at a concert or club”; Sullivan believed he could murder 1,000 people in his attack. Critics have dubbed these happenings “Sudden Jihad Syndrome,” and nary a week goes by — and maybe not even a day — without an instance of one occurring.

But while this phenomenon can seem sudden, it’s not new. As Professor Thomas F. Madden, chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, wrote in his 2002 essay “The Real History of the Crusades”:

While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity — and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion — has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered.

Some Muslims readily acknowledge this, too. Also just yesterday, we learned of Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, who was convicted by an Indonesian court of conspiring with Da’esh and setting up a Jihadist training camp; writes the Deccan Chronicle of his statements in his own defense, “‘I hope judges understand that my deed of helping training camp in Aceh was my religious obligation,’ Bashir told the court. ‘I’m guilty according to the government law, but what I did is correct according to Islam.’” And then there’s what was reported just the day before. Quoting The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Jihad Watchrelated, “In a December 15 lecture about ISIS at the American University in Beirut, Abdel Bari Atwan, former editor-in-chief of ‘Al-Quds Al-Arabi’ and the current editor-in-chief of ‘Al-Rai Al-Youm’ rejected common claims that the savagery of ISIS is alien to Islam, presenting examples of similar conduct from Islamic history. Atwan said that the West faces two options: to contain ISIS or to destroy it.”

Of course, some may say the West has cultivated the worst of both worlds: disrupting the Mideast with misguided military endeavors while not containing Da’esh. And considering how Christendom is admitting countless thousands of impossible-to-vet Muslim migrants, these critics may ask, “How does it make sense for the West to send soldiers to fight in the Middle East if we’re going to bring the Middle East to the West?”

Unfortunately, what’s really “going on” isn’t hard to figure out: Awash in relativism, multiculturalism, and diversity doctrine, a morally confused Occident is facilitating “the soft Islamic conquest of the West,” as Muslim refugee Dr. Mudar Zahran put it last October. What Muslims “couldn’t do in the last 20 years,” he explained, “now the West is doing for us for free — and even paying for it.”

And pay for it we will.

 

Source : The New American

What Do You Do When the Government Loses Its Legitimacy? | Canada Free Press

America at War has felt that our government lost it’s legitimacy once the 3 separate branches of government joined as one under Obama.

Once the FBI, IRS, and other agencies started being used as political weapons against citizens who opposed the President politically. And I could go on and on, but instead I want you to consider for a moment, all of the ways our current government has violated it’s oath to the people and overstepped it’s authority granted by the Constitution.

Any authority not specifically granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution does not exist. The bottom line being that ALL government powers, Federal and State, are granted to them through the Constitution and ultimately the people. We the People give our consent to be governed, maybe we should move to refuse our consent, and reset this badly corrupted system.

 


 

What Do You Do When the Government Loses Its Legitimacy?

By Tim Dunkin February 11, 2016

Last month, Americans were treated to the spectacle of our own government executing an American citizen without due process on the side of a public highway in Oregon.  There is really no other accurate description to describe the extra-judicial murder of LaVoy Finnicum by agents of the Oregon Highway Patrol, at the behest of the FBI.

To begin with, we should understand that pretty much everything the average person heard from the mainstream media about the Malheur refuge “occupation” is wrong.  The media loved to describe the events in Oregon as an “armed takeover of a federal building.”  That way, your average viewer living “back East somewhere” got the impression that these were heavily armed paramilitaries with machine guns and rockets taking over a courthouse or something.  Actually, the “federal building” in question was a forest station, and was unoccupied at the time the Bundy group came in.  Some reports I’ve seen suggest that it was even left unlocked so that anyone who got lost in the wilderness and found the station could get in and take shelter from the elements.  To the extent that they were armed, it was with pistols – indeed, when a more serious militia group armed with rifles came to join them, they were asked to leave.  The Bundy group regularly gave interviews to the media and often met with various police agencies.  If this was an anarchic armed standoff, it must have been the most benevolent and lackadaisical one in history.

So it was with the chain of events that led to Finnicum’s murder at the hands of the police.  Most news reports stated that he “went for a gun,” and was shot by police acting in self-defense.  Seeing the video, this is patently ridiculous, as is the claim that a man who had his hands up and was being covered by half a dozen armed officers training their weapons on him was going to “go for his gun” like it was some kind of Wild West showdown at high noon on the streets of Dodge.  No – LaVoy Finnicum was shot by police looking to make a statement – displease the government, and you’ll end up dead.  What we saw that day from the OSP and the FBI was a politically motivated assassination, in essence an act of terrorism by the actual definition of that word.

Finnicum’s death fits into a larger, overarching trend that we have been seeing both with the U.S. federal government and with other governments, especially those in Europe.  This trend is marked not just by a continual failure to protect and defend the citizens of their respective nations, but by outright efforts to endanger and harm their citizens.

Think about it for a minute.  How else could you describe governments in Europe that import hundreds of thousands (or, in the case of Germany, millions) of criminal, barbaric military-aged male “refugees” from the Muslim world, who essentially turn these “refugees” loose on their own native populations, and then attempt to punish their own native citizens when they fight back, or even speak out about it?  In Germany the government is cracking down…on people who criticize the “refugees” on social media.  In Denmark, a girl who used pepper spray to fight off some Muslims who attempted to rape her is being prosecuted by her own government.  In England, Parliament is more interested in banning Donald Trump because he said things about Muslims that they didn’t like than they are about protecting their own citizens from KNOWN sex trafficking in English cities by Muslim immigrants and “refugees.”

It’s not just that these governments aren’t getting on the ball – it’s that these governments are purposefully targeting their own people while defending and abetting hostile foreign invaders.

Here in America, we’ve also seen a government that not only refuses to protect its own people, but which has been doing positive harm to them, and then blaming them for the harm that has been done.  What else could we say for a President who consistently sides with Islamofascist terrorists who have openly stated that they want to commit terrorist attacks in our country?  A government which gives a terrorist-supporting regime like Iran billions of dollars in aid, as well as free rein to develop their own atomic bomb?  A government which has sent weapons to ISIS and other radical terrorist organizations, and has helped to destabilize the Middle East so as to create a fake “refugee crisis” to give cover for moving Islamic terrorists into Europe and the USA?

At the same time on the domestic front, this government has provided aid and comfort to homegrown terrorist organizations like Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panthers.  This government shoots down a protestor in Oregon who was engaging in non-violent civil disobedience, while throwing open the gates for hoodlums to riot in our cities and destroy millions of dollars in property.

Of course, the US government for decades has consistently and blatantly ignored the Constitution from which it derives its authority.  Pres__ent Obama routinely tries to find ways around that pesky 2nd amendment so that he can disarm and enslave the American people.  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been waging an unrelenting war on American ranchers and farmers all across our western states.  The government refuses to do anything serious about the massive influx of illegal immigrants who are destroying our wage scale, committing more than their “fair share” of crimes, and who are reintroducing all kinds of diseases that we thought had been eliminated from the United States years ago.  The federal government is adamant about forcing states to take in criminal, hostile Islamic “refugees” so that they can cause (and in fact already are) the same trouble here that they have been in Europe.  Thousands of Americans have been fined or imprisoned for petty crimes that they did not even know were on the books, specifically because the government makes the US code so obtuse and convoluted that no average citizen could ever hope to navigate their way through it so as to avoid committing their three felonies a day.  On and on and on it goes.

It’s time to face the fact that the American federal government is no longer a legitimate government.  It no longer has any moral authority to govern the American people.  Frankly, the only reason I can think of to obey this government is the fact that if you don’t, it will send agents to shoot you in the head.  The power of raw violence is the only remaining prop for the federal government, as it no longer has any moral or ethical authority derived from either fidelity to the Constitution or from the power of reason and persuasion.  Certainly, however, this government does not deserve, nor should it get, the obedience of decent American citizens beyond what we’re simply forced to give by the threat of official, state-sanctioned violence against us.

Now, I’m sure that there are many professing Christians who are absolutely appalled at what I just said.  They would cite biblical passages such as Romans 13:1-7 to argue that Christians should always obey the government, no matter what.

Of course, the Bible provides enough examples of godly resistance to wicked government actions or commandments to disprove that simplistic understanding of Romans 13.  We see the Hebrew midwives defying Pharaoh’s command to murder the male children born to the Israelites.  Then there is Moses’ parents’ refusal to murder their own son.  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to obey the king’s command to worship his idol, and Daniel refused to obey the decree that forbade praying to the God of Israel.  Peter and John told the religious rulers to their faces that they would not obey the command to cease preaching in the name of Jesus, and Peter and the other apostles later told these same leaders that they would obey God rather than men.  So clearly, there is no biblical justification whatsoever for demanding that Christians obey every command and ordinance of any and every government.

Still, some might argue, Romans 13 and other passages would still command Christians to obey the government in anything where there is not a direct conflict between Scripture and secular governmental decrees.  But is this really what Romans 13 is saying?  On the face of it, the “always obey” position appears to have strong support from verses 1 and 2,

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”

That seems pretty straightforward, right?  You obey the higher power (government) because all governments are ordained by God and to resist them is to condemn yourself because you are actually resisting God Himself.  But wait a second.  How about we look further down in the same passage, to get a little context for these two verses,

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:3-4)

Interesting, eh?  The reason we obey the government is because “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil” and the government praises the good while blaming the evil, and because the ministers of God (government officials) execute wrath upon them who do evil, while doing good to those who themselves do good.

Does that sound like our government today?  I didn’t think so, either.

Fundamentally, those who take the “Romans 13 commands us to always obey the government” position take the first two verses completely out of context to teach a questionable doctrine that ignores what the rest of the passage, and the rest of Scripture, teach about government.  What we see in verses 3-4 is a picture of what God intends government to be, ideally speaking.  In a sense, God is there giving a definition of what government should be, and the type of government that God’s people are to willingly give their obedience to.  Further, verses 1-2 are talking about government in general.  They’re saying that Christians should be subject to the principle of government, because government was instituted among men for the good of man and the discouragement of evil.  “The higher power” is singular, not plural – it’s talking about the God-ordained principle of government, not any particular government, no matter how terrible.  Christians are not to be anarchists, not to be rebels against all government and all authority.  Christians are not to be perpetual revolutionaries, always seeking the overthrow of the established order.

What IS the purpose of government?  Government was instituted after the Flood so as to govern the nations that would arise and to prevent the resurgence of the violence and wickedness that had existed in the world before the Flood, and which were the proximate causes for why God destroyed the antediluvian world in the first place.  Government, in essence, was instituted by God so that man could live together in relative peace and without perpetual violence.  We see this in Genesis 9:5-6, where the principle of government was first laid out,

“And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

In essence, if you murder someone else, then your blood will be shed – not by a private individual in revenge, but in an orderly and God-ordained fashion.  This, in a nutshell, lays out the purpose of government – to keep order and to promote the good while discouraging the evil.  Every other law which was later to be codified by God in His Law – don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t lie and defraud, and all the rest – are bound up in this primeval ordinance.

So this is what God intends government to be.  This is reflected in Romans 13:3-4 – government officials should be doing good, discouraging evil, punishing the wicked, rewarding the right.

This is further reflected in many of the passages in the Old Testament wisdom literature that talk about government and “the king,”

“A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.” (Proverbs 16:10)

“He that loveth pureness of heart, for the grace of his lips the king shall be his friend.” (Proverbs 22:11)

“Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.” (Proverbs 25:5)

“The king by judgment establisheth the land: but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it.” (Proverbs 29:4)

“The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.” (Proverbs 29:14)

“Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning! Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!” (Ecclesiastes 10:16-17)

As we can see, these present a rather idealized picture of government and rulers.  In a sense, they depict what the rulership of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself shall be like during the millennial reign – He will rule and judge perfectly, with no error, bias, or wickedness.

So what does all this mean for us today?  Does it mean that we should always obey all government whatsoever?  Does it mean we should reject ANY government that doesn’t conform strictly to the idealized picture of government presented in Scripture?  The answer to both of these questions is, “No.”

It all goes back to the purpose and intention of government, as indicated at the beginning in Genesis 9 and as developed more fully in Romans 13.  Government, as a principle, exists to keep order, to restrain evil, and to protect the citizens under a government from harm and danger, both internally (such as from criminals) and externally (from foreign enemies).

Now we must understand that any earthly government is going to be made up of sinful men who will always fail in some areas, no matter how good their education, no matter how noble their principles, and no matter how firm their temperance and self-control.  Because of this, we cannot expect to see the perfection ideally depicted of the king in the Scriptures.  To reject ANY government where the leaders made any sort of error or demonstrated any sort of flaw would be to reject ALL government, essentially rejecting the principle itself in practice and running afoul of the Scripture.

As such we must, by necessity, accept that every government will fail in some areas, will transgress some boundaries, even though in most cases they will uphold the fundamental principle of God-ordained government.  As such, we should not be quick to reject and throw off any and all government.  Even government that is not consensual, not republican, and not democratic in its institutions can still be generally good government that follows the principles of government established by God.  A Persian empire under Cyrus and a Roman Empire under Caesar Augustus, while both autocratic, kept order and generally praised the good while punishing the wicked.  Cyrus and Caesar Augustus were not anywhere at all the same as Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin.  Even when a government makes many mistakes and causes some harm, it is not to be lightly overthrown.  Our Founders recognized this fact in the very instrument they used to throw off the British government and institute their own, the Declaration of Independence,

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

At what point does a government lose its legitimacy, then?  It is when the government reaches the point where it ceases to generally fulfill the role that God ordained for government, and instead begins to actively do the opposite.  When the government purposefully and systematically harms its citizens, rather than doing them good, or even being benignly neglectful, then it has lost its legitimacy.  It is no longer what God defines in His Word as a government.  When the government helps the enemies of its people and aids these enemies in harming its own people – it has lost legitimacy.  When the government systematically oppresses its people, doing them harm, punishing the good, while promoting and lauding the wicked and the evil – it has lost its legitimacy.

This is the point which we have reached with the current federal government today, as I detailed above.  It punishes those who do right.  It promotes and excels those who do evil.  It aids our enemies against its own people.  It refuses to protect us against those enemies, and seeks to restrain us from protecting ourselves against them. It systematically ignores the very foundational law under which it is instituted and which it is beholden to obey.  In every area, the federal government today acts diametrically the opposite of how legitimate government is supposed to act.

So what do we do about this state of affairs?  Well, the answer lies also in the Declaration,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Will the issue come to armed revolution?  I do not know.  We can always hope and pray that it does not, for there are other ways which we must first try to abolish the corrupt and institute the new.  We must resist the evil with all our power, being ready to commit acts of civil disobedience if we must.  We must oppose its efforts to violate our rights even further, ignoring its gun laws, resisting the seizure of property and liberty.  We must pressure our state governments to reassert their constitutional rights through nullification and interposition.  We must work steadfastly to inculcate in the educable portion of our population a renewed love for liberty and a reinvigorated understanding of their civic and patriotic duties as American citizens.  One or two elections or politicians are not going to solve our problems.  Instead, we must look to God and yield ourselves willing to stand in the gap for liberty no matter the cost.

 

Source : Canada Free Press

 


My thoughts

Please remember that the government exist to serve the people. We the People gave them our consent to govern us through the Constitution. The only powers the Federal Government has over us is the powers specifically enumerated in that document. It has become increasingly clear to us all that they have overstepped their authority numerous times.

Regardless of what they tell you, the people have ALL the power. We delegated some power to the States, and less to the Federal government. Just like with a “power of attorney” when giving someone  power to act on your behalf, that power is limited to what is outlined on the document. In this case the “Power of Attorney” is The Constitution.

We the People need to consider nullifying the instrument. Take back our “consent to be governed” because they abused the powers granted them. Tell the current government they abused their power, overstepped their authorities, and abused their position to the point we must nullify the current agreement, and revoke ALL powers given.

Once we throw every current member of government out on their butt to never hold office again, we can hold new elections to fill their positions.

Then we can impose new limits on the next crop, like TERM LIMITS of 6 YEARS or 2 TERMS, NO CAREER POLITICIANS, NO LIFETIME SECRET SERVICE or BENEFITS (go get a job!)

  Food for Thought

 

Comments Off on What Do You Do When the Government Loses Its Legitimacy? | Canada Free Press Posted in Political

Obama at Baltimore mosque quoted Muhammad from speech endorsing caliphate and beheading | Jihad Watch

From Jihad Watch

Obama at Baltimore mosque quoted Muhammad from speech endorsing caliphate and beheading

Obama said: “Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, ‘let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.’”

That saying comes from this hadith:

It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka’ba who said:

I entered the mosque when ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As was sitting in the shade of the Ka’ba and the people had gathered around him. I betook myself to them and sat near him. (Now) Abdullah said: I accompanied the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on a journey. We halted at a place. Some of us began to set right their tents, others began to compete with one another in shooting, and others began to graze their beasts, when an announcer of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) announced that the people should gather together for prayer, so we gathered around the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He said: It was the duty of every Prophet that has gone before me to guide his followers to what he knew was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them; but this Umma of yours has its days of peace and (security) in the beginning of its career, and in the last phase of its existence it will be afflicted with trials and with things disagreeable to you. (In this phase of the Umma), there will be tremendous trials one after the other, each making the previous one dwindle into insignificance. When they would be afflicted with a trial, the believer would say: This is going to bring about my destruction. When at (the trial) is over, they would be afflicted with another trial, and the believer would say: This surely is going to be my end. Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them. He who swears allegiance to a Caliph should give him the piedge [sic] of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i. e. submit to him both outwardly as well as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. It another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter. The narrator says: I came close to him (‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As) and said to him: Can you say on oath that you heard it from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)? He pointed with his hands to his ears and his heart and said: My ears heard it and my mind retained it. I said to him: This cousin of yours, Mu’awiya, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says:” O ye who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you” (iv. 29). The narrator says that (hearing this) Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-As kept quiet for a while and then said: Obey him in so far as he is obedient to God; and diqobey [sic] him in matters involving disobedience to God.

Immediately following the passage Obama quoted comes an exhortation to obey the caliph and to behead rival claimants. So embedded within the very same passage that Obama was using are endorsements of ideas that Obama would probably reject as having nothing to do with authentic Islam. It is extremely unlikely, of course, that Obama has seen this passage, but his (i.e., his speechwriters’) use of this quotation follows the same pattern as his use of Qur’an 5:32: he quotes selectively (although no Muslims are accusing him of “cherry-picking”!), ignoring inconveniently violent passages that are right next to the passage he quotes.

Is it not extremely telling that Barack Obama, in making the case that Islam teaches peace, can’t find even a few passages that are unequivocally peaceful, and instead has to grab his peaceful passages from amid exhortations to violence? Doesn’t that tell us something about Islam as a whole — something that Obama and the Western political and media establishment will never tell us?

Obama at Islamic Society of Baltimore, Allah

From Obama’s speech last Wednesday at the Islamic Society of Baltimore:

So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace. The standard greeting is as-salamu alaykum — peace be upon you. And like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity. Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.” (Applause.) For Christians like myself, I’m assuming that sounds familiar. (Laughter.)

 Source : Jihad Watch

A note from America at War :

I’m assuming that laughter was directed at Obama’s claim to be a Christian! How many Christians do you know that cite the Q’uran? I don’t know any personally, and only know of ONE person that does it myself. That person being Barrack Hussein Obama. And you can keep your doctor too.