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

Advertisements

Obama, Islam, and History

This article gives many examples of what I spoke about in my last article! Obama twists history to suit his agenda. Inserts fictitious events into American History and tries to tie them to our founders in a strange web of lies and deceit of his very own. I call it   History version 2.0 Beta


 

Posted from Jihad Watch

thomas-jefferson

“‘Thomas Jefferson’s opponents tried to stir things up by suggesting he was a Muslim. So I was not the first,’ Obama said, sparking laughter. ‘No, it’s true. Look it up. I’m in good company.’” — From USA Today on Barack Obama’s visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore, February 3, 2016

Barack Obama paid a visit — his first — to an American mosque today. He did so in the same feelgood spirit with which he held his first “Annual Iftar Dinner” in 2010. That dinner prompted a Jihad Watch post which, considerably modified and enlarged, is reprinted below.

“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” — Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the “Annual Iftar Dinner” at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a “first known Iftar at the White House” given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the “first Muslim ambassador to the United States”? That’s what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at what was billed as the “Annual Iftar Dinner,” knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all Americans to see. Apparently Obama, and those who helped write this speech for him, and others still who vetted it, found nothing wrong with attempting, as part of the administration’s policy of both trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim mind and to convince Americans that Islam has always been part of America’s history, to misrepresent that history. For the dinner Jefferson gave was not intended to be an Iftar dinner, and his guest that evening was not “the first Muslim ambassador…. from Tunisia,” but in using such words, Obama was engaged in a little nunc pro tunc backdating, so that the Iftar dinner that he gave in 2010 could be presented as part of a supposed tradition of such presidential Iftar dinners, going all the way back to the time of Jefferson.

But before explaining what that “first Iftar dinner” really was, let’s go back to an earlier but even more egregious example of Obama’s rewriting: the speech he delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009. In that speech, he described Islam and America sharing basic principles:

“I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.  Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

And then for his Muslim guests he segued into a flattering lesson in History. First he described Western Civ. which, he said, owed so much of its development to Islam:

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” (Applause.)

And  Islam played — according to Obama — a significant role in American history, too:

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

We could go through those paragraphs accompanied by such keen students of history as Gibbon, John Quincy Adams,, Jacob Burckhardt, and Winston Churchill, all of whom had occasion to study and comment upon Islam, their remarks rebutting proleptically Obama’s vaporings with their much more informed and sober take on the faith — but that is for another occasion. We can note, however, that when Obama in his Cairo speech talks about “the light of learning” being held aloft at places like Al-Azhar, he misstates: some Greek texts were translated into Arabic and thereby “kept alive” instead of being lost to history, but the translators were mostly Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, not Muslims, and the work of translation went on not at Al-Azhar but at the courts of Cordoba  and Baghdad. The word “algebra” is certainly Arab, but algebra itself was a product of Sanskrit mathematicians. The printing press was not a Musim invention and its use was accepted in the Muslim East only long after it had been in use in Western Christendom. Indeed, in Islam itself the very notion of innovation, or “bida,” is frowned upon, and not only, as some Muslim apologists have claimed, in theological matters. And so on.

“I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.”

The picture Obama paints by implication, of Muslims being deeply  involved in the grand sweep of American history practically from the time of the Framers (at least he didn’t make the mistake of the State Department flunkie who claimed Muslims accompanied Columbus on his voyages) is simply false. The first mosque in North America was a one-room affair in 1929; the second mosque was not built until 1934. The first Muslim to be elected to Congress was Keith Ellison, less than a decade ago. The Muslim appearance in America is very late. As for Morocco being the first country to recognize the United States in a treaty, Morocco also soon violated that very treaty and became the first country to go to war with the young Republic. That is something Obama’s advisers may not have told him.

When Obama quotes that single phrase from John Adams, made at the signing of the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty designed to free American ships and seaman from the ever-present threat from the marauding Muslim corsairs in the Mediterranean that attacked Christian shipping at will (and when America became independent, it could no longer count on the Royal Navy to protect its ships) he wants us to think that our second president was approving of Islam.  But that is to misinterpret his statement, clearly meant to be taken to have this meaning: we in the United States, have a priori nothing against Islam. Rhetoric designed to diplomatically please. But based on his subsequent experiences with the North African Muslims, including his experiences with them after various treaties were made and then broken, Adams came to a different and negative view of Islam, a view that  was shared by all those Americans who, whether diplomats or seized seamen, had any direct dealings  with Muslims.  America’s first encounter with Muslims was that with the Barbary Pirates, from Morocco to Algiers to Tunis to Tripoli, and their behavior rendered Adams’s initial “the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims” null and void. And it was not John Adams himself, but his son John Quincy Adams (our most learned President), who studied Islam in depth, and it was he to whom Obama ought to have turned to find out more about Islam. For he would have found, among other piercing and accurate remarks by J. Q. Adams, the following:

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Isn’t it amazing that not a single American official — and not just Obama — has ever alluded to the study of Islam that one of our most illustrious presidents produced?

Again, Obama, with a jumble of Jefferson, Ellison, and Holy Koran:

 “And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.”

When Obama notes that Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Qur’an in his “personal” library, he is subtly implying that Jefferson approved of its contents. Keith Ellison did much the same when he ostentatiously used that very copy of the Qur’an for his own swearing-in as the first Muslim Congressman. But Jefferson, a curious and cultivated man, with a large library, had a copy of the Qur’an for the same reason you or I might possess a copy, that is simply to find out what was in it. And we might note in passing that it was not the “Holy Koran” that Jefferson possessed and Ellison borrowed, but an English translation by George Sales of the “Koran.” According to Muslims, the epithet “Holy” can only be attached to a Koran written and read in the original Arabic. White House, for the next time, take note.

There is not a single American statesman or traveler or diplomat in the days of the early Republic who had a good word for Islam once he had studied it, or had had dealings with Muslims or had travelled to their countries. Look high, look low, consult whatever records you want in the National Archives or the Library of Congress, and you will not find any such testimony. And the very idea that an American President would someday praise Islam to the skies in Obama’s fulsome manner would have astounded them all.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance” 

Also sprach Obama. But Islam is based on an uncompromising division of humanity into Muslims and Non-Muslims, Believers and Unbelievers, and Unbelievers, at best, can be allowed to live in a Muslim polity — be “tolerated” — only if they accept a position of permanent and humiliating inferiority.  It would be fascinating if Obama could name even one example of Islam demonstrating through words and deeds “the possibilities of religious tolerance.”

But let’s return to Obama’s assertion about Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner,” or rather, to that dinner that Barack Obama would have us all believe was the first “Iftar Dinner” at the White House, way back in 1805.

Here is the background to that meal in 1805 which not Jefferson, but Obama, calls an “Iftar Dinner”:

“In the Mediterranean, American ships, now deprived of the protection formerly offered by the Royal Navy, suffered constant depredations by Muslim corsairs, who were not so much pirates acting alone but were officially encouraged to prey on Christian shipping, and at times even recorded the areas of the Mediterranean where they planned to go in search of Christian prey. Under Jefferson, America took a more aggressive line:’

“Soon after the Revolutionary War and the consequent loss of the British navy’s protection, American merchant vessels had become prey for Barbary corsairs. Jefferson was outraged by the demands of ransom for civilians captured from American vessels and the Barbary states’ expectation of annual tribute.

“The crisis with Tunis erupted when the USS Constitution captured Tunisian vessels attempting to run the American blockade of Tripoli. The bey of Tunis threatened war and sent Mellimelli [Sidi Soliman Mellimelli] to the United States to negotiate full restitution for the captured vessels and to barter for tribute.”

Mellimelli was not, pace Obama, “the first Muslim ambassador to the United States”—there was no official exchange of ambassadors – but a temporary envoy with a single limited task: to get an agreement that would set free the Tunisian vessels and come to an agreement about future payment – if any — of tribute by, or to Tripoli. At the end of six months that envoy was to return home.

The Muslim envoy made some unexpected personal demands in Washington:

Jefferson balked at paying tribute but accepted the expectation that the host government would cover all expenses for such an emissary. He arranged for Mellimelli and his 11 attendants to be housed at a Washington hotel, and rationalized that the sale of the four horses and other fine gifts sent by the bey of Tunis would cover costs. Mellimelli’s request for “concubines” as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to “pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers.”

Some readers will no doubt be reminded by this request for “concubines” of how the State Department has supplied female companions to much more recent Arab visitors, including the late King Hussein of Jordan.

Mellimelli proved to be the exotic cynosure of all eyes, with his American hosts not really understanding some of his reactions, as his “surprise” at the “social freedom women enjoyed in America” and his belief that only Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed were acceptable “prophets” to follow, for they lacked the understanding of Islam that would have explained such reactions:

Despite whispers regarding his conduct, Mellimelli received invitations to numerous dinners and balls, and according to one Washington hostess was “the lion of the season.” At the president’s New Year’s Day levee the Tunisian envoy provided “its most brilliant and splendid spectacle,” and added to his melodramatic image at a later dinner party hosted by the secretary of state. Upon learning that the Madisons were unhappy at being childless, Mellimelli flung his “magical” cloak around Dolley Madison and murmured an incantation that promised she would bear a male child. His conjuring, however, did not work.

Differences in culture and customs stirred interest on both sides. Mellimelli’s generous use of scented rose oil was noted by many of those who met him, and guards had to be posted outside his lodgings to turn away the curious. For his part, the Tunisian was surprised at the social freedom women enjoyed in America and was especially intrigued by several delegations of Native Americans from the western territories then visiting Washington. Mellimelli inquired which prophet the Indians followed: Moses, Jesus Christ or Mohammed. When he was told none of them, that they worshiped “the Great Spirit” alone, he was reported to have pronounced them “vile hereticks.”

So that’s it. Sidi Soliman Mellimelli installed himself for six months at a Washington hotel, for which the American government apparently picked up the tab including, very likely, that for the requested “concubines.” He cut a dashing figure:

The curious were not to be disappointed by the appearance of the first Muslim envoy to the United States – a large figure with a full dark beard dressed in robes of richly embroidered fabrics and a turban of fine white muslin.”

“Over the next six months, this exotic representative from a distant and unfamiliar culture would add spice to the Washington social season but also test the diplomatic abilities of President Jefferson.”

During the time Mellimelli was here, Ramadan occurred. And as it happens, during that Ramadan observed by Mellimelli, President Jefferson invited Sidi Soliman Mellimelli for dinner at the White House. The dinner was not meant to be an “Iftar dinner” but just a dinner, albeit at the White House; it was originally set for three thirty in the afternoon (our founding fathers dined early in the pre-Edison days of their existence). Mellimelli said he could not come at that appointed hour of three thirty p.m. but only after sundown.

Jefferson, a courteous man, simply moved the dinner forward by a few hours. He didn’t change the menu, he didn’t change anything else, he did not see himself as offering an “Iftar Dinner” and there are no records to hint that he did. Barack Obama, 200 years later, is trying to rewrite American history, with some nunc-pro-tunc backdating, in order to flatter or please his Muslim guests. But he is misrepresenting American history to Americans, including schoolchildren who are now being subject to all kinds of Islamic propaganda, in newly-mandated textbooks, that so favorably depict Islam, and present it as so integral a part of American life.

Now there is a kind of coda to this dismal tale, and it is provided by the New York Times, which likes to put on airs and think of itself as “the newspaper of record,” whatever that means. The Times carried a front-page story on August 14, 2010, written by one Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and no doubt gone over by many vigilant editors. This story contains a predictably glowing account of Barack Obama’s remarks a few days before at the “Annual Iftar Dinner.” Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:

“In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.”

Question for Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and for her editors at The New York Times: You report that there is a “White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson.” I claim that you are wrong. I claim that there is no White House Tradition of Iftar Dinners. I claim that Thomas Jefferson, in moving forward by a few hours a dinner that changed in no other respect, for Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, did not think he thi not providing what he thought of as an “Iftar Dinner” but simply a dinner, at a time his guest requested. And to describe as a “White House tradition” wou first of the “Annual Iftar Dinners” that, the New York Times tells us, has since Jefferson’s non-existent “Iftar Dinner,” have been observed “sporadically.”

When, then, was the next in this long, but “sporadic” series of iftar dinners? I can find no record of any, for roughly the next two hundred years, until we come to the fall of the year 2001, that is, just after the deadliest attack on American civilians ever recorded, an attack carried out by a novemdectet of Muslims acting according to their orthodox understanding of the very same texts — Qur’an, Hadith, Sira — that all Muslims rely on for authority. It was President George Bush who decided that, to win Muslim “trust” or to end Muslim “mistrust” — I forget which — so that we could, non-Muslim and Muslim, collaborate on defeating those “violent extremists” who had “hijacked a great religion,” started this sporadic ball unsporadically rolling. And he did what he set out to, by golly, he did. He hosted an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. It was held just the month after the attacks on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, on a plane’s doomed pilots and passengers over a field in Pennsylvania.

And thus it is that, ever since 2001, we have had iftar dinner after iftar dinner. But it was not Jefferson or any other of our learned Presidents, who started this “tradition” that has been observed only “sporadically” — unless we were to count as an “iftar dinner” what was merely seen, by Jefferson, as a dinner given at a time convenient for his exotic guest.

George Bush, that profound student of history and of ideas, kept telling us, in those first few months after 9/11/2001, that as far as he was concerned, by gum, Islam was a religion of “peace and tolerance.” He and Obama agree on that. And just to prove it, by golly, he’d put on an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. And that’s just what he did. And that’s how the long “tradition” that Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and her many vetting editors at the newspaper of comical record, The New York Times, referred to, began. It’s all of nine years old, having survived and thrived through the differently-disastrous presidencies of Bush and of Obama.

I have a request for The New York Times. It’s a most modest one. All I ask is that the editors of The New York Times apologize for that paper’s misapplication of the adjective “sporadic” in the front-page story by Sheryl Stolberg on the “Annual Iftar” dinner.

Put up, or shut up, dear newspaper of record. Tell us when that “tradition” of “Iftar Dinners” truly began. Cite those Presidents who held dinners that they considered to be “Iftar Dinners.” Give us chapter, give us verse. And if, as I believe, that hollow and recent and transparently determined-to-win-Muslim-hearts-and-minds “tradition” began only in 2001, then tell us. And since your story was on the front page, do what the lawyers do when they have to make legal announcements, and put your retraction, eat your humble pie, right on the same front page.

A failure to do so will be further, and for some the final confirmation, of the sorry record of The New York Times in its coverage of Islam. Most readers with some sense of what Islam is all about are now ready to take any coverage of the matter in The New York Times with a grain – a Pinch – of salt.

Clio, Muse of History, is a stern mistress. Subscribers to stories that live and die between editions may forget or forgive, but Mnemosyne does neither. If I were the “newspaper of record,” I’d want to propitiate not the gods, but the most vigilant and meticulous of muses. If I were Pinch Sulzberger, I’d be mortally embarrassed, and determined to make amends. But then, I have standards.

Which brings us up to today, and the glad news that. President Obama will be paying his first visit to a mosque on American soil. There will be some sort of feelgood exchange, and perhaps even a reference to the “long tradition” of Iftar dinners, or to the great contribution Muslims have made since the very beginning to our American story. No one will have the bad taste to bring up what is actually to be found in the Qur’an and Hadith. Someone may quote 2:256 and 5:32 (but not 5:33). John Quincy Adams will be passed over in silence. I can’t wait. Can you?

Indoctrinating America’s Children

Obama speaks from a Mosque, his Administration refuses to utter the words “radical Islam”, while schools across America force children to recite the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, which reads: “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.”

America at War  02/04/2016

obama-mosque-visit-640

All of this while children are no longer reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because it simply mentions God.

I do not support the term “radical Islam” myself. Because it implies Islam itself is not radical. If you read the Q’uran you’ll find that what ISIS practices is Islam. Right out of the pages of their Holy book. A “radical” is nothing more than a devout Muslim. And to tell you the truth, if anyone hashijacked” the religion it is those who DO NOT support the violence. That may make Barry boil over with frustration, but the facts don’t lie.

Islam has been a source of violence and oppression for over 1400 years. Islamic invaders have destroyed priceless artifacts, temples, and writings of other religions for that entire 1400 year time span. Don’t take my word for it, do some research. Even people that think they are educated in the subject of Islam will be surprised at the sheer volume of destruction through the centuries.

Our children are not hearing about that though. They are being taught the “Unicorn milk and Rainbows” version of Islam. For years and years now Liberals have been trying to remove the mention of Jesus Christ or God from schools. But in the last couple of years they have decided it’s absolutely necessary to teach kids about Allah. This is the most wide scale manipulation of young minds I’ve ever seen.

The government is literally fabricating history and  facts and selling it to the next generation as The Religion of Peace. They tossed God from the school house, and in their very next motion welcomed Allah with open arms.

I learned something about America that went in the face of everything that I thought I knew. I always thought that if an American President ever lied to the citizens of this country that they’d be drummed out of office, like Nixon. I always thought if the government ever tried to oust God and replace Him with Allah that they’d all lose their jobs and be run out of town.

I always thought that if the media ever started fabricating and weaving stories instead of reporting the actual news that American citizens would, and could force their networks out of business. Normal Americans have become impotent. Unable to stop the onslaught of insanity.

America has spiraled out of control further than I ever imagined it could! We have been on auto pilot for too long, and they have caught us sleeping. Even if we make a course correction now, how long can we maintain it with generations of Americans being taught lies in school? I’m not just referencing this subject either. Everything from common core to the liberal philosophies being taught to our children in schools today.

The kids of today are not learning the same “History” lessons that we learned. History did not change, but those writing it did. Your children do not know the same history as you were taught. They have “history version 2.0 beta” which is an alter reality version pushing an agenda, a Liberal Muslim agenda.

Here is a story I was reading today.

From The Clarion Project

Lawsuit Filed Against Maryland HS for Islamic Indoctrination

Mon, February 1, 2016

A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of parents of a Maryland teenager who say their daughter was forced to profess and write out the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, which reads: “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.”

Recitation of the statement is sufficient to convert a non-Muslim to Islam. In addition, the latter half of the statement  signifies the person has accepted Mohammed as their prophet.

According to lawsuit, the teenager, a student at La Plata High School in La Plata, Maryland, was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam. The Thomas More Law Center, attorneys for the case, charges that Charles County Public Schools disparaged Christianity by teaching its students that: “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

The high school also taught:

  • “Islam, at heart, is a peaceful”
  • “To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”
  • The Koran states, “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and
  • “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”

You can read the course material by clicking here.

The teenager’s father, John Kevin Wood, a former Marine and a veteran of the Iraq War, became concerned when he saw that his daughter and other students were taught extensively about Islam and required to list the benefits of the religion but were not taught about Islam in the context of current events.

One homework assignment, obtained by a news outlet asked questions including, “How did Muslim conquerors treat those they conquered?” The correct answer was, “With tolerance, kindness and respect.”

Students were not allowed to opt out of the curriculum.

The lawsuit contends the school is violating his daughter’s “constitutional rights.”

Source : The Clarion Project

Chicago Democrat Sworn into Office from Jail

Typical Democrat! “A Felon that steals from Taxpayers” will soon become the actual Webster’s definition of “Democrat” if Democrats hold their present course!!! Exhibit A is found in this FrontPage Mag article by Daniel Greenfield

Wouldn’t it just be more convenient to move the city government into prison or to just treat government buildings as prisons? It would save commuting time and make trials much simpler.

Just ask Bob Battle.

Locks and bars didn’t stop East Chicago Councilman Robert Battle’s inauguration.

The newly sworn-in Battle can retain his public title and annual salary of $42,356 a year despite being held in Porter County Jail on federal drug and homicide charges.

He is pleading not guilty to a five-count indictment alleging he possessed cocaine and marijuana and killed a street gang member as part of a drug-dealing conspiracy.

Democrats are oddly unhappy, even though they seem to be big fans of Obama’s “free the drug dealers” plan. Not to mention restoring voting rights to felons.

“I can’t remember a situation like this,” Sheriff John Buncich, chair of the Lake County Democratic Central Committee, told the Tribune in November, when Battle was reelected just a few weeks after being charged with murder and drug dealing. “It’s wrong for the taxpayers, wrong for our party.”

How, exactly, a man charged with murder and drug dealing just days before an election could win reelection says a lot about life in this poor northwestern corner of Indiana.

The answer: he’s a Democrat.

Battle ran unopposed, winning with just 308 votes in a city of about 30,000 people.

Battle didn’t even vote for himself because he was in jail and didn’t request an absentee ballot, Buncich told NWI.com.

“I just think it’s just a matter of people not knowing [about the charges] and voting for the party they are familiar with,” Eisenstein told the Tribune.

That’s what happens when you have a one-party system.

As early as April, the agents with the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Lake County High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force were tapping his phone and investigating him for drug trafficking, according to an Oct. 14 indictment obtained by the Tribune.

On Sept. 23, officials caught Battle with 73 grams of marijuana and $100,700 in cash in his car, according to the indictment. Police also linked him to nine ounces of cocaine and three stolen guns found elsewhere, according to the documents.

Roughly three weeks later, Battle allegedly shot Camarillo in an alley behind Battle’s apartment. Battle said that he killed Camarillo in self-defense after Camarillo pulled a knife on him, according to court documents. But the Lake County Coroner’s Office ruled that Caramillo was shot once in the back, and police failed to find a knife at the scene, the Tribune reported.

Forget Trump, this is a guy who actually got reelected after shooting somebody in the back. Now those are real political skills. But the Democrats, despite their protests now, let it happen.

In 2014, reputed Imperial Gangster Eddie “Macho” Torres tesitified that East Chicago Councilman Robert “Coop” Battle had been involved in the drug trade in the past. Add that to the multiple arrests for possession of marijuana and you get a picture of a candidate most political parties would want to dump. Not so with the Lake County Democratic Party. Battle could have been easily removed from the ballot in several ways, but no one ever challenged him.

Election Board records show that Robert Battle filed a pre-primary report in 2011 showing that Battle neither received nor spent money in the campaign. While that alone should be enough for a challenge, he never filed a single report after that. Candidates are required to file 3 reports in an election year and an annual report in non-election years. Despite that, Battle appeared on the 2015 ballot unchallenged.

What’s the difference between a criminal and a Democrat? No, seriously. What’s the difference?

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG

#DumpDonald

laurie012516-1In my opinion Trump has held it together as long as he could, and is now unraveling into a mess of white noise. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what the guy says, but he generally gets on television and brings up a subject 5 minutes after Ted Cruz introduces legislation on the same subject! Then the media historically has given Trump the credit for it.

People, you can agree with Trump on things he says without voting for the guy! You have to remember this is the same guy who called himself “Obama’s biggest cheerleader” and was a registered Democrat in 2009. He flip flops on his views so often it’ll make you dizzy…………..UNTIL he starts running for President.

He’s good friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton and had them at his wedding. He has given more money to the Clinton Foundation than even George Stephanopoulos has! Can you picture Donald Trump in the White House when the threat of a nuclear war broke out with Russia??? I can imagine it!!! Vladimir Putin makes some comment about America ………….

Trump comes back calling him a variety of names using derogatory adjectives and thus we are in WW3!!! Trump is NOT Presidential, never was, never will be. He does not have the temperament. As the election winds down, and Trump’s numbers fall more and more in favor of Cruz, Donald Trump will lash out like a child more and more often.

If you still support Trump you need to do more research!!! Trump is for Trump!!! Ted Cruz is for AMERICA!!! I firmly believe a vote for Trump is a vote for “Hillary by proxy” Putting all of that aside Trump has said he’ll be “making deals” with the establishment, the same establishment that we are all sick and tired of!!!

Not only that, the establishment has come out in favor of Trump too. America, this election is important because we have to change America’s course or our country will fail!!! So why would you vote Trump/establishment when you KNOW they plan on changing nothing???

Ted Cruz on the other hand, is despised by the establishment because he presses the work of the people, NOT the work of the politicians. Ted Cruz is highly intelligent, has the Constitution memorized, and can win a debate with all comers! Ted Cruz has a proven record of voting the way his constituents want him too, and not giving in to any party. Vote Ted Cruz, and #DumpDonald

11234046_930681340328878_8314496133532781122_n

 

Did Trump Vote for Obama??? | Glenn Beck

Let’s hypothesize for a moment that Donald Trump did actually vote for Obama in the 2008 election. If so, should it matter? If a presidential candidate’s long-standing track record, opinions and stated beliefs hold any value, it should. Glenn has emphatically stated his belief that Trump voted for Obama in the 2008 election, laying out a series of facts that would make it hard to believe otherwise. Take a look at some of those facts below. Does it matter? Should you care? If you’re unsure, ask yourself this question: Would you have ever voted for Obama under any circumstances? Take the poll below.
trump_infog_v2_3

Dear Christians, If You Vote For A Godless Man, You Are Asking For Tyranny | The Blaze

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

It’s very simple. If a man has no moral center, if he has ambition but no faith, if he does not demonstrate humility or integrity, I will never vote for him for president. I don’t care who he is, what he’s done, what he says, or what positions he holds. None of that will matter when we are living under his tyranny, and tyranny is sure to follow when you give unspeakable power to a man who believes he is God.

I’ll put this another way: if you vote for a man who worships himself over God, you deserve the tyranny that happens next.

You deserve it because you chose it, just as the souls in Hell deserve Hell because they chose it. If you go to the ballot box and say, “I am going to do my part to put this self-absorbed pagan in charge of my nation” you are directly consenting to the inevitable result. You are embracing it. You are literally asking for it.

I know this will not resonate with atheists, but for us God-fearing folk it is extraordinarily obvious and irrefutable that we ought to only vote for other God-fearing folk. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I think it goes without saying that if the governed ought to be moral and religious, certainly the governors ought to be the same, and arguably more so.

That brings me to Donald Trump. I’ve tried to talk sense into Trump fans a thousand different ways and to no avail. It is a mob mentality driving Trump-mania, and mobs are famously difficult to reason with.

There is no use in trying to appeal to them as one group, anyway. Many elements comprise the Trump base, and most of them have values and principles that are completely antithetical to what any real conservative believes. But in the middle of this bizzare Trumpling potpourri are, apparently, Christians. Perhaps a vast number of them.

Indeed, many Christians have fallen for the Donald; there’s no way he could be doing well in Iowa without them. The melding of Trumpianity with Christianity has been among the more awkward and grotesque phenomenons I’ve ever witnessed in my life. I watch it unfold feeling like a guy whose best friend just started dating the town floozy. I try to tell him that she’s sleeping around, she’s betraying him, she’ll break his heart, but he’s too smitten to hear me. I fear many of my brothers and sisters in Christ are making the same mistake, and the spectacle is causing me an immense amount of emotional and spiritual pain.

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures during a speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., Monday, Jan. 18, 2016. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

The situation boiled over on Monday when Trump was invited to speak at Liberty University, a private Christian college in Virginia. After that display, I had no choice but to write this final desperate plea to Christian Trump fans.

Granted, all presidential candidates have been offered an audience at the university, but one wonders if they all receive such an adoring welcome. Jerry Falwell Jr., president of the university, came out to introduce the great Trump. Falwell showered him with effusive, worshipful praise, calling him a “visionary,” a “breath of fresh air” who “speaks truth.”

Falwell said his “admiration” for Trump continues to grow, and he’s especially excited whenever he gets to visit the Donald’s offices in New York. With each sycophantic sentence he sounded less like the head of an academic institution and more like a boy bragging about his dad to his friends on the playground.

Falwell rattled off a list of Trump’s charitable endeavors, calling him generous and friendly and personable. He beamed that Trump “cannot be bought” because he’s not a “puppet on a string,” unlike “other candidates.” The unrepentant butt kissing went completely off the rails when Falwell hailed Trump’s “servant leadership” and insisted that Trump “lives a life of loving and helping others, as Jesus taught.” Falwell didn’t stipulate whether trying to steal property from elderly widows so he can build casinos fits under the “loving and helping others” umbrella.

He dismissed Christian criticisms of the candidate by saying the qualities needed to run the country aren’t the same as the qualities needed to run a church. Finally, in a moment that appeared to be a desperate cry for help, Falwell began comparing Trump to Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr, and his own father. After about 15 excruciating minutes, he wrapped up his introduction/adoration ritual by declaring that Trump “loves this country and desires more than anything to make American great again.”

AP Photo

It wasn’t an endorsement. It was practically a marriage proposal.

I didn’t watch the Trump spiel that followed in full, but I did see him begin his remarks, as Jesus used to do, with the requisite 10-minute boast about his poll numbers. Trump did make one attempt to pretend to know something about the Christian faith, and it was, as Trump would say, a total disaster:

“And I asked Jerry, and I asked some of the folks, because I hear this is a major theme right here. But two Corinthians, right? Two Corinthians 3:17. That’s the whole ballgame. Where the spirit of the Lord — right? Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. And here there is Liberty college…. But this is really, is that the one? Is that the one you like? I think that’s the one you like. Because I loved it. And it’s so representative of what’s taken place. But we are going to protect Christianity… And we’ve gotta protect it. Because bad things are happening. Very bad things are happening… If you look at this country, it’s gotta be 70 percent, 75 percent, some people say even more. No matter where I go, we’re having tremendous crowds and we’re setting records…”

Some people are having fun at Trump’s expense because of how he pronounced the verses — “two” instead of “second” — but that’s an unfair criticism. Obviously Trump can’t be expected to know the correct pronunciations. The guy can’t even name a book in the Bible, for goodness sake. And that’s because Trump is not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination.

Trump says he loves God but he never asks for forgiveness because he doesn’t need it. When asked to clarify that bit of heresy this past weekend, he explained that he’s “good” and he “lives a very good life.” Then he cited his poll numbers.

His behavior doesn’t appear to be any more “Christian” than his theology. We won’t talk about the fact that he’s a serial adulterer who abandoned his family (twice) to shack up with younger women. We won’t get into how his ex-wife once alleged that he ripped out chunks of her hair and violated her. We won’t delve into how the great Christian Trump sent his lawyer to intimidate and censor journalists who write about those accusations, and how his attorney recently told The Daily Beast, “I’m warning you, tread very f**king lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f**king disgusting. You understand me?” (Is that what you call “servant leadership,” Mr. Falwell?)

We don’t even need to get into alleged ties to the mob or financial scams or his confession that he bribes politicians. We won’t harp any longer on the fact that he spent most of his adult life espousing views and funding politicians who enact legislation directly contradictory to Christian teaching. We won’t talk about his support for a woman’s legal right to murder a fully developed infant all the way into the ninth month of pregnancy.

Donald Trump, president and chief executive of Trump Organization Inc. and 2016 Republican presidential candidate, holds up a Bible while speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, Sept. 25, 2015. The annual event, organized by the Family Research Council, gives presidential contenders a chance to address a conservative Christian audience in the crowded Republican primary contest. Photographer: Drew Angerer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

To be clear — but, like I said, I’m not harping on it — Trump believed that it should be legal to stab a child in the skull as it is in the process of being birthed, cut a hole in its head, and suck its brain out through a tube. Trump thought such atrocities should be legally protected, and he thought that up until the moment when he developed an ambition to run for president as a Republican. Even after this miraculous conversion, he still says abortion isn’t murder, that he’s only pro-life “with caveats,” and that Planned Parenthood “serves a good function.” Worst of all, he’s made it clear that he wouldn’t mind putting radical pro-abortion zealots on the Supreme Court.

But whatever. That was then, this is now. Well, a lot of it is now, too. Probably all of it. But forget that. Let’s pretend he was by his own admission a conniving, ethically bankrupt, womanizing, billionaire elitist TV star who believed in the legal legitimacy of butchering viable infants, but that all ended a few years ago when he turned 65 and finally grew up.

So what about now? Is he running as a Christian today? We know he can’t speak semi-coherently about the Bible, he has no understanding of basic Christian teaching, he thinks Christianity does not require us to ask for forgiveness, and our relationship with Christ can be measured using polling data, but does he otherwise carry himself as anything resembling a Christian?

I don’t see it, do you?

I see a guy who lies constantly and blatantly. I see a man who changes his positions and his principles at the drop of a hat. I see a deeply immature man who insults people on Twitter but lacks the courage to face them in person. I see someone who fashions himself “politically incorrect” but is really just a cruel and bitter old man who thinks it’s funny to mock the disabled. I see a man with no honor who launches vulgar attacks on women and then lies about what he said. I see a phony who brazenly exploits the fears of the American public. I see a guy whose recklessness and greed drives his businesses into bankruptcy, and I see a guy who tries to silence journalists when they report on it. I see a guy who jazzes up the crowd at campaign rallies by bragging about his money and threatening to throw protesters out into the cold without their coats. And so on.

Christian?

Really?

Where? How?

Look, I know none of these criticisms resonate with many Trump fans because Trump fans are fans of Trump. Period. That’s all. The end. They like him and whatever he says and whatever he does. It’s a cult of personality like any other the world has seen.

That’s why I’m only talking to Trump’s Christian supporters. The question you have to ask yourselves is this: Is there any evidence at all that Trump is a Christian? I think the answer is clear.

Next you must ask: Should we, as Christians, elect someone whose actions and beliefs run counter to our core values? Should we elect someone who is not only godless, but represents himself as God fearing for the sake of using and manipulating us?

Again, the answers are clear. Any Christian who is serious about his faith knows, first, that man separated from God cannot be trusted. Our faith and trust should be in God alone, and we can trust another man only to the extent that he has faith in God. A man who rejects God is a man with no true strength, no identity, and no fidelity to truth. A man who rejects God is a man spinning uncontrollably in the darkness; a man who soon becomes his own golden calf, his own idol, the center of his own universe. How could any Christian possibly choose to elevate such a man to our nation’s highest office?

Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally, Friday, Dec. 11, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP/Charlie Neibergall)

Second, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and it will only be saved if it returns to those principles. That is, if it rediscovers its reverence for God, its belief in the dignity of human life, its understanding of justice and Natural Law, its respect for and recognition of Truth, etc. If our country continues to ignore and undermine these values, we will be destroyed. We may or may not retain our name and our borders, but what’s contained inside will be dead and rotten and not worthy of saving anymore. This reclaiming of our foundational ideals will not happen just by electing a Christian president, but I fail to see how electing a power hungry secularist liberal could possibly help the effort.

Third, everything we do must be for the glory of God.

“Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” – 1 Corinthians 10:31.

I do not think voting is excluded from this directive. We should make our politics subordinate to the Gospel, not the other way around. When we vote we should think, “Am I glorifying the Lord with this decision?”

Falwell suggested that the abilities of a pastor and president need not be the same. Perhaps Falwell is correct that their resumes ought to look a little different, but certainly he must realize that their character traits should be virtually identical:

Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task.  Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)… He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap. – 1 Timothy 3

Yes, Paul is not specifically telling us what sort of man should be president of the United States, but he is listing characteristics necessary for effective leadership. Temperate, self-controlled, respectable, not a lover of money, able to manage his family, etc. As Christians, should we not take this into account when we decide who to put in charge of the entire country? Can you as a Christian possibly argue that our nation would be somehow hurt by a leader who carries himself in this manner? Can you say Trump fits the bill here? I mean can you say it without laughing?

I’m not telling you who to vote for. Even someone who appears to behave and speak as a Christian may still be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We can’t know for certain. But when the truth is advertised so clearly, when the character of a man and the sincerity of his convictions (or lack thereof) are made so obvious, we must respond accordingly. We can’t close our eyes to the truth, no matter how unpopular the truth may be.

Our country will not be helped by more godless, self-serving, petty, morally weak leadership. We’ve had quite enough of that, and I think it’s time to go a different route. A man of faith and integrity in the White House — now there’s a novel approach.

At least it’s worth a try, wouldn’t you say?

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

Source : http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/dear-christians-if-you-vote-for-a-godless-man-you-are-asking-for-tyranny/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%201-19-16%20FINAL&utm_term=Firewire