In "For Religious Minorities in the Middle East – With Friends Like Obama, Who Needs Enemies?!" at RedState, February 24 (thanks to John), Rick Santorum says what Barack Obama should be saying about the Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East:
President Obama has an amazing ability to make Jimmy Carter’s foreign policies look good.Opposition to imperfect allies and support of radical Islamists has resulted in the almost-extinction of religious freedom for religious minorities – from the Copts in Egypt to the defenseless women and children who were slaughtered in Homs, Syria – in the Middle East.
Another example is the devolving situation in Iraq. President Obama was so committed to fulfilling an arbitrary campaign promise to get our troops out of Iraq that he ignored the advice of his senior military officials about the consequences of establishing a firm withdrawal date and about how long it might take before Iraq was ready to manage the situation on their own. As a result, Al-Qa’ida is resurgent, Iran’s influence is greater than ever, religious tensions between Sunni and Shi’a are increasing, the existential threat facing Iraq’s indigenous minority communities has never been greater, and our ability to affect the situation there is weaker now. Recent coordinated car bomb attacks are just the latest in a string of such events since the start of the new year, and they portend many more violent assaults to come....
The most vulnerable people in this situation also happen to be the ones most aligned with our values and interests. These are Iraq’s besieged Christians – the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Syriacs and Armenian Orthodox communities. The role their faith has played in developing their worldview is far more in keeping with America’s values than any other constituency in the country or the region. Moreover, because these communities have an ethic that places a premium on education, entrepreneurship, and peaceful co-existence and respect for others, they have constituted a disproportionately large part of the upper-middle class, they have historically contributed far more to the country’s economy than their numbers would suggest, and they have been the most trusted elements of Iraqi society. They also have a much greater respect for the value of the rule of law, they were the ones who came along side our military, diplomats, and contractors to provide translation services and cultural advice....
We need all the help we can get in that part of the world, and Iraq’s Christians are the ones most inclined to provide that help, but not if doing so is only going to increase the prospect of their genocidal annihilation.
Accordingly, we need a comprehensive policy aimed at preserving these communities in Iraq. We need to focus on helping Iraqis create the conditions that incentivize staying in Iraq and making there a better future for themselves. The last thing we want is for them to abandon the land their ancestors have occupied for nearly 7,000 years,forsake the culture they have preserved in that volatile region for all these millennia, and deprive the country, the region, and the world of the positive contributions they could still make if only some space was created for them in Iraqi society. These people – who are all but canaries in a coal mine – represent hope for a better future for a pluralistic Iraqi society.
First, they need security. By “security,” though, I mean more than just safety from terrorist and insurgent attacks. I mean they need the means to protect themselves and their own communities so they do not have to depend on political actors whose interests are not necessarily aligned with the needs of their own communities. They should not be subjected to political shakedowns and corrupt political machinations.
Second, they need political empowerment. They have the right to some degree of self-determination and to have a say in how their local communities should be governed. It is wrong for them to be treated as a political football, constantly crushed between manipulative forces that surround them.
Third, they need economic development in the region where they now find themselves. Having been forced off their ancestral lands in the last century, they reestablished themselves in the cities such as Baghdad and Basra. In the aftermath of the second Gulf War, though, they have had to seek refuge back in the North again. Yet this region was not developed very well under Saddam’s regime, and today’s Iraqi Christians are disproportionately of the urban professional class rather than farmers.
It is time that we stand with those who stood with us over the last 8 years. We must not abandon them. I will stand with those who stand for freedom of religion and conscience and against violent jihadism and persecution of religious minorities in Iraq, Egypt, and elsewhere.
>Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East
>persecution
That's really an euphemism, we're talking about terrorism, mass murder and genocide of non muslims in general, not only christians.
SANTORUM WILL GET MY VOTE FOR SURE.
I think that Santorum is a better candidate than Romney in the sense that he projects an image that the average person can more easily identify with. Gingrich is too eccentric, though often brilliant.
I also think the Republicans are nuts to permit Paul to participate in the debates as I think he really hurts the Party by his malevolent presence.
If Santorum is nominated, however, he will have to broaden his presentation of Judeo-Christian values beyond opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
Personally, I think it's too late to be talking about ways of enabling the Assyrian Christians to remain in the Middle East.
They are too hopelessly outnumbered and unlike the Maronites in the past - who had a readily defensible redoubt, Mont Liban - or for that matter the Ethiopian Christians on top of their well-watered, forested, natural fortress - they have no obviously identifiable and defensible core item of territory that they could be helped to fortify and defend.
For the Assyrians, it's reached the point where we of the majority-Christian portions of the non-Muslim world ought to bite the bullet and do for our Assyrian kafir brethren what the Jews of Israel did for the Jews of Yemen when Muslim persecution reached genocidal pitch: an Operation Magic Carpet.
Just get them out. Or soon the majority of them will be as dead as the Armenians were in 1917; and dar al Harb will be down by some 2 million people. For us, right now, every person who is not a Muslim is a plus.
I am not sure that the remaining Lebanese Christians can hold their own where they are, either, unfortunately.
As for the Copts: had Israel not been bullied into giving back the Sinai - won in defensive war - to Egypt, the Copts would have had an obvious place to which to flee when the full-on Muslim genocide of Copts begins - as I fear it is about to begin; a defensible natural fortress, mountainous and open to the sea, where they might even, with Israeli help, have established a Nova Aegyptia, in symbiosis with Jewish Israel. But that won't and can't happen now.
If we don't want to see eight to ten million Copts butchered in orgies of mass murder by howling Mohammedan mobs in Egypt, we had better get another Operation Magic Carpet under way for them, too, and quickly; beginning with fast-tracking of visas for Copts seeking to immigrate into non-Muslim majority-nominally-Christian countries. Divide ten million by twenty or thirty and no one country has to take all that many people. Christian African countries in particular could benefit by taking them, in order to boost their non-Muslim demographic vis a vis the existing Mohammedan Fifth Columnists. It would be TOUGH - for the refugees and for the hosts - but if tiny, struggling Israel managed to fit in and absorb the flood of impoverished and traumatised fellow Jews from the Muslim world, why cannot majority-Christian countries in the West and elsewhere rise to the challenge likewise and find room for a flood of desperate **fellow Christians** who will be only too eager to work, learn our languages, and fit in, in countries where they will be able to build a church without fearing a howling Mohammedan mob coming to burn it down?
And as for Israel, Israel is defensible, just, so long as they are encouraged and assisted to hold the military high ground - which means, all of Jerusalem; which means, all of the Golan Heights; which means, all of Judea and Samaria. Holding those territories, Israel has a chance of long-term survival.
After Tom Tancredo, Santorun is the only public figure speaking cleanly about the dangers of Islam.
Santorum understands Islam pretty well. For that matter he understands a lot of issues well. But he is, in my opinion, definitely less electable than Romney because he won't be able to get the moderates in large numbers to vote for him, and if one loses the moderates they're not going to be elected to the Presidency. Santorum can be villified more easily PRECISELY because he is perceived to be more conservative than Romney and the elites in the media are very much into villification when one goes against their cherished nostrums.
I wish all this weren't the case because, quite frankly, moderates are not folks I tend to admire. Their wishy-washiness on so many issues they think is evidence of nuance and balance while the reality is that such thinking is tedious, boring and lame. Let's face it, there's no such thing as a great moment in moderate history. Deeply held convictions are the stuff history listens to and is moved by.
Romney has a signficantly greater opportunity to get the moderate vote in November. And getting rid of Obama should be Priority Number One. Best, I think, to keep in mind what Bill Buckley said and that is that one should not vote for the best candidate but rather for the best candidate who can get elected. I think here it is Romney.
Let me just say a couple of things about Erick Erickson's Red State which published this helpful piece about Santorum. Erickson is a talented man; a leader in the Tea Party movement. For all I know, he is a huge supporter of Spencer's. I subscribe to Red State's daily newsletter. I listen to Erickson when he occasionally sits in for libertarian talk show host, Neal Boortz. He offers many compelling insights about the current political situation. I think he has a contract with CNN.
Erickson and his associates encouraged Texas Governor Rick Perry to throw his hat in the race for president. Perry announced his candidacy at a Red State gathering at a South Carolina Red State event the same day as the Iowa Caucus.
After Governor Perry's intimate associations with Grover Norquist and Aga Khan (leader of the Ismaili movement) came out, along with the Muslim history whitewash history curriculum in some Texas high schools, Red State joined a small group condemning those who brought the information to the public:
Jihad-watchers beclowning themselves over Perry/Ismaili thing. [Updated]
Alternative title: Pam Geller loses her anti-Idiotarian Status.
Posted by Moe Lane (Diary)
Friday, August 26th at 2:00PM EST
40 Comments
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/08/26/jihad-watchers-beclowning-themselves-over-perryismaili-thing/#postcomment
Moe Lane chose to direct his fire at the courageous female critic of Governor Perry, Pamela Geller.
Also let it be known from my personal experience, the Red State website has a tendency to "forcibly suppress opposition."
Google it.
Dr Ron Paul is America's only hope.
The high gas prices is just the tip of the iceberg
and the coming default on the US debt will make life very difficult to the average American.
Advantages of voting for Dr Ron Paul :
(1) During the Dr Ron Paul economy when the US was on the gold standard,
there was so much freedom and the American republic became so rich
that it tempted the war mongers to exploit the rich American republic by borrowing money from it to start unnecessary wars to expand across the American continent and across the Pacific and Caribbean.
Under Dr Ron Paul, we will get back our freedom and riches but the war mongers would not be able to borrow any money for unnecessary wars
(2) making peace with all enemies following the peace making policies of Switzerland that does not experience any terrorism
(3) restoring diplomatic relations with all enemies.
Psychology Professor Steven Pinker of Harvard University agrees with Dr Ron Paul who says that friendly trade with the “enemy” will reap beneficial results since the “enemy” has a vested interest in your success when you trade with him:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/302562-1
(4) Savings of $700 billion a year from the bloated and wasteful military/industrial/security complex budget
(5) Bringing all our troops home after adequately compensating all victims of US bombings and the victims of terrorism not related to US collateral actions
(6) the above actions will result in minimal civil conflict after the US government withdraws troops from all conflict countries
(7) Dr Paul will prevent a deep depression or the collapse of the dollar due to hyperinflation since he is the only one that will balance the budget much faster than the other candidates
To avoid a deep depression or the collapse of the dollar and hyper inflation, we need to balance the budget and here are the steps :
http://forum.isi.org/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=5270060552&f=9310035552&m=4280031492&r=4461034126#4461034126
Any religious or ethic minority in a Muslim country is in danger of being wiped out by the jihad.
Why not relocate Muslims? Mankind has a continent no one is using. Antarctica. It'll be a little cold, but I'm sure that Allah will provide thermal underwear.
I will add that my immediate and urgent concern for Copts, Maronites, Assyrians - mostly Christian and some secular - and for Jews who are targeted everywhere (including within the West) by Mohammedan haters and by non-Muslim Jew-haters who have been quick to ally with and carry water for the Muslims - does not mean I am not concerned for other non-Muslim communities who are suffering within majority-Muslim/ Muslim-dominated lands. For example, as an Australian, I am happy to welcome fleeing Malaysian Chinese who are Buddhist or Confucian or Taoist and Malaysian Indians who are Sikh or Hindu, as well as Malaysian Chinese who are Christians and Indians from Malaysia who are Christian.
Wellington, I am not a big supporter of Rick Santorum. As I posted several times, he chose to ally with Romney against Gingrich in the December 10 Iowa debate.
Gingrich told the truth about the Palestinian jihadists and their designs to obliterate Israel's Jews. Romney said, unlike Gingrich, he was not bombthrower. Santorum agreed. Romney averred Gingrich should not say anything that might interfere with Israel negotiating with these killers. Santorum stood with Romney. Both Romney and Santorum condemned Gingrich because he spoke the truth about the Muslim war against Israel. Romney and Santorum displayed moral weakness and cowardice.
If however Santorum is the nominee I will vote for him, as I would Gingrich who I voted for in our Fla. primary. Obama is destroying this country. He is atrocious. Unless there is something I do not know about him, I will vote for Mitt Romney as I did McCain.
I am sure you know Rush Limbaugh would take issue with your assertion about moderates. He would ask you how Reagan managed to be elected. Santorum's difficulty in my opinion is that he weighs in on his faith-based feelings about the negative consequence of artificial birth control. While his faith-based support for natural family planning might be the ideal, not every American can accept his position. It could hurt him in a general election, even though Obama supports infanticide.
Dr. Ron Paul is today's Charles Lindbergh. He is our Henry Ford. Probably his son, Rand Paul believes similarly on foreign policy.
Granted, I'm a Nobama '012 kind of guy from the get-go, but Santorum's stock has risen considerably in my eyes. Santorum-Paul '012?
Wellington, I understand what you're saying about electability. But given that the New Left put forth one of its own in '08 and won (albeit with a HIGHLY subservient and docile MSM, which no Republican will have), maybe Santorum is nowhere as "extreme" on the right as Obama was (and is?) on the left.
I admit that as an Evangelical, I find the theologies of Romney and Santorum less than satisfactory, although no less satisfactory than the Afrocentrism of the Reverend Wrong's Chicago congregation, to which Obama adhered. I'm also highly suspicious of the Mormon Church as an institution. Still, I would readily vote for Romney over Obama any day.
dumbledoresarmy..You paint a very grim picture!
I wish I could fault it!
But moving 10,000,000? I don't think that is do-able. The Copts in Egypt need to be assisted to protect themselves, I think. A Magic Carpet for 10 Million?.
The West needs to stop apologising to Islam and start supporting Christians and other non-muslims in so-called muslim lands.
I have several Assyrian friends who were originally from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
As bad as Saddam Hussein was ,and these Assyrians HATE(ed) him and in fact invited me to celebrate his FALL with them, now realize their families still there have the SAME choice German Jews had in 1933-34,stay or leave.
Also,there are also Assyrian areas in Iran and Turkey,which are quite obviously under PRESSURE and and NEVER spoken about.
"one should not vote for the best candidate but rather for the best candidate who can get elected" Bill Buckley.
True. Our priority must be to ensure that Hussein is not re-elected.
Difficult though to cast a vote for the clay (Romney) when you could vote for iron (Santorum).
I'm with you, wildjew. I'll vote for Romney or Santorum or Gingrich if they are the nominee. Where I have a disagreement with you is when you say Limbaugh would take issue with me. Where? Part of Ronald Reagan's political billiance is that he could get the moderate vote even while being conservative. Santorum is not doing this.
Santorum is correct on most issues but it is not enough to be right. One must also know how to be right. Reagan knew here. Santorum doesn't.
when you say the west needs to stop apologizing to Islam, what is the west apologizing for ?
I thoroughly agree with you, Kepha, that Obama is the extremist and not Santorum (Holy Hell, Obama even voted, when in the Illinois Senate, to allow for the termination of the life of an aborted fetus who survived the abortion operation; a more extreme position on abortion would be difficult to find). This is the reality. But we live in a phony world in which liberals get a pass and conservatives don't (just like Marxism still does and fascism doesn't---neither should). In short, conservatives have an extra battle to fight, the battle aginst public consensus forged by the liberal elites. No sense denying this or crying about it. Conservatives just have to deal with it. It's an additional burden for conservatives in this Age of Nonsense in which we live. I wish it weren't the case but wishin' ain't gettin'.
I don't disagree. All I am saying is Reagan did not shrink from his pro-life conservative views even if they were adopted later in his public life.
I think you told me you were raised Catholic so you understand this.
On birth control, not too many people agree with Santorum's strict faith-based views - even though as he said repeatedly, he voted for birth control-related legislation. His church takes the view (correct me if I am wrong) sex is is fundamentally for the purpose procreation. Anything that (artificially) prevents fertilization is inappropriate. Am I wrong?
Many Americans quite properly (I believe as a Jew) find that position difficult; albeit as I say, natural family planning might be the ideal. How many will practice it? Others are outright offended by the notion that sex is only for the purpose of reproduction, rather than for pleasure, intimacy, etc.
Core Islamic texts disagree with the Bible: human beings are not made in the image of God
For example, in Qur'an Chapter 42, Verse 11:
Compare Genesis Chapter 1, Verse 26:
In the Judeo-Christian conception, human beings, made in God's likeness, are children of God the Father. In the Qur'an, Allah never calls himself "Father," and in several places denies He has any sons or daughters. Rather, human beings are only Allah's servants or slaves. "I have only created jinns and men that they may serve me." (Qur'an 51:56) Even if both theologies are pure fantasy, the Islamic one leads to authoritarian social outcomes, whereas the Judeo-Christian one tends, over the long run, toward freedom.
Rick Santorum gets my vote, too; and he was interviewed by David Gregory on Meet The Press this morning, and Rick handled David's tough questions remarkably well; and I don't want to get into all the questions and answers here, but I did want to mention what Rick said on MTP on how he would have responded to the quran burning in Afghanistan. Rick would not have apologized, and he rightly criticized obama for doing so--since burning the quran was inadvertent--and apologizing suggests blame and deliberate wrongdoing.
Thanks for this reminder. If a man behaves like a savage (like a subhuman), clearly he has no divine spark as they say. He is not created in the image of God.
The West apologises for everything Islam perceives as a grievence, right or wrong.
Currently the Koran burnings.
Their grievence is wrong anyway.
These Korans were burned because muslims were using them to post messages.
Not out of contempt.
Burning is generally the accepted method of disposal of old religious items no longer in use.
The West apologises for the Crusades.
Muslim armies invaded Christian lands. Slaughter, burning of churches...
A force was raised to stem some of this: the Crusades.
Now we apologise!
The West apologises for critiquing the Koran which advocates hatred of Jews and subjugation of non-muslims.
The West apologises for acknowledging the obvious fact that 90%+ of all terrorist attacks are from muslims.
It apologises every time it subjects a non-muslim to a pat-down or a security scan.
The West apologises every time a peaceful non-muslim protester is arrested at a muslim rally.
The West apologises every time it apologises.
You have everything right here, wildjew, including the Catholic Church take on what sex is for. I, like you, disagree with this position (no pun intended). Of course, there is one birth control method the Catholic Chruch does allow for---the rhythm method, since conception is theoretically possible anytime of the month. But here I'm reminded of the old joke, what do you call people who use the rhythm method? Answer: parents.
Right. On another site I read, New York Times (far left) columnist Maureen Dowd wrote:
“What’s wrong with the rhythm method anyway? That’s how I got here.”
"since conception is theoretically possible anytime of the month"
That's not quite right. NFP, natural family planning, as i understand it, relies on the infertile time of the natural cycle.
...and support of radical Islamists...
I will stand ... against violent jihadism...
Asymptotic bubble-wrap: extra padding with language used to buffer the audience from the unvarnished truth of the matter. In fact, what Santorum is using in the examples I pasted above may be called "double bubble-wrapping" (like the Doublemint gum jingle, "double your pleasure, double your PC"...).
I doubt that Santorum is using this linguistic bubble-wrap consciously (as those more Leftish do); probably semi-consciously.
So, what function and rationale does this double bubble-wrapping possess? First, we have the common "-ist" and "-ism" suffix, which in the case of the first quote above, helps the audience (and the speaker) avoid the dreaded "-ic" suffix (viz., Islamic), which threatens to get too close to the heart of the matter: Islam itself.
But the "-ist" suffix isn't enough: some residual anxiety remains that we haven't sufficiently buffered ourselves from the brute truth: we need the extra padding of the helpful adjective "radical".
And with the second quote, we have "violent jihadism" providing the double bubble-wrapping comfort of the "-ist" suffix to protect us from ourselves -- lest we condemn Jihad Straight Up No Chaser. And again, with the helpful addition of an adjectival qualifier -- here, of "violent".
(Those adjunct qualifiers make one wonder whether there is a "non-radical Islamist" and a "non-violent Jihadism"; but we should not expend too much of our thought on such pointless puzzles generated by the incoherence of the asymptotic twitch which, unfortunately, seems to afflict even many (if not most) non-Leftists throughout the West.)
If all I have articulated above would not be taken as constructive criticism by Santorum (or a Santorum supporter), then that only would reflect poorly on both. I have a hunch, nevertheless, that Santorum actually has an open mind, unlike most other Republicans (let alone Democrats), which means he is open to learning and performing that strange feat which few seem capable of: changing his mind.
Champ, Santorum is more forthright about the jihad than Romney. What do you think of Santorum's answer when asked the other night in the debate, why he supported several of former President Bush's policies even though he knew they were morally wrong? He said politics is a "team sport." I mean get used to it! was his response. Santorum supported far-left Senator Arlen Spector over conservative Pat Toomey because politics is a team sport. President Bush mislead the public about Islam, Israel, Iraq, etc. Do you think Republican leaders like Santorum were silent because politics is a team sport? Isn't the view that politics is a team sport what is wrong with politics?
"His church takes the view (correct me if I am wrong) sex is is fundamentally for the purpose procreation"
Forgive me for jumping in..
The Catholic Church does not limit the understanding of sex in marriage to procreation.
The life, intimacy, healing, encouragement and many other aspects of marriage are recognised and lauded in the catholic church.
No problem. I'm glad you jumped in.
But if during this intimate or healing act, something is used to artificially prevent the possibility of fertilization or conception, that is fundamentally wrong in God's eyes in the view of the Church?
As i understand it: yes.
Marriage is a complete "package".
The spouses must be open to new life since this is part of marriage.
However, circumstances, often financial, may slow-track the family.
NFP is accepted since it does not directly interfere with nature. (i have to point out i am not an expert in this stuff).
On NFP.
NFP cannot be used for the total exclusion of children. A "marriage" undertaken with a determined exclusion of children would be invalid in the catholic church.
In this instance, NFP would be just contraception.
Thanks. I think you are right. Like I said earlier, I believe natural family planning is the ideal. It is what our ancestors practiced. But for a married couple with limited resources -- they already have two or more children -- and they want to be intimate but are terribly afraid of the prospect of another child, not believing in abortion, etc.
Are you saying the church believes it is inherently sinful or evil for the couple to use some kind of birth control that prevents fertilization? Isn't that a bit harsh?
I had a neighbor a few years back who told a doctor he was sinning because he wrote prescriptions for the Pill for his patients.
I know there were times in the early part of my search for God, I became zealous and I hurt people who were close to me in the exercise of my zeal. Is this possibly an example of that kind of religious zeal bordering on a lack of compassion or tolerance?
Like I said, Santorum, Gingrich get it. Romney, Christie, hussein, Paul have no clue. Christie, because of his emotionalism and temper, and lacking intellectual instincts, is dangerous.
hussein we all know what he is. Paul was mostly just born recently, in a couple decades he'll wake up to what he should have know now. Trump is shallow, and not so bright or intelligent an analyst as he portrays himself to be. For me, this piece is revealing of Trump's lack of brain power, and lacking analytical abilities. You may not agree, thank God, for America. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6N8l8DMu3M
For further reflection on why we went into iraq, there had been just recently before hostilities, WMD's in saddam's iraq, but intel is rarely an exact up to the moment knowledge base, see this one and there are more, of this individual, as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpsUdgTWITI
As I say, Bush wasn't perfect, but better than some or many. No one, and no candidate is unflawed, one way or another, and some are apparently less flawed, but quantity of flaws only, is not the criteria by which we try to pick a POTUS, a real one, type of experience, age, and apparent wisdom, are some of those positive desirables. Further, some people are able to learn more quickly and wisely than others, and that does not depend on for sure on IQ, nor Harvard. It does help to have good instincts, and heart.
I'll still vote for anyone, apparently safe, who is not a major danger, to be rid of the current devil. And that leaves out, most of the current administration, in case they pull a bait and switch!
If I have to, I'll pull the yes lever for Romney, with regret at the moment.
For the moment, choices are subject to change, while we have time to examine, strategize, except zero chance for current administration, and I'm currently an independent. Voting history not included.
Beware, thanks to the zero, hussein, many zombies from the past are again being raised from the ground (commies, fascists, anarchists and totalitarians), incarnate, including the muslima. One needs to be concerned with dangerous extremist reactionaries, as well. We have very much to put back together and in order, in this great nation.
Infertile time of the natural cycle? This isn't, gerard, to my knowledge why the rhythm method is the only form of birth control sanctioned by the Chucrh. In fact, the entire concept of birth control is inimical to the Church's teaching that the primary, though not the sole, function of sex is the procreation of children. Take the primary reason away, which the rhythm method never does entirely, and then sex becomes verboten in the eyes of the Church.
I understand your re-appraisal of the zeal of the neophyte.
Ah the pill, the pill!
There is no "pill" which solves this or any other (moral) problem.
The pill has engendered (irony intended) immensenly more problems than it purported to solve.
(The list would be huge: STDs, Teenage pregnancies, the harrowing experience of abortion for young girls..(an experience i would not wish on my worst enemy,as they say).
Contraceptives ignore rather than answer the complex problems of human life and sexuality.
"Church's teaching that the primary, though not the sole, function of sex is the procreation of children."
Can you cite me texts for this?
Funny, I learned it decades ago from my good Catholic friends, and elsewhere in many written items. Wow, I thought that was widely known. How times change.
Iron Duke
"Church's teaching that the primary, though not the sole, function of sex is the procreation of children"
Can you cite me a text?
"Wow, I thought that was widely known."
Not sure what you are referring to...
Maybe "sex is for procreation".
Perhaps the reference is to Jesus' teaching: "In Heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels".
The final kingdom may be expressed in monastic celibacy.
But for many of us we live in the here and now.
It seems to me that The Lord blesses those couples who live in "the here and now", while remembering that "here and now" is not the finality.
It is appalling to see how the West constantly endangers its interests, favours its enemies, and abandons its friends by way of foreign policy. Here, in Nigeria,the American Government are up the same road with regards to Boko Haram. Moonbats like Jean Herskovitz and John Campbell continue to insist that abandoning the Nigerian government, headed by a Christian, is the best course of action in *handling*-much weaker than confronting-the Nigerian Jihadi group.The argument goes like this: Nigerian Muslims are suspicious,or even hate America, therefore openly identifying with the persecuted Christians will further marginalize the Muslims and solidify their hatred for the arrogant Yankees.As a result of this,there is an endless and useless debate in the US Senate on if and when to call Boko Haram a terrorist organisation. What happened to the value of standing up for one's friends?
gerard,
It's all in Paul VI's encyclical:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Sections 11 and 12 are good references.
Yes indeed.
Paul vi acknowledges the openness to new life, but in no way does he underestimate the value of sexuality for the married couple.
I agree with dda's idea of christian African countries taking in the Copts. They are welcome in Southern Nigeria.
"What happened to the value of standing up for one's friends? "
Or just standing up for the truth?
Why does the West stand idly by and look the other way while muslim Jihadis slaughter christians?...
Ron Paul is the favorite of Muslim votes. Most of the Aamerican Muslim papers canvas for Ron Paul.Reason:
Ron Paul may be the most deceptive candidate since Barack Obama. It’s common knowledge that Ron Paul doesn’t pray in public, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Until you consider this; when Dr. Paul was in the Air Force he was stationed in an area that is now a part of Pakistan and Afghanistan where he may have been introduced to Islamic fundamentalism. His service as a flight surgeon occurred during the height of the cold war from 1962 to 1968. He was in a region where America wasn’t at war and may have had ample opportunity to learn the culture and become immersed in the teachings of radical fundamentalists. When Barack Obama ran for President in 2008 he promised to change the culture in Washington, balance the budget, and give America hope. We all know how that turned out. Barack Obama’s Presidency has been dogged by widespread suspicion about his radical background and his agenda has been slowed down at every turn by patriots in Congress (thank God). Ron Paul is promising less government, more freedom, less war, legalized drugs, and just Like Barack Obama has accomplished nothing to back his statements up or give what he says any credibility. As a Representative Ron Paul has sponsored 620 measures and only 4 have ever made it to a vote. Only one became a law because Dr. Paul doesn't work well with others. He is the opposite of a team player and is better at turning people against one another than he is at building a consensus. There was even an occasion when his entire office staff threatened to walk out on him. Ron Paul has been a very ineffective Representative throughout his career in Congress. Let’s hope and pray that America doesn’t make the same mistake by being deceived two elections in a row
Truly excellent stuff here, Wellington. Wonderfully said.
All valid, from what I know.
"And getting rid of Obama should be Priority Number One."
.."one should not vote for the best candidate but rather for the best candidate who can get elected."
That is the core bottome line, excellent support material, truer words couldn't be spoken.
As I said, I'll vote that way if I must, for that precise strategy, but I do like the prepared knowledge of both the others.
I'm especially concerned because of very dirty chicago style behavior, on the liberal oppositions part, as illuminated in this bit, wherein one may question the preparers remarks, assertions, and conclusions, but one must be concerned with the contained evidenciary clips. I would be interested in your observations, if you care to say any, regards this item, especially the contained clips. Very disturbing, on the impact on the mass non thinkers, non educated, who care neither for history, nor current events and realities, and aren't even sure anyone is running in opposition to hussein, see the second video below.
"...The video is a bit long (10 mins) – but well worth your time. Note the call to arms. Not a call to vote – A CALL TO ARMS. My own concern over the potential outcome of the 2012 Election continues to grow. Please wake up America….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-mQKs7YwiA&feature=player_embedded " This is from Ulsterman today.
The scariest video is this one, many others, and the one on Venice Ca. see this scary one here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHZVyqbMPzo
so if you offend somebody , you do not apologize ?
Excellent piece Margaritha, IMO.
Exactly,gerard. Standing up for the truth is much better. As a participant observer, I know for a fact that Nigerian Christians are very westernised. I fear another betrayal,like Biafra, is in the offing.When the violence deteriorates in Nigeria,EGYPT,Tunisia,etc, I will not be betting on the west's support.Sometimes I get a sick pleasure watching Londonistan grow...but we are all in this together.
Take a look, gerard, at Sections 2360-2370 of the Catechism Of The Catholic Church. The net effect of these sections is to allow that there are ancillary reasons for sexual intercourse but that the primary reason is for the procreation of children. Section 2370 is particularly interesting because here the rhythm method is sanctioned even to the extent that a married couple can calculate at which time of the month it is LEAST likely that children might result when sex occurs but it disallows "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible..." Doing so "is intrinsically evil."
Offending someone innocently is one matter, defending the positive progress of civilization from aome evil pagan alien gang, forced to remain in the ancient way of life eternally, quite another, deserving no apology, ever!
Sorry to interrupt, no offense.
Ron Paul is pro Muslim.He attacked Michelle Bachman,when she mentioned about the Muslim atrocities in US.Just watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHlPSzoCp-I&feature=player_embedded#!
I'll say it again: BHO - like the Bush crime family - never did a thing for persecuted Christians, even as those owned Presidents trumpeted their alleged faith at election time.
al-Guardian's Bunglawala, an admitted agent provacateur on the forume - once again fabricates ideological unity among rally participants, where EDL associates converge.
1. the EDL is a website that calls ALL parties to rallies where al-qaeda supporters may attack UK veterans. There are only a handful of close associates, who help organize those who attend under ad hoc EDL leadership.
2. EDL organizer, Tommy Robinson, sells copyrighted material that contains insignia that some participants wear or carry on banners, etc. He keeps the money - reportedly several hundred thousand pounds - for himself, using some to run the website.
3. Fascist groups join in because they have some joint interests, and there is no basis for excluding same, even if their views are repugnant. It is not a perfect arrangement, but it is of the essence that somebody works against the muz agitators.
4. Robinson and others have decided to attend certain cause celebre events - usually held after a muslim murders or injures a civilized person - under BNP auspices. That isn't wise, but those who support standing up to muz agitation and aggression but who do not hold racist views, don't share platforms with the BNP.
5. Can anti-Semites abandon their ideology? Many have become strong supporters of Jewish rights and advocate armed defense of Israel.
6. Hypocrites like Bungla deny the inherent aggression and supremacism of the islamonazi cult that pollutes Europe, while pointing the same fingers at those who stand up to his lies and the savageries of his slaves-of-the-arab-deity-fiction.
http://inayatscorner.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/tell-mama-not-off-to-a-good-start/
If al-Guardian wants to waste their money on human cartoons, that is their business. We need to condemn them for coloring Western Civilization's enemies with the benign-victim stain. Islam is a disease; muzlims are its carriers.
Koran 98:6 states that unbelievers are the vilest of created beings. Not only are all humans not made in the divine image in Islam, but unbelievers are inferiors. Thus, there is no universal Golden Rule in Islam, just a crude supremacism based on "belief".
Re the image of God--
Paul speaks of the image of God being renewed in the redeemed as righteousness, holiness, and truth (Ephesians 4:24) --paraphrased by the 1648 framers of the 1648 Westminster Catechisms (Presbyterian) as knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.
I do not know if Muhammad is denying the Christian doctrine of the image of God in man in the Qur'anic text quoted in your post, and defer to someone more schooled in Islamic doctrine than I am at this point. After all, Isaiah has God telling us, "To what shall ye liken me?"--scarcely a denial of man bearing the image of God, since it's bound up with Genesis in the same Bible.
If Islam indeed denies the divine image in man, is it from taking what Muhammad might have heard of this in an overly literal manner, while at the same time seeking to avoid idolatry? If this is the case, I do not defend Muhammad by bringing it up, but see it as yet another instance in which Islam's founder completely misunderstands the snippets of Biblical religion at his disposal.
what evil pagan gang are you referring to ?
if Ron Paul is favored by muslims, its a possibility he will make peace with muslims and that is good thing, right ?
since Ron Paul is pro muslim, it would be easier to negotiate with the muslim world, right ?
I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that obama will have another 4 years to distroy America. The one and only thing he is able to do proficiently is campaign and win elections. He is truely a professional politician. Other than that, he is worthless. A complete waste of human skin. Breathing good oxygen that could otherwise benefit a productive human being.
That's my opinion.
Thanks Wellington
We did not invent marriage. God did. Therefore we have to try to understand what His purpose is.
Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2360 "Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman."
-I note that CCC begins with a reference to the love of man and woman....not to procreation.
2363 "The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life".
-Here I note that CCC does not give priority to procreation but refers to the "twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life".
The obvious one, the only notable one, the criminal gang of islam!
You apologise when you have done wrong.
These apologies for Koran burning wrere not because of wrong doing, but because of spineless appeasement.
In fact the burnings in question weren't intended as any kind of statement anyway. They were simply disposing of redundant material.
There is no offence here other than the wish of certain people to take offence.
Peter,
Ron paul is probably under-educated about jihad. I know exactly what he would say if jihad was brought up to him. He would say "Well....wouldn't you be wanting to kill Americans too, if Americans were killing you families for decades?"
But what he refuses to understand is that islamic jihad has been going on for 1400+ years. Long before any American invasion. Long before America itself.
Don't get me wrong. I like all of Dr. Paul's policies except his foriegn policy. And that one is very important to me, as well as many other Americans.
If you are a volenteer Ron Paul promoter, which I think you are, take him some islamic jihad reading material, including a quran (especially a quran), and try to educate him on islamic jihad. It's a real problem for not only America but the entire world.
Good luck, Sir.
And BTW, peter, you don't negotiate with criminal gangs, be they islam, nazis, thuggees, mafia, davidians, etc. How did the appeasing negotiations work out for Chamberlin, and Russia, with the nazis? Very badly, that's how. islam is almost identical to nazis, and as criminal, but more so. So no, you don't negotiate, unless you are an uneducated dimwit. The islam gang does not negotiate as a legitimate group, so you never negotiate. They are by demands of their military command book, ko-ran, not to ever honor negotiations with non-believers. Their purpose, M.O., history, and criminal behavior of centuries is known, in writing. You should know that Peter.
"Dr Ron Paul is America's only hope."
bwahahahahahaha!.
TJ
don't waste you time on 'Peter'.
He knows all about Islam. He knows, oh, he knows, I would bet my bottom dollar on it.
He claimed, in another thread, to be a Christian pacifist, but I would swear he is really a Mohammedan in a mask, attempting to confuse, to distract, and to derail the threads if he can.
Two years ago we had a sly apologist for Islam calling itself '45ch' and 'loveverybody' whose signature was long, long screeds of taqiyya-and-tu-quoque.
'Peter''s postings are absolutely identical in style, content and tone or 'voice' to those of that previous poster.
Wherever possible, ignore him.
If he says something that might confuse or deceive a person new to this site and this subject, answer what he has said: but don't answer it as a direct reply: respond to it in a stand-alone posting that refers to him in the third person and say only as much as is necessary.
Jude
If you are, as you say, from Nigeria - still resident there and in the thick of things? - then: welcome!
How did you find jihadwatch, and when?
Not everything that happens in Nigeria - not all the Mohammedan attacks on Christians - get into our Western mass media reports; and even when they do, often a lot of important things get left out, often in the interests of whitewashing what the Mohammedans are actually doing.
So when things happen, and you see that word hasn't got out, or has been stripped of the interesting stuff, do please email links from your local English-language media, to Mr Spencer. Keep us posted!
Further: please let all your Anglophone Nigerian non-Muslim friends and acquaintance know about this website. If you look on the left hand side of the homepage there is a link you can click called 'islam 101'.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html
The article you will find there is very useful, and could be translated into Ibo and other of the major Nigerian languages, so as to spread beyond the English speakers.
Also, click on the link titled 'articles by Hugh Fitzgerald'.
Here is Hugh on Islam:
'Islam For Infidels'.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/01/fitzgerald-islam-for-infidels-part-one.html
There are several that deal with the subject of Islam in Africa.
Here is one.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/10/fitzgerald-arab-racism-and-black-muslims.html
and here is another:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/fitzgerald-the-kingdom-of-prester-john.html
And another
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/11/fitzgerald-black-africa-and-the-arab-muslim-slave-trade.html
And another:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-remember-biafra.html
And another:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-the-jihad-against-ethiopia.html
Dear Jude
pursuant to my posting addressed to you, above.
Do you know a website called 'The New English Review'?
I read and contribute regularly there as well as here.
News reports about the Jihad in Africa (especially Nigeria) and also about the Jihad in, as you say, 'Londonistan', are frequently reproduced and discussed there.
If you haven't yet found 'New English Review', I think you and other Islamo-aware Nigerians might find it congenial and helpful, alongside 'Jihadwatch'.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/
Dear brothers and Sisters
The rise of Islam is growing rapidly and we must stand in what we believe in and pray for God to move among the nations.
In Tunisia today the Salafist have taken over the country who are extreme Islamic movement. To read more about them here is a article.
http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/02/27/219/
Blessings
Youssef
http://rt.com/news/blast-jalalabad-airport-afghanistan-267/
Taliban suicide bombing rocks airport in Afghanistan
check out the lovely photos here of the recent suicide bombing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107023/Afghanistan-Suicide-car-bomber-kills-9-Jalalabad-Airport-blast.html
Nigeria? The "winds of change" left the Fulani muz colonies in the hands of the Meccan savages. After the Brits left, Fulanists made another move against the center, coercing almost 400,000 false "Middle Belt" conversions to the muz cult.
This is what NJ Minors "The Nigerian army 1956 to 1966" says about pre-GENOCIDE politics:
"For the entire period from Independence to the 1966 coup ministerial responsibility for defence was kept firmly in Northern hands. Immediately after 1 October 1960 Sir Abubakr handed over the Defence Ministry to Al-Haji Muhammadu Ribadu, who remained at this post until his sudden death in April 1965. The Ministry was given to Al-Haji Inuwa Wada, a Fulani from Kano. From February 1960 to august 1961 the post of Minister of State for the Army was held by Dr. Majeko-Dunni, a Yoruba and a personal friend of the prime minister. But during the remainder of this period this post too was held by a Northerner; first by Mr Jacob Obande, and Idoma businessman from the Middle Belt, and then from December 1962 by Al-Haji Ibrahim Tako Galadima, a Nupe from Niger province who held that office until the military coup."
Biafrans revolted when their oil resources was put under the control of a bestial Fulani cabinet minister. They were joined by Middle Belt Christians who assassinated a muz jihadi, "the Saudana of Sokoto" who was engineering the forced islamization of Christians, Spiritualists and Animists. UK and Russians opposed the Biafrans, while Americans supported same. At the time of the Revolution, 55% of the armed forces were composed of Fulani jihadis, even though those carpet humping primitives formed barely a third of the population.
Note - Even under the Brits, Christian missionaries were prohibited from venturing into the Fulani emirates. Yet the Fulani savageries were nothing but arab colonies.
When the Fulani islamonazis have the numbers and complicity from the White House, they will move into the South and force a convert-or-die policy. If Hussein Obama is re-elected, he will do to Middle Africa what he did to North Africa. It is likely that exterminations of 20,000,000 Christians will follow Hussein Obama's facilitation of islamonazi rule over non-muz minorities.
In Nigeria, a conflict between Fulanislamonazis and Free People is being forced by Northern arabist savages, with their OIC masters dictating slave rules to compliant "abds" (arabic for both slave and black, but with a connotation that is fifty times worse than "NIGGER." Nigerian Christians should look at Hussein Obama as an OIC-ABD. He should be wearing a dog collar, to reveal his true status as a alave-of-the-slaves-of-"al-lah"-the-arab-"god"-concoction. Islam is terror and muzlims are terrorists. Don't burn arab-qurans; turn them into toilet paper.
Speaking of religious persecution, There's a very good editorial in the Washington Times today concerning what's happening to the pastor in Iran.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2012/feb/26/iran-lynch-pastor-yousef-nadarkhani-say-nothing-do/
Santorum is homophobic, a religious nut, and probably the wrong choice for the country, but if he's willing to stand by Israel and in the process potentially avert a species-ending nuclear exchange near the equator, he has my vote.
Just commenting on the top story, Santorum seems to be stuck on the importance of US troops remaining in Iraq. On this one, I think Obama did it right, albeit for the wrong reasons. Yeah, it's tragic that the Assyrians & Chaldeans of Iraq had to flee, but let's be fair - all the groups in Iraq had been persecuting them - the Shia, the Kurds and the Sunnis. I do think the US should have created an enclave for them just like they did for the Kurds, but had they been there, they'd also have been of the opinion that Iraq's Islamic character is itself a problem.
I agreed w/ Hugh Fitzgerald when he used to write that the US should withdraw troops from Iraq, and I'm happy that the US troops are out of there. Same needs to happen in Afghanistan. I agree w/ DDA that Western or Christian countries should welcome Assyrians, Chaldeans, Maronites and other Christian minorities in these Arab spring countries, just like Israel did for the Jews of Yemen.
Aside from the plight of Christians, which I agree is tragic, I think Iraq is just fine. Yeah, Iran has a puppet state there, but it's impossible to think of how that wouldn't have been the result w/o a Saddam like genocide policy towards the Shia. But more to the point, what the region needs is an escalation of Shia-Sunni violence, so that they're not in a position to do other damage to Infidels, be it Israel or Western countries.
As I've noted several times here, the current situation in Syria is a perfect storm, particularly w/ developments the last few days. Hamas is being forced to be true to its Sunni underpinnings and switch sides from the Assad regime to the Sunni rebels, so hopefully, all those terrorists that they train for operations against Israel, hopefully, they'll be made to send them to Syria. Similarly, KSA would have to divert the cash that they use for dawa in the West and focus it on arming the Sunni rebels. On the other side, Hizbullah, like Hamas, needs to send its fighters in S Lebanon to Syria, b'cos if Assad falls and Syria goes Sunni, Lebanon will be next - Syrians have never recognized Lebanon as a separate country, since the latter country existed only under the French mandate, and prior to that, in biblical times. So Hizbullah needs to completely move into Syria, and Iran needs to be more focussed on saving the Assad regime than its nuke project. B'cos if they let that drop, then instead of the current Shia crescent that runs from Teheran to Beirut, there will be a Sunni crescent running from Kuwait to Ankara threatening Iran and Iraq.
Back to Santorum, I agree w/ Wildjew above - it was disappointing that he chose to criticise Newt on the debate remarks about the Palis being an invented people. However, given Newt's ties w/ Norquist, I'm not sure that I trust him on this issue. I know Debbie Schlussel speculated some weeks back that Norquist switched his support from Newt to Perry, but w/ Perry out of the race & endorsing Newt, I doubt that Norquist is agnostic about him any more.
Romney was my choice in 2008, but since then, he's become less anti-Islamic, and more of a disappointment than he used to be. And McCain's endorsement of him is something I find really negative.
So currently, Santorum is my favorite, but honestly, I'm not excited about any of them. However, unlike 2008, when there was no reason to prefer McCain to Obama, this time, I agree w/ people above who say that any of the candidates - Newt, Rick or Mitt would be better. All of them have baggage that will haunt them in the general elections - Newt's philandering (which won't get the sort of pass Clinton got), Santorum's perceived Christianess, and Romney's riches. If Romney is a candidate, McCain/Huckabee's 2008 campaign against him will be replayed by Obama. If Newt is the candidate, the 1990 Clinton campaings against him will be replayed by the Dems. Santorum is that way the cleanest, but as a senator, what achievements is he going to tout? And he would be hard pressed to explain how he could carry the election when he couldn't defend his own senate seat.
Dear DDA, I am pretty new to the blogging business and my skills with a laptop is pretty appalling. I learned about Jihad watch through Ali Sina. I was born a christian and hail from southern Nigeria. My journey of Islam- awareness began since I was a child. I always wondered why I was so scared of Muslims,why they were so obsessed with controlling everything. Their mosques just seemed so exotic and terrifying to me as a child, and I hated hearing them pray. In the last decade,with the endless violence in the Northern part of my country, my disdain for Muslims grew. Thankfully, access to the internet grew as well. I stumbled on Faith Freedom four years ago, then Jihad Watch, Wiki Islam, TROP,etc, and now I guess I'm inundated with facts about Islam, Muhammad, and the Muslim world-view. I'll try to bring up more dirt on the Nigerian Islamist( I know Robert hates the term)seeing as CNN, BBC,AFP , Reuters and New York Times hate Southern Nigerians and the endangered Christan communities in Northern Nigeria.BTW, I found out about New English Review, thanks to you... and I am a fan of your commentary.
Dear DDA, I am pretty new to the blogging business and my skills with a laptop is pretty appalling. I learned about Jihad watch through Ali Sina. I was born a christian and hail from southern Nigeria. My journey of Islam- awareness began since I was a child. I always wondered why I was so scared of Muslims,why they were so obsessed with controlling everything. Their mosques just seemed so exotic and terrifying to me as a child, and I hated hearing them pray. In the last decade,with the endless violence in the Northern part of my country, my disdain for Muslims grew. Thankfully, access to the internet grew as well. I stumbled on Faith Freedom four years ago, then Jihad Watch, Wiki Islam, TROP,etc, and now I guess I'm inundated with facts about Islam, Muhammad, and the Muslim world-view. I'll try to bring up more dirt on the Nigerian Islamist( I know Robert hates the term)seeing as CNN, BBC,AFP , Reuters and New York Times hate Southern Nigerians and the endangered Christan communities in Northern Nigeria.BTW, I found out about New English Review, thanks to you... and I am a fan of your commentary.
Like I said in my previous post, my blogging talents are mediocre; even then, I'll try to do my part in the war-yes, it is a war-on Islam. I might not be able to provide links to my views and experiences, but I'll do what I can. I am a fast learner.
Like I said in my previous post, my blogging talents are mediocre; even then, I'll try to do my part in the war-yes, it is a war-on Islam. I might not be able to provide links to my views and experiences, but I'll do what I can. I am a fast learner.
Hi Jude!
We welcome you here, and you don't need to be a whiz with blogging skills - we're just happy to have you!
Welcome, welcome and welcome again!
The only politician I have seen lately that is comparable to Rick Santorum is Mahmoud Ahmadinajad.
If you really want to show your disdain for the United States, and the Constitution, vote for Rick Santorum.
Apologies for being off topic...But perhaps somebody here knows what has happened to Bare Naked Islam. The site is inaccessible and has been for a while.
"Make peace with Muslims"?
Are we at war with Muslims?
Are Muslims at war with us?
Absolutely brilliant! 12 years ago when President W Bush engaged upon his invasion of Iraq he should have envisioned the consequences upon the Non-Muslim peoples of the region. One could even argue the Non-Muslim people of Iraq have been suffering since the beginning of President H W Bush. The Kurds and Christians have paid the highest price of those invasion.
It would appear that those 2 invasions have had the sole consequence of enabling the Iranian backed Shite majority to claim Iraq as their own and eventually annex it the resurgent Iranian Khalif.
While Obama's weak foreign policy is unforgivable, returning Iraq to the Shite. The foreign policy exhibited by the Republican party is nothing short of insanity. Bush 2 repeated the errors of Bush 1. We now have to deal with a power vaccum that has de facto been filled by the Iranians and their mullahs. Santorum does not have the solution nor does any American politician have the stomach for the solution. At this point in history the United States has no choice but to invade Iran to prevent the eventual takeover of the entire region.
So while we fiddle about the plight of the millions of Christians and kurds, the entire region is ablaze with mainline (not militant) Islamic goal of world conquest.
from Bill Foley
Gerard is correct about the Catholic teaching re contraception, but the problem here is that the issue is not contraception but RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, which Obama is abusing. The Republican candidates did not bring contraception up; the Clintonite Stephanopolous brought it up, and the mainstream media is continuing to do so in order to distract the public from the horrible economic condition that Obama has effected.
I want to take this occasion to thank Robert Spencer for his wonderul work of exposing Muhammad and his totalitarian ideology of Islam
I know *very* little about American politics, but it certainly sounds as if this man understands what a threat islam is, if nothing else. If *we* had a leader in the UK who spoke out like this, he/she would be voted in in a landslide victory, (I hope) no matter how unsound their views might be on other matters.
In my opinion, the threat of islam supercedes anything else - it's a threat to our culture, our laws, our deepest beliefs. Therefore if you've got a Presidential candidate who 'gets it' about islam, for God's sake vote for him ! You can worry about the rest of his policies later.
You've posted so much garbage today, I will deal with only two of your points. First up: so if you offend somebody, you do not apologize?
If you apologize to a normal person, that person will accept your apology with good grace and that will be the end of the matter. The problem of apologizing to Islam is that Islam demands more. So, what's the point? There will never be enough apologies, as far as Islam is concerned.
Islam's constant demand for apologies is a device to subjugate its target.
So, the rule is; NEVER apologize to Islam. Never!
Second: you say that Switzerland has no terrorist problems. That's a joke! The Swiss decided they didn't want minarets and all hell broke loose from jihadi terrorists. The air was filled with threats.
You're a clown!
"Romney was my choice in 2008, but since then, he's become less anti-Islamic..."
Yes,
Mitt "Jihadism isn't Islam" Romney.
Mitt "Islam is one of the world's great religions" Romney.
Mitt "the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker... [and they] want to raise families and have a bright future" Romney.
Mitt "I believe people of the Islamic faith do not have to subscribe to the idea of radical, violent jihadism.” Romney.
This isn't evidence of "less anti-Islamic"; it's evidence of a flaming Islamophilia.
(Links to sources.)
Rick gets my vote. He seems to be a believer of Jesus inspite of his catholic background. Romney as a Mormon seems not to understand the gospel at all.
Appreciate the heads-up, DDA, always. I initially forgot him, then pretty quickly thought I remembered he was a possible troll-muzzie or muzzie lover. Either way another of the escapees from the asylum.
The more I've seen of the recent simian behavior over in the a-stan, the more I recognized the behavior of a pack of simians in the jungle, or an insane asylum that found the key to unlock and unleash the inmates upon the world. They behave identical to the agitated scenes from Hollywood, of those old asylums. Or to the simian tribes in the jungles, who attack others, or other tribes, when they lose it or think they can get away with it and get some more female monkeys. Just can't see a difference anymore.
You may have noted that I made a closing comment, that he should know whatever I had said, referring to the likelyhood that he is a muzz who is playing as a troll, with us. He is garbage whomever, with his behavior. Just a baiter.
Jude
thanks for telling your story.
Hang in there, mate. Pray that enough Americans 'wake up' in time for the US to STOP siding with Mohammedans and instead recognize who *really* needs help.
Good to hear you've been enjoying New English Review, as well.
You are a Christian? Church-goer? I worship in an Anglican church here in Australia and belong to the Mothers' Union, which I gather is very strong in Nigeria and other parts of anglophone Africa.
One Christian organisation that is doing good work to raise awareness about the danger of Islam is The Barnabas Fund. Have you heard of them? Their information booklets on sharia and on 'Islam and slavery' and 'Islam and truth' (with a discussion of taqiyya, Islamic deception) are very good. Their e-newsletter tells me about the Muslim attacks on Christians in Africa and elsewhere.
If you've been reading at New English Review you may have heard about Australian scholar Dr Mark Durie. He wrote a great book on dhimmitude, called 'The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom'; all church leaders across the entire non-Muslim world ought to be got to read it; if they understood how the Muslims are 'grooming' them for dhimmitude, they might be less easily taken in.
Durie also wrote an inexpensive little book that sets out the huge differences between Christianity and Islam - very good to keep people from being confused and deceived by Muslim 'da'wa'. It's called 'Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God? Jesus, God, Holy Spirit in Christianity and Islam'. It's short and sharp, and is written in a very plain, clear style. He even sets out all the main points in tabular form, at the back. You can get it from his website. It might be a good book to get and give to your priest or your bishop, or put in your parish church library or a high school library, or a seminary/ theological college library. I think it would be a good book for Nigerian Christians who have English as their second language.
The only religious minority Obama is friendly to are Muslims.
Just like Clinton in that respect. Remember which side U.S. took in Bosnia and Kosovo?
I couldn't have said it better.
Muslims interpret apologizing as a symptom of weakness. The more you apologize the weaker they think you are. Notice that the Muslims never apologize for anything?
BNI's site on Twitter says it's a problem of their server.
And she intends to be back on as soon as the problem is cleared up.
DDA,
I was born to a Christian family but I'm hardly a commited one. I rarely go to church except on Christmas and New Year's day. The irony of it all is that I appreciate the role the Church has played in fighting against Islamic supremacism. With all the decades of Muslim on Christian violence,and the dhimmification of the Christian population in the northern part of the country, the Christian faith continues to wax strong and expand, even in Northern Nigeria.
I believe this is what is saving Nigeria . Europe lacks a similar counter-weight. It is for this reason that I fear Europe will fall to Islam long before Africa, even though we have stared down the cold, brutal sword of Jihad much longer.
Well, what the hell do I know,right? It is just my private, unscientific thinking.
"Romney has a signficantly greater opportunity to get the moderate vote in November. And getting rid of Obama should be Priority Number One. Best, I think, to keep in mind what Bill Buckley said and that is that one should not vote for the best candidate but rather for the best candidate who can get elected. I think here it is Romney."
The problem with Romney is sadly is that he would be percieved as a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and not really a conservative who could even bring in the "moderates". Plus way too much of a gentleman who will not be able to take the fight to Obama. At least Newt and Santorum can do that.
Also for a number of conservative Christians, with Romney being MORMON, that sadly is going to be a deal breaker. I know of even one person who says he will sit it out if Romney gets the nod. I am not lying.
Also the Obama/Chicagoland "political machine" will make sure to it that every effort will be made to defeat Romney.
If Romney gets the nod, I am afraid that Obama will get back in.
Give Rick Santorum CREDIT, he tells it just like it is.
Well, it's good to hear this from Rick Santorum. It is good to hear a candidate for president speaking out for threatened Christians and other religious minorities in Dar-al-Islam.
On the other hand, I agree with Dumbledore's Army—tragically, I think it is too late for most Christians in the Muslim world.
In addition, it appears we have had *no* positive influence in the Muslim world on this issue—in fact, things became exponentially *worse* for Christians in Iraq while we were trying to bring democracy to Iraq. And in Afghanistan, the Islamic government is actually imprisoning ad threatening to judicially murder apostates.
Now, part of this is our own damn fault, for not really recognizing the threat to religious minorities in the Muslim world, and for foolishly failing to avoid enabling the formation of Shari'ah states on our watch. In addition, we should tie continued foreign aid to decent treatment of minorities.
But even if we had been savvier, would we really have been able to turn any Muslim nation into a place with equal rights for religious minorities? Impossible. Even the much lower standard of merely creating a safe place for them seems unobtainable.
I agree that a new "Operation Magic Carpet" would be the best bet. But I'm not sure the rest of the West has *ever* had the resolve of Israel—and this seems especially unlikely these days.
Still, as many threatened Christians as possible should try to make their way to the free West—or even just to *somewhere* in the Infidel world. We should do everything we can personally—both in petitioning our governments and in offering aid, sponsorships, and a warm welcome to Christian emigrés.