I am disgusted with the political correctness that demands that Christians see their own history as the moral equivalent of Islamic history.  The historical revisionism is designed to elevate the status of the culture of Islam and lower the status of the culture of Christianity.  We are told that we must not denigrate Islam by pointing out what Muslims do; they must be referred to as “Islamists,” or “radical Islamists,” which they see as a small minority of Islam and an aberration of the “religion of peace.”  But Christians who joined the Crusades are never referred to as a small minority, “Christian radicals” or the like; they are only “Christians,” or “The Church.”

Don’t bother me with accounts of the Inquisition or the exploits of Charles I – Charlemagne.  I know the history, and I know that every year Muslims murder more people than all the deaths during the entire 350 history of the Inquisition in all countries where it was practiced.  I know about aberrations of Christianity in mass baptisms of unwilling converts.  I also know that Christianity has never carried on a war against Islam, and hasn’t invaded Islamic countries for purposes of conquest, and – to our shame – have never engaged in widespread evangelism to convert Muslims

History of Islamic Conquest for Religious Purposes

In 637 AD, Muslims solidified their conquest of Judea, and began immediately to persecute Christians and Jews who lived there.  They persecuted pilgrims who came to see the holy sites for centuries.  There were mass beheadings, brandings, and confiscation of property, murders, and destruction of thousands of Christian churches.

By the middle of the 9^th century (about 200 years from its founding) Islam had attacked and conquered Egypt and all of northern Africa, Spain, Portugal, much of France; Greece, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, southern Italy, and the Sindh in what is now Pakistan solely for purposes of domination.  Defense, protection of trade and trade routes, protection of religious adherents, or other reasons countries go to war played no part in this expansion; it was religious persecution and conquest plain and simple.

Finally Christians in Europe awakened and in 732 AD Charles Martel stopped the Muslim Umayyad progress in their effort to expand throughout the remainder of Western Europe at the Battle of Tours.

The Reconquista of Spain alone – the expulsion of the Islamic invaders from North Africa – took until 1492 about 700 years.

After continued slaughters of Christians and Jews whenever Muslims appeared; and after 460 years of persecution of pilgrims desiring to see the holy sites in Jerusalem the church responded.  In 1095, Pope Urban II announced the importance of bringing relief to Christians in the east, and the first Crusade was organized.  For two hundred years, Christians made 9 attempts to retake Judea from the Muslims who had invaded it almost 500 years before.  They succeed in holding it only for several decades during the entire period of the Crusades.  It was during this time that many of the churches in Palestine that pilgrims go to visit were built.

There were horrible, unchristian slaughters of Muslims and Jews done during some of the Crusades; but these are Christian acts.  While they are not excusable, they are understandable.  Muslims had murdered, enslaved or forcibly converted millions of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians in Persia, and others over the previous 400 years, and some of the Crusaders sought to even the score.  But non-Muslims have never truly evened the score with regard to slaughter and murder and forced conversions.  Islam is still a murderous cult.

Below I recount the reasons why Islam will never change, and why it cannot change and remain Islam.  In addition, I give an expanded history of the expansion of Islamic holy war to spread the religion of Islam by means of the sword; proof that Christians and Jews have historical rights to the holy land and Muslims do not; and more.  I hope you can take the time to read it.

Why Islam Cannot Ever Become Modern and Remain Islam

Beginning in 610 according to Islamic history, Mohammed began receiving communications from Allah dictated to him by the angel Gabriel.  These visitations continued periodically throughout the rest of his life.

Dictation not Revelation

The word “Qur’an” means “the recitation” because even though scribes wrote what Mohammed dictated to them, the Qur’an remained an oral tradition for a fairly long period of time, and there were detailed instructions about how it should be recited.  Even today, a large percentage of Muslims are illiterate and can only “recite” what they are taught, and Muslim prayers consist only of recitations of Qur’anic scriptures.

In addition it should be remembered that Arabic of the 7^th century was a consonantal language; that is, no vowels were used when it was written (much like Hebrew during the Old Testament period).

It’s important to understand that Allah dictated the Qur’an to Mohammed through Gabriel.  This is an entirely different manner than that in which prophets in the Old Testament, and Apostles in the New Testament received communication from God and wrote it down for us.

Allah dictated the Qur’an through Gabriel; God revealed his word to the Prophets and Apostles.  The difference is absolutely critical.  Since the Qur’an was dictated there can be no interpretation of what it says and means.  It can be translated, but not interpreted.

Mohammed, of course, was illiterate as most people were in those days.  He had a series of scribes who wrote down his dictations that have come to us as the Qur’an.

All Muslims throughout the world learn the verses of the Qur’an in Arabic – even those Muslims who are illiterate, and those who do not know Arabic at all.  Some can’t read it at all; others say the words but have no idea what they mean.  It is important to Muslims that their prayers – taken from the Qur’an – be recited in Arabic; apparently Allah would otherwise be unable to understand them.

The reason the Qur’an is memorized this way is that while the Qur’an can be translated, no translation is considered reliable; none of them can be trusted.  They cannot be trusted because Allah dictated it to Gabriel who dictated it to Mohammed so he understood it in Arabic; and any change – even using the word of another language to convey the meaning of the original Arabic is a deviation from the dictation.

It is for this reason that Christians have difficulty communicating with Muslims regarding what the Qur’an actually says.  When arguments are made about murdering non-Muslims, for example, an English translation of the Qur’an would be used; and so a Muslim would state that that is not an accurate translation because Islam can only be understood in Arabic.

I should point out here that because Islam is an Arabic religion: god spoke to Mohammed through Gabriel and Mohammed understood it and spoke it in Arabic; prayers have to be offered in Arabic, and so forth, Islam is more culture than religion.

Wearing of beards for men, women covering their faces with veils, wearing of Middle Eastern garb – none of this is specifically required by the Qur’an.  You will find that any serious Muslim person adopts an Arabic lifestyle in many ways not required at all by the Qur’an.  In addition, he or she will learn Arabic, and make the Haj to Mecca. Conversion to Islam is as much a decision to adopt Arabic dress, food, habits, language, and lifestyle – in a word Arabic culture – as it is a religious decision.  The pressure on converts to dress like you belong in the 7^th century is not a requirement dictated by Allah; rather it is the attempt to require all people who convert to Islam to become Arabs.

This submission has strong elements of what we would consider a cult.  Every convert must abandon their ethnic background, their race, their traditions, their friends; and begin to dress as if they were members of another race, another culture, and another time.  This has the effect of separating them from everything familiar – family, friends, history, and their national surroundings.

In addition, since Islam demands that there is no public space – that is everything is controlled by the Qur’an – there is no independent or separate role for government, culture, social life, family, food, traditions, entertainment or anything else separate from the religion.  All law, diet, public life, personal life, relationships, business, – everything is controlled by the religion.  Ownership, business conduct, dress, financial investments, contracts, marriages, discipline of children – it is all controlled and directed by the religion.

Mosques are designed to demonstrate this concept.  There are usually open spaces for people to congregate for social activities, there is no “church” feel to it because it is open signifying that the religion does not stop at the door.  Anyone can enter a Mosque even if they are not a Muslim because while the Mosque is a place for prayers and religious services, it is no more holy than anything outside the Mosque – for Islam everything is holy; there is no secular.  Islam requires the religious adherence, the personal life, political life, thought life, legal life, romantic life, family life, professional life, financial life; the mountains, the rivers – the whole cosmos to be operated and understood according the Qur’an and the Arab way of life.

Scripture Interpreting Scripture

In Islam, there is no concept of “scripture interpreting scripture” as in Christianity.

There is no consistent hermeneutics (other than “mystical hermeneutics” – hidden, Gnostic, occult) to guide understanding of the Qur’an; no set of nuanced rules through which Muslims we can understand what is meant by what Allah dictated.  As a consequence, there is no mechanism whatsoever that would make it possible for Muslims to revise how the plain text is understood, and permit them to understand it in a new way.  Islam cannot become modern.

For Christians, the coming of the Christ provides a new way to understand the Old Testament Scriptures.  We are told by Apostles that the Law in the OT was a “schoolteacher” (Galatians 3:24) to lead us to Christ; that those things were written so we could understand God’s plan for redemption as it unfolded.  This provides Christians with a way of understanding the things that were written, about stoning adulterers and homosexuals that alters the meaning of those instructions.  God demanded certain things in certain historical periods and His expectations were altered as he further unveiled more about who He is and what He is about.

The scriptures that demand corporeal punishment for violations of God’s law show how God really feels about sin; but now that Christ has appeared to become the object of God’s wrath toward sin; we can – by participating in His death and resurrection by faith – be free from God’s judgment for our sin in this life and the life to come.  God being just, and having taken out the punishment for our sins on Christ on the cross, will not take out another punishment against us.

As a consequence of the provision made through Christ to avoid punishment for our sins, exacting corporeal punishments is no longer a viable way of relating to the guilty.  Our example is Jesus Himself who said to the woman caught in a mortal sin, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way and sin no more.” (John 8:11)  Simply, through faith and acceptance of Christ’s vicarious death, we are no longer guilty; and therefore the punishment for our will not be exacted on us because the punishment was already taken out on Jesus on the cross.

The concept of using the sacred Scriptures to interpret sacred Scriptures provides Christianity with a way of understanding what the doctrines are and what they mean in every generation.

Christianity actually demands – as a condition of faithful obedience and acceptability to God – that Christians recognize that there is one obedience to Jesus, and a separate obedience to Caesar.  (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25; Romans 13:1-7)

Since Islam has no hermeneutics to use to interpret the Qur’an – the Qur’an being internally incoherent – Muslims are left to the vicissitudes of various Imams who at times may let Muslims live at peace with members of other religions, and at other times encourage their murder.

In addition, in Christianity every member of the church is encouraged to study what the preacher says to see if it is correct (Acts 17:11), and to research to discern those who would attempt to lead them (1 Thessalonians 5:12).  Islamic congregations have no such corrective capability so ordinary Muslims are powerless to modify, fire, or change their leaders.  To disregard them can result in very unpleasant things.

Unfolding Revelation

The God of Christianity unveiled Himself slowly over thousands of years, and each revelation brought about new understanding as to how we are to relate to Him and how we are to live.  God is dynamic.  Allah is static; there is no long, progressive unveiling, no slow revelation resulting in changing expectations for his followers.

There is no concept of an unfolding plan of redemption by Allah – what He said cannot be understood a different way in a different age.  Islam cannot be updated.  For example, where the Qur’an tells Muslims to kill unbelievers (Suras 9:5, 9:38-39, 9:73, 9:29, 8:12, etc.) it cannot be said by any Muslim teacher that those commands to behead non believers and kill them actually means that they are to be “persuaded,” or “defeated in the spiritual sense.” It cannot be said that “kill” actually means something other than “kill.”  It cannot be said, because Allah said, “kill.”   In further evidence that this is how Muslims understand the Qur’an because “Kill” those who are not Muslims is what Muslims have done throughout their history.

There is no concept of a “dispensation” of time during which Allah expects a certain kind of behavior which changes at a point in history.

There is no concept of an ongoing understanding of who Allah really is; a time when he shows his fury, and another time when he shows his grace as in the case of the Christian God.  In fact, there is no theology of Allah at all – certainly not in the Qur’an.  Allah is not known at all by Muslims; all that is known to Muslims about Allah is seen by what he demands of Muslims and Christians.  Islam is a religion whose god is never described; who does not identify with the human condition at all, who never comes to redeem; demands complete submission of the entire person to the principles of the religion body intellect, emotions, and actions; alloys the beliefs of the cult with all acts of humanity (there is no private space permitted in Islam); and is a religion without joy.

It is for these central reasons that Muslims cannot move beyond the strict instructions of Allah to perpetrate violence or special taxes against anyone who is not a Muslim (S. 2:191-193, 4:89, 5:33, 8:12, 8:39, 9:29, 48:29 etc.); and it is for these reasons Muslims are being obedient to the Qur’an when they cut off the hand of a thief (5:38).  That’s what the Qur’an says to do, and since Allah dictated it, it cannot be updated or interpreted in a new understanding for a new time.  There is no way to understand it the way Christians have always understood what Jesus meant when He said if our hand offends us to cut it off (Matthew 5:27-30).  It was clear from the beginning that He meant that we are to get rid of those things that cause us to offend – to sin; not that we should literally cut off hands.  There is no Christian that ever cut off his hand although there are plenty of examples where Muslims cut off Christian hands.

Interpreting Judaism and Christianity

While interpretation is not permitted in Islam; for both Judaism and Christianity the role of the interpreter is seen as central to the faith.  Judaism surrounds the Torah – the 5 Holy Books – Genesis through Deuteronomy.  Also in the Jewish Scriptures we see the History of the people, the Poetry books and the Prophets. Why would Israel need prophets throughout their history if they already had the Torah?  Because interpretation of what it says is critical to Jewish understanding.  In addition, the Talmud provides important commentary on just what the Torah means for the everyday life of an observant Jew.

Christians had the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels; yet the Church also needed a history – Acts – and then writings from Paul, James, Peter, John, and the writer of Hebrews to explain what the teachings of Jesus meant, and how they are to practically affect the life of the Christian.

In addition, Christians understand from the teaching of the New Testament itself that the role of the interpreter is essential.  Consider the teaching, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?”  (Romans 10: 13, 14)  In Christianity, the process of redemption itself requires the role of interpretation; a preacher.

In addition, the New Testament itself reinterprets the Old Testament.  Old Testament passages are understood in a much different light following the arrival of the Messiah. Consider Hosea 11:1 referring to Israel coming out of Egypt through deliverance across the Red Sea; and its use by Matthew in 2:15 to prove that Jesus is the Christ because of his parent’s taking of him to Egypt to escape Herod’s murder of male babies in Bethlehem.  There is no hermeneutic in Islam that will permit another understanding of what the text says; Islam cannot be modernized without ceasing to be Islam.

Islam

In Islam, the word “Imam” means leader.  It is used for the person who makes the call for prayer in the minaret; but it also can mean a Muslim who makes larger decisions, or is a person revered in Islam.

There are various branches of Islam, and while they share a founder and a sacred scripture, they disagree with each other on some issues –sometimes violently.  This violence against others who agree with you in virtually everything shows that Islam is different than Christianity.  While Christians disagree about many things and have developed into denominations in Protestantism; and the Eastern Orthodox, and Western Catholicism are not now, nor have they ever been at war with each other.  The Thirty Years War and the violence in Ireland were political conflicts carried out by politicians using government to martial soldiers; or were politically motivated individuals who had no adherence to the principles of Christianity.  Christians may disagree; they do not aggregate armies, hire generals, and conduct war.

I may treat this subject in more detail in a future post, but consider that the conduct of war is an act of a political government, not a church.  To the degree Christians acted like non-Christians, we must understand that the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles contain no instructions whatsoever about dealing blows to another person for their beliefs or because of the God they worship.  Any such engagements must be seen as violations of Christian doctrines and the teaching of Jesus regardless of who engaged in them.

In Islam, there are no authorities who lead. the various groups of Islam who speak for the group; there is no one who can disfellowship or defrock a violator of the doctrines; so we see a guy like Osama bin Laden who announces he is an Imam, and there is no licensing board or fellowship or hierarchy  that can say to him, “No you aren’t.  You don’t speak for this group.  Comply with the doctrine or you will be tossed out.”  This looseness means that in practice, virtually anyone (like bin Laden) can announce he is an Imam and can teach Islam – no discipline can ever be done to correct what he says.  There is no one who can say, “No.”  This is so because of what the Qur’an is; and the nature of Islam.  This is why you never see the leader of a major faction of Islam denounce any other Muslim for suicide, or murder of a child, or the murder of innocents – even other Muslims.

You would think that since the Qur’an is not subject to interpretation having been dictated by Allah, there would be universal agreement among Muslims, but it is a matter of which Suras they decide to emphasize, and there is never any accountability because they cannot be falsified.  Those of us who are Christians would like to see the radical, murderous elements of Islam denounced as not speaking for the religion, but it never happens; it will not happen and cannot happen because there is no structure in Islam that permits or requires it.

In Christianity a heretic may be defrocked or disfellowshipped; in Islam he is simply beheaded.

History of Islamic Aggression against Christians

Public Muslims – those who speak in public – appear to be perpetually aggrieved.  They are always angry about something – yelling, shaking fists in the air, chanting; apparently not needing to go to work.  It makes me wonder why anyone would choose a religion that permits no joy, and no security of salvation.  Muslims claim the right to persecute other Muslims, chop off hands, stone an adulterous woman, claim up to four wives, murder anyone who isn’t a Muslim, kill any child that embarrasses them; but demand that no one speak negatively about Islam.  They claim the right to every square foot of land where a Muslim foot stood.

As mentioned above, Mohammed died in 632 AD.  Consider the Islamic religious/military expansion.  This conquest was done by military conquest in the name of religion.  It was not done in defense of territory, it was not done to oppose religious discrimination, it was not done because of invasion; it was not done because of suffering by denial of food or other commerce; it was (and still is) done simply because the Qur’an requires it.  The end it seeks is a worldwide caliphate where everyone is a Muslim; or is dead.  Think of it as evangelism by the sword – not persuasion, not reason, not by preaching; it is evangelism by intimidation.

By 633 they had conquered Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) for the first time.

By 637 Muslims had conquered Jerusalem solidifying their control over the land of Israel, and had conquered Syria as well.

By 641 Islamic radicals had conquered Egypt; and by 643, they had completed their conquest of all of North Africa.

By 644, Islam had invaded and conquered what are today Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

By 645, Islam had conquered Armenia.

Between 644 and 712 AD Muslims had invaded and conquered the Sindh (in present day Pakistan).

By 718, Islam had invaded and conquered most of Spain and Portugal.

By the mid 7^th century they had conquered Persia (present day Iran).

By the 9^th century Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan had been put to the sword and conquered by Islam.

In 820 Crete fell, and by 827 the conquest of southern Italy was complete.

The Umayyad Muslims were attempting to further expand across Europe, but in 732 were confronted by the Frankish king Charles Martel.  The victory of the King Charles “The Hammer” Martel at the Battle of Tours in north western France stopped further expansion of Islam throughout Europe and set the scene for the Carolingian Renaissance of the 8^th century that flourished throughout Western Europe.  The eastern part of the Roman Empire was weaker; more dispersed, and so fell quickly to Islam.

Not one of these territories was persecuting Muslims.  None of these areas were territories previously occupied by Muslims. Most of these areas had freely converted to Christianity centuries before.  These were all wars of religious aggression.  The fact that Muslims continue today to justify these murderous invasions proves that the aggressive, murderous element of Islam is not a small minority or a few radicals.  These tactics have been part of Islam from the days of Mohammed, and have never ceased.  They are taught in the Qur’an and in the Hadiths as well.

If the West does not understand and acknowledge the truth about Islam, the West will die and Islam will kill it.  The politically correct of our time are willing to pretend that the history and doctrine of Islam is actually something other than what it is; but they never want anything called by its real name.

Slouching Toward the Crusades

Jews and Christians Both Have an Antecedent Claim to Jerusalem

To quell a Jewish uprising, the Romans sent General Titus to sack Jerusalem, and the task was complete in 70 AD.  Most of the inhabitants were killed or died of disease; many of them Christians.  Any people remaining were murdered on the spot or sold as slaves.

Jerusalem lay in ruins for another 70 years with few inhabitants.  In AD 130 Hadrian decided to rebuild the city.  He did, but it was built as an outpost for the Roma military, and it was renamed Aelia Capitolina.  No Jews were permitted to enter the city, and circumcision was forbidden.

This upset the Jews and resulted in what is known as the bar Kokhba Revolt.  It succeeded for a time and an independent state called “Israel,” was founded and lasted for 3 years.  Coins were minted by Bar Kokhba; archeologists have found them, and some of them are in museums today.

The Romans finally put down the rebellion and did all to extinguish the memory of the land of the Jews by renaming Palestine “Syria Palestinia.”

Eusibius (an Arian Bishop in Caesarea in Palestine in 314, chronicler of the proceedings at the Council of Nicaea in 325 during which his side in the Christological debate lost); wrote a history of the church in which he says that Christians were forced out of Jerusalem twice; in AD 70 and again in AD 133 – both times by Roman Emperors.  In his history he names the Bishops who returned to Jerusalem in 136 AD following the end of the war when Jerusalem was rebuilt as an outpost for Roma soldiers.  We know there were Christians there at the time.

St. Helena (250-330) was the mother of Constantine the Great.  She was commissioned to take a trip to the Holy Land under her son’s direction to find holy things connected with Jesus and the Apostles.  She was in the Holy Land 326-328.  We know this because it was recorded by Eusibius; there was a major Christian presence in Palestine during that time.

During her stay she either arranged construction or blessed the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and the Church on the Mount of Olives.  So we know there were Christians there and churches there at the time.

The Bordeaux Pilgrim kept notes during his pilgrimage from France to Jerusalem in 333-334.  We know there were Christians in Jerusalem at the time. His record proves both a Jewish and Christian presence in the Holy Land and Jerusalem in particular.

Never before, and not during these years was there an Arab government in Palestine.  There were no Arab cities or Capitols.  The claim by Arabs for Palestine actually began when they invaded and conquered it and began to persecute the Jews and Christians who had lived there for centuries.

In 394 we know that John II the Bishop of Jerusalem consecrated the newly constructed Church of Holy Zion at the site of the Last Supper.  So we know there were Christians there at the time.

Judea is conquered by Muslims in 637 – Persecution of Christians Begins

What was the Muslim presence in Jerusalem, and how important was the city to Islam 50 years after the death of Mohammed in 632?  In 680 Bishop Arculf, a Pilgrim who traveled to Jerusalem described “an oblong house of prayer which [the Muslims] pieced together with upright plans and large beams over long ruined remains.”  Forty years following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem; fifty years after Mohammed’s death there is no Mosque in Jerusalem. Apparently Jerusalem was not considered a holy place to Muslims at the beginning at all even though they make a very big deal out of it now.

The Dome of the rock Mosque was not begun until 688, and completed in 691; the al Aqsa Mosque (frequently referred to by Muslims as the “Farthest Mosque”) was built in 715 AD.  The fiction about Mohammed being transported overnight from Mecca to “The Farthest Mosque” which is supposed to be the al Aqsa Mosque according to Muslims is historically impossible.  We know for a fact that this Mosque wasn’t constructed until 85 years after Mohammed was dead.

Once Muslims had established themselves in Jerusalem, they immediately began to harass Christians who lived there as well as Christians who made Pilgrimages to visit the holy Christian sites.

Early in the 8^th century, 60 pilgrims from Portugal were crucified by Muslims near Jerusalem

Many pilgrims were kidnapped and ransomed.  In the 8^th century, crosses were forbidden in Jerusalem.  In 722, Califa al Mansur had the hands of all Jews and Christians branded.  In 789, a Christian monk was beheaded in Bethlehem, and the monastery was looted.

In 937, on Palm Sunday, Muslims destroyed the Church of Calvary, and the Church of the Resurrection.

In 1004 Calipha Abu al-Mansur al-Haki8m burned the Christian churches and set out on a murderous rampage of both Jews and Christians.  In ten years, in the region, some 30,000 churches were destroyed and thousands murdered.

In 1009 he ordered the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and the Church of the Resurrection destroyed.  Jews and Christians were forced to convert to Islam of die.

In 1077 the Seljuk Turkish Muslims overran Jerusalem and murdered more than 3,000 Christians and Jews.

The West Responds

The Christian Emperor Alexius I of the Eastern Roman Empire in Byzantium reached out to the Western Church and ask for help to stop the slaughter of Christians in the Holy Land and Christian pilgrims to the holy sites there.

In 1095 Pope Urban II challenged Christian knights during the Council of Clermont:

The Turks and Arabia have attacked our brothers in the East and have conquered the territory of Romania (the Greek Empire) as far as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont…have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians and have overcome them in seven battles.  They have killed and captured many and have destroyed the churches and devastated the Empire.  If you continue to permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them.  On this account I persuade all people of whatever rank, foot soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to these Christians…  (see here).

Note that this call was not for the conversion of Muslims or for conquering them – it was about relieving the suffering of Christians during their persecution at the hands of Muslims.

The Crusades were begun to relieve Christians from Islamic persecution, and to retake land from which Christians had been ousted by Islam’s armies.

Conclusion

Christians and the culture that Christianity built – Western Civilization – has never competed well with Islam.  Christians are told to be at peace with our neighbors, we are to lay down our lives in behalf of others; Muslims are instructed to force us to convert, or slaughter us.

Raping Christian women captured in war is fine with Allah – he said so in the Qur’an (Suras 23:5, 6; 4:24; 24:32).  There is something seriously wrong with a “religion of peace” that entices murderous rage against all other religions as the price of endless bliss with an eternal harem of virgins who never grow old.  It’s easy to persuade men who are the product of 600 generations of marrying first cousins that god wants them to commit these murders, in exchange for the absolute guarantee of eternal sexual pleasure.

Western leaders who persist in pretending that Islam can be tamed are fools.  Perhaps some of them know it cannot be tamed, but feel like they can’t say it publicly; but none of them act as though they really believe it.

Islam has made greater inroads into Western Civilization through a combination of stealth and emigration and fecundity than the Saracens attempting the conquest of the West by the sword could possibly have imagined.  Had they but tried it, they might have found leaders welcoming them at the gates.

Our idiotic leaders stand at the door and welcome the murderers in, and then condemn the rest of us for pointing out what the murderers have done and how they plan to destroy our culture.  It isn’t radical Islamists who are a danger to us; it is Islam itself.

I do not suggest that all or even most Muslims plan to destroy the West.  What I do suggest is that most Muslims would willingly participate in wholesale murder of you and your neighbor if they were told to do so.  They could not appeal to the Qur’an and show that any Imam demanding such slaughter is wrong.  If an Imam said that the Qur’an required it, how could they not do it – they are not free to interpret Allah.  Islam means “surrender.”

Yet again, perhaps the greatest danger to us is our naïve leaders who don’t have the historical or theological knowledge to understand and won’t take the time to learn that the West is being undermined by the policies they themselves promote.

Below is a list of 26 specific examples of the use of raw, abusive, force used by Mr. Obama during his campaign in 2008, and the first 10 months of his presidency.  Since the list is long, and I am writing it to permenantly document the abuses, you may want to print this post for future reference.  Feel free to use the links I have provided as proof of Mr. Obama’s malfeasance and calumny.

I am not including the abuse of power Mr. Obama is practicing through the unconstitutional use of so-called “Czars” creating policy without Senate Advise and Consent; nor am I writing the larger questions of circumventions of the law with regard to unauthorized spending of government money for things other than approved by legislation or the attempt to nationalize manufacturing, health care, banking, personal incomes, and more.  I will treat those issues in other posts, I am dealing here with Mr. Obama’s disposition. 

Threatening political opponents

In July of 2008, at a fundraiser, Mr. Obama – quoting the Untouchables who had to fight Chicago gangsters revealed his disposition toward civil debate, “If they bring a knife, we will bring a gun,” speaking of how the campaign would be waged.  As you will see, he was prophetic. 

Intimidation to prevent personal embarrassment of Barack Obama

During his campaign for president, Mr. Obama appealed to the Justice Department to asking them to file criminal charges against individuals helping to fund the American Issues Project because the group was running a political ad that was embarrassing to Mr. Obama. 

Intimidation of WGN in Chicago

The Obama campaign sent instructions to his supporters through an “Obama Action Wire” to harass radio station WGN in Chicago because a guest on an interview show discussed documents proving that Mr. Obama was lying when he said he had no connection to terrorist Bill Ayers. 

Intimidation of Joe the plumber

During the campaign while stopping in Ohio, Mr. Obama was asked by Joe Wurzelbacher, “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250 to $280 thousand dollars a year.  Your new tax plan’s going to tax me more isn’t it?” 

Mr. Obama replied, “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success.  My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going to be good for everybody.  If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s a good thing for everybody.”  (Never having operated a company, Mr. Obama couldn’t explain how taking profits away from the plumbing company to give it to potential customers so they pay the plumber back his own money would make anyone better off.) 

Immediately following this encounter, supporters of Mr. Obama who worked in the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services began combing through Wurzelbacher’s government files releasing privileged information to Obama supporters in media outlets in an attempt to embarrass a private citizen who had the nerve to ask Mr. Obama a question. 

Intimidation of media in Missouri

During the campaign state prosecutors and county sheriffs in Missouri who supported Mr. Obama were asked by the Obama campaign to threaten any media outlet if they broadcast or printed anything the Obama campaign determined to be embarrassing to Mr. Obama. 

Intimidation of the Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, and the New York Post

Another strong-arm tactic that Mr. Obama used during the campaign should have warned the voters about his disposition to abuse power was to throw reporters from his campaign bus.  Reporters from the Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, and the New York Post were denied access to the media bus traveling with Mr. Obama immediately after the three newspapers endorsed Mr. McCain. 

Threatening a whole political party

On the third day of his presidency Mr. Obama lectured Republicans in Congress telling them that they better not listen to Rush Limbaugh.  This was an attempt to silence Mr. Limbaugh, and to intimidate elected officials with regard to whose opinions they listen to.  The Bill of Rights be damned. 

Voter intimidation

Not long after his election, Mr. Obama’s hand-picked (and incompetent) Attorney General Eric Holder squashed a Department of Justice investigation in process. DOJ attorneys were building a case against thugs from the New Black Panther Party in a number or states who were obstructing and intimidating voters - white voters they suspected might vote Republican. 

The lawyers investigating were not politically motivated – they were staff attorneys, not political appointees.  They had video and audio of members of the New Black Panther Party dressed up like Nazi’s brandishing police batons threatening and intimidating white voters who they thought might support John McCain for president.  Despite clear violations of the Constitution and federal laws, Mr. Obama is clearly willing to permit street thugs to take care of intimidating his political opponents and then use the U.S. Department of Justice to let them get away with it.  This will no doubt encourage more abuse in the future since denying potential conservative voters the opportunity to vote is obviously a goal of the Obama administration.

Intimidation of pro-lifers, gun owners, and military veterans

In April of this year, the Department of Homeland Security under the direction of Janet Napolitano wasted no time attacking conservative people in the United States as potentially planning terrorist attacks inside the country.  The report named people who are “pro-life,” who support “the Second Amendment;” those who take a stand against “illegal aliens,” and “returning military veterans,” as risk groups for committing terror attacks in the U.S. 

This had no basis in fact of course, and the outcry about this brazen Democrat attempt to suppress what they think is disagreeable political thought was so loud the White House had to distance itself from the report; soon it was retracted.     

We know this act by Homeland Security was in keeping with Mr. Obama’s disposition regarding conservative citizens in America.  We have him on tape denouncing people who disagree with him as people clinging to their guns or their religion, who oppose immigration; and includes them with those who don’t like the idea of a black man in the White House.  This is Mr. Obama’s view of people who support legal immigration, who are serious about their Christianity, and who support the Constitution.    

Intimidation of Gerald Walpin to protect fraud committed by supporters of Mr. Obama

Inspector General of the Corporation for National Community Service, Gerald Walpin, was charged with insuring that government money given through grants to organizations promoting community service was summarily fired. 

Inspectors General are independent from the entity they audit in order to ensure honesty.  They are to provide oversight to help prevent fraud, waste, and criminal activity with involving your tax dollars.  The Corporation for National Community Service is the government entity that distributes $millions to various groups including AmeriCorps (highly favored by Mrs. Obama) and Mr. Walpin’s audit found a great deal of fraud in an organization founded by Kevin Johnson the former NBA basketball player and ardent supporter of Mr. Obama.  The money was given to St. Hope to provide tutoring for poor kids in the Sacramento school system. 

He found that more than $800,000 of government grant money was misspent on Sacrament School Board political activity, salary increases for St. Hope employees, paying personnel to provide personal services for Mr. Johnson like mowing his lawn, washing his personal car, and running errands. 

Soon after Mr. Walpin issued his report he received a call to his mobile phone on a Wednesday night from attorney Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform.  ‘Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it’s time to move on,’” Walpin recalls.  “Eisen said, ‘You can either resign, or I’ll tell you that we’ll have to terminate you.’”  Mr. Walpin said he needed some time to think about it; Eisen said he had one hour.  Eisen called him back in 45 minutes. 

Mr. Walpin knew the timing was critical.  What he had reported made the Directors of AmeriCorps very – they didn’t want a DOJ investigation of their funding of pet projects for political supporters of Democrats.  Walpin declined to resign.  He was immediately fired.  Walpin reminded the officials that Mr. Obama himself had supported legislation that made it impossible to fire an Inspector General without 30 days’ notice, and that he wasn’t resigning.  The Obama administration had to back off.  For 30 days. 

Obama knew that the so-called Stimulus Bill would provide tens or hundreds of $millions for Sacramento and New York, and that helps attract votes for him, but the violations were so serious that both cities could lose any future funding.  The answer: squash the message and kill the messenger; Walpin had to go. 

When the 30 days were up, he was fired; now he has filed a lawsuit against the government for the illegal firing.  This is what happens when a member of the ‘Obama family’ gets caught engaging in illegal activities – “Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It, and Polarize It.”  Saul Alinsky shows the way for the Obama administration.  Disagreeing with Barack Obama can seriously cost you. 

Intimidation of private by promoting secret reporting on neighbors to the White House

Following the East German Stasi program of ratting out your neighbor for being insufficiently ardent about his health care plan, Mr. Obama sought to intimidate American citizens by asking people who received any email with criticisms of his plans to forward the email to a White House website.  Doing this would provide political operatives with email addresses and URL’s for those he perceives as political enemies.  This is not the only attempt on the part of Mr. Obama to create an “enemies list.” 

Intimidation by secretly tracking American citizens’ comments on the Obama presidency

In another attempt to gather dirt on people who may not support his politics, the Obama administration – without any public notice – began to collect and archive comments made by tens of millions of Americans on social networking sites like Facebook.com and Myspace.com. Mr. Obama continues to engage in the practice without notifying those who make posts on these personal websites.

By using this information, political operatives can keep tabs on who supports and who does not support this administration’s politics.  When seen as part of a larger picture, these attempts to gather the political thoughts of every American, and the illegal nationalizing of American manufacturing, banking, energy, and healthcare, it gets scary.  It’s clear that those who oppose the President can be identified and, given past performance, could be denied business banking loans, health care services and other goods and services now controlled by Mr. Obama and his operatives.  We have seen this ruthless policy already carried out with the Chrysler bondholders and dealers who supported John McCain – goods and services denied to citizens based solely on their opposition to Mr. Obama’s political policies. 

Intimidation of Tea Party citizens to deny them Constitutional rights

After trying to socialize American health care demanding that it be done in the space of two weeks, the debate heated up, and the Tea Parties began.  Mr. Obama and leading Democrat politicians attempted over and over to intimidate hundreds of thousands of Americans who were engaging in a Constitutional right.  Powerful government officials referred to these American citizens as Nazi’s, terrorists, unwashed mobs, and more, in a blatant attempt to coerce them into silence.  This single-minded policy on the part of Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party seeks to deny people the right to freely support or oppose the politics they want, and to force them into alignment with Mr. Obama’s political agenda.  We need to see this for what it is.  

Intimidation of citizens at townhall meetings

Recall these meetings held by Senators and Representatives during the summer recess.  In some cases, citizens were locked out of meetings to deny them the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble.  In other cases, supporters of the Democrat politicians were bussed in to fill the room prior to opening the room for constituents; sometimes union thugs were present to intimidate constituents, sometimes very small rooms were used in order to prevent access to Congressional representatives.  In more than one case personal ID was required to access the room to speak to an elected official. 

Intimidation of private businesses

During the health care debate, Humana – one of the largest providers of private health insurance in America – notified its members about Humana’s opposition to the President’s plan and why they opposed it. 

Immediately Mr. Obama and his operatives began threatening Humana.  If Humana doesn’t stop promoting their own views on health care, the president and Congress will strip the insurance companies of anti trust protections. 

This is a private company, yet Mr. Obama will use the coercive power of the government to force them into compliance with his personal political agenda.  

Intimidation of democratic leaders in other countries

Manuel Zelaya, President of Honduras was elected in 2006.  Under the Honduran Constitution, anyone elected to the office of President can serve only one three-year term. 

In the course of his term Mr. Zelaya declared special trade deals with Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua; he imported doctors from these countries who immediately went into the countryside indoctrinating the peasants with communist ideas of revolution.  He defined anyone with more than a two bedroom home as rich and these “rich” people had to house the poor in their homes.  He raised the minimum wage by 60%, unemployment skyrockets, and he becomes very unpopular. 

In the last year of his presidency, Zelaya decides he wants to serve another term despite what the Constitution says and orders a referendum to be attached to the upcoming presidential primary ballots with a special place for people to vote on eliminating presidential term limits.  It is so outrageously illegal that he cannot find a printing company in Honduras to print the ballots; the entire Congress – minus 3 members – votes against this criminal move – even members of his own political party. 

Zelaya has the ballots printed by his friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and are shipped to Honduras.  Mr. Zelaya orders the Chief of Staff of the Honduran military to distribute the ballots, and the Chief of Staff refuses because of the illegality of the move.  Mr. Zelaya fires the Chief of Staff; the Honduran Supreme Court orders him reinstated and the illegal ballots confiscated.  

Mr. Zelaya turns to radical supporters and street thugs ordering them to break into an Air Force base and seize the confiscated ballots. 

Honduras had finally had enough.  A thug is trying to take over their country, and must be stopped.  There is no provision for impeachment in the Honduran Constitution, but the laws apply to every citizen including the president.  Honduran law states, “The citizen who has served as head of the Executive branch shall not serve again as President or Vice President of the Republic…He who violates this disposition or proposes its reform…shall immediately be removed from office.” 

Because of the law and its violation by President Zelaya, the Supreme Court orders him arrested.  The military carried out the arrest warrant.  The office of Vice-President was vacant so the next in line to serve was the Speaker of the House who is sworn in as President; this individual – Roberto Micheletti – is a member of the same political party as Mr. Zelaya. 

Immediately Mr. Obama denounced this transition as a “military coup,” and began to punish the Honduran people for acting according to their own Constitution trying to preserve their democracy.  Up to this moment Obama insists that Honduras reinstate Zelaya who is attempting to do exactly what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.  The Obama administration has cut off consular visas with Honduras, as well as funding for the small country in desperate need of U.S. help.  

The Law Library of Congress was asked to investigate the legality of the Honduran actions, and produced a report for Congress in August stating,

“The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings. The Constitution no longer authorizes impeachment, but gives Congress the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President, to conduct special investigations on issues of national interest, and to interpret the Constitution. In the case against President Zelaya, the National Congress interpreted the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President to encompass the power to remove him from office, based on the results of a special, extensive investigation.”   

Not getting the result he wanted, Democrat Senator John Kerry demands that the Law Library of Congress retract its analysis.  Can anyone pronounce the word “censorship”? On October 29, 2009, the Law Library of Congress has issued a statement saying they stand behind their report. 

Why would Mr. Obama and leading Democrat politicians insist on supporting a thuggish communist attempting to illegally take over the democratic government of Honduras; and oppose his legal ouster by our democratically elected friends in Honduras?  Perhaps Mr. Obama wants to set a precedent for his own future designs on the political structure of the U.S.  Scary. 

Intimidation of Chrysler bondholders

The Obama administration was so intent on providing financial support for the United Auto Workers union that it subordinated $6.9 billion in Chrysler bonds. Under legal standards, the bondholders would be paid first in case of a bankruptcy, but Mr. Obama ignored the law.  He accused the bondholders of being “speculators” because they had loaned Chrysler almost $7 billion, and accused them of “refusing to cooperate.”  This browbeating and intimidation cost people who invested in the company through bonds almost $5 billion; the income from these bonds constituted retirement money for many of these people. 

The President forced them to accept $2 billion on the bondholders’ investment of $6.9.  Then he gave 55% of Chrysler Corporation to the UAW, and demanded that the company be brought into the Fiat Corporation, an Italian auto manufacturer.  By violating the law and not permitting a bankruptcy, Mr. Obama was able to transfer $billions from investors and bondholders to the unions. 

Intimidation and theft of Chrysler dealerships

As the deal with Fiat was put together, administration officials targeted Chrysler dealerships that were to be closed.  Although never admitted to by the administration the list of owners who were targeted to lose their dealerships were owners who had donated to the GOP, to conservative causes in general; and even included those who had previously supported John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. 

The administration made these decisions based on political affiliation, not on the dealerships that had run successful Chrysler dealerships.  This deal was absolutely corrupt, and was designed to punish those who politically do not support Mr. Obama and use their money to reward those who do. 

Intimidation of Arizona State University by threatening IRS audits

At a commencement speech at Arizona State University, Mr. Obama noted that A.S.U. had refused to give him an honorary degree because of his lack of executive experience and the debate about it during the campaign.  Mr. Obama followed this statement by saying, “I really thought this was much ado about nothing.  But I do think we all learned an important lesson.  I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets…President Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS. 

No doubt he meant this as a joke, but when you’re the president and you can make it happen, you don’t joke about it – especially when you have a reputation for taking a gun to a knife fight.  The mafia don is asking, “How are the wife and kids?”

Intimidation of the nation’s physicians

As the health care debate dragged on, Mr. Obama wanted to intimidate doctors who will bill Medicare and Medicaid for services rendered into supporting his government operated health care plans.

He made a speech in which he said the government needs to act on his plan because doctors would rather remove a child’s tonsils than treat an infection because they make more money for the surgery.

He gave another example of the importance of government taking over health care by suggesting that doctors would rather delay treatment of diabetes, because they could make more money later by amputating a patient’s foot.  Then he went on to suggest that the doctor stood to make $25,000, to $50,000 for the amputation rather than the $750 to $1,200 they are really paid.

Physicians who desire a different approach to providing health care than Mr. Obama wants can expect outrageous denunciations that they are greedy, have no interest in their patients, and are unworthy parasites who must be brought to heel by government bureaucrats.  Post partisan indeed. 

Intimidation Carrie Prejean

Along the way, Carrie Prejean won the Miss California USA pageant, and was runner-up for the Miss USA crown.

You will remember that during the final event, an ardently and publically gay pageant judge asked Miss. Prejean about gay marriage.  She said she harbored no animus toward gays, but preferred traditional marriage.  Instant outrage ensued.

She became the runner-up when most everyone thought she would win the pageant.  Immediately she became the object of opprobrium from the leftists in the country, called despicable names, and was ultimately stripped of her Miss California USA crown. 

The top political advisor to Mr. Obama, David Axelrod, said during an (tax subsidized) NPR interview that Carrie Prejean was one of 3 finalists for the Obama family dog.  The audience roared with laughter and cheers.  No one is immune to the poison and vitriol and abuse the Obama administration will heap on those they perceive as not supporting their political positions.  This is just great; Mr. Obama’s henchman beating up a Miss USA contestant.  No one is safe. 

Intimidation of white police officers

Earlier this year when Henry Louis Gates arrived home from a trip abroad, he couldn’t find his keys.  He and his escort – both black men – began trying to break through the front door of Mr. Gates’ house. 

A neighbor seeing two men attempting to break into a home called the Cambridge police.  When the officers arrived, the door was open and they thought a burglary or home invasion was in progress.

They entered the home and encountered Mr. Gates.  Not knowing who he was, they demanded ID.  He refused and told them to leave.

Thinking there may be a hostage held elsewhere in the home, the officers (one of them a black officer) asked Mr. Gates to come out on the front porch.  Mr. Gates began berating the officers accusing them of being bigots and racists, abusing their power, pushing around a black man. 

The argument continued with Mr. Gates refusing to identify himself.  The officers then took Mr. Gates out on the porch while he continued to berate the officers.  By now, they had secured the home and identified Mr. Gates, but he was arrested for disturbing the peace because of his insistent yelling at the officers calling them racists, calling Officer Crowley’s mother a :bitch,” and telling them, “You don’t know who you’re messing with.” 

Mr. Gates is a friend of Mr. Obama.  Upon hearing about the arrest and then being asked publically about it Mr. Obama said he didn’t know much about it.  “But I think it’s fair to say No. 1 any of us would be pretty angry.  Number 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.”  

Apparently Mr. Obama doesn’t need to know much about a thing to have an already strong pre-formed opinion about it.  Harboring racist thoughts in his own heart, Mr. Obama’s prior assumption is that a white officer arresting a black man is prima facie evidence of racism.  This was a clumsy attempt to intimidate white police officers on the part of the president. 

Intimidation of Fox News

Mr. Obama has always had animus toward Fox News because the reporters at the company have attempted to be fair and balanced; and we know that Mr. Obama supports only unfair and out of balance news organizations that support his political positions.  Besides the news segments, Fox also has opinion shows – but so do the favored networks, like leftists Larry King on CNN, or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.  An opinion show is designed to express opinions regarding facts, not just the facts themselves like the news segments do.  Some of the opinion show hosts on Fox are decidedly not in sync with the Obama agenda; for that reason the administration recently launched a dangerous attack against Fox news. 

Administration officials have stated that Fox News – more than twice as popular as any other two cable news organizations combined – isn’t a news station at all.  They went on to suggest that other news organizations not follow up on any Fox generated stories like people who are communists, revolutionaries or internationalists; or who support forced abortions in the U.S. or a government takeover of all our uses of energy working in the White House.

This is an open attack to force compliance with the thoughts of Mr. Obama.  No one should listen to any voice that doesn’t support him; no one should be permitted to produce information that opposes him.  Everyone who disagrees with the Dear Leader must to vilified, denounced, ridiculed, and stopped.  “Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It, and Polarize It.”

Attempting to intimidate Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

Rush Limbaugh who is a syndicated talk show host whose show would be listed on any station’s format as “entertainment,” has long been the object of scorn from the Democrat Party.  Democrat politicians are operating on the assumption that they have the right to express their opinions, but unless you agree with them, you don’t have the right to express yours. 

Lately Glenn Beck, a private individual, has become an object of Obama intimidation for outing the Obama administration’s ‘Green Jobs Czar’ Van Jones as a ‘truther.’  That is, Jones believes President George Bush conspired with Osama bin Laden to create the attacks on 9/11 resulting in the murder of 3,000 American citizens.  Beck also showed film where Jones announced that he himself was a communist.  

He didn’t apologize for the horror of permitting Van Jones to become responsible for $billions of tax dollars without realizing he was a communist.  No, Mr. Obama obviously knows Mr. Jones’ political commitments so he cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war against Mr. Beck. 

Again Mr. Obama is demonstrating that he opposes our Constitutional right of free speech and freedom of the press, and by extension, broadcast media; and makes no apology whatsoever for his intention to ignore the law. 

Intimidation of Senator John Kyl

Arizona Senator John Kyl was critical of Mr. Obama’s ‘Stimulus Plan,” so administration Cabinet Secretaries attempting to intimidate Sen. Kyl sent letters to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  One of them said, “If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to the state, as Senator Kyl suggests,” let us know. 

Correctly, the Arizona Republic newspaper said, “Let’s not mince words here.  The White House is intent on shutting Kyl up…using whatever means necessary.” 

Intimidation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Very recently the Obama administration has tried to intimidate the Chamber of Commerce.  This is a membership group promoting the interests of businesses in the U.S.  Presumably they have insight into what is good for job creation since the member companies together employ tens of millions of Americans.  But Mr. Obama who has never hired an employee he had to pay, and has never even operated a lemonade stand knows better. 

Since the Chamber has opposed Mr. Obama’s health care plan, the president has sent Rahm Emmanuel and Valerie Jarrett out to dismantle the Chamber by cleaving off important businesses from the positions the Chamber itself has taken.  They have gone directly to IBM, Wal-Mart, Time Warner, Kodak, Amazon, Coca-Cola, and Starbucks in order to try to break the influence of the Chamber of Commerce. 

This is a process of intimidation; Jarrett said, “The question is: does the Chamber really represent the business community the way it used to?  It seems as though their members are disengaging.”  Of course any member business is free to quit the Chamber at any time.  Any process of “disengagement” was the attempt of the Obama administration in their attempt to destroy this private organization that had the nerve to disagree with Mr. Obama. 

Conclusion

We can determine what the new United States will look like by observing the policies he is pursuing.  He is seeking federal government control over: what health care services you will be permitted to have, your banking accounts and the loans you create with any bank; your credit cards, the kind of job you can have, and now how much you will be permitted to earn.  He is seeking control over what constitutes marriage, and your opinions regarding sexual morality.  He is seeking to control what you are permitted to believe about immigration, the Constitution; and what kind of company you can create.  He is seeking to control the temperature of your home, when you can run your dishwasher, and how hot you can have your water.

Considering this collection of concrete and verified instances of intimidation, and vicious cage fighting against private, individual citizens:  a beauty pageant winner, private physicians, constituents attempting to speak to their representatives, entertainers; against political speech by researchers, pro live-loving moms, ordinary supporters of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; against military veterans who have given their all in defense of their country, government employees who are charged with insuring good accounting; against innocent investors, and business owners, and University Presidents; against white police officers in the orderly conduct of their task, leading news outlets, and Republican Senators; the conclusion is inescapable: Mr. Obama is, on the outside, a sophisticated, urbane but committed leftist intent on “transforming” the United States.  

On the inside, there is overwhelming evidence that he is a Chicago thug in the mold of previous Chicago gangsters.  He has surrounded himself with cut-throats; people who play for keeps.  He commissions them to go out to harass, intimidate, browbeat; to call names, to ruin reputations while he publically remains the professorial, reticent, sophisticate.  He publically expresses a sort of benign patience with we lesser mortals who aren’t bright enough to follow his deep reasoning, but on the inside he is an angry man who is willing to steal money dedicated to provide services for the elderly so he can give it to someone else.  If we could remove the practiced smile, we would see Mr. Obama as he is; an angry, jealous, bitter, man with his teeth barred; a man of infinite ego consumed with hubris.  We know this because of the instances I show in this post.  He feigns patient sophistication while he and his gang slit the throat of American cultural and economic history.  The blood of American tradition is squirting out in all directions.  We are dying of cultural exsanguination; and Barack Obama is the assassin.

The only question that remains is, what will you do about stopping his hostile takeover of the United States?  Are you invested so totally in Mr. Obama that you give him every benefit of the doubt?  Can you look honestly at what this man has done since becoming president?  Are you willing to admit the bullying he has done to anyone with the courage to disagree with him?  Are you willing to look squarely into the abyss that Mr. Obama is “transforming” America into?  Are you willing leave behind all that has made this country good and great: the envy of the world; the shining city on the hill for emigrants everywhere?  Consider what our election of Barack Obama will cost the world; and reconsider what politics you support.

Anyway, Democrats have gone through phases with this thing: arrogance, concealment, arrogance, recklessness, invective, arrogance, absence, and then, of course, deceit - persuasion not being part of their agenda.  President Obama has followed this same path minus the name-calling of citizens (although he uses invective against insurance companies all the time.) 

The map for attempting to sell this legislative dog is winding from one place to another:  

• We can’t afford the rising health care costs
• Trust us because we really need to do this
• We have the best and brightest people working on this
• It isn’t finished yet so give us time and quit picking it apart
• Don’t bother to read it – we not going to
• We know you may not like this, but it’s good for you
• Trust us, we will fix it
• It doesn’t say what it says and we know this because we haven’t read it

So now the President is flailing around for another way to convince people that what they don’t want is actually what they do want.  Obama is losing so he’s getting the old time leftist religion. 

During a conference call with Jewish leaders yesterday, Obama quoted from a Rosh Hashanah prayer, “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death,” he said.  I thought I had seen the worst of his arrogance, but now he makes himself the very hand of God – God’s partner!  I guess that means whatever Obama wants is what God wants; he is acting in God’s behalf.  Can you imagine what would have happened if the Christian George W. Bush would have said this?  The hubris is suffocating.  

Obama went on to say there are: 

“…fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation; that is, that we look out for one another; that is, I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.”  

This from the guy whose half-brother lives in a shack in Kenya on less than $1 dollar a month.  This from the guy who between 2001-2004 earned $981,000 and gave a total of $8400 in charitable giving – .008% of his personal income.  Wow, he must really believe this “core ethical and moral obligation” brother’s keeper stuff.  In 2005 and 2006 on income of $2.6 million, the Obamas gave $92,867, or 3.4%.  His brother’s keeper indeed!  

He is a typical elitist snob: the only role he would play in brother keeping is to use his power to extract more of your money to give to the brother; and this at the same time he proposes to lower the deductions for charitable giving discouraging it even more.  Worse, he thinks you are stupid enough to believe the tripe he dishes out for consumption.  “Charitable” in his universe means government coercively collecting and spending your money. Practice what you preach, moron. 

For well over 20 years I did talk radio in Portland, Oregon and frequently interviewed those who think they have the answers for everyone else.  Among the worst of these elitist sophists are the sanctimonious – those who think they know what Jesus’ position would be on any given piece of legislation.  (I have come to think that these people no longer have any credibility of their own, so they claim to speak for God – who can argue with Him?) 

So I want to outline why you should not trust Christians who claim to know which health care legislation God Himself supports. 

Jesus created converts, not government programs

First, Jesus’ entire ministry was to create converts, and to teach those converts His truth.  This is important because when Jesus makes statements about caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, and by extension providing health care; he was talking to individual people who had converted to Christianity.  To take those commands and teachings for individuals and apply them to governmental institutions is extremely dangerous.  You can’t say part of Jesus’ teaching applies to government programs and then say the rest of it doesn’t. 

Consider: Jesus told His followers to feed the poor, therefore we need to have welfare programs in the U.S.; Jesus also told His followers to convert people around the world and baptize them, therefore we need to have a Department of Christianity to carry out baptisms?   If Jesus’ command for charity is a governmet responsibility why isn’t conversion and baptism?

Don’t pay any attention to these guys; liberal, activist priests; or self-proclaimed ‘Evangelical’ Christians like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo.  From my perspective they are leading the faithful astray and they will certainly lead the country astray if we follow them.  I have spent serious time interviewing both of them in studio.  Campolo is simply a magnificent speaker which makes him all the more dangerous, and he actually practices what he preaches about charity; Wallis, so far as I have seen, can’t do anything well.  But both of them are bleeding-heart liberals who fawn over every politically liberal program in sight. 

Jesus healed lots of people; perhaps we should empower bureaucrats to engage in healing ministry – that alone would solve the health care issue and for only a generous offering; just a one-time small financial contribution my brothers!

Jesus told about the Good Samaritan.  This guy provided health care for a person he didn’t know because it was the right thing for him to do.  Jesus did not tell this story so citizens would see that the moral thing to do is support a government-run health care program; but rather that we would realize our personal obligation to another person.  This is real brother keeping.  Get a clue. 

I think I can safely say that Jesus would specifically not support such a program, and here are my reasons.  Jesus’ entire teaching was about individual moral reform through faith in Him alone, repentance, spiritual rebirth, and living a holy life; not how to run a government.  It is individual people who need to freely give their own substance in order to help other individual people.  Jesus never taught anything like what the president is proposing: increase the power of government, use its coercive power to extract money from people against their will, and then use that money for whatever purposes nameless bureaucrats desire.  What a crock. 

One of Jesus’ recurrent themes was to denounce the Scribes, Pharisees, and Publicans.  

Scribes were a group who were literate and could read and write contracts for people who were illiterate; and there was a lot of cheating by these Scribes because they had knowledge some others didn’t have.  Today’s Scribes are the intellectuals in academia and government who use their positions to recreate the world in their own image.   

Pharisees were a Jewish reform movement that had long since become corrupt and begun to use their religious power for secular ends.  Today’s Pharisees are liberal religious leaders who use their religious positions to push a secular agenda.  (You know who they are.) 

Publicans, the third group, were representatives of government who cheated people as they collected taxes.  Today’s Publicans are; well, representatives of government; the government that lies, cheats, steals, and wastes tens of $billions every year.  The reason Jesus denounced these government workers of His time is because they cheated the people.  Some things never change.  

This is why I think it is fair to say Jesus would never promote a government system for brother keeping, but instead would demand individual charity from believers in behalf of their brothers.  (Don’t you ever hear people say, “Why should I?  I can’t afford it.  There are lots of government programs for people like that?”  How does that fit into Obama’s understanding of what he considers “a core ethical and moral obligation?”)  To suggest anything other than charity as a personal responsibility is to bastardize the New Testament.  If Jesus’ teaching is that it really is the government’s responsibility to take care of welfare and health care through massive taxation and redistribution, then we as individuals are off the hook.  This changes everything about Christianity; the whole thing is a collective.  Collective charity, collective welfare, collective salvation, collective destiny.  These guys need to quit making God in their own image! 

The kingdom of God is not the kingdom of this world

Second, these religious hucksters always confuse the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world.  Most of them no longer believe the historical Christian faith, so they get involved in politics as an ersatz religion replacing their lapsed or failing faith.  For many of them Marx replaced Jesus.  Now most of the Marxists think the best way to implement their socialism is through various incarnations of environmentalism, social justice, racial justice, economic justice, anti-corporatism, and so on.  

They really don’t accept the human condition or the results of democracy itself.  Salvation doesn’t come through faith in Jesus; it comes through faith in government.  The justice they want is not what happens in the real world – doesn’t get the results they think are just - so they promote the use of government to force their vision of “social justice,” “racial justice,” and “economic justice” and are always trying to change people instead of permitting God to do it.  Social engineering, economic engineering, “spreading the wealth around,” saving the earth…  So the message of Jesus to separate ourselves from this world becomes – for these sons of perdition – a command to get totally involved in this world!  What pap. 

So when the false prophets start telling you to support Obama’s program because that’s what Jesus would do; tell them Jesus already announced that false prophets would come, and told you not to listen to them.  

The scat you get from the religious hucksters Obama is recruiting is only a call to a new idolatry of socialist government programs.  They offer you a god more important than the Lord and ask you to bow before him; but you already know what God’s going to do with idolaters.