You and Me Forever… further thoughts

Francis and Lisa Chan present a beautiful description of how love should manifest in our marriages:

This is how our lives should look. We are filled in Christ. Beyond filled. Overflowing. So we turn to the people around us and share the abundance of love, peace, joy, and life.

Here’s a blueprint for marriage:

1. We become overwhelmed by Christ’s care for us.

2. So we shower our wives with the same love we receive from God.

3. Then, people are shocked by our extravagant love toward our wives.

4. As a result, we are given an opportunity to tell them about the love of Christ that compels us. Page 80 (Emphasis mine).

I wrote previously about how Francis and Lisa Chan observed that “beautiful people make beautiful marriages.” And, to be beautiful, we must be Christ like, which means giving and giving and giving. It means approaching mistakes and disputes in humility and not pride. It means pouring out our love towards our spouses so extravagantly that others are shocked and amazed (I note this is consistent with what Gary Chapman so elegantly describes in “The 5 Love Languages”). To be in a competition to out give the other—right where each of us needs it—THIS is what God envisions for relationships and marriage.

This is all well and good.

We learn, next, that we need to get our relationship into the fight for Christ. Francis says, “Being at war together [for Christ] is what keeps us from being at war with each other.” (page 97). I used the analogy of soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder with guns blazing at a common enemy. Would not that serve to unite us while also minimizing differences? Like, duh…

Then, for this fight, we are exhorted to use our gifts and possessions. I explained that I feel called to reach out via the written word and perhaps in bible studies on relationships. Later, perhaps, to speak on these matters. I asked you to consider what it might mean for you.

This is exciting and deeply convicting…

To look forward to loving a wife with such intensity and abandon AND THEN to have that love on display to testify to God’s power… Sigh… This is the answer I’ve been seeking for the question, “How do I put God in a relationship?” beyond the easy answer of prayer and loving works.

So far, so good.

But then we ran into some controversy when I made a post on Facebook I noted, there, that the authors seemed to get a bit excited when they told us that our priorities were not correct if we would choose to raise our kids over the option to leave the world to be with God. I indicated that I cannot fathom God applauding a parent’s choice to leave her kids so she can rejoice in seeing Him. To me, this is to deeply distort who God is by making him into something disquietingly self centered. Moreover, relying on God to provision for these parentless children, as the authors exhort us to do, is akin to saying, “well, we ought not get excited about divorce leaving children with one parent, or with teen pregnancy in the inner city… because God will take care of them just as well as if they had parents.”

No. This is not what God wants.

I’m pretty sure he wants us to be concerned about and work to correct these societal problems precisely because He wants us to raise our children as best only the biological parent can.

Now, He may take one or both parents before their time. But that is HIS choice, or rather a tragedy arising from their or someone else’s mistake. And yes, Romans 8:28 is true, and we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him and who are called according to his purpose. So, yes, God will make something good out of whatever mistake happens on earth. But that does NOT mean he intended for the parent(s) to get killed by that drunk driver or cancer. He will grieve the consequent disunion of parent and child. Not applaud it.

There was further controversy when Luke 14:26 was mentioned for the proposition that we must hate our wives. First a little more discussion on the point. Luke 14:26 says:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

I pointed out that such a statement should not be taken any more literally than the command to pluck our a lustful eye, or cut off a sinful hand…

But, Francis Chan also seems excited or inspired by this admonition to hate our wives when he contrasts the love we are supposed to have for our wives with that we are to have for God:

It’s not that we should love Him a little more than we love our families; our love for Him should be in a different category. He is far beyond us, so our love for Him should be far beyond our love for others. The gap between our love for God and our love for our spouses should be massive. The two are not worthy of being compared. (Emphasis mine).

While God is indeed far beyond us (He is God, after all, and we are humans), it does not follow that our love for him should therefore be far beyond our love for others. That statement does not stand up to careful analysis. Look closely…

What is the ultimate display of love (on earth or in Heaven)?

Is it not the love God displayed for us in handing his Son to be crucified for our sins?

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16.

Love does not get bigger than that.

And yet, that is exactly the level, the depth, the totality of love we are to have for our wives. Ephesians 5:25-29 makes it clear:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her… So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (Emphasis mine).

Think of that. God, Jesus Christ. They (He) set the bar for love. Jesus on the Cross is GOD’s ultimate display of love. It happens, also, to be exactly the same love he commands us to give to our wives.

No more is possible; no less is permissible.

How, therefore, can we surpass it for God? The fact it, It matters not what we are loving. We simply have no more capacity than God.

In truth, we are not capable of loving anything, be it God or the man on the moon, any more than Christ loved us. Clearly, then, it’s hyperbole to say we must love Him “far beyond” our love for our wives. And such hyperbole sets us up to fail miserably. It causes those deeply committed to loving God to question their devotion when it doesn’t seem to measure up to “far beyond.”

Joseph Girzone speaks of this type of problem when he says of committed believers:

They search their lives and their hearts and delve deep into their consciousness so as to better identify hidden breaches of law, all the while becoming ever more introspective and attentive to every thought and action, becoming, in the process, progressively more centered on self. In the end they find themselves fighting a thousand battles on a thousand different fronts, and realize that it’s impossible to live that way. At that point many give up, some have breakdowns. Many marriages are destroyed because of that fanatical demanding that everything be done perfectly. Joseph F. Gizrone, “A Portrait of Jesus,” Page 88.

So, how about we lessen the pressure? Can we simply say that a husband is to love and cherish his wife as hard as Christ loved us, and he is to love God with his whole heart and soul? I think that’s pressure enough. Don’t you?

Please, Mr. and Mrs. Chan, let’s not make excited and scripturally unsound exhortations. It serves on one, and least of all God.

All this to come to today’s topic. It’s related to this whole discussion of love.

I want to say, first, however, that overall I think this book is a true Godsend. It outlines a path to heal and strengthen marriages and really all human relationships which I want to follow with all my heart.

Yet, I have another quibble that serves as a good point of study. This has to do with telling us, on one hand, to love our wives so extravagantly that people will be shocked, and then, on the other, telling us to not love so much that we seem to be seeking to please each other more than we please God.

Advice like that needs some explanation and unfortunately none is given.

To start, the authors quote at length 1 Corinthians 7:29-35 (page 115):

From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none… I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord… But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried … woman is anxious about the things of the Lord… But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this … to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. (Emphasis mine).

The authors then go on to say:

That last verse is the key to the passage. It is the key to life. All of us are to pursue “undivided devotion to the Lord.” We cannot allow marriage to distract us from the higher calling. … [Paul] he makes it clear that marriage can turn our eyes away from Jesus and toward each other in an unhealthy way. We end up seeking to please each other rather than pleasing Him. Marriage can bring us to a point where our “interests are divided” (v. 34), when our goal is actually an “undivided devotion to the Lord” (v. 35). (Emphasis mine).

Like the admonitions to pluck our our eyes, we should not read this section of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians literally. Clearly we are not to suddenly pretend that we are not married (live as though we have none)—when we have been elsewhere commanded by God to love our wives as Christ loved the Church… Certainly, God does not contradict himself, so something else must be going on.

First let’s examine the context.

Verse 26, not quoted by the Chans, would appear to indicate that Paul is referring to a present crisis existing with Christians at that specific time in history:

Because of the present crisis, I think that is is good for you to remain as you are.

Given the crisis, Paul is saying it might be best to put off all concerns (remain as you are… if you are married, do not seek a divorce, if you are unmarried, do not seek a wife…

Then we come to the first verse quoted by the Chans:

What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none…

That sound a little different now that it’s in context?

In comments, the NIV states: “Paul’s recommendation here does not apply to all times and in all situations” and probably refers to then current difficulties of living in a city rife with moral problems and hostility toward Christians. Accordingly, during this time, it’s best to be free from household concerns.

Regrettably, however, the Chans also chose a translation that uses the word “anxiety” or a form of it instead of the better NIV translation of “concerns.” Anxiety certainly fits their bias. But, it seems, Paul is not discussing any abnormal or “unhealthy” state of affairs between husbands and wives. He is merely noting that spouses do indeed think about worldly issues (they are concerned with—not “anxious” about) as they go about caring for and loving each other. Today, that would mean taking out the garbage, picking up a gallon of milk, bringing home flowers, performing a loving massage, giving a tender kiss… These are “worldly” things and darn good things thank you very much…

Then, on top of making it look like Paul really wants married people to avoid “unhealthy” acts of love and care, the Chans warn that: “… we must be wary of enjoying marriage too much.” They follow that admonish with an ominous reference (Romans 1:25) to worshiping idols (page 116).

This is simply too much back and forth. I feel like a ping pong ball. Love you wife. Hate you wife. Love her as Christ loved the Church, but somehow miraculously love God even more (far beyond!). Oh, and then don’t love her at all (pretend she is not even your wife!) as that will constitute a divided devotion to God. And don’t love her too much or she becomes an idol…

As Charlie Brown often said, good grief!

I get that an unGodly marriage will not be focused on God. I get that even a marriage where the couple has tried to put God first may get out of whack. But, didn’t Francis and Lisa earlier tell us to demonstrate such extravagant love toward our wives that people will be shocked?

Indeed, they say at page 36, “The way we love our spouses should make the love of Christ believable and true.” Given that, I’d like to know exactly how demonstrating love can turn our eyes from Jesus and toward each other in an unhealthy way…

Demonstrating love is God’s command. God doesn’t command us to do unhealthy things. Does anyone think we can do too much of what God commands?

Sure, it’s vital that we stay in the fight for Christ. Our actions cannot be selfish (because then it’s not love). Our actions cannot be self-seeking (because that is not love). We must love each other in humility and without pridefulness (because that is not love).

Maybe that’s all they are trying to say…

But, it’s terribly unfair to exhort us to love each other so extravagantly that others are shocked and then, based on a highly-questionable reading of the Word, bludgeon us with the notion that our love can somehow be unGodly. Not at least without some specific examples… of which there are none.

This is the stuff that confuses people and, frankly, turns them away from otherwise wonderful messages. As Father Joseph F. Girzone says, this type of talk risks losing credibility with intelligent people.

Amen to that.

Being at war together keeps us from being at war with each other.

As I work my way through “you and me forever; marriage in light of eternity,” I keep finding lines that make me just flat out stop. This is not a book to read quickly.

It is, instead, a book to be studied and prayed over—its precepts so deep and important to life and relationships.

So here is the latest line that has stopped me in my tracks:

“Being at war together is what keeps us from being at war with each other.”

Conjure the image of soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder, rifles raised and blazing off rounds at the enemy… Locked in a fight for their lives… needing each other to survive…

Do you think they are focused on disputes they had back at camp, or in the fox hole that morning?

Don’t doubt that they had such disputes.

But neither doubt that they have, at least for the length of this fight, faded into insignificance.

To be engaged together in a fight that is bigger than our day-to-day issues. To be at war together. To be in the same war—on the same side—shooting at a common enemy.

This is what Francis and Lisa Chan mean.

And the battle they want us to join is the battle to win hearts and minds to Christ. They want us to join forces as a couple, husband and wife, to use our “knowledge, gifts, and possessions” to fight for God. They want us to benefit from God’s willingness to unleash the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives when we use our gifts for the benefit of others in need.

Imagine that. God’s power flowing through us to minister to others. I’m thinking that will do more than deepen our bond as a couple. Don’t you think it will take those little bouts of selfishness, pride, and even anger, and cover or even obliterate them in a shared victory?

I’ve often wondered, “what does it really look like when God is in the driver’s seat of a relationship?” And, relatedly, “how do we put him there?”

Do we do it by praying often together? Do we do by going to church together? Do we do it by striving to remain inside his wishes?

Of course, it’s yes to all that.

But it’s also something I never understood. Until now.

We have to be in the fight together.

We have to be doing something, together, that gets us into the fight for hearts and minds for Christ.

For me, presently single, at a minimum, I think I may need to do more volunteer work. And tithe more. Friends have confirmed that I should be writing and using this gift I seem to have to express thoughts, teaching some of the scriptural and practical lessons I’ve learned that might help others to build their relationships. I’d love also to teach a men’s bible study on relationships. Someday, with a wife, I’d LOVE to get in the fight and teach a couple’s study, or write a deeply meaningful book on all this…

Anyhow, these are convictions I’m getting for my life.

How about you? Would being in the fight as a couple help solidify your relationship? If you think so, you might want to ask the next question.

What can you do to get into the fight?

More thoughts on the dating world…

Virtually everyone 50 or so on dating sites has been divorced. And yet, everyone says, “I come with no baggage and I don’t you to have any, either.”

This is hilarious to me.

Let’s get personal.

If you filed for divorced, there were things that you wanted or didn’t want, and it was serious enough that you decided a promise to your mate, to the state, and to God could and should be broken.

Those were some serious promises you made on the alter, and yet what happened was bad enough for you to cast them aside.

I’m not judging you.

I’m just saying that you have some darn big scars and for the rest of your life you will be somewhat sensitive in the areas that caused you to file for divorce. And it doesn’t matter the issue. He/she may have cheated on you, may have verbally abused you, may have hit you, may have ignored you emotionally or sexually… Doesn’t matter. You will be fearful of your next mate doing these things, and you will be extra vigilant… even possibly to the point of overreacting when something looks dangerously close to what happened before.

Is this ringing true at all?

I hope so.

And whether we like it or not, that’s baggage.

Now, if you were divorced, as in my case, there were things that you (I) needed to do or did do that were sufficiently painful to your (my) mate that he/she decided to break all those deep promises. Hopefully, we will have examined ourselves and asked, why did I do, or not do, what was wanted and needed of me? Something in me was clearly not sufficiently empathetic, sufficiently giving, or sufficiently sacrificial.

Again, I’m not judging. Believe me I’m not… Because I fall into this category…

I’m just saying that you (I) had a part in your (my) mate’s displeasure and, had you (I) loved as God wants us to love, things would have been at different. Maybe he would have still cheated on you, but the relationship would have been different and perhaps better.

Now, I know lots of women get cheated on because their husbands have two heads and the lower one takes over… And then he files for divorce.

I realize this can be without any real “fault” of any kind on the wife’s part. I get that. But, cheated on wives can too easily let that obliterate the certain reality that they, too, could have been better.

So, if they look closely, and see, they will hopefully discover some “baggage,” even if it’s just a clutch purse.

My point is, anyone who is divorced has scars. And scars mean there is baggage—with the increased likelihood of future drama.

Protestations to the contrary, notwithstanding.

The key, again, is to find a new mate willing to join you in working through each other’s baggage. As the Casting Crowns sang: “If you can bring your shattered dreams and I’ll bring mine…
Could healing still be spoken and save us…
The only way we’ll last forever is broken together”

Plastic profiles in dating…

So if you’ve read more than a dozen profiles on dating sites you have seen patterns repeat. Everyone likes to laugh have fun, and talk long walks. And everyone is romantic.

I mean, really? Could it be more plastic?

Who on earth DOES NOT like all that, or if they didn’t, would say it in their profile. Picture it: “you know, I really don’t like to laugh or be romantic. And long walks holding hands… ah, not so much for me.”

For Heaven’s sake, who doesn’t like to have fun and laugh? Who doesn’t like to be kissed passionately in the soft, flickering glow of a candlelight? Hollywood would be out of business if any of that was true.

Can we get real for a bit and talk about what is important beyond all this stuff about interests and physical attraction. OF COURSE we have to have all that. But first can we talk about what is really important?

Everyone on these dating sites says that they have no “baggage” and/or want someone “without baggage.” It’s cloaked in “drama” sometimes, too.

I find that not just funny and absurd—it’s frankly self-centered. And perhaps as clearly, it’s just plain fanciful.

We bring our pasts (yes, it’s called baggage) with us every day, into everything we do. Every last one of us does this to some degree whether we admit it or not.

The keys, then, are first to be honest about it, second to be willing to accept that it may negatively impact us and create internal pain or fear of loss, third to be willing to do the internal work to minimize it and its effects, and forth to seek a relationship with someone who has sufficient emotional maturity to work with us when the effects spill into our joint lives and create that most dreaded word in the dating world— “drama.” And this could not be more important: we must each seek, as best as we can, to give grace when that spillage and “drama” occurs.

But here is the real magic: when, in relationship, we help each other to grow through that past and into something beautifully new. Into something uniquely “us.”

This all takes a willingness to be accountable to God, to each other, and to ourselves. We must be willing to look at our own poor reactions and thoughts and see how they negatively (or positively through growth) impact others. The question is, do we want to be stuck in the bad places, patterns, and baggage, or do we want to grow in relationship? More precisely, do we want to be a part of helping our “mate” grow through his or her “issues,” “baggage,” or what ever people want to call it?

Credit to Tony Haines for verbalizing some of these concepts in a LONG phone conversation. Tony, on your worst day, I want to be you.

John Kerry Continues to Defend Islam on World Stage

Perhaps one of Democrat’s biggest idiots. Islam unquestionably calls for the killings and terrorist acts being committed worldwide. This is some very strange version of Hope and Change:

“We have to keep our heads,” Kerry said. “The biggest error we could make would be to blame Muslims for crimes…that their faith utterly rejects,”

via » John Kerry Continues to Defend Islam on World Stage » News — GOPUSA.

A tale of two presidents…

Interesting study of two Presidents:

President George W. Bush’s Speech
after the capture of Saddam Hussein

“The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq . The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s’ footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them! ”

Barrack Hussein Obama’s Speech after the killing of Osama bin Laden

“And so shortly after taking office , I directed Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground . I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.”

See any differences? Just asking…

Uganda: Imam allegedly beats 15-year-old daughter to death for converting to Christianity

This is a fact. And many in the West will die until it’s realized.

Muhammad said: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.” There is only disagreement over whether the law applies only to men, or to women also – some authorities hold that apostate women should not be killed, but only imprisoned in their houses until death.

via Uganda: Imam allegedly beats 15-year-old daughter to death for converting to Christianity.

» Obama Handcuffs America in War on Terrorism » Commentary — GOPUSA

This is exactly right. And excellent article.

Obama spends more time downplaying and denying Islamic terrorism and releasing dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo Bay than he does leading this nation in a war against it. That’s because he is not committed to a war against it — and for another two years, he will be our commander in chief. God help us all.

via » Obama Handcuffs America in War on Terrorism » Commentary — GOPUSA.

CNN: “Muslims cannot get a break”

CNN asks this question and then answers it. Note the brilliance of Robert Spencer’s reply. As long as mainstream media utilize this type of faulty analysis there is little chance Americans will clarify their ideas.

1. Does Islam encourage violence?

Many Muslims bristle at mere hint of this idea, noting that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom live peaceful and productive lives.

And here is Robert Spencer:

Here is another example of the perennial confusion: Burke asks the question, “Does Islam encourage violence?,” and then starts talking about Muslims. The fact that some Muslims live peaceful and productive lives does absolutely nothing to answer the question of whether Islam encourages violence. The only way to answer that is to examine the texts and teachings of Islam. Burke is arguing that most Muslims aren’t violent, therefore Islam doesn’t encourage violence. But human beings have all kinds of motives and influences. The Catholic Church, for example, forbids contraception. Yet surveys show that most Catholics contracept. Would Burke then argue that because most Catholics contracept, therefore the Catholic Church encourages contraception?

via CNN: “Muslims cannot get a break”.

Psychiatrist: Paris jihadis aren’t psychopaths, they’re Islamic fundamentalists

No. We can’t do anything this smart… The Politically Correct will have none of this.

In my opinion we should have special departments for fundamentalist Muslims in prison, so they do have the opportunity to indoctrinate the paltry jailbird Mohammed or Ismael sentencing for drug crime or violence, and who experience themselves marginalized in society and as treated unfairly.

Our legislation is simply not geared to understand and cope with the fundamentalist mind.

via Psychiatrist: Paris jihadis aren’t psychopaths, they’re Islamic fundamentalists.

Violence fuels debate among Muslims over interpreting faith

This is the best article I’ve read discussing the radical nature of Islam. Thank God there appear to be Muslims who are attempting to read their “bible” in a way that disregards the commands to kill…

… the past year has seen increasing voices among Muslims saying their community must re-examine their faith to modernize its interpretations and sideline extremists. As much as recent attacks in the West, the rise of startlingly vicious violence by Sunni Muslim militants in the name of Islam against fellow Muslims, including Sunnis, brought it home for many Muslims that something must change in religious discourse.

via My Way News – Violence fuels debate among Muslims over interpreting faith.

Britain’s MI5 chief warns al Qaeda in Syria planning mass attacks on West – Yahoo News

This is a no-brainer. There is no doubt Islamists are seeking the death of innocents in the West. We are all infidels…

The article urges greater ability for security agencies to access social media to root out Islamists plotting terror… I agree with this, in principle.

LONDON (Reuters) – Al Qaeda militants in Syria are plotting attacks to inflict mass casualties in the West, possibly against transport systems or “iconic targets”, the head of Britain’s MI5 Security Service said on Thursday.

via Britain’s MI5 chief warns al Qaeda in Syria planning mass attacks on West – Yahoo News.

New York Times reports, then scrubs jihadis’ references to Qur’an and Islam

From Jihad Watch, an article demonstrating how mainstream media works to hide the truth about Islam.

Here is a before and after from a story about the terrorist attack in Paris.

They scrubbed a report on the terrorist proselytizing during Charlie Hebdo attack.

Before:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.

Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

After:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed.

Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.

“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”

via New York Times reports, then scrubs jihadis’ references to Qur’an and Islam.

Media Cowards and the Cartoon Jihad

Michelle Malkin has a nice piece where she accurately describes the issue we face with Islamic terror:

Cartoons did not start militant Islam’s fire. Neither did the Bushes, Israel, the Satanic Verses, the Pope, beauty pageants, KFC restaurants in the Middle East, Mohammed teddy bears or a YouTube video.

The Religion of Perpetual Outrage hates all infidels for all reasons for all time. The targeting of Mohammed cartoonists is a convenient excuse to feed the eternal flame of radical Islamists’ hatred of the West. If it isn’t cartoons, it’s something else. The grudge is everlasting.

Instead of acknowledging their gutlessness in the face of Koran-inspired Muslim vigilantes, press pontificators cloak their fear in the mumbo-jumbo of “tolerance.” They demand that the rest of us pledge fealty to their selective multi-culti sensitivities lest (SET ITAL) we (END ITAL) be branded “Islamophobes.”

via » Media Cowards and the Cartoon Jihad » Commentary — GOPUSA.

Ron Paul: Charlie Hebdo jihad attack was a reaction to France’s foreign policy

Robert Spencer has this right. Ron Paul is an idiot for thinking this is about the West’s foreign policy. These killings and attacks are purely based on religion. This reminds me of pre-WWII when the West was stupidly ignorant of Hitler and what was, for the Nazi German, effectively a religion.

Ron Paul and other paleocons such as the pro-jihad American Conservative are fanatically attached to the idea that Islamic jihad is all a reaction to the West’s foreign policy — so much so that they have frequently turned a blind eye to the jihadis’ stated agenda, and see the depredations of Western foreign policy where it actually played no part. The Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre was not about French foreign policy; according to one of the jihadists, it was about avenging Muhammad — avenging him, that is, for the insult of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. The West’s foreign policy regarding the Islamic world and the jihad threat is cartoonish, but that doesn’t make the Charlie Hebdo massacre about the West’s foreign policy.

via Ron Paul: Charlie Hebdo jihad attack was a reaction to France’s foreign policy.

Howard Dean: Paris attackers not ‘Muslim terrorists’ | Fox News

This is a serious problem writ large. When we cannot tell the truth… These people ARE Muslims and they ARE carrying out their Jihad as CALLED FOR IN THEIR “BIBLE.” We must be able to see the threat before we can stop it.

Former Democratic Party head Howard Dean objected to calling the shooters in the Paris attack “Muslim terrorists,” though the attackers were witnessed shouting “Allahu akbar” as they fired.

Dean, speaking Wednesday on MSNBC, argued that they should be treated as “mass murderers” instead.

“I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They’re about as Muslim as I am,” he said. “I mean, they have no respect for anybody else’s life, that’s not what the Koran says. And, you know Europe has an enormous radical problem. … I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic cult. I think it’s a cult.”

via Howard Dean: Paris attackers not ‘Muslim terrorists’ | Fox News.

Please go check out Robert Spencer’s page, Islam 101, Jihad Watch for details on how this terror IS deeply rooted in their “religion.” There, you will see:

Below are excerpts from Hasan Al-Banna’s treatise, Jihad. In 1928, Al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, which today is the most powerful organization in Egypt after the government itself. In this treatise, Al-Banna cogently argues that Muslims must take up arms against unbelievers. As he says, “The verses of the Qur’an and the Sunnah summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting.”

All Muslims Must Make JihadJihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and the fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward. Furthermore, Allah has specifically honoured the Mujahideen {those who wage jihad} with certain exceptional qualities, both spiritual and practical, to benefit them in this world and the next. Their pure blood is a symbol of victory in this world and the mark of success and felicity in the world to come. (Emphasis added).

French Islamist mini-states grow into problem out of government control – Washington Times

Interesting for a religion of peace. No?

Nothing to worry about, folks. The massacre in France is  just workplace violence.

Over 1,000 French supermarkets are selling Islamic books that call for jihad and the killing of non-Muslims.

via French Islamist mini-states grow into problem out of government control – Washington Times.

The movie ‘Selma’ has a glaring flaw – The Washington Post

So here we have Hollywood taking a terribly skewed view of reality. It seems to love to make the white man look racist…

What’s wrong with Hollywood?

The makers of the new movie “Selma” apparently just couldn’t resist taking dramatic, trumped-up license with a true story that didn’t need any embellishment to work as a big-screen historical drama. As a result, the film falsely portrays President Lyndon B. Johnson as being at odds with Martin Luther King Jr. and even using the FBI to discredit him, as only reluctantly behind the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and as opposed to the Selma march itself.

In fact, Selma was LBJ’s idea, he considered the Voting Rights Act his greatest legislative achievement, he viewed King as an essential partner in getting it enacted — and he didn’t use the FBI to disparage him.

via The movie ‘Selma’ has a glaring flaw – The Washington Post.

ROBERT KNIGHT: Police shootings, protests expose double standard of blame for haters – Washington Times

This is so true.

When it comes to assigning culpability for crimes by disturbed individuals, it depends on who the victims and perpetrators are.

Following fatal school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, and elsewhere, liberal politicians and editorialists blamed the National Rifle Association and other pro-Second Amendment groups.

In 1995, after Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, numerous liberal commentators blamed “anti-government” rhetoric by Newt Gingrich, House Republicans and Rush Limbaugh.

In 1998, many liberal media personalities, including Katie Couric, floated the idea that a gently worded newspaper ad campaign by pro-family groups offering hope to homosexuals who want to change was “hate speech” that led to the beating death of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming.

In 2011, when a young gunman killed six people and seriously wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona Democrat, and 12 others in Tucson, officials and media quickly assigned wider blame. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat, pinned it on talk radio’s “vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the bigotry.”

via ROBERT KNIGHT: Police shootings, protests expose double standard of blame for haters – Washington Times.

Obama Imposed 75,000 Pages of New Regulations in 2014

Readers of my novel know how this damages America…

Just in the last few weeks, the Obama administration has proposed or imposed over 1,200 new regulations on the American people that will add even more to the already crushing $2 trillion per year cost burden of the federal regulatory machine.

via Obama Imposed 75,000 Pages of New Regulations in 2014.