Stock Up and Save Everything for Baby at!

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Jihad Me at Hello

With the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, it's no surprise that jihad has also come to be of serious attention.

The PC hacks say that jihad is a holy war that is fought internally, but informed individuals who do not follow the creed of political correctness know that the real meaning of jihad is far more sinister. After all, if jihad was really an internal struggle against the forces of good and evil, why do terrorist groups like Al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood exist?

Terrorist organizations responsible for waging jihad on the West will stop at nothing until Islam rules the world, no matter how high the casualties are. That said, they need manpower to carry out their deadly missions. A great many of the jihadis captured are young men, and indeed, they seem to be viewed as expendible.

But there's more to the jihad story than just young men wanting a shot at 72 virgins. A recent raid of a jihadi camp in Yemen turned up not just Arabs, but Americans and Europeans who were training to become terrorists.

Inquiring minds would ask:

What causes such men [John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, etc], born and raised in the West, often from Christian backgrounds, to abandon their heritage, embrace Islam, and become radicalized to the point that they conspire to kill their fellow countrymen?

At first glance, theology may be a factor.

As for Islam's intrinsic appeal, it has long been argued that, unlike Christianity, which can be "heavy" on theology, Islam is relatively simple and straightforward. Thus while Christianity may revolve around the metaphysical -- the Trinity, Christology, even the notion of grace -- Islam, in black-and-white terms, commands its adherents to do this and not do that. In fact, the Arabic word "Sharia," that comprehensive body of laws Muslims are to obey, is etymologically related to the word for "pathway" -- as in, "the pathway to paradise."

"The pathway to paradise"? Must the path to heaven be a river of innocent blood, tears, and clogged with rubble left behind from the blast?

But what if this is not a good-enough justification for turning Islamic?

Their Christian background in which they were raised, which demands sacrifice and hard work, service to others, is abandoned with the desperate hopes and sick dreams of becoming the masters off all. But in fact, what they succeed in their conversions to primitive Islam is they are slaves of masters, who themselves are slaves of higher masters, slavery all on up; all of whom are the "slaves of Allah" power structure; all in the name of an Arabian pagan moon-god Al-Ylah, worshipped by Mohammad's uncle's family, which their prophet raised to the One. It is all sick, a renewal of slavery in Europe, a tyranny we had fought wars to banish, from the American Civil War to banish slavery of American Blacks, to World War II to banish slavery under Nazism, including the long Cold War to banish slavery of Communism. There is no 'manliness' in conversion to Islam, no compassion, no tolerance, no freedom - no redemption of any kind. It is slavery again, as it had ever been for 1400 years.

Indeed, power corrupts. But the part that really stood out to me was "no redemption of any kind" in regards to Islam. I have read in more than one place that Islam's more violent aspects make it an appealing religion to criminals because it doesn't require them to change their violent habits-just change who they're doing it for. Unlike Christianity, which combines repentance with intrasocial accountability (let the punishment fit the crime), Islam has no such thing as this because you are accountable only to Allah and no one else-not even your peers. You don't have to stop killing people just cuz you hate them-just say you're doing it in the name of Allah and that damned PC will make the police go easy on you. Just ask the Panty-bomber himself.

But what if there's something else involved? Something more than just satisfying someone's cravings to kill and dominate?

Yet there is another, more subtle, factor that may entice men to Islam: traditional male roles are highlighted in the religion. This may appeal to non-Muslim men who want to assert their "masculinity" in what they perceive to be gender-free Western societies. Harvey Mansfield's book, Manliness, defines that term as "a quality both bad and good, mostly male, often intolerant, irrational, and ambitious. Our gender-neutral society does not like it but cannot get rid of it."

Indeed, with an ethical code that coalesced in the seventh century -- when the Muslim prophet and "perfect example" walked the earth, enforced his will, and conquered his "infidel" neighbors -- Islamic culture can hardly be deemed "gender-neutral." Even philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who despised Christianity as "effeminate" and preached the need for man to be transformed into an amoral "hyper-man," professed admiration for Islam, describing it as "noble and manly" (The Antichrist).

Of course, traditional masculine roles are not the sole domain of Islam; most civilizations have lived in accordance to such norms; so-called "gender-neutral societies" are, from a historical perspective, aberrant. James Bowman, author of Honor: A History, points out that, when it comes to the West's disregard for notions of honor and masculinity, "we are, in global terms, the odd ones out"; he further asserts that, up until the Victorian era, in the West, "honor was rather closer to the Arab and Muslim idea of it today."

It is in this context, then, that disaffected young men -- who, like Nietzsche, despise what they perceive to be a "gender-neutral" society -- may find a religion which emphasizes "masculinity" appealing.

John Walker Lindh especially seems to fit this paradigm. Precipitating his conversion to Islam was his teenage discovery that his father was homosexual -- an event that appears to have traumatized and alienated Lindh. Islam's masculine ideals and unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality may have lured young Lindh, who, soon after his father left his mother and moved in with another man, converted to Islam at age 16. Shortly thereafter, he went a-jihading.

This is all further exasperated by Muslims mocking Western masculinity -- such as Osama bin Laden, who has ridiculed Western acceptance of homosexuality and characterized the American soldier as "a paper tiger" who is "too cowardly and too fearful to meet the young people of Islam face-to-face" (The Al Qaeda Reader).

Whatever position one may hold regarding these issues, one thing is clear: If traditional masculine virtues are upheld in Islamic culture, so too do traditional masculine vices abound -- for it is often a very fine line that separates hyper-virtue from hyper-vice. Honor, courage, and patriarchic ethics can -- and, in Islamic culture, regularly do -- morph into destructive pride (e.g., "honor killings"), disdain for life (e.g., suicide bombings), and brutal misogyny....

Not a pretty picture. It's no surprise that modern Europe has sunk so low that even characterizing what is male and what is female is ripe for a lawsuit.

But who knows-maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Maybe violent Islam is enough to make the West "Man-up" once and for all.

**Many thanks to Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch for providing the bolded quotes. The italicized quote was from a commenter named "Battle_of_Tours"**


Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Response to Tim Tebow Ad

Like over 100 million people in America, I watched the Super Bowl this past Sunday.

Like those 100 million people, I saw the most hotly-anticipated ad in Super Bowl history: the one with the most beloved college QB in America, Tim Tebow.

About 2 weeks prior to Sunday, the feminazi groups like NOW and NARAL got wind that a conservative group called Focus on the Family had paid money for a pro-life ad that would play during the Super Bowl. Naturally, the feminazis went COMPLETELY berserk!! Everyone from NOW to the NY Times was screaming for CBS, the station that aired the Super Bowl this year, to pull the ad in favor of one that was "pro-choice". Fortunately, CBS found their balls said no to the feminazis.

When the ad finally came on, it featured Pam Tebow, Tim's mom, talking about her difficult pregnancy with Tim. Mrs. Tebow had contracted amoebic dysentry in the Phillipines while on a missionary trip, and while on powerful drugs for the disease, she became pregnant with her famous son. The doctors told her that she should abort her child, since the drugs had affected the pregnancy, but Mrs. Tebow refused. She said that many times, she nearly miscarried. But fortunately, she carried Tim to term, and he was born healthy. The ad then showed Tim playfully tackling his mom, and she playfully scolds him for tackling her. The two then hug. It was really a sweet ad-not once was the word "abortion" mentioned! You can see for yourself below.

After the ad was finished, I thought to myself "Is that what all the fuss was about?"

But now the feminazis have been left with egg on their faces. They were spewing their angry rhetoric BEFORE the ad was ever aired. Now that the ad has been aired, they have been exposed for the anti-family, anti-baby, death-cult fanatics that they are, to paraphrase an open letter by Dr. Gerald Nadal. Even some liberals were appalled by the behavior of the feminazis. The scandalously liberal Washington Post wrote an article IN FAVOR of Tim Tebow's ad!

But believe it or not, Tim Tebow is not the first football player to express views in favor of life. In 1989, the American Life League produced a video featuring 6 players from the 1987 NY Giants Super Bowl team. These players, ranging from the devoutly Catholic Mark Bavaro, to the unlikely Phil Simms, all spoke in favor of life in the womb. The athletes condemned the abortion industry for the huge number of casualties it created, and this was in 1989-over 20 years ago!

Here's the video featuring the 1987 NY Giants. It's called "Champions for Life".

If only there were more people like Tim and the '87 Giants to stand up for what they believe.



Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Rules for Immigrants

If the leftist commies can have "Rules for Radicals" as their owners' manuel, then maybe Immigration and Customs should have "Rules for Immigrants" as their standard operating procedure.

What's in "Rules for Immigrants"? Well, just like its title implies, it contains some rules every immigrant coming into the United States must adhere to, should they choose to live here.

On culture:

First, the United States of America was founded, although not directly on the Bible itself, at least on biblical values. You do not have to believe as I believe to live here in my good graces, but you do have to abide by the biblical worldview governing ethical behavior, upon which all Western civilization, ultimately, is based.

The primary biblical value underlying all others is telling the truth. I don't know you personally or even which part of the world you are from, but if you think some sort of "holy deception" is permissible when filling out your paperwork, forget it.

As we see it, lying is lying, and frankly we don't care what your culture thinks. If you get caught breaking our laws or betraying our country, you're out of here. Period.

On social behaviors:

You cannot own people here. This includes domestic servants and family members. You cannot beat or mutilate your children. You cannot force, threaten, or sell them into arranged marriages. You cannot keep adult relatives from marrying the people they choose, getting jobs, or moving out of your house. You cannot hold your employees captive, beat or rape them, or refuse to pay agreed-upon wages. It took us 200 years to get rid of institutionalized slavery, and we are not about to reinstate it because one of your holy men thinks it's acceptable behavior.

You get only one wife. If that's not enough, it's called bigamy – and you would be subject to state laws regarding that particular felony. Some states also have laws against cohabitation, which is the legal definition of what you would be doing. Also, please note that the rest of us do not intend to support any surplus "spouses" with our tax money through entitlement programs.

On crime:

You cannot kill people here. Not your wife. Not your children. Not your grandchildren. Not people who question your honor or hurt your feelings. Not people who quit your religion. Not people of other faiths or ethnicities whom you regard as apes, pigs, monkeys, or dogs.

You alone are responsible for your actions. The devil does not "make" you do anything. If you get in trouble for punching your neighbor, it's because you're violent, not because you're poor. If you get caught cheating on your taxes, it's because you're a crook, not because the auditor hates you.

A woman's outfit or hairstyle does not "make" you rape her. Maybe your mommy never told you this, but keep your hands off other people. The vast majority of men in most cultures – America's included – manage this successfully all the time. So if you find yourself standing in front of a judge someday explaining that you just "couldn't" control yourself, don't be too surprised if he doesn't buy your story.

On politics:

You cannot take over our lawful institutions and subvert them to you own purposes. If you are a communist and want to overthrow our government, we don't want you. We have enough of our own, so try Cuba or China. If you are a Nazi sympathizer we don't want you either; a Middle Eastern country may be more to your liking anyway. If you are coming here to convert us to any ideology that abrogates our dignity or freedom, don't even get off the plane. We don't care what it says in your holy book; we are not here for you to colonize.

On jobs:

If your belief system requires a special place to bathe your feet or time off to pray at work, tell your employer before you hire on. If you are going to refuse to work next to a person of the opposite sex or refuse to perform some required function of the job, your interview is the time to make this plain. Come to think of it, before you leave your country of origin would be even better. It would also give you more time to find an employer willing to make special accommodations, not an easy sell in these times of strong competition and 10 percent unemployment. Just remember that U.S. companies are under no obligation to adapt to your newfound needs after hiring has taken place.

On language:

When you are here in America, you must learn to speak English. For most Americans, English is their primary language. It is also the primary language of government and business. Failure to learn English in the United States will result in confusion and cultural isolation. While it's ok to be fluent in languages other than English, remember that Americans are not obligated to learn to speak your language-especially if this is so that you don't have to speak theirs.

Pass this out to every immigrant that sets foot on these shores, and if they agree to these terms as specified above, they will be put on a waiting list for a visa. If they refuse to abide by these terms, then they won't be granted access to the United States.

Original article found on World Net Daily, "Rules for Living in my Country"