President Obama and the Cairo Speech

We have had plenty of time now to see who our new President is. This Cairo Speech is a beautiful example of President Obama, his methodology, and his fundamental flaws. Of course members of the main stream media think that this speech puts Obama on par with God . . .really he compared Obama to God. But that is what it takes to get a job at Newsweek. When that magazine folds, I will take my family out to a nice dinner to celebrate.

President Obama’s methodology should be noted first. He loves the "on one hand . . . but on the other hand" construction. He uses it all the time, and uses it again in this speech. I believe it is because Presdient Obama believes that looking at a problem from all the angles will solve it. But is also because he believes that there is never a problem where you either have to chose the one hand or the other. There is never a black and white situation for President Obama. There is never a situation where the two positions are contradictory. It has to be admitted the other major method used by President Obama is lying. I don’t see much other way around it. "Islam has a proud tradition of religious tolerance." It is hard to imagine that is anything other than a lie. And when you sight Indonesia as your example it is hard to take it seriously. Obama was attempting to lie to get on their good side. Even the United States Council on Religious Freedom counts Indonesia as a country that allows persecution of Christians by Muslims. Not exactly a good tolerance rating there. Just because the government does not officially sponsor persecution as it does in many Middle Eastern countries does not mean that Islam is being tolerant of Christianity in Indonesia.

President Obama himself is on display in major speeches like this. There is much that he needs to be criticized for in this speech. One can wrangle about whether or not it is right to apologize for the Iraq war, as he basically did in this speech. One can argue whether or not he should have spoken of terrorism and the sponsorship of it. It is a policy debate when you are discussing Israel. They have no fundamental right to expect our support. But, it is a clear shift in policy by demanding Israel come to a two-state solution and stop settlements. President Obama is clearly pro-Palastinian in this speech. It is clear the biggest thing in the speech is this statement.

For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That is a rejection that the job of the President of the United States is to look out for the good of the United States. Now he may just be talking about sujugation, a physical oppression, but that part is not repeated. He appears to be saying the mere elevation of your interest is now a bad thing. His view of being our President is to NOT serve our own interests. He considers such things as failures. Such a statement is astronomical. Unbelievable. And it is not really being reported on.

Obama also needs to be corrected on fundamental facts. After claiming to be a “student of history” he messes up every single statement on history in his speech. According to President Obama part of the debt of civilization to Islam is the compass. Now there is a debate about who invented the compass. Some think it was the Olmec, a native tribe in South America. This is not held by many. Most think it was the Chinese. Others think it was invented independently in Europe and first used as navigation there. I have not seen anyone, other than the President, argue the Islamic world invented the compass. The argument for the invention of the compass by the Islamic world would have to be based on the fact that they had it, and we just have not yet discovered the proof for it. The Compass is mentioned in France almost 100 years prior to seeing any evidence of it in the Islamic world, and that does not get the Islamic world ahead of China. Algebra is universally attributed to the ancient Babylonians. While Babylon is roughly modern day Iraq, Babylon pre-dates Islam by 1,000 years. Only the grossest of ignorance can claim Islam gave us Algebra. I think the printing press is so well documented that to pretend the mastery of printing came from Islam is an insult.

This leads me to my point. President Obama can extend the olive branch all he wants, but he is living in a world of delusion and lies. Islam has not contributed to civilization, at least not very much. They may have kept many manuscripts alive that we later used in the Renaissance, but the question needs to be asked, why did they not have a Renaissance? If when we discovered the old texts kept in libraries in Muslim countries, we had a rush back to the sources and learned and grew and had a period of intellectual revival, what is it in Islam that prevented that from happening? Is keeping a book on a shelf keeping learning alive or is it simply storing something for others? Islam no matter how much we pretend is not a religion of peace, and their effect on countries is obvious to the naked eye. President Obama can put Judaism, Islam, and Christianity on a par as he did in the speech, but it is a falsehood to try and live by it. Like I tell my kids, it is one thing to pretend you are Superman, but it is another to live like you are Superman. The first is in good fun, the second is dangerous and deadly. Just to drive home the point. President Obama quoted from the Koran when he stated that "if one murdered anyone in the land it would be as if he slew the whole people", but the next verse is the important distinction found in the Koran. That verse goes on to state: "The punishment for those who strive against Allah and His Messenger [Mohammed] . . . is execution . . ." A verse about peace is followed by a verse that demands the death of all those who do not follow Mohammed.

In the end, this speech is a useless exercise in egotism. There are fundamental differences found in the religion of Islam and the religion of Christianity that will not allow them to exist side by side as if they are the same. One has a view of civilization that is about bloodshed, hatred, subjection of women, and has holy war as one of the great virtues. The other has a view that is about forgiveness, salvation, and love. They are not both the same.

6th Anniversary of September 11th

This week saw the 6th Anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. It was interesting to me, how little attention it got. Sure, MSNBC ran the NBC coverage of the events, but who watches MSNBC in the morning? Since then the talk of the anniversary quickly faded into accusations. There are always the accusations that America blew up their own building or knew that it was coming. Merinews (which I found via the Huffington Post) even trotted out the expert opinion of the Housing Director in France to bolster their claims of Bush’s prior knowledge. Keith Olbermann, taking his lead from the Huffington Post, began making accusations that the Iraq report was timed to be so close to the 6th anniversary. I find that ironic sense the anniversary passed with only scant notice. OJ Simpson’s alleged armed robbery is getting more press than the 9/11 anniversary.

Six years ago, I was driving to work when I heard the news. It was my second day of work at a new job, so while everyone else in the mail center went to watch the coverage live, I folded 1200 child letters. I did not see any pictures of the Trade Center until almost 5 that evening. I lived in Colorado Springs at the time, and I remember a lot people running around talking about the terrorists attacking NORAD, and then people running around saying the President was coming to NORAD. Neither of which happened by the way. There was a lot of talk about September 11th being the day that changed a nation. Six years later no building have been built and the American government bickers more than it did. That is not a very good change.

The question everyone has been asking this week is ‘Is America safer now’? Sadly, most people asked it because of the report of an army general and the presence of TV cameras rather than because one ought to reflect on such things on important anniversaries. My answer would be no we are not. For two reasons. One is that I still think communism and especially China is a bigger threat than any terrorist group could ever be. Two is that I am not convinced that we understand our enemy yet. I don’t think we understand our enemy because we go out of our way to detach a person’s actions from his religion. American politicians love to talk about how they believe life begins at conception, but they promise not to act on that belief. One of a million examples. The Liberal press goes out of its way to detach terrorist activities from their Islamic religion. Even the republicans like to call it Islamic-Fascism, as if the problem with the terrorists was Fascism some how. I am not saying there are no peaceful Muslims. I know Muslims like Mohammed Ali exist. My point is that Bin Laden is a terrorist because of his religion, or at least his take on it. Either way it is a religious belief. And we can safely conclude he is not alone in that belief. Is our government equipped to fight a religious belief, and is the military the best way to fight a religious belief as the Neo-Cons claim? Is allowing Afghanistan and Iraq to write Islamic based constitutions that Bin Laden would probably approve of the best way to defeat terrorism? The debate today seems to center on whether or not we should pursue a military or a political solution. To me the solution is primarily spiritual, but that is the one solution our government is not equipped to deal out. The Afghan Constitution which we support has made that solution illegal and highly dangerous. To me this is not understanding the enemy.

I suppose the point to my wandering rant, is about lessons. What lesson did we learn from 9/11? The answer is none. What lesson should we have learned? That man is more than a physical being, and thus, he needs more than a physical solution. I hope we learn it soon.

Battleground Minneapolis

It seems to me that Islam has come to America now to challenge us as a nation. Europe has already given in for the most part. By this I do not mean to terrorism for most people will fight against terrorism, but I mean to creation of Islamic states or states-with-in-states. Canada has already seen Sharia law allowed with its boarders. I believe the first rounds of that battle in America will be fought in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Many things are occurring there now that are connected.
Minneapolis has recently elected the first Muslim the Congress and he plans on using the Koran for his swearing in ceremony. This battle is mainly symbolic, but symbolism must go before real change can take place. Symbolism is not unimportant. Something too many of us forget.
Bigger battles loom in Minneapolis than their elected leader. For example most of you have probably heard of the six imams who were removed from a plane for suspicious behavior. Their lawyer, who was on TV in less than 3 hours, claims discrimination. I would be remiss not to note that at least one imam has connections to a charity that had its assets frozen for giving money to terrorists. The Minneapolis airport is full of Arab-Muslims. They staff almost every eatery in the airport. So the mere presence of Arabs would not be enough to shake travelers in Minneapolis. Yet, the sight of prayers prior to boarding planes is rather rare, and it seems to me that these men were wanting something to challenge in court. After all, to implement Sharia law, one must get the courts to allow it, as they did in Canada.
Another example is a lesser-reported story about taxi cab drivers. Again the majority of taxi cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport are Arab and Muslim. Yet recently many of them have stopped taking passengers who carry alcohol. Apparently alcohol is so evil in Islam that one cannot even be a transporter of it. This is causing huge problems because the airport is being harmed by the long waits for taxicabs, yet can the government force people to violate their religion? This is another case bound for court sooner or later. What lies behind these things seems to me an organized effort in Minneapolis to get Muslims to live a life in conformity with the strict fundamentalist- Sharia law version of Islam.
These cases may seem innocent enough, but they will be building blocks for Muslims to try and create a Sharia law haven in America as they have in other countries. Then we will see the uglier aspects of Islam rear their head such as marrying multiple women, beating wives being allowed, easy access divorce for men only, and other such things demanded by the Koran. Whether or not these imams and mosques that encourage such living will become breeding ground for homegrown terrorists is unclear, but I do think it is the lesser evil. Terrorists can be stopped by police work. What will be worse is a religion of hate that would exist inside and independent of American justice systems. The Taliban and Sharia law is not just for the Middle East anymore. Now it may be for the Mid-West.

The Pope - Politician or Preacher

This is a sad story to see. The Pope quoted an old emperor who thought that everything that Mohommed taught that was new, was evil. The Pope did not endorse this idea, but he also did not condemn it. The response from the Arab world was swift. They condemned the Pope for his anti-Islam speech even though these same countries fail to condemn suicide bombings, terrorism, and other atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Oh and do not forget that all of these countries make a sport of condemning Israel.

But what is really sad about this story is not the predictable response from a religion that does indeed teach evil. What is sad is the Pope’s response.

"The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful," Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement.

What?! Why? Why should the head of the Roman church be sorry he upset Muslims, a religion out to kill him and his church? Perhaps the Pope should be trying to offend some Muslims. The cross of Christ is an offense (Galatians 5:11). One should expect Muslims to be offended when you tell them that Mohommed was a false prophet, and converted people by the sword. But, they need to hear it. They need to be told that God has a Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. They need to be told that war, terrorism, and the sword are not the way to heaven, but only through the blood of Jesus. One cannot expect works to be weighed and have any result other than death, damnation, and hell. This is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Repent of your sin, and believe on Him. The Pope does not say that, nor does he wish to offend any Muslims. Every Roman Catholic around the world should now clearly see that the head of their ‘church’ is a mere politician and not a preacher. He cares more for his seat at the international table than for the seat of St. Peter. He cares more for political correctness than correct theology. He cares more for the good will of Muslim ambassadors than he does for the good of the souls of those trapped in Islam. And that fact makes this a sad story indeed.

The Fatwa of Church Discipline?

There are a few disturbing remarks that cannot pass without criticism. It is one thing to disagree with the practice of bringing the Federal Vision proponents upon trial in the church courts. It is another to call that practice a ‘Fatwa.’ Sadly, it appears this description of Presbyterian pastors who oppose the Federal Vision as Islamic Terrorists or Suicide Bombers is one that is growing in popularity.

This comparison is disgusting on so many levels that it makes my head hurt. Are these men really trying to say that the Central Carolina Presbytery, who has brought charges against Rev. Wilkins, and the Louisiana Presbytery are the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden? Do they really want to compare a church trial to the destruction of the Twin Towers and the deaths of thousands of people? Do they want to compare those who oppose the Federal Vision to those who blow themselves up in marketplaces and buses? I would hope not.

What makes it worse is that this is same crowd that was calling for tolerance and a level-headed debate not too long ago. Now they are the ones killing serious discussion. I suppose the need for restraint and respect only goes one way.

Palestinian Elections

Everyone has been talking on the news about the democratic elections of the Palestinians. Apparently the ruling party stayed in power, but Hamas gained about 40% of the vote. I heard the newsmen discuss the entrance of Hamas into the democratic process, I listened to them discuss the vote of no confidence sent to the ruling party, and I even heard discussions about how America should respond to Hamas ministers in the Palestinians. All of these are legitimate aspects of the story, but in my opinion they are not the real story.

The real story is the debunking of the Moderate Islamic myth. For years people have been claiming the Palestinians want peace, they want their own land, and Hamas is just a small group of radical terrorists. Now we see that easily 40% of the Palestinians support the terrorists. They are not some radical splinter cell, they are a popularly supported group of hate-mongering murderers. Hamas offered no political ideas; they ran on the platform of “kill Israel” and their record of suicide bombings. Thus, the 40% cannot be seen as voting for new ideas, only for terrorists. Before we believe the political line about Islam being a religion of peace, maybe we should examine some of these election results, new state constitutions, and ruling party platforms. So far all the democratic reformers in the Middle East have been able to produce are two oppressively Islamic Constitutions and a government that is fully half-terrorist. Not exactly an endorsement for the religion of peace. Yet, that story will never lead news broadcasts.