slavery
Can I Call You Joe?
FYI JOE B.
Obama is no Lincoln!
Churchill on Islam
Since politicians and neocons like to make themselves seem strong when responding to Muslim terrorism by joining themselves to the ghost of Winston Churchill, it would be appropriate to see what Churchill himself thought about Islam. This is from his 1899 book, The River War, written when he was 24 years old:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.?A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities ... but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome. [The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pp. 248-50.]
Please note that the Islam that Churchill is describing as inherently a slave system, as inherently presenting an ongoing threat to Europe, is not ?radical? Islam, not ?political? Islam, not ?Islamo-fascism.? It is traditional, normative, orthodox Islam.
Yet the very people who rush to put on Churchill?s mantle would deny this truth. Imagine if one of the speakers at that Claremont Institute dinner, where the Winston Churchill award was given to Mark Steyn, had read aloud this passage of Churchill?s. The room would have fallen into an embarrassed silence. The speaker would be seen as having committed an unpardonable offense against propriety.
Texan For McCain!
»
- ChristineKoch's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Hello all,
This is an exact copy of a comment I made on the "Born Alive" blog post by Lane. My wife "Infidel Granny" thought this was so powerful I should post it as a blog both here on BFJM and at my personal Blog "Federalist Fred Thompson and The Doctrine of Original Intent". Feel free to let me know what you think, Shane
Hello All,
What gets me rally riled in this life issue is the lefts position doesn't even follow their own past positions. In partial birth abortion their whole case revolves around the fact that the child's head is not outside the womb. If the child's head was outside the womb, that child would be considered alive and have the full U.S. citizen rights under the constitution. Yet in this case of "Born Alive Infant Protection" the child is outside the womb and is a full U.S. citizen under the protection of the constitution and they won't even support life then. The issue of supporting life is more then just a debate about choice, it is a matter of grave moral injustice.
There was a time in this country when Obama would have been considered property. Evil would thrive on the backs of this sub-human property that had no human rights. At the time it was being debated just a strong as abortion is today, just as 50 –50, and just as today the debate missed the true point. It is a matter of grave moral injustice. It took one man, Abraham Lincoln (a white man), to stand up with the republican party against this moral injustice. It split this nation two and caused brother to fight brother. At the time Lincoln was just as unpopular a president as Bush is today, yet, history tells us he was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. This, however, does not even compare to the many millions who died to defend Obama's right to live as a free human. It took this nation over 100 years until the conclusion of a the 60's to get to the point where true healing would take hold and allow this country to live up to it's creed. "That all men are created equal with inalienable human rights". Then, how many more brave men have died to defend this nation to be a free nation since the civil war. How dare Obama not support live in all forms when so many have given so much to set him free and give him life.
I too have gone out and defended Obama while in the military. I today would still defend Obama's right to life and freedom under the fourteenth amendment, "To My Death".
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It guarantees the due process and equal protection of each state's laws.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Thanks again to all of you for being involved, Many Blessing, Shane
"Standing Strong" & "Closing Ranks"
and still in "The Hunt for Red November"
»
- Hangmann747's blog
- Login or register to post comments
