Not All History Is Worth Making

With the new Congress coming in January, it is not without controversy. Among disconcerting factors is the election of two Muslim women to Congress and ever since then, deception has been the order of the day.

Even before they have taken office, facts have emerged that dispel the assumption that they are merely good Americans seeking to work for America and the American people. But is that true?

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan have made history by becoming the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress. But not all history is good history.

Rashida Tlaib has chosen to be sworn in, not on the Bible, but on the Qur’an once owned by President Thomas Jefferson. She claims it as a symbol that Muslims have always been here in America. True to form, she is seeking to deceive America. Thomas Jefferson did indeed own that Qur’an, but it was not because he sought to embrace or even to include Islam in the American landscape. He acquired it as a means by which to know his enemy.

In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams traveled to London to meet with Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, the aid to Tripolitania’s Ambassador to London. Jefferson’s concern was understanding why they sought to wage war against America when we had not shown aggression against them. The reply he got was a warning then, and a warning now, to America.

Jefferson wrote that the Ambassador stated that their reason for aggression “was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

This sentiment is still prevalent and exhibited in the terrorist attacks around the world today. It is the underlying theme of modern Islamic terrorism and it is also the underlying theme of Muslims that seek to obtain office in a country they are instructed to abhor.

The elected Muslim women bring with them other concerns as well. America has a tremendous ally in Israel and considering the fact that Islam is anti-Israeli as established in their Qur’an and their Prophet’s lifestyle, their election is not beneficial for American-Israeli relations.

Both women proclaimed themselves to hold a “moderate” view of Israel but their past shows something different. They both have supported the BDS Movement. The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement challenges Israel’s right to exist. They oppose continued military aid to Israel and oppose the two-state solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict, which would allow for the Palestinian state to exist along side of Israel. Instead, they support a one-state solution which would, over time, by sheer numbers, replace Israel with a Palestinian state, erasing Israel from the map, as many Islamic dictators vow to do.

Ilhan Omar replaces a Muslim man, Keith Ellison in Minnesota’s 5^th congressional district. In her acceptance speech, she opened with the typical Arabic greeting, “As-Salam Alaikum” and there was no America flag present, a disconcerting fact in itself.

She also noted in her speech that she was the first woman in her new position to wear a hijab, the Islamic head covering that some see as a symbol of oppression of women who are seen as second-class citizens in Islam.

Her troubling past includes a Tweet from November 2012 where she wrote, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” Such statements would seem to disqualify her to be in support of workable American-Israeli relations.

After her Tweet came to light, she attempted to walk it back and denounced her support for the BDS Movement. However, a week after being elected, her office released a statement which read in part, “Ilhan believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make sure people’s rights to support it isn’t criminalized. She does, however, have reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution.”

On September of this year, she spoke at a fundraiser which was attempting to raise money for Palestinians in Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, an organization that has been designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department. Hardly an endorsement for a representative of the United States.

The other Muslim woman to be elected to Congress, Rashida Tlaib, won a race where she had no Republican challenger, practically ensuring her victory. The night of her acceptance speech, no American flag was seen in the room and she draped herself in a Palestinian flag. She declared, “A lot of my strength comes from being Palestinian.”

As far as being supportive of Israel, she changed her public persona, as did Ilhan Omar, when after winning the Primaries she stated when asked if she supported a two-state solution, “One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work… This idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”

“Separate but equal” is not the Islamic stance concerning Israel and Israel’s right to exist is always threatened by any opposition to that idea. So, while many applaud the election of these two Muslim women to Congress as being historic, when you look beyond the surface and see the implications of those victories, there is cause for concern. And while they are still outnumbered in Congress and their views are not held by the majority, Islam now has a growing foothold in the process by which America is governed.

2018 saw a record number of Muslims being elected to various offices in America, from local to the federal level. As Omar Ahman, the founder of the Council for American Islamic Relations, CAIR, once stated proudly, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an, the Muslim book of Scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion of earth.”

So, instead of celebrating the election of Muslims into our government perhaps it should not be celebrated as much as viewed with suspicion. This has nothing to do with embracing “diversity” or “cultural sensitivity” but is an ominous warning of the dilution of American values, a dangerous trend.

The Democratic Party, of which these two Muslim women are a member of, have been seeking to rewrite history by erasing the Confederate portion of it by crumbling statues and misinterpreting historical facts. Trying to weave Islam into the fabric of America is both deceptive and devious.

Yes, Islam has played a role in the history of America, but it has been as an enemy, not a friend. While no Islamic army is powerful enough to force its desire to have America become an Islamic nation upon us directly, Islam is now working from within to accomplish that same goal it declared to Thomas Jefferson early in our existence.

Just as Jefferson did in 1805 and again in 1815, we must resist the Islamic demands that would bind us to a philosophy that is contrary to all we stand for. Call it Politically Incorrect or whatever you want to. America’s survival depends upon recognizing our enemies, knowing how they operate, and acting accordingly to preserve this great American experiment.

The old question, “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time,” still holds true. America cannot be devoured instantly, but by one bite at a time it can disappear into the dust bins of history as have all of what used to be the Christian Middle East and Europe.

Islam needs to know that America is off the menu.

It Is Time We Remembered

It is time we remembered, because there are those who wish us to forget. They cloud our memories and deny the truth of our past. Remember where we came from. Remember the vision we were designed to move toward. Remember what inspired our creation and the future we were meant to claim. It is time we remembered the true America.

The history of the world is a continuous record of hardship, oppression and distress. It is a record of tyrants, dictators, monarchies that repressed the human spirit and promoted the self-interest of the powerful.

Individual rights were subservient to the needs of the collective, whose existence was only tolerated in order that the elite thrive. No country in the world truly valued civil rights or individual liberties. It was time for a change.

From this dark environment God saw fit to establish a light to obliterate the darkness and for the first time, allow man to breathe free air. His inspiration took root in the hearts of great men, the likes of which the world had never seen before. From this Divine Inspiration was born the United States of America and mankind, and humanity, would never be the same.

The citizens of Malborough, Massachusetts aptly proclaimed, "A free-born people are not required to submit to tyranny!" and for all the generations that followed America's first generation, we have proudly claimed to be free people.

As it often does, prosperity and good fortune finds an enemy. Our first Americans found their enemy in the person of King George III who set out to control this new land and keep it under his unjust rule. And as will happen once people taste what it is to be free, these early Americans refused to live under the thumb of a tyrant across the ocean.

In 1764, only four years after assuming the throne, his likeness of King George was burned in effigy from a tree in Boston, later named the "Liberty Tree". Decree by decree, Great Britain's hand became too heavy for men who wanted to be free to tolerate. The American Revolution was the outcome of their resolve and every generation since has proudly proclaimed the title of American.

Today, the passion of the men we revere as our Founding Fathers that birthed this nation, is under attack once again. The Liberal Progressive mindset seeks to erase their contribution to our nation's beginning. It is time we remembered who they were and what they gave us.

One recent study found that 86% of our children's school texts had deliberately omitted the Godly influence that guided these men to separate us from the government Samuel Adams described as having "lost all sense and feeling of morality" and was "governed by passion, cruelty and revenge".

Re-writing of history is the Liberal's only way to deny the influence of "Divine Providence" in our nation's founding. Ignore the truth, refuse to tell the real story, and in a generation or two no one will even know that our Founding Fathers valued the hand of God in all they did.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers in 1787, "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm". He knew the dangers that come with the establishing of any new government. With added power comes the opportunity for corruption, and it will only be held in check by men of conscious and morality. Efforts for us to return to an form of government that recognizes God and a standard morality, in the eyes of some, must be diminished and discredited. Movement toward that goal is fully underway today.

A teacher asked the children to draw what they thought Christmas was. While Santa Claus, Christmas trees and elves were permitted, one child soon learned that the manger scene she drew was not acceptable. What is Christmas if not a manger scene?

As a young student I remember when the Gideons would come yearly to our school and see that every child who wanted a pocket New Testament would get one, free of charge. Don't expect to ever see that gift being made available in today's federally funded school system.

A declaration of love of God is now seen as bigoted against anyone who doesn't hold that view. It is permissible to be proud of being Gay, for example, but to proclaim that you are a Christian believing in Biblical principles, or an organization who gives freely to traditional marriage groups, often gets you labeled as a hater. The God of Love is now the God of hate.

Cries for the "Separation of Church and State" assault us from coast to coast, but is that what our Founding Fathers' really believed? Setting the record straight requires we understand that such an idea is found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States.

The "wall of separation" Thomas Jefferson spoke of in a personal letter was about keeping government out of religion, not religion out of government.

The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This amendment was designed to tie the hands of the government from setting religious guidelines, a job best left up to the people themselves. It was rather, designed to tie the hands of government, not the hands of the people.

Today, freedom "of" religion is being promoted as a freedom "from" religion. It is time we remembered the truth.

During the first observed national Thanksgiving Ceremony in 1791, John Hancock, Governor of Massachusetts said, "In consideration of the many undeserved Blessings conferred upon us by God, the Father of all Mercies; it becomes us not only in our private and usual devotion, to express our obligations to Him, as well as our dependence upon Him; but also specially to set apart a Day to be employed for this great and important Purpose. . . . And above all, not only to continue to us the enjoyment of our civil Rights and Liberties; but the great and most important Blessing, the Gospel of Jesus Christ: . . . . that all may bow to the Scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole Earth be filled with his Glory."

That proclamation hardly sounds like a leader who wanted God left out of our government or society. Hancock and John Adams, the second president, together stated, "We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus."

"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence," wrote Adams, "were the general principles of Christianity... I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

Patrick Henry put it this way, "It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Noah Webster, acclaimed as the Father of American Education, would not recognize today's school system, one so determined to keep God off school property and out of the classroom. He wrote, "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed ... No truth is more evident in my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

I wonder just how free Webster would see us today based on his belief thus expressed. As our freedom to even speak the name of Jesus or to mention God is being restricted with ever-increasing frequency, so is our overall freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment. There is a reason that freedom was listed at the very first of the very First Amendment. It was considered that important.

Benjamin Rush, founder of Dickinson College wrote, "By removing the Bible from the schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime." After a generation without the Bible being honored in our schools, Rush has been proven correct in his prediction.

George Washington, our first president stated, "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States." He felt that we, above all other peoples, should clearly recognize the hand of God upon this nation. His message is being silenced today. It is time we remembered.

Washington's first official act as president was to lead a small group of people to a tiny church that still stands today near New York City's Ground Zero, to pray for the future of America. Does that sound like a president who wished for God to remain nameless and unmentioned? It is time we remembered.

And what of the tendency to deny that prayer has a place in public arena? Washington's own personal prayer book, written in his own handwriting, is full of prayers he prayed morning and evening, incidentally in the name of Jesus Christ. To quote him exactly as he concluded one Sunday evening prayer, "These weak petitions, I humbly implore Thee to hear, accept and answer for the sake of Thy Dear Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."

Countless quotes and examples could be cited to remind us that the demands for silence about God and Jesus in the public square are without merit, except in the minds of godless men who deny His Divine influence in the creation of the very country that allows them the right to demand that silence.

God ordained the establishment of the government of the nation of Israel and I believe he ordained the creation of the United States of America. What man has done with that gift must sadden Him as we have lost respect for the treasure we were blessed with.

God is not anti-government and government need not be anti-God. People today are itching to remove the phrase "under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance. Some wish to remove the pledge to our nation all together and replace it with a Pledge to the World, to further dismiss the recognition of both God and America. Those words were placed there to remind us that this wonder we call the United States of America was not an accident, and neither was it made by the hand of man alone.

The motto "In God We Trust" is constantly being attacked as having no place in anything remotely related to America by atheist groups, as are crosses marking the graves of fallen soldiers who died defending the right to honor God opening.

As Jesus Himself said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Gratitude for the hand of God in the creation of America, as well as the acknowledgement of the sacrifice of devout, believing men He inspired, should come easily to us. It will, when we remember the truth. It is time we remembered.

#

Is Obama a Muslim, a Christian, or an Apostate and Why It Matters

A question has been nagging at me. And while it might seem like a small technicality, the implications are worth considering.

In President Barack Obama’s failed attempt at convincing all Americans that he is a Christian, mostly simply by saying he is one, he has never made “things perfectly clear” as he so often attempts to do.

What would make it appear clearer? Perhaps the statement that might clear it up for more Americans, about 1 in 5 of which believe him to indeed be a Muslim, would be to emphatically state, “I am not nor have I ever been a Muslim”.

This would do two things. First it would possibly convince a few more Americans of his Christianity. Secondly, and possibly more important to Obama, it would alienate the Muslim community who has always expected to receive great benefit from his entering the White House as “their” president.

Should Muslims believe that he is not one of them, his failing attempt to convince them that he wants to improve American-Muslim relations, would completely collapse. He would be seen as an apostate, which in Islam is a sin worthy of death, not a popular role to assume for one who panders to Islam and seeks to be embraced by them.

Obama’s habit of lying on almost every occasion and about almost every issue he touches upon would keep some from believing him even if he renounced Islam. There may be validity in that skepticism because that could also be merely a lie. In the Islamic practice of Taqiyya, or Sacred Deception, a Muslim is not only allowed to but is encouraged to lie and deceive non-Muslims to advances Islam.

Rev. Billy Graham saw many people come to the altar around the world and accept Jesus without laying aside their previously held traditions or former religion. They were taking on another religion but were also holding onto the former ones they believed in. As such, claiming to be a Christian in itself is thin evidence to ones Christianity and even denouncing Islam may not be enough.

So how do we decide? We learned long ago that “we shall know them by their works”. What people do gives us a greater clue as to who they are than what they say. Even a child knows the phrase “action speaks louder than words”. So it seems a valid part of the decision making process to consider the fruit a person produces.

Obama’s continual pandering to Islam and the Muslim community is far out of balance for an American president, not even taking into consideration his “Christian” faith. Three speeches were made to the Muslim community before he felt inclined to speak to the very people who elected him. His first task was to speak to those who helped shaped his Muslim heritage that he boasted of in his speech in Turkey.

If you add to these concerns his Freudian slip while speaking in an interview with George Stephanopoulos where he referred to his “Muslim faith” without batting an eye and his gaff where he spoke of visiting 57 states during his campaign, (the Organization of Islamic States has 57 states), things get muddled.

A look at Obama’s endorsements as he ran for president turns up people like Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam and known Jew-hater. I find it odd that a Muslim with such influence would endorse a man he perceived to be an Israeli-supporting Christian.

Only days after Obama told the world in his Cairo speech that America is no longer a Christian nation, he spoke at Georgetown University where he had a Christian cross and a symbol of Jesus Christ covered with a piece of plywood painted black. Would he have instructed the same be done of the Islamic crescent moon. I doubt it.

In one of his book Obama praised the influence of the Muslim leader Malcolm X, who was very racist in his outlook of America. Obama has shown his own racism when opportunities present itself, the Professor Gates incident being one example. Going to Rev. Wright’s church certainly fed Obama’s racism as he sat under teachings inspired by Black Liberation Theology which promotes racism toward whites.

Why is racism important in this discussion of Obama’s religion? Islam was founded by Muhammad as a religion that he hoped would appeal to the Jewish community. He borrowed from their sacred Scriptures, twisting the stories to fit his own purpose, with the aim of convincing them that he was the last of the prophets in the same line as Adam, Abraham, Moses, David Jesus and others.

This did not work too well because the Jewish stories had been told and retold for centuries and the Jewish people knew Muhammad’s versions were perversions of what they knew to be the truth.

After 13 years of trying to convince them that his religion was in line with their own and that Allah was handing him revelations they should adhere to, he only garnering 150 converts. Having had enough, the Jews of Mecca exiled Muhammad. He traveled north about 100 miles to Medina and after about a year his “revelations” from Allah began to change. Suddenly the Jews, people Muhammad wanted so to be accepted by, became his enemies. He stole their property, beat them and exiled them from their homes.

When he began to deal with the third and last of the three tribes in Medina, he wasn’t satisfied to simply rob them of their possessions, beat them and send them into the desert to find a new home. This time he murdered 800-900 Jewish men and boys and enslaved their women. Since that day, Jews have been hated by Muslims. They are considered to be the offspring of apes and pigs according to the Qur’an. Muhammad himself added they were also rats.

Racism against Jews is ingrained into Islam and it grew into hatred against Christians and all non-Muslims. Only Muslim life is worthy of being seen as sacred by Islam. Racism abounds today in Islam.

How does this tie into Obama and our perception of his faith? When visiting the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was left alone in a room until he would come around to Obama’s point of view concerning Israel. Obama wanted Israel to stop building on their own property and give into Palestinian demands. Obama went to dinner and left the leader of a foreign country in his room as if he was a naughty child. Obama’s racism against Israel stems from his Islamic background and upbringing.

On no occasion has his “Christianity” caused him to act like one but his Muslim heritage seems to be what he relies upon for guidance. Whether Obama is a Muslim or not, perhaps only he and God knows. But if he were indeed a Muslim there is little he would have to change in his life. His visits to the Capitol Hill Islamic prayer meeting where he removes his shoes and prays with his Muslim visitors stands out in stark contrast to his profession of Christianity. His refusal to attend a Christian church with his family any longer smacks in opposition to his claims of Christianity as well.

As Thomas Jefferson truthfully proclaimed, "Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you." It also helps us to see who others are at their core as well. Their actions will delineate and define them. If there is anything that speaks louder than Obama's teleprompter-reading rhetoric, it is his actions.

In spite of all we have begun to learn of the racism, bigotry and hatred Islam extends toward all non-Muslims, Obama seems to be in a continual state of praise for the religion. In Cairo he referred to Islam as a 'revealed' religion. This simple use of that one word reveals that Barack Hussein Obama believes that Islam is a faith revealed to the world by God Himself. Who else was it to have been revealed by?

While most in America missed the importance of that statement, I am certain it was not wasted on the Muslim community he addressed because it reaffirmed their belief that their faith was revealed to Muhammad directly from God as they have always claimed. What Christian would have uttered such words. Not even in the desire to be tolerant would any Christian who knows what their Christianity is founded upon would have made such a claim.

Calling the murder of 13 people in the Fort Hood massacre carried out by a devout Muslim calling himself a “Soldier of Allah” is merely an example of “workplace violence” as seen by Obama’s administration. It is further proof of his attempt to either pander to the feelings of Muslims or blatantly seek to advance Islam by white-washing its acts of violence.

Muslim, Christian or apostate? Until Obama shows himself definitively to be one or the other, people will question his faith, and his leadership. Should he indeed be a Muslim at heart, it will certainly affect the way he governs this country. It already has. And that makes this issue bigger than any of us want to admit.