I would write: "Needless to say, this flies in the face of our Constitutionally-guaranteed Freedom of Religion" -- except that saying this is very much needed.
The founders of this country fought a great war against one of the most powerful nations of their time; they risked and sacrificed a great deal, and only after years of effort, and only after having paid a high price in lives and treasure, did the United States of America become established.
Once a free and independent nation, the founders gave us what they had found, through experience, to be most precious: liberty.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
- Patrick Henry
It is a sad condition that my country now finds itself in. Dumbed down and addicted to entitlements, we have grown soft.
How many Americans now know who Patrick Henry even was?
"Liberty never came from government. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it."
- Woodrow Wilson
However, what is being pushed on us now is oppression.
Freedom inevitably and emphatically includes the freedom to say something that is insulting or offensive to someone else. That means daring to suggest that politicians can be corrupted, that police power can be abused, that some religious groups are nothing more than abusive sects...
Freedom means questioning whether our understanding of our Creator's will is correct; it means questioning whether our government is telling us the truth.
When these freedoms are taken away, we are slaves; and nothing can be more Satanic than denying us our freedom to question our Creator's will, because once this is gone, we blindly follow human will (generally that of a brutal dictator), and it leads, much more directly than we may think, to Hell.
The topic at hand is religious oppression. Well, what about forced conversion to Islam of Pakistan's Christians? In their own imperfect English, from March 22, 2010:
Muslims involved in rape of Martha Bibi and burning alive to her husband on refusing to convert to Islam in city of Rawalpindi which is under nose of capital of Pakistan.
Pakistan Christian Congress PCC in a statement issued here from Central Secretariats of PCC said that rape of a woman before her children by police officer and others is shameful act which required immediate action by Chief Minister of Punjab Mian Shahbaz Sharif and leaders of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz group but culprits are free on streets because its rape of poor Christian woman.
Arshad Masih is fighting for life with 80% burns in Holy Family Hospital Rawalpindi after his employer set him on fire on refusing to convert to Islam.
Nazir S Bhatti said "Rape of Martha Bibi before her children by Muslim police officials and burning of her husband took place few miles from Building of Supreme Court of Pakistan where Muslim justices sitting on benches of justice have no sympathy with Christian victim nor it looks crime to them because according to them may be also rape of infidel women not a crime. The 20 million Pakistani Christians are tired of appealing Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chowdry to take Suo-Motto notice while he ignored rape-murder of Shazia Bashir and burning alive of Kiran George by influential Muslim employers. CJ not heard our appeals to ensure justice for Christian victims of violence by Islamic radical elements in Gojra, Korian and Bahminwala"
That is happening in Pakistan, but the Pakistani government has its ambassador to the UN introducing a resolution to protect -- NOT Christians from being raped and burned alive, but Islam from defamation as Muslims commit these horrific atrocities in the name of Allah.
And this is spreading:
Even if the resolution were moving in the direction of a treaty that would protect all faiths, and not just the
However, an international blasphemy treaty with binding effects on domestic laws is not going to assuage secularists or people of faith. Rather it will only create new tensions and further entrench the "religious freedom for me but not for thee" attitude that has increasingly dominated the diplomatic discourse for the past decade.
Additionally, this treaty would empower governments to decide theological questions for believers and would only strengthen the legitimacy of domestic blasphemy laws found in countries like Pakistan and Sudan, where the definition of blasphemy is so broad that the laws are used to settle business disputes.
(From No to an international blasphemy law, March 25, 2010.)
In other words, what Pakistan's ambassador the UN is pushing is essentially carte blanche to continue persecuting infidels in his country.
The simple story here is that many Muslims today are doing exactly what Allah's apostle wanted them to do centuries ago: impose submission on the world around them by any means necessary.
However, centuries ago, Islam's holy warriors found themselves stonewalled by a technologically superior infidel West, and had to take a raincheck on conquering us.
Now, however, they are making great progress.
Why?
Political correctness? Self-destructive socialist policies?
Or, did our balls drop off?
Maybe we are being sold out by those who have taken an oath to protect and preserve our Constitution...?
In early 2008, Chris Deliso did an interview with Scott Horton of Antiwar.com about Deliso's then-recent book, The Coming Balkan Caliphate: The Threat of Radical Islam to Europe and the West.
A book review done by the European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on Extremism and Democracy in e-Extreme Volume 10, No. 3, September 2009 gives us an idea what the book is about:
The thesis of the book is simple: the misguided US policy, which the author names "Clinton's gift to fundamentalist Islam", is the reason why Islamic radicalism has now swept the Balkans where it is being allowed to grow "as cancer" (the author's metaphor) and become an imminent threat to the West's security.
[snip]
Indeed, a link between Bosnia and Bin Laden was first suggested in reports by security agencies a mere two months after the attacks of 9/11.
Wait a minute!
The link between Bosnia and Bin Laden was not first suggested after 9/11 -- we knew about it nearly five years before!
From Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, January 16, 1997:
Not Just the Iranians
To understand how the Clinton green light would lead to this degree of Iranian influence, it is necessary to remember that the policy was adopted in the context of extensive and growing radical Islamic activity in Bosnia. That is, the Iranians and other Muslim militants had long been active in Bosnia; the American green light was an important political signal to both Sarajevo and the militants that the United States was unable or unwilling to present an obstacle to those activities -- and, to a certain extent, was willing to cooperate with them. In short, the Clinton Administration's policy of facilitating the delivery of arms to the Bosnian Muslims made it the de facto partner of an ongoing international network of governments and organizations pursuing their own agenda in Bosnia: the promotion of Islamic revolution in Europe. That network involves not only Iran but Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan (a key ally of Iran), and Turkey, together with front groups supposedly pursuing humanitarian and cultural activities.
That network also involves organized crime, especially narcotics- and arms-traffickers, and groups that traffic women for forced prostitution.
They, together with terrorists, all break laws and hurt people; some for profit, some for Allah, some for both, some just for fun.
The network also includes "charities" and millionaires.
For example, one such group about which details have come to light is the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization which has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. ["How Bosnia's Muslims Dodged Arms Embargo: Relief Agency Brokered Aid From Nations, Radical Groups," Washington Post, 9/22/96; see also "Saudis Funded Weapons For Bosnia, Official Says: $300 Million Program Had U.S. 'Stealth Cooperation'," Washington Post, 2/2/96] TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Binladen, a wealthy Saudi emigre believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [WP, 9/22/96]
Wait a minute -- what was that last name?
"Osama Binladen, a wealthy Saudi emigre believed to bankroll numerous militant groups."
And here we supported the rise of these Islamic militants in the 1990's in the Balkans?
Indeed, under Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, we helped them gain control of a geographic region, Kosovo, and declare independence.
President George W. Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001:
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Now, I'm confused -- just which side are our politicians on?
We'll consider that question as this series continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment