« September 2009 | Main | November 2009 »

Posts from October 2009

Does Ohio Have Freedom of Religion?

According to the actions of Franklin County Juvenile Magistrate Mary Goodrich, and the Franklin County Children's Services, there isn't.

At least not in their treatment of Rifqa Bary.

After Rifqa Bary was returned to Ohio per a Florida Judge's order, Mary Goodrich acted on a request from the Franklin County Children's Services to restrict and supervise Rifqa's use of her cell phone and internet.

This amounts to trampling on her Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Expression. Constitutional rights that even "illegal aliens" are acknowledged to have.

Their reasons for doing so are based on a false narrative that Jim Zorn, a spokesman for the Franklin County Children's Services, gave:

"What we want to restrict is the other people, the other organizations, the other forces, that have interjected themselves into this case inappropriately, and has caused the additional problems that we've seen".

False. Rifqa Bary did not escape to Florida because others "interjected themselves". But because she feared for her safety after her father discovered she had left Islam and became a Christian:

"If you have this Jesus in your heart, then you are dead to me". He later threatened, "I will kill you".

Knowing full well the persecution and "honor killings" perpetrated against Muslims who leave Islam, most of them carried out by other family members, Rifqa did the only thing she could: Run.

Additional translation of Jim Zorn's statement above:

"We want to restrict Rifqa Bary from having fellowship with other Christians."

"In that regard, we want to restrict Rifqa Bary from having a full exercise of her Freedom of Religion."

The exercise and practice of one's religion is both a private and public matter. There are times of public expression, such as what would occur in a church worship service.

And there are times of private personal prayer and fellowship with others. Times not appropriate for having someone other than a pastor, or close Christian friend, standing around. 

Time for the ACLJ to get involved.

Call, write them on Rifqa's behalf:


American Center for Law and Justice
P.O. Box 90555
Washington, DC 20090-0555

Legal Helpline Phone:  757-226-2489
Legal Helpline Fax:  757-226-2836

Dhimmitude: UK and European Double Standards

This Luxury home in "occupied" northern Cyprus, pictured above, looks real nice doesn't it? The house is owned by a British couple. Just one major problem. No, make that several major problems.

In the first place, the property on which the home was built, legally belongs to a citizen of Cyprus, Meletis Apostolides, who was forced to flee his property during the Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus in 1974.

In 1974, the military junta of Greece staged a coup to overthrow the government of Cyprus. Turkey used this as a pretext for invasion and occupation. In the wake of the onslaught over one hundred thousand Cypriots were forcibly expelled from their homes and land in northern Cyprus.

The Turkish military remains in northern Cyprus to back up their puppet Islamist government there. 

When a "Right of Return" is legitimate: 

"The invasion and occupation has had disastrous consequences. About 142,000 Greek Cypriots living in the north – nearly one quarter of the population of Cyprus – were forcibly expelled from the occupied northern part of the island where they constituted 80% of the population. "

"These people are still deprived of the right to return to their homes and properties. A further 20,000 Greek Cypriots enslaved in the occupied area were gradually forced through intimidation and denial of their basic human rights to abandon their homes. Today there are fewer than 600 enslaved persons (Greek Cypriots and Maronites)."

[ Don't hear much from the Islamists or their Dhimmi allies demanding this "right of return".]

Thus far, the Courts have sided with Meletis Apostolides, ruling that the British couple, the Orams, who built the luxury home, must return the land to the legal owner and dismantle their holiday house, pay damages and rent.

The Orams bought the property from a northern Turkish Cypriot. The problem being it wasn't the Turk's property to sell.

About 5,000 Brits own homes in "occupied" northern Cyprus on land that belongs to Greek Cypriots forced to flee the Islamic Turkish invasion.

How did the European Commission respond to Cyprus in light of the ruling of the Courts?

-"Don't make this political". 

Contrast that with the response of the UK, Europe, as well as Obama, to the execution of an order by an Israeli Court, that Arabs who were illegally squatting on property owned by a Jewish citizen in eastern Jerusalem, be evicted:  

The UK, EU, UN, and Obama, made it "political as hell"!  And so did the biased MSM.

Why the difference in response?

With respect to Cyprus, thousands of Brits and other Europeans own homes and buildings on Greek Cypriot land illegally "occupied" by the Turks. So of course, they don't want to make it "political". 

With respect to Israel, it  Arab Muslims have illegally squatted on land and property that legally belongs to Jews. There are literally hundreds of such cases in Jerusalem alone. 

A dhimmi double standard. 

This past July, this attractive Israeli travel poster was removed from British mass transit, after Israel hating moonbats in the UK complained.

Despite many protests from Greek Cypriot refugees, Transport of London reinstated an advertising campaign, promoting tourism to "illegally occupied" northern Cyprus.

Despite a warning to foreigners by the Republic of Cyprus, not to purchase property in illegally "occupied" northern Cyprus, many British have. 

This past December, the UK government issued a warning to it's citizens not to purchase property, in what it called the "occupied West Bank". Which of course is Judea and Samaria, the heart of Israel.

Many Brits and Europeans have felt it was OK to purchase property on Greek Cypriot land, that has been illegally occupied by Muslim Turks since 1974.

But they don't think it's OK for Israelis to own or build on their own land liberated from foreign "occupation", after nearly 2,000 years. 

The difference is that Israel occupies no Arab land illegally. That is a false claim made by Islamists. In late May of 1967, Arab Muslim troops had massed along the border with Israel. Ready to strike, in yet another attempt to "drive the Jews into the sea."

A brilliant and successful preemptive action on the part of Israel, resulted in the defeat of those who sought their destruction. Before June of 1967, Judea, Samaria, the Golan, and the eastern section of Jerusalem, were under foreign Islamic "occupation". After the Six Day War, they were restored to Israel. 




When They Say "Liberation" - They Mean "Subjugation"

Ever notice how many Islamic or Marxist terrorist organizations have the word "Liberation" as part of their terror group's name?

A commenter over at Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch has posted a long list of Islamic terrorist organizations that span the globe. The number of these groups that have the word "Liberation" as a part of their terror group's name is astounding. It constitutes word-hijacking as part of their propaganda.

According to Islam the world is divided between the "House of Islam", [that part of the world already in submission and subject to Islamic rule], and the "House of War [ the non-Muslim world].

From the Islamist's persepective, the non-Muslim world, [House of War], must be "liberated" from it's Infidel status, brought in and made subject to Islam.

Also according to Islam, land that was once conquered and ruled by Islam, but since re-taken by "Infidels", must be "liberated" by waging jihad. And then brought back in to the House of Islam.

In other words, Islamists use the word "Liberation" disingenuously.

Consider the Moro Islamic Liberation Front


This group uses terror and propaganda in an effort to convince the Philippine government to engage in appeasement, and give up the southern Philippines to Islamic rule. If the Islamists are successful in that effort, then they will focus on taking control of all of the Philippines.

At no time in history has there ever been a "Bangsamoro" country or state. This is clearly a land-grab attempt on the part of the Muslims in the southern Philippines. It is part of the global jihad against the non-Muslim [House of War] world. With the goal being to subjugate the entire world to Islam.  

Another group that mis-appropriates the word "Liberation" are the Social/Gospel Marxists.

Consider an article by Leanardo Boff from the website of the "Christian" Peace Conference:

Liberation Theology and Globalization.

It is a literal rant against Democracy, Capitalism, and promotes an un-Biblical Christianity.

In reading the book, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Spoke in the Wheel , references to the "Social Gospel" and "Liberation Theology" are numerous. The book is written by Dr. Renate Wind. According to the author's bio , she has been heavily involved in the Christian Peace Conference for years.

Liberation Theology is Marxism dressed up to look like Christianity.

They reinterpret the Bible to accomodate a Marxist world-view.

Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ embraced and taught Liberation Theology. 

Kyle-Anne Shiver described her visit to the "bookstore" of Obama's church in an article at American Thinker

"Having been a practicing Christian for more than 40 years now, and a practicing Catholic for 26 of those years, I have visited perhaps 100 various Christian bookstores, both Protestant and Catholic.  In all of those places, one thing tied together the books for sale:  Christianity."

"Not so in Obama's church bookstore."

"I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian thought.  Black Muslim thought, to be specific." 

"And the books claiming to support Christianity were surprisingly of a more political than religious nature.  The books by James H. Cone, Wright's own mentor, were prominent and numerous."

"Now that I have read a number of the books that presumably Wright's congregants (including Barack Obama) have also read, I can only conclude that the thing tying these volumes together is not Christianity, nor any real religion, but the political philosophy of Karl Marx."

From a Marxist, Communist, Socialist's perspective,-when they say "Liberation" they mean destroying Democracy and Capitalism, and subjugating the people to government controlled financial institutions, government run health-care, government dictatorship.


In The Presence of My Enemies: A Review of the Book

Abducted and held hostage by bloodthirsty Abu Sayyaf Islamic terrorists for a whole year, Gracia Burnham doesn't hold much back in her book: In The Presence of My Enemies.


The Abu Sayyaf is an Islamic terrorist group in the southern Philippines with ties to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

The horrible ordeal began in late May of 2001.

Martin and Gracia Burnham were celebrating their 18th Wedding Anniversary at the Dos Palmas Resort, when they and several others were abducted and taken hostage by the Abu Sayyaf.

They were forced to experience and witness the most cruel sufferings and humiliation. Of fellow hostages and themselves.

Throughout the ordeal, as Gracia Burnham relates, "We never forgot who the bad guys were."

This is important and cannot be lightly glossed over. Under very adverse circumstances in a prolonged hostage or kidnapping situation, some victims have experienced what is refered to as "stockholm syndrome".  

Some of their fellow hostages were released in order to arrange ransom for others. Others were released after ransom was paid.

Others were beheaded.

The Burnhams and Ediborah Yap, a beloved Philippine nurse, remained captive for a whole year.

Gracia Burnham gives graphic testimony to the rollercoaster of hope, despair, encouragement, disappointment, strenghth and weakness.

A constant source of inspiration and hope came from her beloved husband, Martin. A godly man who loved the Lord with all his heart.

Gracia recalled a conversation took place between Martin and one of the Islamic terrorists named Ustedes Hail:

Terrorist: "...but the Christian world has just pushed us too far, and we're sick of it. When people are oppressed, you can't hold them back. It's just going to be this way until we are given what we want."

[Martin questioned the terrorist]

Martin: Let's see,---just what all is included in your homeland?"

[At that point the Islamist began naming this and that area of the southern Philippines.]

Martin: So, if you got these--if the government decided, for the sake of peace, to give them to you--would that be the end of your struggle?"

Terrorist: "Oh no, no."

The terrorist then went on to say that would just be the beginning. Then they would want all of Mindanao. After that Luzon, and other areas until all of the Philippines belonged to the Muslims.

This next thing spoken by the Islamist is the most revealing of all:

Terrorist: " When all of the Philippines belonged to us, then we'd move on to Thailand and other countries where there is such oppression. You see, Islam is for the whole world."

[That conversation is recalled on page170 in the book.]

When I read this, Israel immediately came to mind:

No matter what Israel has done for the "sake of peace", and they have done quite a lot, Including the forcible uprooting and expulsion of their own citizens from Gaza and northern Samaria in 2005, instead of peace, there is only more jihadist terror. 

 Forced to hike both night and day at the point of a gun through the jungles of Basilan Island and Mindanao in the southern Phillipines.

Endurring firefights between the Abu Sayyaf and the AFP, [Armed Forces of the Philippines].

On that last matter, the Burnhams frequently expressed their concerns that they could be accidentally shot during one of those many gun battles between the Abu Sayyaf and the AFP. Which is exactly what happened on July 7th 2002, after a year of being held captive by Abu Sayyaf.

A highly recomended and must read book.

Visit the Author's website at graciaburnham.org 

In related news, just during the past week, a high school principal and Irish priest have been abducted by Abu Sayyaf.





Why Obama Chooses To Focus On Al-Qaeda Exclusively

In short, it is reprehensible appeasement favoring one brand of Islamists who are threatened by another brand of Islamists.

During the previous Bush Administration, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, and other Islamist governments were touted as important "allies" in the war on terror. A very disengenous designation.

How are they allies?

Technically, the Saudis have the same ultimate global objective as that of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda:

The submission and Islamization of the non-Muslim world. The non-Muslim world regarded by Islamists as the "House of War".

To that end, the Saudi government has spent $ billions to build mosques and spread Wahhabi ideology around the world. In America 80% of mosques funded by Saudi Arabia.

The main difference is that Al-Qaeda wants to dismantle the monarchal governments of these Islamist states and replace them with a new "caliphate".

And that does not bode well for the royal House of Saud or the ruling Hashemite family of Jordan. Nor for the authoritarian government of Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. 

According to reports both Egypt and the Saudis have arrested, captured, or killed a number of Al-Qaeda linked terrorists. In June of last year, the Saudi government boasted of arresting hundreds of  Islamists from several different countries having suspected ties to Al-Qaeda.

But these actions must be seen in the context of the House of Saud wanting to protect it's monarchal rule of power., and Hosni Mubarak his regime. Any efforts or cooperation they provide in the fight against Al-Qaeda is solely to preserve the power and position of the ruling Islamist regimes.Not a sincere desire to fight or resist the global jihad against the West.

Afterall, they are part of that jihad. But "jihad" has different levels of participation. There is "economic" jihad. Which the Saudis and the Organization of Islamic States have used to pressure countrys into taking a hardline stance against Israel. Including the U.S.

Before Israel's military victory in June of 1967, there was no such thing as "Palestinian" nationalism. The Islamist push for a Palestinian state in the heart of Israel in Judea and Samaria must be seen in the context of the global jihad against the West. 

Forced Islamization of Chistian Conscripts in Egyptian Army

Although Egypt has "elections", Mubarak has been president for 28 years. Mubarak has run unopposed in previous elections.

 Khari Abazzi wrote about the problem in a Wash Inst article:

"Authoritarian rule and emergency laws have limited oppostion parties' ability to interact with the public..." 

The Hashemite monarchy in Jordan uses the so-called Arab/Israeli conflict to divert attention away from itself by always slaming Israel for this or that.

In other words, if they can keep their Muslim people focused on hating Israel and the free-West, they will be too busy doing that to think about replacing the Hashemite family monarchy as part of a new caliphate. Or for that matter, a democracy. Either way, the wealthy powerful Arab monarchal regimes lose power.

From the perspective of President Bush and most Americans, the "war-on-terror" was about going after those Islamists who attacked us on 9/11, and preventing other attacks from those who wish the demise of our Judeo/Christian culture and heritage.

From the perspective of Islamist regimes such as Saudi Arabia, the "war-on-terror" is about crushing and defeating any threat to their position and hold on power. Which Bin Ladden and Al-Qaeda Islamists threaten. 

From the perspective of Obama, he has bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, and engages in reckless and irresponsible appeasement foreign policy.

No more missle defense shield plans.

No more "war-on-terror".

No more fighting "jihadists"

And for this the dhimmi Norwegians have presented him with the Nobel Peace Prize.

In the eyes of Islamists and their leftists dhimmi allies, Obama himself is a prize.


Turning Off The Tap of Terrorist Funding-MEF

The Agenda of Islam-Faith Freedom

Was Glenn Beck Showing Contempt For Chuck Norris?

Any Islamists who may have watched a Glenn Beck interview with Chuck Norris, must have taken delight from Beck pointing the soles of his shoes at Norris:


As they also took delight from Obama doing the same to PM Netanyahu:


The incident occurrs at about 4:33 minutes into the video. Caution Mr. Beck, Norris sleeps with a night-light. Not because he's afraid of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris. As well as jihadists!

As an article at Weasel Zippers points out, among Islamists there is no greater insult than pointing the soles of one's shoes at someone. Obama certainly knew this. Did Glenn Beck?

In fact, most Americans are very familiar with this Islamist practice of insult, after watching scores of Iraqis show their contempt for Saddam Hussein by banging the soles of their shoes on his statue, pulled down with the help of U.S. troops. 

Norris has been to Iraq a couple of times visiting with our troops.

In watching the Beck/Norris interview one cannot but be cognizant of the fact that Beck certainly knew of Chuck Norris's fervent support for Huckabee during the Republican primary.

And in that regard, of the anger displayed by both Romney and Beck over Huck's "after-the-interview" question to a reporter: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers"?

Beck was ever afterwards extremely anti-Huckabee. Like Islamists who become enraged when the validity of Islam is questioned, criticised, or truthful analysis into the Koran or Muhammad are conducted. Look at how they hate Robert Spencer and Bridgett Gabriel.

During the media-firestorm WND reported this from the official LDS/Mormon church website:

"On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some – especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations," says the statement. "But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel "who was in authority in the presence of God," a "son of the morning." (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)"

Did you get that?

"...both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers..."

Offspring from God having physical relations with a heaveny/wife and giving birth to "spirit children".


No Biblical Scripture or prophets state any of the kind.

Lucifer,[ Satan], is a created being. Not offspring. Read what Isaiah, a "true" prophet says here and here.

No wonder Romney hesitated in answering the CNN/Youtube debate question on the Bible. Like Marxist-Liberation theology, Mormonism re-interprets Biblical Scripture to give it a false meaning in order to accommodate their Mormon Doctrine derived at from other-than-Bible writtings and Mormon teachings.

The problem with Mormonism is that the vast majority of the public is totally unaware of what Mormonism actually is and believes. Most have only heard of the Book of Mormon. But that is not even the tip of the iceberg.

A book everyone should read:

What Do Mormons Really Believe?: What the Ads Don't Tell You

A website everyone should be familiar with: Concerned Christians.

Huck's question caused a media firestorm. Even Hannity came to the rescue to defend Mormonism and Romney. Which showed how utterly un-informed  Hannity is with regard to the counterfiet-Christian cult of Mormonism.

Appearing on Hannity's show on Fox , Romney had an opportunity to come clean and publically acknowledge that particular belief in Mormonism. Instead, he got a smirk on his face and said "That's a common smear against the Mormon church." That counts as a denial on the part of Romney. A dishonest answer.




More Obama Doctrine in Action: Attempt To Undermine Tourism To Israel

The Obama State Dept. wants to discourage American citizens from traveling to Jerusalem, Israel this week during "Sukkot", also known as the "Feast of Tabernacles."

This is the largest tourism event in Israel. According to this report in Jpost:

"In an unusual move, the US State Department on Friday called on American citizens to avoid Jerusalem's Old City during the week of Sukkot, warning citizens of increased violence, crime and heavy traffic."

Jews and Christians from all over the world have come to Jerusalem for decades to join in the Biblical celebrations without a problem.

It is an occasion in which many thousands of Jews and Christians also show their solidarity and support for Israel. Certainly this is well known by the Obama State Dept.

In this context the State Dept.'s "warning"  to Americans to stay away from Jerusalem must be seen as an underhanded "snub".

The Obama Doctrine: Embolden America's enemies, diminish America, and undermine our allies.

A deliberate attempt by the Obama State Dept. to undermine tourism to Israel by scores of American citizens during Israel's largest tourism event.

2008 Feast of Tabernacles Event: