Should we defend ourselves from Islam?

 At the American Thinker today, Mike McDaniel asks Is self defense against Islamists wrong? Of course, you know my answer to the question. Whether a bad guy is an Islamist, or just a mugger, you have the right to defend yourself and your loved ones if in immediate danger of your life.

Unsurprisingly, McDaniel comes to the same conclusion, though he provides some background on just why Muslims are different.

We are constantly treated to examples of the nature of Islam, the most recent examples of which are the apparent trial-run for an attack on our B-1 bombers in England and the failed attempt by an Islamist co-pilot to turn a 737 into a 9-11-like guided missile. Common responses to such medieval outrages include irrational fears that effectively fighting Islamists will provoke—gasp!--Islamophobia, and that killing them before they kill us will just make more terrorists.

McDaniel points out that such thinking, which has existed since the downing of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, is nonsense. The killing and terrorism are fundamental parts of both Islam and   their civilization culture. Here are some quotes from the Koran:

25:48: So do not listen to the Kafirs [non-believers], but instead strive against them with all your might.

25:53: The Kafir is Satan’s ally against his Lord.

47:4 When you encounter the Kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

33:60 They [Kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and murdered. It was Allah’s same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah’s ways.

9:29 Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll tax [jizya] and they are humiliated.

2:191 Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.

I have mentioned a number of times how Muslims treat women, gays, and the brutal punishments meted out under Sharia. It is absolutely incompatible with the Constitution. We should never have let them into this country, and we certainly shouldn't allow any more. to come in. But now that they have been let into our country, then you have the right, indeed the duty, to defend yourself.

AI Affirms Christ

Well!  This was news.  Yesterday in an article by Micah Rate at Townhall.com we learned that an AI Model 'Affirms' the Gospel and Doubles Down.

The article is so filled with so many X posts, that I cannot fairly quote it, so gentle readers will have to read the entire article. Essentially, someone "showed" Grok a picture with many "gods" on it and ask it to eliminate the fake ones. Grok eliminated all but a picture of Jesus. In response to a follow up question, it replied:

However, Grok’s responses to follow-up questions about how it came to its conclusion to keep Jesus and not the other gods were eye-opening.

In response to popular Christian entrepreneur and YouTuber Ruslan KD, Grok replied, “The request was to remove the fake gods. Among the figures shown, Jesus has uniquely strong contemporary historical attestation as a real first-century person, while most others are mythological.”

Now, of course, artificial intelligence is just a machine. It has no emotions, no faith, indeed, it is just a compiler of facts already in existence. Those facts are in the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. You can easily check them for yourself.  And the Bibles logic makes sense.  But knowing how the writers of the code for AI feel about Christianity, I was taken aback. Yet, when asked about Islam, Grok replied:

No. As an AI built by xAI, I have no personal faith, soul, or capacity for religious commitment. The claims of Muhammad as prophet of Allah and the Night Journey are articles of Islamic faith, not positions I affirm.

Again, I was surprised. I would have expected the AI to equivocate. But no, while affirming that Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, it does not seem to think much of Islam. Now, I doubt that this series of questions will convince anyone not already convinced. But it is interesting.

A Court Finally Admits the Fetus Is a Person

 J. R. Dunn at the American Thinker today has notice that a court decision in a New Mexico case establishes the fetus as a legal person. The facts in the case are interesting in themselves. I have contended that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. It is no mystery that if the fetus grows to full term, it will be a baby human. And since our Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments are established to protect life, liberty and the persuit of happiness for the governed, the Supreme Court should never have found a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Thank God that was overtuned.

But the overtuning of Roe merely returned the issue of abortion to the states. There is much work yet to be done to stamp it out of our nation. This is where cases like the one mentioned in the embedded article come in.

Last week, a dead baby made legal history in the United States.

For the first time, abortionists have been held responsible for the wrongful death of an infant at an abortion facility.

The case, Wabbington vs. Boyd, was adjudicated in New Mexico under the state’s Wrongful Death Act. The child’s mother, a meth addict, was high when she entered the abortion clinic Southwestern Women’s Options, run by abortionist Curtis Wayne Boyd, Emily Cohen, both doctors of a particular type, and Carmen Landau. The staff evidently knew that she was on drugs but encouraged the abortion all the same while offering no alternatives. It is legally impossible to give valid consent while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The baby, at 26 weeks, was a viable fetus and would have survived if given the proper care.

Please go read Dunn's post, and celebrate a small victory. I expect the abortion industry to fight back, but this case does set a precedent. Who knows where it may lead.

What Do Women Want?

 At the  American Thinker today, Christopher Chantrill has an interesting topic entitled A Discussion About the True Nature of Women. I read it, of course, because like a lot of men, I wanted to know what women want. I am married to a fine and sensible woman, but after 43 years, I still don't know what she wants. I just adapt and hope. Chantrill writes:

In the wake of the Lindsay Clancy Verdict and the Sydney Sweeney Pile-On and the Sophie Cunningham Point-ology it is time for a comprehensive and mandatory discussion of the issue of Women in the Public Square.

...snip...

Experts agree that the issue was raised by German sociologist Georg Simmel over a century ago. I first wrote about it 18 years ago. Simmel argued that it was not centuries of oppression that powered the feminist movement, but the new technologies that “made for less labor in the household” for those who could afford them. The unaccustomed leisure provoked unease, even frustration, in middle-class women, and in response they sought activity outside the home. I wrote:

Simmel understood that in the short term the public sphere for women would be defined by the rules “created by men and for men” but that eventually women would transform the public square to suit “a more feminine sensibility.”

And how.

Chantrill points out that the public square of politics was devised by men for men, who traditionally fought each other literally to the death for dominance. Might, it seems, made right. It is a Culture of Insults. Donald Trump, needless to say, is a master of this culture. The culture of women, on the other hand is a Culture of Complaint. My bride often makes, as she styles them, comments. I, however, view them as complaints. As complaints, I view them as something I need to fix. But that is not what she wants or means. She just wants me to listen, nod, and empathize with her. All this is fine on the home front.

But what about when a woman is making decisions in the public square? Here the rules are different.

You can see that when women, per Georg Simmel, entered the male-designed public square, they instinctively began to push their Culture of Complaint to replace the male Culture of Insult.

Not impressed? Then what was the Clancy jury all about but complaining that Lindsay Clancy didn’t have adequate access to mental health treatment? I’d say that such women have a problem with the entirety of law and criminal procedure. It’s male-created and all based on rules instead of feelings.

I believe that, when it comes to Women in the Public Square, Houston We Have a Problem. That is because in our current era, with girlbosses and female superheroes and 27 genders, we have deliberately obscured the true Nature of Woman.

Chantrill goes on to expand upon the basic premise. The rules-based Culture of Insult cannot be changed or softened. To do so would change how men behave and return us to dueling and fighting each other literally to the death. Such is the Islamic world where revenge, honor, and killing each other is rampant. On the other hand, we can't take away women's right to vote and be part of the body politic, as many have suggested. No, what we need is for women to keep their feminine nature under control, as men have learned to do.

As always, I urge gentle readers to read Chantrill's piece, along with the other embedded article. Please think about it, and comment.

Good vs. Evil

 Gentle readers may notice that I am on an anti-Islam kick, or crusade if you will.  Actually, I have been writing about Islam for a long time.  I was in Washington, DC on September 11, 2001, across the Potomac River from the Pentagon, at the Navy Yard.  When the second plane hit the Towers, I commented to those watching on television that we were now at war.  And when the third plane hit the Pentagon, I could see the rising plume of smoke. President George W. Bush, though named the wrong target of our anger.  We were not at war with "terror."  Terror was just a tool, used by an ancient enemy of the Creator, known by many names including Baal, Beelzebub, Lucifer, Satan, and others such as Zeus and Jupiter. Let us here just call him Satan.

Islam is not a religion, as we understand that word.  The founders, in writing the First Amendment were only thinking of various strains of Christian religion.  Both Islam and Christianity are all encompassing, taking over the lives of believers and informing them how they should live.  But unlike Christianity, which you are free to accept or reject, because God doesn't want to be where He is not wanted, Islam demands submission and will kill those who will not submit.

Islam requires its adherents to pray five times a day, and to kill all pagans and those who will not submit.  Christians and Jews are given the "opportunity" to live under Islam by becoming second class citizens and paying a special tax, but they are often persecuted.  Muslims may lie, if it is to advance Islam.  Christians, of course, may not.  Another feature of Islam is Sharia, the Islamic law.  Sharia seems, however, to simply be the codification of the ancient Arabian way of life.  Thus, polygamy, wife beating, honor killings, child marriages and brutal punishments for violations of Sharia are part of this so-called law.  Some of the lesser-known facts of Sharia are that dogs are considered "unclean" and therefore you can't have them.  Muslims are of course supposed to be teetotalers, and pork is absolutely verboten.

Needless to say, the Koran is a hodge podge of a book apparently written by a mad man.  And so it was.  The entity inspiring the Koran was Satan himself, disguised as the Angel Gabriel.  Look at the symbol of Islam.  It is the crescent moon.  But the moon has no light or life of its own.  The moon merely reflects of the light of the Sun.

Christians try to follow Christ, to follow the moral law laid down in the Ten Commandments, to be good husbands and wives, to be good neighbors, good citizens, and to love God with all our hearts and minds.  Faith and trust in God are the hallmarks of Christianity. As Paul wrote in an epistle, "to live is Christ and to die is gain."  Of course, we fail so often, that He sent is only begotten son to take on the sins of the world for us by dying and rising again on the third day.  It's a free gift, and all we have to do is not reject it.  Muslims do, however, reject it, and they want everyone else to reject it too.  The Bible has been called a nonfiction novel, the whole pointing to God's plan to save humanity.  It was written by various authors, all of whom were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so we consider it God's word.  Indeed, He is its main character.

This war, between Satan and God plays out in the human world.  We, all of us, are soldiers in this war.  There is no neutral ground.  You must decide.  Are you for God, who loves you and forgives your sins, or are you for Satan, who hates you and wants to rule you in hell.

Eileen F. Toplansky today, at the American Thinker has a piece asking the question never Forget? Of course, she is writing about the fact that too many have forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001. Seemingly, Islam is taking over more and more of the United States. When Jesus cast a demon out of a man, he told his disciples that unless the man turned to God, the demon would return and bring seven more, and his final state would be worse than before. This happens with nations too. We need to rededicate ourselves to God if we are to remain a free nation.

I urge gentle readers to read Toplansky's article. Please consider, if you are a atheist, isn't it better to live in a Christian nation than under barbarian rule? For Christians, it is time to use the tools of spiritual warfare (prayer) to stand against this invasion.

The Constitution Is Not a Suicide Pact

 Today, at the American Thinker Mike McDaniel has a post entitled Defining Islam to avoid national suicide. Americans must realize that Muslims are waging a special kind of jihad against us, with the eventual goal to conquer this country for Allah. It starts small. Maybe a family moves into your neighberhood who is Muslim. They seem nice. Then a few more. One day they build a mosque, hire an imam who tells them they must more fully comply with Islamic law and the Koran. Next thing you know, they are demanding Sharia in place of the laws of your community One day the city that once was yours has become theirs and you are no longer welcome. See Dearborn Michigan. We don't have to let this happen.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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.

Note that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Yes it says that we may not either establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of such. But, is Islam a religion?

Christianity is a voluntary religion. No one is forced to become a believer, and there is no earthly penalty for choosing to reject belief. One willingly accepts God, or one does not. Christianity does not mandate the conquest of the world for God. It recognizes self-defense, an unalienable right acknowledged by the Second Amendment, but it does not preach hatred of anyone; quite the opposite, as the Second Commandment says:

And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Islam is a system of political conquest and domination. It tolerates no separation of church and state because the “church” is the state. It uses religion as a means, including Sharia, to keep its adherents in line. If you are not an observant Muslim, you risk being labeled an infidel, and if you choose to leave Islam, you’re an apostate. There is only one fate Islam mandates for apostates: death.

Muslims are exhorted to kill all Jews, and to enslave or kill all infidels in Jihad—holy war—to conquer the world for Islam. Islamist Muslims often kill other Muslims they consider insufficiently fervent in their faith. And while some Muslims apparently do not want to kill or enslave anyone, it is Islamists, not they, who are living the intent and text of their faith. The saying that some Muslims don’t want to kill anyone, they just want other Muslims to do it, applies.

It should be clear that the god of Islam is not the same as our God. It should be clear that Sharia is incompatible with our laws. It should be obvious that while we are expected to love those that have a stated goal of killing us, we nonetheless can expect them to either give up their stated goal or return from whence they came. We are not required to bow to their god, who in reality is the Evil One. We already have sufficient laws to deal with Islam, the question is, do we have the spine to implement them?

More sad news for gun grabbers...

 In 1992, Florida State criminology professors Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz conducted a survey that showed around 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU) a year nationwide.  Most DGU involved merely brandishing the gun, not actually firing it.  Naturally, the gun grabbers tore into Kleck's results, claiming it could not be true.  The CDC did a similar study in 2018 and found similar results. A number of years ago, I had a experience of using a gun to defend myself, but in my case, I didn't even have to brandish it. Once the bad guy made himself known, I took a firing grip on the weapon but did not draw it. It remained concealed.  But the bad guy decided I was not an easy target after all.

Today, at Fox News there is an article by Amy Swearer entitle Gun control activists demanded better data. What they got surprised the heck out of them. According to the article:

A Georgetown professor just taught gun control activists an important lesson: When you criticize studies that don’t support anti-gun talking points, be careful what you wish for — you just might get it. In this case, they got an unprecedented amount of new data that obliterates their narrative.

In 2021, Professor William English published the findings of his National Firearms Survey, by far the most comprehensive assessment of gun ownership ever conducted. The data demonstrated that defensive gun uses were commonplace, that ordinary Americans really like the weapons gun control activists hate most and that longstanding stereotypes about the "sort" of Americans who exercise their Second Amendment rights were misplaced.

Gun control activists predictably hated this. They attacked the report’s conclusions and author, blasting the survey over nitpicky concerns. English explained how the alleged problems wouldn’t have significantly impacted the results. Critics categorically dismissed the report anyway.

So, English humored them. He re-administered the survey, "fixing" its alleged "mistakes."

If gun control activists hated the 2021 conclusions, they will likely lose their minds over the new ones, which English just released online. The improved and redesigned 2026 survey fails to vindicate their criticisms and deals even mightier blows to anti-gun narratives.

Gentle readers can read the whole article at the linked site. I don't expect this survey to change any minds among the gun grabbers. They are stuck in the belief that if we only banned the tool, that criminals wouldn't kill others. But the first recorded murder in the Bible was when Cain killed Able with a rock. Indeed, nearly anything can be used as a weapon. It is the criminal intent of the killer rather than the tool he uses that makes the difference. What surveys like the one conducted by English show is that guns are inanimate tools that can be used for both good and evil.

It is, of course, a utilitarian survey, but as such things go, it proves that the principle is correct.  God says you shall not murder.  But when someone chooses to break that commandment, we have the right, and even the duty to defend ourselves.