Not bad, coming from being an atheist at one time.

There is life after death; for me, there is no escaping it. Enough proof has been shown to me. No, I don’t have a repeatable experiment you God haters out there demand, a vial of of God essence you can measure and hopefully control. But then again, what should I expect from shallow thinkers like yourselves? Is it time for  slap down? Let’s ask the studio audience.

Yes, I’m taunting and disrespecting you. It’s a little payback for all the bitch slapping you gave believers over the millennia. You’ve told us that God is not real, a wishful thought of ours; you’ve commandeered our Jesus fish signs on the back of our cars, putting feet on them and “Darwin” inside them, as a nice middle finger to us. You’ve had this smarmy ass attitude, and frankly, fuck you. YOU are the small-minded freak with the wishful thinking, not us. YOU are the ones that can’t think beyond the physical world, into another possible dimension – quite possibley bore out by quantum physics, I might add. It’s not that you can’t believe it – it’s because you don’t want to believe. You see an after life might mean, for you, there is a God, and well…that thought is just too frightening for you. Dumb ass.

Ok….that felt good.

I don’t believe based on the Bible – God knows NOTHING real comes out of that, right? So there, shot down your religion-based belief reason.

I have listened, on many occasions, to people who have been on the other side of life, and have come back to tell us about it – so called “Near-death experiences”.

So, before you start this crap of it being an illusion of some sort, wishful thinking for a dying brain, chemicals released in the brain to sooth a traumatized mind, save it, you’re full of it. Yes, I’ve heard of smug scientists giving drugs to subjects, or bombarding brains with strong electromagnetic fields, and supposedly have “reproduced” these near death experiences. What a friggin’ laugh. For one, they are not that similar to a real NDE, nor are people that are experiencing real NDEs – surprise, surprise – being bombarded with high electromagnetic forces or psychedelic drugs when they have their NDE!  Just because they can make vaguely similar experiences in a controlled lab experiment, does not mean that this explains NDEs.

Especially when you consider the testimonials of people with NDEs.

The most dramatic of all the reports are those that include the participant being able to report what was going on in the area their body was in, despite being dead. Accurate reports of medical procedures, things being said, are not uncommon. Astonishingly, some can even report what was going on in another room, or another building – while dead. How is this otherwise explainable, other than the soul living on, outside the body?

I suppose your first come back will be these people are lying. Bull. Some of them don’t tell their story for years, or without payment. Their stories are verified by others. Doctors and nurses have seen something visible leave the body – a type of mist – at times. Is that all BS? All some vast conspiracy to fool you? Of all the NDE stories I’ve heard, I’ve NEVER heard someone come clean – that they made up a story. When they tell their story, their is no body language that indicates lying, no reason to doubt them. Moreover, not all stories are happy ones – some experience Hell and not Heaven. They are terrified, and change their lives for the better. They often say they no longer fear dying – some are even upset they came back to this reality, it was so good over “there”. Does that sound like a dying or traumatized brain to you? The same brain that usually does anything to survive?

I’ll admit, I don’t know if this means there is a God, as we understand Him traditionally; maybe “God” is just some physical force, like magnetism. But, these NDE experiences sometimes report “knowing” intuitively, that they are in the presence of a God with a mind, exuding a love that envelopes and consumes them. They report meeting relatives they never knew – a grandparent that died before they were born, of example – that is later identified by a relative on this side.

What say you, God-hating, science-loving atheist?

Ok, just kidding on that last part; but I have pretty well settled it in my own mind, and you want to know what that is, or you would have left by now.

Gay: Nature or Nurture? Nobody wants to seem to answer this question – especially gay proponents, here’s why: if homosexuality is caused by a rogue gene, then that would be looked upon as a deficiency, something to be fixed, and of course, that doesn’t fit into their “can’t change / can’t help it” mantra. If it’s by nurture, that is, life experience, once again, that could be remedied on the psychiatrist’s couch. Ouch on both. Some yahoos on my side of the aisle will say it’s a conscious choice, which I don’t think is right. However, most people fail to realize that much of what goes on in the human mind is done in the subconscious, and therefore, my belief is that largely, homosexuality is a choice, but a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Nixon, uncontrollable one.

Gay Marriage: No. Ok? I am fascinated that I seem to be the only one to realize this red herring gay marriage proponents have been pimping for years. This sappy “We just want the rights others have” trick. You see, they are trying to convince you that mean, nasty people are trying to keep them from marrying people they love. Those wascally Wepublicans! Then they trot out some couple that can’t get health insurance (for free), or they can’t visit in the hospital – some emotional shock bomb (because we know that liberal’s brains are emotionally dominated, so that should persuade you to see it their way. Never mind logic).

Let’s revisit some facts here, and not be taken into the quicksand of emotional decisions. First and foremost, gays can now, and have always been able to, marry. WHAT? Another wascally Wepublican trying to hoodwink you? No. It’s a fact. Ask Elton John, Anne Heche or Cynthia Nixon, homosexuals, bisexuals or more likely, confused straights, about that. They are (or were) gay, and yet married. No rights denied. Personally, I know two men that if they aren’t gay, have me fooled, and are married to a woman. So, what right is exactly being denied? My opponents will argue that “they can’t marry the one they love”, meaning, someone of the same sex, and in most states, they would be right. HOWEVER, they still enjoy the same right I have – to marry a person of the opposite sex. How is that deniable? They scream they can’t marry, but clearly they can, just like I can.

Therefore, they want a special right, a right that changes the fundamental make up of the family and society, and I say no.

After knocking down that straw man, they come up with the civil rights argument, aligning the right to marry with inter-racial marriage. Again, they fall flat. Inter-racial marriage was wrong to deny, but unlike gay marriage, the same dynamic of opposite-sex people were in place – a man was still marrying a woman.

Why do gays really want to marry? It’s not because of hospital visits, inheriting property or any other marital legal bestowments – that could be done with a legal partnership, which they always shoot down, saying it makes them second class citizens.

It’s about acceptance.

More than anything, gays want to be accepted in society. It’s a very bad feeling to feel as if you are the odd man out in society. The principle of homosexuality is a relationship, and one that isn’t generally acceptable in society. Conferring a legal marriage status upon that relationship forces others to at least try to accept their relationship, if not condone outright. It reminds me of earlier eras when rich men would try to buy high officer positions in their army or navy, so as to gain more societal respect. This is why you also see gays trying to commandeer other respected and revered positions in society, such as boy scout leaders, clergy, and so on, to show, they are just like us.

But, in reality they aren’t – at least sexually. Homosexuality doesn’t make sense, biologically; they should have died out millennia ago. It can’t be normal, because the basic function of sex is reproduction – pleasure is a side effect of that activity. Our genitals are meant for really only two things, sex and urine discharge. In short, gay sex just doesn’t make biological or emotional sense.

So what’s the take away here? What’s my, and I think many, or people’s take on homosexuality?

I sincerely believe that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, and I don’t think it’s really treatable – with some exceptions. I don’t want to beat you up, deny you a job, or a place to live. I don’t care if you like a man in  your bed and not a woman, but for me, boobs are just too much fun. I don’t deny you love someone of the same sex. I don’t deny you are discriminated against , made fun of, or even beaten up. I’ve been fat all my life – I can identify. I get you want to be accepted. But you have to realize that what your status is very much a small minority, and that we really need a foundation to rest our world upon – the basic family unit, of a mom, dad and kids. It’s that way in nature, it’s always been that way, why should we change it? So a some people feel better about themselves? I’m sorry, that’s not a good enough reason.

Surprised? You thought it was about having equal rights. After all, you, a heterosexual, had a right they didn’t have – the right to marry. They told you that, and you, not wanting to appear bigoted, hateful, or being unjust, decided for gay marriage. Furthermore, they equated their struggle to those that wanted to marry inter-racially decades ago, and how that was (rightfully) remedied.

So then you signed that petition at the local arts and crafts show, for “equality” in marriage, and you felt good about it; I mean, equality is good, right?

There is one thing you need to understand when a social issue like this comes up: There’s always another side to the story, and the story you are hearing is not necessarily the truth. Such is the case here. Let me present my side of the story, as I’ve been fighting against gay marriage for years.

First of all, hate has nothing to do with it. Just because I disagree with your point of view, doesn’t mean I hate you. This is a common tactic by liberals, when they have no other argument left. You’re just a hateful person. You have to be, you don’t agree with them, and they can’t convince you, because you haven’t acquiesced. Having said that, some people just outright hate gays, I can’t deny it, and are against gay marriage just for that impetus; but my case is based on arguments, not emotion.

They already have the right to marry. This is the biggest lie gay marriage proponents propagate – some, unknowingly. The setup? You can marry, I can’t. Therefore, inequity. The claim is patently false; gay men can, and do, marry. They enjoy the same right that I, a heterosexual man, does. Is it arguable that a gay man cannot marry a woman, as I can? Do not gay men, in fact, marry women occasionally? It’s a fact, gay people have the same exact right I do – to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no way to argue the point – yet, they do. They will counter, when presented with this fact, “Well, yeah, but I can’t marry the person I love, like you can.” Again, another falsehood. Can I marry anyone I love either? Can I marry the underage girl next door, my first cousin, or another married woman? No. Once again, they have the exact same right I do. Therefore, what they really must do, is redefine what marriage is – a union between one man and one woman – to make this work.

It’s not the same civil rights issue blacks faced. Not only is this false, this is insulting to a real civil rights issue. Let’s look at the history. At one time, black people couldn’t vote – in any way. Because they were black, they couldn’t vote. It was unjust, and it was remedied. In contrast, gays, as I’ve shown, can and do, marry. Black people couldn’t vote – in any way, gay people can marry. Another part of this civil rights struggle they try to reference is interracial marriage. Before 1967, blacks and whites couldn’t marry. Yet, the dynamic of a man and a woman was still there. THAT is the difference. With gay marriage, it’s absent. In fact, the difference is not something immutable – skin color – but something malleable – sexual orientation, identification and practices – all behaviors.

Passing a gay marriage bill will force churches to marry gays. Remember what I stated at the beginning – it’s all about acceptance, not rights. In American society, marriage is the “gold standard” of relationships; it’s the ultimate foundation of society, the basis of a family. It imparts certain rights – and responsibilities. Being homosexual implies relationship to another person – albeit one that is many times scorned. Therefore, if you can get societies’ stamp of approval, you normalize the relationship in society. That is step one – getting the legal system to recognize, and therefore legitimize – their relationship. The final voice against them is the church. They are the stalwart voice, the final hurdle, against total acceptance in society. So then, they must be stopped. Propoents of gay marriage will argue, “There’s a separation of church and state; they can’t make a law compelling clergy to marry gays.” And this is probably true. However, they can claim discrimination, and urge (bully) legislators to revoke a church’s tax exempt status. Pro-abortion advocates successfully put pressure on Catholic organizations to provide contraception to employees and patients. If you think the gay mafia is going to let clergy just rally against them and not take action, you’re sadly mistaken.

There are reasons to be against gay marriage – you believe it’s just wrong, it goes against your religion, you think it lowers your marriage – and so on. That is not a good way to argue agains them. Tear down their false premises, and the issue will resolve itself.

This is going to be painful.

First, let’s look at Obama’s resume:

Barack Obama

He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama previously served as a United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned after his election to the presidency in November 2008.

A native of Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid against a Democratic incumbent for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he ran for United States Senate in 2004. Several events brought him to national attention during the campaign, including his victory in the March 2004 Democratic primary and his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He won election to the U.S. Senate in November 2004. His presidential campaign began in February 2007, and after a close campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he won his party’s nomination. In the 2008 general election, he defeated Republican nominee John McCain and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009.

• President of the United States, 2008-present. First African-American elected to presidency. Highlights of his presidency to date:

1. Passing of a national health care bill.
2. Passed the largest ever “stimulus” bill of $787 billion, titled “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”
3. Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.
4. Appointed the first Latina to the US Supreme Court
5. Signed a hate crime bill aimed at stopping “hate crimes” against gays and transgendered.
6. Banned offshore drilling until parameters for deep well safety procedures are clarified.
7. Funded the design of a new Smithsonian National Museum of African American History scheduled to open on the National Mall in 2015
8. The first bill President Obama signed into law, on January 29, 2009, was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which expands the rights of workers to sue employers over wage discrimination claims.

• U.S. Senator 2005 to Present State of Illinois, Chicago, IL / Washington, DC, from 2005-2007. Accomplishments:

1. Provided $100+ million in tax cuts to families over 3 years through legislative changes to state tax law.
2. Provided permanent health care coverage to 154,000 low-income residents (including 70,000 children).
3. Reformed the state’s notorious death penalty laws to help prevent wrongful convictions.
4. Honored as a Keynote Speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

• State Senator State of Illinois, Chicago, IL. 1997-2004
• Associate Attorney Davis, Miner & Barnhill, Chicago, IL, 1993-2002
• Lecturer / Senior Lecturer University of Chicago Law School, 1992-2004
• Grassroots organizer, early 1990s. Accomplishments:

1. Planned and orchestrated grassroots effort targeting unregistered voters throughout the Chicago metro area. Resulted in 150,000 new African-American voters.
2. Improved living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment through work with a church- based group.

Education:

• J.D., Magna Cum Laude, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, 1991 President, Harvard Law Review (first African-American ever elected)
• B.A., Political Science, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, 1983

Publications:

• The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, Crown Publishers, 2006
• Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Times Books, 1995 (reprint 2004)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

George Washington

George Washington is perhaps the best-known and loved American ever, and for good reason. The man was not only of impeccable character, but also a man of honor, dignity, sacrifice, duty, reverence and accomplishment. Washington was a much-loved and respected figure in his time, and still is today. He commanded an audience just by walking into a room, so magnanimous was his person. At 6′ 4″, he was usually always the biggest man in the room. He had many, many accomplishments, including innovations in farming, as it was a passion of his. He often remarked that he would love to give up public life and make a living being a farmer, but so great was his sense of duty to country, that he forego his interests for the interests of his country. He often prayed and spoke of divine providence, and indeed, it was often seen in his life. In one battle, Washington was shot four times, and two horses shot out underneath him; but each bullet missed his body, and went through only his clothes or hat! He often rode in the front lines, much to his soldiers pleas as to not do so.

• President 1789-1797 United States of America, Philadelphia, PA
Served two 4-year terms as president of the United States, winning the elections with unanimous votes. Sought to create a great united nation and lead the post-war recovery efforts. Highlights include:

1. Assisted Congress with the adoption of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) in 1791, guaranteeing the rights of the American people.
2. Organized the first United States Cabinet and the Executive Branch, building an infrastructure capable of supporting future presidents.
3. Issued the Proclamation of Neutrality, establishing the United States as a neutral nation in the conflict between Britain and France, and freeing the nation from unnecessary involvement in foreign conflicts.
4. Adopted measures to resolve the escalating debt crisis, such as support of a program that helped repay the states’ Revolutionary War debts.
5. Suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion, an uprising by farmers who were displeased by the government’s imposed excise on whiskey. Raised more than 12,000 troops to quell the uprising and convince people of the merit of the tax.
6. Signed the Treaty of San Lorenzo, opening the Mississippi River to American navigation.
7. Signed Jay’s Treaty with Great Britain, forcing the British to evacuate western forts and stabilizing relations with Great Britain.
8. Negotiated peace treaties with southeastern Indian tribes. Proclaimed the first National Day of Thanksgiving.
9. Turned down the opportunity to serve a third term, setting a precedent for future presidents to limit their terms to avoid potential abuse of power.

President 1787 Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, PA

1. Helped organize and presided over the Constitutional Convention in 1787, during which time the US Constitution was written.
2. Recognized as one of two presidents who signed the US Constitution.

Commander-in-Chief 1775 – 1783 Continental Army, Philadelphia, PA

Created the Continental Army and served as its commander-in-chief. The Continental Army fought and won the American Revolution (1775-1783), forcing the British to grant independence to America. Highlights:

1. Motivated troops during the cold winter of 1777-1778 at Valley Forge, PA, building a mature army ready for battle.
2. Launched a brilliantly planned and executed Yorktown Campaign in 1781, securing an American victory.
3. Attacked the British near Monmouth Courthouse, NJ, on their withdrawal from Philadelphia to New York.
4. Orchestrated a brilliant attack by the capture of Trenton, NJ, as troops crossed the Delaware River and surprised and defeated the enemy troops.
5. Took command of troops surrounding British-occupied Boston, training a 14,000-man army and securing needed supplies.
6. Occupied Dorchester Heights, effectively commanding the city and forcing the British to evacuate.

Education

Self-Taught, Mount Vernon, NY

1. Professional
2. Mostly studied mathematics, surveying, mapmaking, the classics and “rules of civility.”

Early Career Chronology

1774-1775 First and Second Continental Congress. Served as a delegate to the First and Second Continental Congress; was Congress’s unanimous choice as commander-in- chief of the Continental forces in June 1775.

1759-1774 Virginia’s House of Burgesses. Became a radical patriot leader, serving in Virginia’s legislature for 15 years.

1753-1759 Commander, Virginia Militia. Commanded the Virginia militia during the French and Indian War.

1749-1753 Lord Fairfax’s Lands (Shenandoah Valley). Helped design the layout of the Virginia town of Belhaven (now Alexandria) in 1749 and was appointed surveyor for Culpeper County.

I find atheists to usually be self-agrandizing, belligerent, pompous and vain. Why shouldn’t they be? Apparently, they have full knowledge of the entire cosmos – what exists, and what doesn’t. They’ve never seen any “evidence” of God, therefore, He can’t exist. But if God does exist, he necessarily had to exist outside the realm of what we know to be reality to create what we know as reality. It’s the same notion as a woman needing to be outside the baby to bear the baby. In this case, the “baby” was born, doesn’t see the mother, and therefore, she never existed; nature just created the baby, so it thinks.

And they call people of faith “small-minded”?

2) Liberals believe we can talk everything out with our enemies. One of the weirder quirks of liberalism is their belief that many of our bitterest enemies have rational reasons for disliking us and that can easily be talked away if they realize we’re good people. Hence, the common liberal refrain of, “Why do they hate us?” The reason this is a particularly odd belief is that liberals don’t even believe this about conservatives in the United States. The average liberal thinks that if we’re nice enough, we can reach an understanding with Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck can’t be reasoned with.

3) Liberals don’t have enough respect for our culture and traditions: To liberals, our cultural, economic, and political norms were formed by backwards troglodytes making arbitrary decisions based on superstition and racism. Unfortunately for them, as a general rule, that’s not so and proceeding as if it is, will often lead to exactly the same difficulties that our ancestors already dealt with in times past. No matter how smart we are, as Thomas Sowell would say, our wisdom is often no match for the “distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before.” Truly wise people are aware that there is a great deal that they do not know.

4) Liberalism is a fundamentally immoral political philosophy. Ironically, given all their talk about “shades of gray,” liberals have a very Manichean view of the world. They consider their fellow travelers to be on the side of the angels, while the people who disagree with them are treated as evil. This leads to an “anything goes” mentality when dealing with their foes: ignoring the law via a “living constitution,” politically based prosecutions, shouting down opposing speakers, and treating lying about their agenda or opponents to be moral. On the other hand, liberals will support other libs, no matter how corrupt, sleazy, or vile they are as long as they’re politically useful to the left. See Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, John Murtha, and Robert Byrd for examples of that. In other words, as Margaret Thatcher has said of the Left, “For them, the end always seems to justify the means.”

5) Liberals believe merely being liberal makes them good people. Liberals who’re obsessed with money think they’re compassionate because they give away other people’s tax dollars. They believe they care more about the earth than other people, even as they fly around in private jets, because they babble on about global warming. They can be dumb as a rock, but believe they’re smarter than most other people because they’re liberals. In other words, in the minds of most liberals, liberalism is an all-purpose substitute for actual virtue instead of just another political philosophy.

6) Liberals have too much faith in government. Even most liberals would admit that government regularly fails the people. If you don’t believe that, just ask them about the Bush Administration and they’ll give you an earful. However, liberals tend to believe that with the right person in charge, government won’t be so slow, stupid, inefficient, and badly run. Human history proves that they’re wrong about that.

7) Liberals have minimal interest in whether the programs they support work or not. To most liberals, whether a government program betters people’s lives is completely irrelevant to whether they’ll support it. A program that doesn’t work and costs billions, but sounds compassionate and helps Democrats politically is a huge success in the eyes of the Left. Once you understand that liberals think this way, their baffling support for programs that make no “common sense” is much easier to understand.

Not a better place – with the exceptions of San Fransisco and Portland – could our peaceful Muslim friends have chosen. New York City is infested with the mental illness known as liberalism – that style of political thinking that dissociates itself from reality in a hot-air balloon of emotion. Liberals, with their emotionally dominated minds, actually have no problem with – in fact, many support – a mosque (or as the Trojan Horse is being called, an “Islamic Cultural Center”) being built only 600′ away from the nearest corner of Ground Zero. You see, it’s a way to promote “tolerance” and “diversity”; a way to build a bridge across the Islamic World and the west.

Many clear-thinking Americans object, and vehemently, to this act.

What is going on in the minds of the Liberals to cause them to sympathize with the religion that killed so many people right in their own town?

Like most psychopathology, the reasons are manifold; one could make the case for subconscious fear, which in turn manifests itself into appeasement. These people know what the Muslims did – they saw the carnage, the people jumping out of windows; they felt the anxiety. The could be afraid of these people to the point of trying to make peace with them, hoping they won’t attack them. Imagine a young child who has seen his father in rages against others; the child will likely try to be well-behaved around the father and not say anything to upset him, lest they be the target of his wrath. Liberals may be emulating this fear response, trying to show Muslims “tolerance” – letting them have their way, so they don’t attack again.

Teens and young adults typically demonstrate a tolerant and appeasement approach as well. Being emotionally immature, they don’t have the fortitude to stand up to bullies and fight for what is right. Instead, they attack the critics of the Muslims, not fearing them, essentially telling them, “Be quiet! Don’t get these people mad!”

There is also the illusions of magnanimity they so often exhibit – they are just on a higher evolved level of reasoning than others, spreading their wings on soaring platitudes they wish the world to be like. They want to be seen as “tolerant” – meaning apathetic – and not be judged a bigot or racist – terms they often sling at conservatives. Why? Because they have felt great pain when these words were thrown at them, or identified with people who are actually victims of racism or bigotry, and knowing it’s so painful, they in turn hurl it others that they feel are attacking Muslims, to make them hurt as well, and hopefully desist.

In essence, they are cowardly and arrogant.

They have control over New York City, and so they overwhelmingly give their approval of this Mosque.

But is it just a Mosque? The imam behind the project has stated this would be way to show the terrorists they didn’t win, and a way to help rebuild downtown Manhattan. How magnanimous of him!

But how exactly does putting a mosque near the site of the worst mass murder in US history tell the terrorists they didn’t win? And how does it help build better ties with the west?

It doesn’t. It’s the talk that liberals want to hear, and the imam is speaking it to them. The name of the group building this mosque is called the “Cordoba Initiative”. No one in the media asks about that moniker, but it does mean something to students of Islamic history.

On the Cordoba Initiative website they state, “Our Mission: Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.” (emphasis mine).

Researching this interesting name of the group, I found a more detailed accounting of the Cordoba moniker – the Cordoba Initiative refers to the Caliphate of Cordoba, a Muslim ruler, of the what is now the Spanish peninsula and North Africa, from the city of Cordoba (in southern Spain), from 929 to 1031 AD. During this period, the great mosque of Cordoba was built. The rule of the caliphate is considered the heyday of Muslim presence in that area. The caliphate enjoyed great prosperity, and brought the Christian kingdoms of the north, through force and diplomacy, under control. The caliphate also held state-sponsored raids into neighboring Christian kingdoms, which were very lucrative; tribute payments were also collected to guarantee safety (source). In other words, Muslims came, Muslims conquered, and the Christians were brought to heel, and the Great Mosque of Cordoba was built – and still stands today. Hmm.

Can you see the allegory forming here? This mosque – which was purposefully chosen by the imam because of it’s close proximity to the WTC site (source) – is a victorious planting of the flag upon conquered ground. If anything, it’s an affirmation to the terrorists of what they did – and can still do – not a condemnation. Once they get the mosques established, you bring in, of course, Muslims. When you bring in enough Muslims, what happens next? You want them to have representation in schools and city boards. Then more come, and get more representation – then they start changing the way society works – to their way of thinking, of course. Some parts of England are (or have) considering incorporating the draconian Sharia law into their own laws, or letting villages colonized by Muslims institute their own Sharia laws. They will demand – and get – accommodations in schools to practice their religion, as they have in Dearborn, Michigan – one of the highest concentrations of Muslims in the country (source). Liberal groups like the ACLU, will give them a pass on it, though they will sue to make sure a coach can’t say a christian prayer before a football game.

In short, it’s a Trojan horse – exactly. You recall the story?

Seeking to gain entrance into Troy, the Greek Odysseus  ordered a large wooden horse to be built. Its insides were to be hollow so that soldiers could hide within it.

Once the statue had been built by the artist Epeius, a number of the Greek warriors, along with Odysseus, climbed inside. The rest of the Greek fleet sailed away, so as to deceive the Trojans.

One man, Sinon, was left behind. When the Trojans came to marvel at the huge creation, Sinon pretended to be angry with the Greeks, stating that they had deserted him. He assured the Trojans that the wooden horse was safe and would bring luck to the Trojans.

Only two people, Laocoon and Cassandra, spoke out against the horse, but they were ignored. The Trojans celebrated what they thought was their victory, and dragged the wooden horse into Troy.

That night, after most of Troy was asleep or in a drunken stupor, Sinon let the Greek warriors out from the horse, and they slaughtered the Trojans.

Is the picture becoming clearer? The mosque is the the Trojan horse, the Muslims the warriors within it. They safely get by our defenses with talk of a wonderful gift, and then when we are vulnerable, take us over.

Liberalism is dangerous.

Let’s examine an article put out today by the Associated Press – you can read it here. The title is “Another attack leaves US Muslims fearing backlash”.

Really? How many mosques were torched after we found out about who perpetuated the attacks on 9/11? None. How many reports of even muslims being beaten up? None. Therefore, why this title?

It’s about you being told Islam is a peaceful religion, that’s what. Just like Christianity is, and Buddhism, and Judaism.

Let me make the case that this was an attack by an Islamic terrorist:

• It was premeditated. Hasan had just emptied his apartment, and was on the web making pro-terrorist statements.
• At the start of the shooting, he yelled out, “Allah Akabar” – the traditional cry of a muslim terrorist as they are about to inflict their peaceful violence.
• He had brought weapons to work that day – kinda unusual for a psychiatry professional.

Clearly, this was not a guy that just snapped – as would be the case of a man coming home to find his wife in bed with another man; no, this was premeditated. He KNEW what he wanted to do.

And now some of the crazy statements from the article:

“This is one of those moments where we have to sit and pray that most Americans will come out stronger, more united, and more tolerant,” said Ayloush, adding that Muslim organizations have received dozens of death threats and hate e-mail.”

“…more tolerant”? What would happen in an arabic country if a christian had done this? He would have been drawn and quartered by now; no trial by jury, and this guy will get, if he lives. He would have his head chopped off – if not just for being a christian.

“U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat who is one of two Muslims serving in Congress, cautioned against focusing on the alleged shooter’s religion and instead said the discussion should be about mental health issues.”

Why, exactly? This man clearly pre-meditated these murders, and did so because he felt the wars we are waging are against Islam, and he couldn’t bear to go help soldiers that were killing fellow muslims. He lashed out at the soldiers around him, killing many. He wasn’t shouting “The world is ending!” as he started killing these people – he shouted “Allah Akabar” – the typical muslim terrorist slogan.

“This is no way a reflection of Islam any more than Timothy McVeigh’s actions are a reflection of Christianity,” said Carson, who supervised an anti-terrorism unit in Indiana’s Department of Homeland Security and comes from a family of Marines.”

Unbelievably bad comparison. McVeigh did his terrorist act to strike out against the U.S. government, not because he thought his Christianity was under attack – he wasn’t a crusader. There was no shout of “Jesus is King” when he drove up that truck of explosives to that building.

Oh yes, it WAS all about Islam – the peaceful religion.

The gist: These so-called near-death experiences (a misnomer actually; you are clinically dead) are simply chemical activity in the brain – nothing more.

This organic theory for NDEs is absolutely loved by atheists. The message? There is no after-life; death is final.The message to the sub-concious? Live it up. Do what you want. There is no God, therefore no sin, and no judgement (the bane of the liberal mind). This is why liberals abhor judgement in the real world – being suspicious of Muslims, denying (or trying to explain away)  black crime statistics, gay relationships, and fatherless children – all those involve a judgement. To have a judgement, you must have a right and wrong to base that judgement on. To have a right and wrong, invites guilt and the possibility of having to give up a very pleasurable behavior – or making a painful observation of someone, including the self. That’s intolerable, to the liberal atheist mind.

The converse is, of course, that there is, in fact, life after physical death. This theme is obviously central in the three major religions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism –  all of which involve a God – and therefore, judgement and accountability. This is unacceptable to the atheist mind, which I find to be largely liberal politically. If you are living what these religions consider an un-holy life, and there is a God, then you’ll find a very conflicted individual; you have an entity with absolute power over your future versus your sinful, selfish desires.  Conflict is something the mind does not  like, so it of course seeks to resolve it. Some people will change their sinful behaviors, finding this gives the most pleasurable result, and/or less painful. Others, like atheists, simply try to destroy the possibility of God to lessen the conflict – no God, no conflict.

But what of these NDEs and the atheist’s organic explanation of them? I’ll let you read the article to see those explanations. The mistake these skeptics consistently make is, this could be an explanation, therefore, it is the explanation. For example, during brain surgery, a surgeon can use a mild electrical probe to stimulate a place on the brain, and the patient will have an experience – it might be the taste of an orange, hearing a bell, smelling a rose – all of which in fact are not happening, but the perception is still real to the person. Normally, these perceptions are reality-based; a person really is smelling a rose, or tasting an orange, and not having their brain stimulated by the probe. The atheist would argue that what is actually happening is the probe sensation, and the person would argue that the actual event is occurring, and they are experiencing it. Because the atheist can reliably replicate the experience on the patient, that is the real cause of their experience, not actually experiencing a smell or taste. Incidentally, you see this in the man-made global warming mania – it looks like man is causing global warming, so it is that way.

What these NDE deniers always seem to forget to address is the reports that some of these people make of actually witnessing events occurring in reality that they should not be able to, since they are clinically dead – a component of which, is the brain ceasing to have any electrical activity. What explanation can a denier give when a person can relate, once they come back to life, of what a nurse said or did, or what unfamiliar medical instruments a doctor used on them, while they were “dead”?  Some even report traveling to another place – a room next door, or even to their home – and actually reporting what happened there with accuracy. That can’t possibly happen even in the (essentially) dream state that NDE deniers contend is the cause of NDEs.

Being a christian, I of course, believe in the after life, and therefore, these NDE accounts make sense. When you don’t want there to be an afterlife – and therefore the possibility of God (and gasp, judgement!) then you do everything you can to try to explain away these experiences.

So, we used to have drinking alcohol under the wink-and-a-nod reason for “medicinal purposes”, and now it’s pot. I think it’s great we give one more avenue for people to screw up their lives and escape their problems with yet another drug, don’t you? Oh yes, those people that smoke pot because it alleviates pain – fine, let them get a prescription for the pill form of pot, that has the same active ingredient as pot.

Oh no, no, can’t have that. Then these head shops won’t be able to sell their crap to teens and  young adults, and the 60′s hippies.

Once again, liberal do-gooder intentions have devastating consequences. Once pot becomes decriminalized – as these pot-head losers want – we’ll see more and more teens smoking pot, and eventually abusing other drugs. Wonderful! Thanks Obama!

So, how does the liberal psychology fit into this? What’s the pathology behind a mind that wants another intoxicant freely available in society?

When people inherently know – and they do – that a behavior is wrong, either morally, socially or personally, yet love the behavior so much that it would be painful to give it  up, we see them trying not to change their perception of the activity, but society’s instead. We know some behaviors – and their resulting effects – are detrimental to a person’s mental and physical well being, yet we see groups like “fat acceptance” (it’s ok physically to be 100+ pounds overweight), NAMBLA (man/boy sexual relationships are fine) and now a gateway intoxicant, marijuana. So, instead of giving up the much loved sin, they try to recruit others into the behavior, which alleviates their own guilt. This is very evident in the homosexual agenda. While some people are actually homosexual, some are not, yet groups like Parents Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), won’t make that distinction; if a person thinks they are gay – regardless of any underlying psychopathology that maybe simply causing them to engage in gay behavior – then damn it, you must support that behavior, because the more their is of them, the more legitimate it looks (this is why gay groups inflate the actual number of gays in society to around 10% – a ridiculously high number – when it’s more like 2%).

Obama should be strong against drug use, marijuana included. The message that needs to be sent is, using recreational drugs to escape reality is unacceptable. You must deal with your problems head on, and not try to put them in a smoky haze so as to make them less visible. Once the smoke clears, they are still there.