Sheik in Egypt Says: “if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari’a”

This is the so-called "religion of peace". Huh. How are we of other faiths supposed to negotiate with such a narrow-minded intolerant people? 

Q: “But we Egyptians have never regarded the Christians as infidels. [In fact,] many of us have Christian friends even closer than our Muslim friends.”

Shehato: “As a Muslim, I must support the Muslim and oppose the Christian. If there is a Christian who does me no harm, I will maintain limited contact with him. Islam [discusses] certain degrees of contact with the Christian, namely: keeping promises [that were made him], dealing honestly with him, treating him kindly, and befriending him. The first three are allowed, but the fourth [i.e., befriending the Christian] is deemed dangerous, for it contravenes the verse that says, ‘O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth’ [Koran 60:1]. It is inconceivable that they should serve in judiciary or executive posts, for instance in the army or the police.”

Q: “Are you against blowing up churches?”

Shehato: “Yes and no. The Christian is free to worship his god in his church, but if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari’a, and it stipulates that they must pay the jizya tax while in a state of humiliation…”

Q: “These positions of yours frighten us, as Egyptians.”

Shehato: “I will not act [in ways] that contradict my faith just in order to please the people… We say to the Christians, convert to Islam or pay the jizya, otherwise we will fight you. The shari’a is not based on [human] logic but on divine law. That is why we oppose universal, manmade constitutions.”

If the Muslims Rise to Power in Egypt, They Will Form Muslim Battalions to Enforce the Shari’a Worldwide

Q: “If you rise to power in Egypt, will you launch a campaign of Islamic conquest?”

Shehato: “Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari’a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see the shari’a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah’s help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]…”

Q: “You said that you endorse the ideology of Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Does this mean that your way of implementing shari’a in Egypt will be through violence and war, like their [way]?”

Shehato: “No, we will implement the shari’a through da’wa [preaching], while violence will be directed only at the infidel Arab rulers. In their case, there is no choice but to use force, though the shari’a does not call it ‘violence’ but ‘jihad for the sake of Allah.’ There is no other way… because they have power and weapons…”

FYI, U.S. taxpayers have wasted given upwards of $64 BILLION in taxpayer dollars to Egypt - the majority for military assistance. When one reads Shehato, and this US lawmaker, it sure sounds like jizya.

H/T Creeping Sharia 

Refusal to Compromise on Fiscal Responsibility is "Dangerous" and "Unchristian"

Now the Christian Left is accusing Wisconsin's Governor Walker of being a bad Christian because he cut off the unions' means to keep the bottomless pit of money and cushy benefits fund keep on coming - a.k.a. collective bargaining, even though the collective bargaining tactics employed by unions have hurt hard working taxpayers for years.  Diane Butler Bass accused Gov. Walker of being "dangerous" and unchristian" for being unwilling to compromise when it came to fiscal responsibility with regards to the budget.  Gov. Walker's fiscal policy is in fact responsible, pragmatic, harmless and ethically sound.



Then we have Jim Wallis asking What Would Jesus Cut?  Of course he's against the GOP making cuts to both domestic spending and international aid.  He claims that these cuts will hurt the poor and are unfair. He complains about the tax cuts for 2 percent of Americans and the fact that Republicans support an increase in military spending.  For some reason Jim Wallis makes the assumption that the high taxes imposed under Clinton were just and that the lower taxes imposed under Bush were unjust.  Both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan made tax cuts which spurred job growth and helped many people, including the poor, to obtain jobs.

Hunter Baker tackles Jim Wallis' claim that cuts in spending is a sub-Christian position:

"The implication is that this is obviously a sub-Christian position. But is it? Probably the most essential purpose of government is to protect the life and freedom of citizens. The government achieves this goal through military means. Unless one takes the position that Christianity implies corporate pacificism, then it is unclear the Republicans have blundered according to Christian ethics. Now, match the question of military spending versus international aid and/or domestic spending. Are the latter obviously superior to the former? No. It depends on not only what the stated objective is for the different types of spending, but whether they actually achieve their purposes. To simply state that the Republicans want to bolster military spending while cutting international aid and domestic spending is to achieve nothing at all by way of an indictment."

Here Hunter Baker deals with Wallis' position on taxes and asks " If there is a community need, is it righteous to grab a rich person and employ the power of legal coercion to extract the needed funds?" 


Then, Hunter Baker explains what's wrong with Jim Wallis' redistributionist philosophy: 


"Still another problem with this redistributionist attitude about taxes and spending is that it assumes a zero sum state of affairs. For example, one could assume that the most people would be better off under a system like the old Soviet Union that spread resources out to citizens in a way that prized equality of rations. The United States system didn’t do that nearly as much, not nearly at all. But which of the two systems provided a better life for people? The answer is easy. The United States and its emphasis on liberty did. Why? A more free economic system produces far more wealth than an unfree one. If your equality system produces a little, bitty pie, it may give you a lot of philosophical satisfaction, but it doesn’t do as much actual good for people as the system that prizes free productivity and success over equality." 


No, fair isn't better. It just means equally poor or equally miserable but not equally better off in society.  If so, then Communism would have worked in the past, but the cold hard facts have proven that Communism has always caused lives to be drastically worse rather than better wherever it has been implemented.  At the very least Communism harms.  Communism has also killed many people.  

According to Courtois who wrote The Black Book of Communism here is the breakdown of the number of deaths which have occurred under Communism: 

• 65 million in the People's Republic of China
• 20 million in the Soviet Union
• 2 million in Cambodia
• 2 million in North Korea
• 1.7 million in Africa
• 1.5 million in Afghanistan
• 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
• 1 million in Vietnam
• 150,000 in Latin America
• 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."

Do federal programs achieve what they set out to do?  Is there government waste or is the money allocated properly and used efficiently?  Well, the Government Accountability Office found wasteful spending on ending homelessness.

From Fox News:

The Government Accountability Office report found that in 2009, federal agencies spent about $2.9 billion on more than 20 programs that targeted homelessness. If that money were to be targeted toward the building of homes, at say, $200,000 per home, it could theoretically produce 145,000 houses.

"Take that money directly and give them sort of a voucher so they can go get housing on their own, or get some mental health benefits," Brian Darling, director of government studies at the Heritage Foundation suggested. "But the way it is now when you have all of these different government agencies administering the same program, you have government waste."

It is self-evident that government programs aren't efficient and in fact don't achieve what they set out to do.  Our government can do better with less money.  This government waste needs to stop.  Plus, the assertion that Governor Walker is a bad Christian is absurd.  He is exercising fiscal responsibility which is a good thing.

Obama's Faith: Muslim, Christian, or Neither?

Here is a great article I found via Shawsblog:

Now that Barack Obama has decided to be for the Ground Zero mosque before being implicitly against it (perhaps), discussion about his faith has once again reached a fever pitch. To many, his stance proves he's a Muslim, with a recent poll showing that almost 20 percent of Americans hold that opinion; to others, it just reflects a desire to be faithful to the Constitution (now, that would be change). The truth, however, is a bit more nuanced. Obama is not religiously Muslim. Culturally, though...well, that's a different matter altogether.

In reality, calling Obama a "Muslim" gives him too much credit. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end." The truth, however, is that few people have thought thoroughly and to a definite end. And Obama is no exception. He hasn't even thought matters through enough to understand the folly of statism. Even more to the point, he is a moral relativist, a position the antithesis of any absolutist faith. Inherent in Islam is that belief that Allah, not man, has authored right and wrong and that, consequently, it isn't a matter of opinion. Thus, Obama cannot truly believe in Islam -- or in Christianity or Judaism, for that matter.

Oh, and since some will ask, how do I know Obama is a relativist? It's simple: Virtually all leftists are, as the denial of moral reality that is relativism lies at the heart of liberalism.

Speaking of relativists, this matter of Obama's "faith" much reminds me of Adolf Hitler and paganism. Like Obama, Hitler sometimes feigned a belief in Christianity, but in reality he held the religion in contempt. He believed it was "the greatest trick the Jews ever played on Western civilization" and lamented that it was not a warrior creed like Islam or the ancient Germanic paganism with which the Nazis wanted to replace Christianity (I wrote about this here). Yet while Hitler's second in command, Heinrich Himmler, certainly believed in the ancient pagan myths -- going so far as to launch expeditions to the Far East to prove them, à la Raiders of the Lost Ark -- it's silly to think that the leader himself viewed them as anything but a utilitarian device. He wasn't quite that romantic.

But what about culturally? For sure, Hitler preferred seeing Swastikas and runes (respectively, pagan symbols and letters) to crosses and crèches, rebuilt Germanic pagan temples to churches. That was where his passions lay. (If some are upset at a comparison between Hitler and Obama, know that I'd never call the president a National Socialist. He's an international socialist. Also, Hitler was patriotic.)

Obama also has passions, and there is no question as to where they lie. As journalist Todd Fitchette wrote in "The un-faith of Obama,"

... he continues to openly praise Islam; he bows to Muslim leaders; he claims that the Muslim call to prayer is "the most beautiful sound in the world;" he regularly quotes from the Koran and cites it for directing his life; ...

In the past year alone he made a big deal out of hosting a celebratory dinner to open the month of Ramadan -- held in the state dining room; he refused to attendthe 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts (an avowed Christian organization), and, refused to attend the National Day of Prayer because he claimed to do so would be offensive to non-Christians.

Then there is that king of Freudian slips, when Obama matter-of-factly said to interviewer George Stephanopoulos, "You're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith," and he didn't seem headed for a correction until Stephanopoulos interjected. (Note: This doesn't contradict my assertion that Obama has no real faith. Nancy Pelosi has spoken of her Catholic faith, but, as she is also a relativist, it can be nothing more than part of her cultural tapestry.) CONTINUED