Treason

I copied this from wikipedia:

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.

Treason in this definition is a very specific offense requiring involvement of a foreign government. In the case of Benghazi, the foreign government involved is not recognized by any modern entity. Islamic terrorists are fighting for an Islamic government that does not formally exist. So, if you support them against your own country, is this being a traitor? By this definition, the answer is no.

In this definition, the concept of foreign government is what is causing the issue. What if it was a business, or some other organization that has as a goal the destruction of your government? Would that not qualify as well? I believe so.

I look at Treason as being a citizen's actions to help a foreign entity overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the parent nation. The only word change in this sentence is to change foreign government to foreign entity. I look at it as being any organization that is waging war against my country and you are helping them in any way, qualifies.

The intent here is to include Islamic terrorist organizations into this category. Why? Because Islamic governance is at war against us as was demonstrated in attacks upon our sovereign assets in 1993 (First world trade center bombing) 1998, (twin embassy bombings), 2000( USS Cole), 9/11/01 and 9/11/12.

ANY organization that can wage organized warfare qualifies as a government for this definition, even if not formally recognized. The real reason why I expand this definition is because I am a loyal American. I missed Vietnam by a few years, but if I had been old enough, I would have gone. In other words, the United States comes before my family and before myself, including my own life. NO other entity, particularly foreign, outweighs this duty. Benghazi has demonstrated that President Obama does not have this loyalty. He places his own personal interests in front of our country. Hiding the enemy from the American public is aiding the enemy. President Obama did it intentionally. 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

You cannot argue in court that you did not know that the law made whatever you did illegal. Yet the argument that President Obama is presenting to the American public in all these scandals is that he did not know about any of them. I guess we are not to hold him accountable for the actions of a few 'crazy' 'low level bureaucrats'. Apparently, “the buck does NOT stop here” on the Presidents desk. These 'low level bureaucrats' must really like President Obama because they can do so much without oversight into what they are doing. Very poor command and control at best. Not to mention dangerous.

These 'low level bureaucrats' have powers over you and I that can easily ruin our lives. The financial implications of the IRS running without accountability is bad enough. With Obama Care, these 'low level bureaucrats' will be able to do just about anything that they want to you (Including 'pulling the plug') and our President will know nothing of it. Not that a sitting President will need to know everything, but not being informed or being enabled to make and enforce major policy initiatives?

Corporations are required to follow the law, just like everyone else. And their executives are held accountable and can be sent to jail. You can bet that the executives know all about ALL major policy initiatives. And they are not able to plead that they did not know the law. This is one major reason as to why private ownership works so much better than 'public' (Government) ownership.

Listening

    In yesterdays speech, President Obama replied to a comment to not shut down Gitmo by telling a person who commented that in a Democracy, you have the right to free speech, but you also need to listen. He was implying that it was time for her to listen. As if he is listening himself. And the crowd applauded.

The implications of listening is that you end up compromising in some way. I struggled with this for most of my life, and I still do. This must be list a ex-smoker. They tend to be really sensitive when someone else lights up. I feel that I can spot a poor listener a mile away, and President Obama is a classic example.

President Obama is a really poor compromiser. He is nothing like a stereotype Republican deal maker. We would have seen far more deal making throughout his Presidency if this was not the case. He is not alone. The classic example is when the Speaker of the House said that we had to pass the Health Care bill so that the American public can find out what is in it. This is not listening, and President Obama signed the bill the next day. In another example, President Obama said that he did not know all the facts, but the police acted stupidly. Yes, this is really listening and it is typical.

President Obama is “Fundamentally CHANGING” America. And he is not listening to you or I about it. He stated that is what he is going to do and he is doing it. No butts about it.

President Obama must go

Fast and furious, the government seizing records from the AP and the IRS going after conservative organizations are excellent examples of government exceeding its accepted limits of power. The consistent attacks on whistle blowers is an excellent way to stop transparency. A good example of how President Obama is doing the opposite of what he told us before he became President. And then we have Benghazi.

Our President lied to us when he attempted (so far, successfully) to persuade us that the spark for the attack in Benghazi and Egypt were spontaneously generated from an obscure video, instead of the planned, coordinated acts of war by an external enemy that resulted in the murder of our ambassador and the raising of enemy flags over our country's sovereign territory. Hardly being the most transparent administration ever. In fact, Benghazi can be argued to have been treason, covering up an overt attack by an external enemy upon our country for your own political gain. If President Obama was a Republican, he would most likely be removed from office. But this is not the case.

If President Obama survives this, we are done. The CHANGE that he wanted to implement would be permanent. Placing your own personal gain over that of our country, at any level, leave alone the Presidency, is a pattern of decline that is at such a point that our basic ability to defend ourselves will be determine by political advantage instead of national interests. This was a trait of the late Roman Republic and of the Roman empire. This, along with exposure of unwanted babies on the mountainside were major indicators of the decline of the Republic and the growing need for authoritarian power.  

IRS failure and AP were caused by low-level bureaucrats?

The new scandals with the IRS targeting conservative groups and the AP scandal with information that should not have been available are being blamed on “lower level bureaucrats”. This is a lose – lose reply by the Obama administration.

Bureaucrats are not risk takers. If they were, they would be employed in the private sector where risk taking is much better rewarded. The private sector is where the real risk takers go simply because they can prosper there. It is BS to state that low level bureaucrats went out on a limb like this. It goes against the institutional nature of bureaucrats in government. But lets take President Obama at his word.

At the very best, the idea that this type of decision making is being made and implemented without oversight by the highest levels of ANY organization is indicative of very lax and poor management. This demonstrates a serious lack of control of some of the most powerful organizations within the entire United States, private or public. In either case, the responsible party is the President.

This blaming of lower level 'management' for these major policy initiatives is just more proof that private organizations are much better at managing just about ANY financial function than government. And this is the BEST CASE scenario? The worst case or even the middle case (And the most probable) imply that President Obama encourage and approved of these actions.

Benghazi: It does matter

Despite my view that without the U.S. Senate, the Benghazi hearings will likely come to nothing, Benghazi DOES matter.

Secretary of State Clinton, in response to attacks about how she handled Benghazi, said that it did not matter if some people walked around and decided to attack Americans or reacted to a video. The people were still dead. Yes, Mr. Secretary, it does matter. Because it was neither and both you and President Obama knew it. In other words, you lied about it. And are still attempting to lie about it.

No wonder she became angry. Anger is all she has left to defend herself with. I guess it was OK for her husband to lie to her about all the affairs that he had. I have always felt that was between the two of them. And I understand how much people give up to be public figures. Politics is a tough life, and I get that too. But this was an attack upon the sovereignty of our country while she was on duty and she lied about it. And her boss is no less culpable.

Only three days before the attack, President Obama had proudly announced that our enemies were on the run. Their leadership had been 'decimated'. It would look badly on him if only a few days later that very same enemy launched a coordinated attack upon the government of the United States. So they lied about it to blame some obscure video. For something like two weeks they claimed that this was the source of the attack when they knew better. Our ambassador was killed and our enemy raised their flag over our sovereign territory. Well, maybe it does not matter to our Secretary of State the events that actually led up to it, but it matters to me. It was on her watch.

Maybe Hillary does not understand the meaning of this event, but I am certain that our enemy does. It mattered enough for them to plan it out and execute it while President Obama and she had the watch. I guess it does not matter to her who these people were or where they came from. In this case, her holding that post did not matter because she was certainly no worthwhile obstacle for them to overcome. It does not matter to her, but it matters to me. It matters to the United States of America when our ambassador is killed and our sovereignty is violated by an overt enemy attack. Killing is as loud a message as you can send and we are not listening. (What does it mater?) President Obama and his Secretary of State are not defending out country from external enemies. Instead they are covering up the real threat and inventing something else for personal political gain. This is called lying about winning the war when you are actually losing.

Our enemy in this case is an irregular one. Guerrilla warfare has been around since long before the Romans and the Greeks. Irregular forces typically do not match up well against regular troops. The overrunning of our embassies is an usually large and very real victory for them. This is symbolized by the raising of their flag on our sovereign territory. Obviously, these two embassies were not well defended. They could not have been in order for something like this to occur against an irregular enemy such as we have today. Even if they had surprise. It is a major sign that we are NOT winning the war like President Obama said that we were back in September.

Yes, Mr. Secretary, losing in war does matter.    

Benghazi is no Watergate

Despite the fact that what President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton did in the Benghazi cover up, no way is the final result going to be anything like the result of Watergate.

I have seen lots of arguments supporting this view, many of which are valid. However, one word says it all. Senate. Control of the U.S. Senate is NOT in the Republicans hands. I just do not see the Democrat party dumping the top two leaders that they have. No matter what they did or did not do. Without the Senate, Republicans are going to be stopped cold.    

Benghazi

Mr. President, you crossed a red line with Benghazi. Look, I get how you believe that government is more 'fair' than the private sector. I also disagree with you on firearms, but I get how you believe that restricting firearms is 'the right thing to do'. I disagree with you on just about everything political, but you are the President and I am not. However, my country comes first. Before my own self interests and as President, I certainly expect before your own self interest.

I thought that you believed that government employees were dedicated, selfless people? Well, I know human nature better than this. I disagree with you as I believe that government employees are still human and have all the weaknesses of everyone else. However, you deliberately misled the American public about Benghazi in order to further your own self interest of being re-elected as President of the United States.

The attack on our embassies in Benghazi and Egypt were NOT the spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video and you knew it right from the start. It was a planned attack upon our country. However, it was not in your interests to have this made public, at least not right away while people are still fired up about it. Only a few days before at the Democratic National Convention, you had stated that the very same enemy who launched the attack had had it's leadership 'decimated' and was 'on the run'. To have the American public find out that you were wrong only three days later would jeopardize (As your message to Putin stated) YOUR election. Fine, I get your political interest here. But what about the interests of the United States?

On Sept 11, 2012, that very same enemy stormed two of our embassies, which are considered to be sovereign territory. They killed one of our ambassadors and raised their flag over our territory. This is a act of war by an external enemy. I understand how Democrats are my internal, political enemy. However, when an external threat occurs, we are supposed to pull together to ward off the common foe.

Many Americans (As well as in all other countries) have died fighting in wars that they personally did not believe in because they placed country first, even before their own lives. This is how it is supposed to work. Benghazi demonstrates to me, quite clearly, that this does not apply to you.

Your life was not involved. Only your political future. Even President Nixon did not go this far, not even close. Nobody died in the Watergate break in, nor was the spying upon the internal political enemy all that much out of the ordinary. I am not a believer in removing public figures from office as a general rule because it seriously undermines the strength of the office itself. I did not even want President Clinton removed from office and he committed perjury about events while he was in office.

Benghazi is different because the source of the attack does matter.

ANY attack upon my country from an external enemy matters. Acts of war committed upon my country matter, as does the source of those attacks. To point at a different source intentionally is to place other interests before those the country. It is even more revealing that the Secretary of State is the person who said that the source of the attack did not matter. So we have both the President and the Secretary of State placing some other interests before that our of country. THAT MATTERS, Mr. President. Enough to kick you and your entire administration out of office. Even if that weakens the office. Because MY country comes BEFORE you and your self interests.    

The war is CHANGING

Things are upside down right now. We restrict our own clergy from comforting the injured nor allowed to give last rights in the attack in Boston. While our enemy clergy is allowed to fund mosques while they are in jail. Not to mention how so many of their clergy (Imams) actually form combat units and militias. At the same time, the Pentagon has announced that they will court marshal those who attempt to bring up religion within the ranks. Specifically aimed at Christianity. They have since backed off, although this does give us a good indication of what our leadership would like to do.

We can expect things like the bombing in Boston to not just continue, but to increase. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were drawing in guys like this into a match up against our military. The order to repel the 'occupiers of Muslim land' has historically been one of the 'fundamental' strong Islamic causes for offensive warfare. This match up against our military does not favor them. Our soldiers are a lot harder to kill in the field not to mention in the desert, an ideal environment for mechanized warfare, which we excel at.

We are losing the war on just about every front that matters.

For all his faults, President Bush chose his wars well. President Obama has since promised us "Fundamental CHANGE". He is doing exactly that. We were fighting to keep the war 'over there'. We will now be fighting the war right here. President Obama never said that we would like the CHANGE that he promised.

Rep. Keith Ellison compared surveillance of Muslims today with Japanese internment 1941-1945

You blew it Mr. Ellison. First, no Muslims have been ‘interned’ in anything. The suspicions of Muslims being terrorists in no way compares to machine guns being pointed at you within a barbed wire fence. Both my mother-in-law and father-in-law were in those camps (Along with their brothers, sisters and parents) and I find your comparison derogatory to them and what they endured. We are not taking away any of their property either. Quite the contrary. Why have you not been removed from your position in Congress? You think a Japanese-American would not have been removed in 1942? Some comparison.

More importantly, the Japanese were interred because JAPAN had begun a war against us with a surprise attack. So our reaction was a natural one, as is our reaction today. In addition, your comparison implies to me that Islam is at war against us, (I happen to agree) which one distinguishing feature has been to open hostilities with surprise attacks. At least Japan attacked our military. Islam attacks our people, directly.

This argument of Ellison is about as dumb as the Muslim argument being made that because more Arabs are killed by Israel than what Israel loses in return makes Israel the warmongers. The logic is that Israel must be the aggressors in a war of aggression because they are so much better at it.

As if the United States did not kill one heck of a lot more Japanese than we lost in that war. The United States lost about 40,000 fighting Japan, 1941-1945. We lost another 200,000 wounded. We killed literally millions. And this makes us the warmongers and the ‘Bad Guys’? Stupid argument, and I have heard this repeated over the years and still they keep at it!!!

On a personal note, I have not forgotten that you, Mr. Ellison took your oath of office (symbolically) over the Koran. The Koran is about as hostile to my government and way of life that can be imagined. As a representative, I am certain that you are aware that within our own legal system, the written document overrides the verbal contract. This act was symbolic in many ways. Your loyalty to my country is much more in doubt than either of my in-laws. You have better shut up, Mr. Ellison. You are giving yourself away.

Islam's army

In the 6^th century, their were no modern governments, nor any real standing armies. (Except maybe the Roman army) At that time, armies were generated on an as needed basis. Religion was frequently a uniting factor. Islam is the only entity that I know of this is still fielding an army in this fashion. Throughout history, tactics of guerrilla warfare are the mark of an inferior fighting force. Terrorism is the natural product of such a backward combination of a religious and nationalist entity. This method of generating an armed force even acts like the age from which it began: 7^th century it. Be-headings, cutting off the hands, gouging out eyes, whipping and stoning are classic punishment from that same time period. This 'army' does not recognize any modern government nor any of the modern rules of warfare.    

The Koran

I am not a particularly religious man. However, I did attend 8 years of Catholic grade school. The teachers and nuns who taught me were dedicated individuals who lived what they preached. And the Bible does NOT teach violence. Quite the contrary.

I am certain that devout Muslims are no less dedicated individuals than those who taught me. The problem is that the Korans teachings are so different from the Bible. As I pointed out in my series of posts on how Islam causes war and violence, the Koran is not just about religion. The Koran describes a system of governance and laws. And severe penalties abound within it's pages.

Kill the occupiers of Muslim lands. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Stoning to death. (The stones can't be so small as to qualify as a pebble and can't be so large as to cause death with one blow) Kill the infidel. Lots of death penalties. Chopping off hands and feet, gouging out eyes, lashes with a whip for various infractions. Heck, there is even a big debate about being about to beat your wife. (You are not supposed to leave visible marks.)

No wonder they want to cover up their women. It is not just to keep them modest and under control.

I know the Bible pretty well after 8 years of study. I don't know of ANY teachings that are remotely similar. In fact, quite the opposite. (I will spare you the details)

The Koran was spoken by a 'prophet' who could read and write after being in a cave for 30 days. Others wrote it down. These writings were such a mess that it was decided to organize it by the size of the phrase spoken, not by content or concept or subject matter. (Well written books are just not organized in this way.) It is true that a percentage of these teachings are generous and accepting of others. However, if you look at the time when these phrases were spoken, it is generally accepted that the majority of these 'peaceful' phrases were spoken early in the prophet's career. One of the later phrases has the command that when in conflict, the LATER phrases are to supersede the early phrases. The later phrases are those spoken when Islam was dominate in the land and Islamic law enforced.

If you look through history and around the world, you can find plenty of examples of where the Bible was twisted and used to excess. You can also find plenty of cases of Christians who were 'bad' and did evil acts. But you simply cannot compare this with the evil acts we have been and are seeing performed by the followers of the Koran.

Repeated suicide bombings throughout the Muslim world. Constant violence and warfare in all of the places where Islam is in contact with the rest of the world. Armed militias being formed by Imams and other devote followers of Islamic teachings. And their behavior! Straight out of the the 7^th century. Be-headings, burning of churches, indiscriminate killings and bombings. Public stoning and whipping. There is just no parallel anywhere in the rest of the world where this is anywhere near so commonplace and supported. The source cannot be anything else than the Koran and Islamic teachings. It certainly is NOT a positive aspect of human nature.   

Islam causes war: Conclusion

Part III (Final) 

It has been a long time since the last major, world war. History has demonstrated that major wars occur every so often. On top of this, it is only a matter of time before one of these terror groups obtains and deploys an effective WMD. Control of the war can easily be lost at that point. It will become difficult, if not impossible to prevent the war from escalating. After all, escalation is generally how wars are won. Time is NOT on our side and the U.S. government is playing for time. Wrong strategy. We are in big trouble if our President doesn't figure it out fast enough. The sovereign ‘Nation of Islam’ IS the cause of much of the warfare that is involving the Muslim world today. In order to stop this, we need to challenge Islamic sovereignty.

The bad news is that this will trigger a war just as surely as ‘occupation’ of any Muslim land. In fact, “occupation” is an excellent way to mount this challenge to Islamic sovereignty. This was one of the main reasons why I was interested in ‘invading’ Iraq. It forced our enemies into attacking our military in the desert, an ideal environment for mechanized warfare. Our forces excel at this type of warfare. To use President Lincoln’s words (With a different intent), before this war is over, the army of Islam (Islamic sovereignty) ‘must perish from this earth’. It truly is them or us. I choose US. (United States) Naturally. Nationalism is another good reason for open conflict. Islamic nationalism has to disappear just as Catholic nationalism died after the crusades more than 400 years ago. Otherwise, the war Islamic nationalism is waging against us will go on. Like it has for the past 1400 years. And sooner or later, nukes are going to enter the picture. 

Islam causes war: Conclusion Part II

*Note: Not enough information to make comments on the bombing in Boston yesterday. What concerns me there is the fact that President Obama misled us so badly concerning the attack on Benghazi.

Part II

Just look at how well the governments that are host to Islamic organizations like HAMAS and Hezbollah relate with those very same groups. They may be in agreement on a number of important issues, but the government is supposed to be accountable for the actions of it’s own people within its borders. These Islamic nationalist groups are NOT accountable and this creates a very serious conflict of interest. Nationalist issues of this type have caused wars and will cause wars in order to obtain a resolution. The issue of separation of church and state has in the past and will in the future, trigger wars for this very reason.

Religions cannot be allowed to muster armies today like they could in the 7th century. Only national governments should be able to raise and deploy armies. The fact that Islam is doing so today (as if we are still in the 7th century) creates national sovereignty issues that historically have taken wars to resolve. On top of this, Islam in general has a very low threshold for waging war.

The Koran allows for the waging of war far more easily than ANY modern government would consider. The nation-states of today are far more powerful and numerous. As a result, warfare is far more destructive today. This makes war much more dangerous and more of a threat to each governmental body than when Islam was born, when governments as we know them today did not exist at all. Kingdoms rose and fell at a far more rapid pace than governments today. Frequently within a persons relatively short lifetime. This does not happen nearly as often today. The national governments of today are far stronger and more resistant than the kingdoms of the ancient past. Hence the movement of Islamic nationalists toward irregular warfare. Yet the nationalist nature of Islam has remained.

Notice how Zionism is a term commonly used by leaders in the Muslim world to describe the political nature of the ‘Nation of Israel’? The ‘Nation of Islam’ can easily identify with this concept because this is precisely what ‘political’ Islam is. One key difference is that the nation of Israel is a modern national government whereas the nation of Islam is not. I have studied wars for more than 40 years. I have never studied one where so many GOOD reasons exist for violent conflict in order to resolve.

Most wars really only require one or two good reasons. The U.S. Civil War was about slavery and loyalty to state over Federal government. World War II was basically about national governments just invading and taking over other national governments. In the case of Islam, I have identified 8 reasons. No wonder Islam, violence and warfare go together so much.

Until one side or the other implements some very large changes, this war can only be just beginning. I am fearful of what can possibly occur after a severe economic downturn. The actual conflict is much, much larger than what is being fought in these various conflicts where the Islamic terrorist groups (The Islamic army) are active. The U.S. is only directly involved in a few of them. A major downturn in the world economy could easily be the match that starts a major conflict.

Breaking the law

I don't want to EVER break the law. I rarely speed over 5 over the limit. I certainly want to obey the law concerning firearms. I have a FOID card, (which is required in Illinois) just so I can practice. I don't and never have owned so much as a BB gun. I did own a slingshot while a child, but that is it. I still want to not only have the right to own a firearm, I want the the right of access to them both for purchase and use. Ammunition has the same requirements. Firearms are not much good without bullets.    

The regulations that are being passed today is going to make it very difficult for people to stay within the law and still be able to exercise their 2^nd amendment rights in any practical way. I have been able to do so with some degree of trouble, but this is going to CHANGE.

After all, President Obama said that he was going to “Fundamentally CHANGE” America. He is doing just that. He never said that we would like it. Nor did he say that we would agree with it. President Obama may not be able to repeal the 2^nd amendment, but he would like to. Although he does not have the political ability to outright repeal, he can place so many restrictions that effectively takes away your ability to exercise the right that is supposedly guaranteed. A good way to do that is to go after the ammunition. No amendment protects the right to ammunition. And I must admit, if successful, this would be real, “Fundamental” CHANGE.      

Islam causes war: Conclusion (Part I of III

Most of the peaceful phrases in the Koran were spoken in the early stages of the formation of Islam. The Koran specifically states that in cases where the ‘laws’ are contradicting, the later rules are to be followed. (The Koran is NOT organized by when the phrases were spoken, but by the length of the phrase) The phrases that were spoken in the later times are the ones that mainly concern governance and foreign policy. After all, this is when Islam held the power of government. This is also where the war against the U.S. Begins.

As far as the ‘Nation of Islam’ was concerned, the United States was just another infidel country. A big change occurred during the mid-20th century with the U.S. support of Israel. Even then, the United States was only indirectly involved. In 1982 and 1983 when the U.S. troops were in Lebanon, we were violating Muslim land directly with our ground forces and had to be thrown out. We became 'occupiers' of Muslim land. From Islam’s point of view, the U.S. was successfully thrown out. Then in 1991, Iraq invades the national sovereignty of Kuwait. When U.S. troops moved into Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries in order to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, we became ‘occupiers’ again. Even if the national government invited us in. Islam does not recognize the authority of the modern national government.

Ever since then, Islam has been at war directly against us because we continue to be ‘occupiers’. The Islamic terrorist groups are the ‘army’ of Islam. These are not ‘extremists’ as much as they are followers of the Islamic system of governance that overrides any and all national governments. Bin Laden is an excellent example. He believes (as do many others) that the sovereignty of Islam is being challenged. Historically, sovereignty issues have started plenty of wars. Defending your country and it's territory tests the loyalty of the population.

Most Muslims worldwide are ‘good’ people. They do not want war. However, they will fight for their way of life. Like the ‘good’ southerners in 1862 who fought for the Confederacy. The ‘good’ Germans and Japanese in 1944 fought for their countries as much as anything else. Many Muslims are already fighting against a foreign influence that is in conflict with Islamic governance and ideology.

Naturally, Islamic reaction is hostile to infringement upon what is considered to be it's sovereignty. Hostility does not necessarily lead to war, but the tendency is toward violence simply because the human frustrations that Islam imposes upon its followers requires an outlet. Anger is one of the few emotions that appear at least to an outsider, to be acceptable. Anger easily leads to violence. In addition, violence is more common at least in part because Islam has a relatively low threshold for waging war. War tends to make people chose. Most will naturally chose the side that they live with and understand. (Even if evil, like slavery or the Nazi government.) We can expect that many Muslims if not most, to side with Islam in any open conflict. Human nature demands this. This helps explain why so many others believe that we are creating new enemies by our actions ‘over there’. You may not agree with many of the reasons that I have listed as to why ‘political’ Islam causes wars. Many contain overlapping features. Yet even if you disagree on a number of these issues, this is enough to explain why peace has been so elusive in the Middle East and with Israel in particular. Too many issues within Islam are of a nationalist nature to NOT cause organized violence. It is noticeable how Islam and the modern national government do not get along.

Continued with next post. (Part 2 of 3)

)

Loyalty to the United States

I read an article recently describing the reasons why President Obama is so supportive of Israel. This should dispel any concerns about our current President's backing of Israel. President Obama made the trip to Israel the first priority of his second term. He even spoke Hebrew! My reply is B.S.

I am an natural born American. I am loyal to our economic system, capitalism. This is what made America great. I also knew while growing up, that I could be drafted into the military. I missed Vietnam

by a few years, but I knew that if I was drafted, I would go. I would literally risk life and limb. And I would not even necessarily agree with the Commander-in-Chief about being there in the first place, but I would still go. America comes first. Before myself. Even at the risk of my children growing up without their father. All of this is in stark contrast to our current President.

President Obama showed his true loyalty during the Benghazi 'incident'. The official excuse was a video when it was well known at the time that it had been a coordinated attack. This attack was deliberately planned against the sovereignty of the United States. It resulted in the brutal murder of the Ambassador. The enemy even raised their black flag over two of our embassies, a dramatic symbol of national victory over another sovereign national entity. And our President deliberately misled us. Why?

Several days before the attack, the President had spoken at the Democratic National Convention about how that very same enemy had been 'decimated' and implied that they were no longer an effective enemy of our country. Politically it would look really bad if that same enemy shows how effective they really are. So for political advantage, he and numerous others attempted to mislead us. All they had to do was stall for a couple of months, until after the election. Then it would be old news.

And this guy will be loyal to Israel? He is not even loyal to his own country, why the hell would anyone believe that he would be loyal to ANY country?

What has happened to the party that gave us this famous quote?: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country.”    

Islam causes war: Reason number 9

Racism.

I add racism because of its hatred. Islam codifies racism and hatred into its legal system. Although racism and hatred are not necessarily political, it would be human nature for hatred and racism to develop given the open discrimination over many generations. Indeed, over many centuries. The all out war against ALL political entities (Jews and Christians being singled out) would over time build on human weakness. You need something to build into hate to justify targeting people. You need to dehumanize the targeted (Like in war dehumanize the enemy) population in order to justify the taking of life and property. (People will go to great lengths: For example, pilots think of the aircraft that they shoot down as not having anyone inside. It is just a machine) The targeted population needs to be different and hateful toward you in order to generate the return hatred that they so clearly deserve. Racism fills that need exceptionally well. Islam excels at it as is seen throughout the Islamic world with such common expressions of hate speech and acts of violence against hated groups. (Once again, Jews and Christians are among the most common examples.)

If this is not worth waging war both for and against, then don't count it. I believe differently enough to add this to become number 9 in my list as to why Islam causes violence and warfare.  

Islam causes war: Reason # 8

Islamic nationalism.

This is actually a combination of all 7 in the list. This is where “Muslim waters” comes from. Mosques are considered to be Muslim land. Like an embassy. But who does a national government negotiate with? Imams have the authority of a national government as if he is a nation state. It is like dealing with the Indian tribes in 19^th century North America. Today's Imams are the “priests” who are forming and leading their own combat units. This cannot go on into the 21^st century. On top of this, Islam is not very accommodating.

Even Saudi authorities are not Islam. Remember that battle when Saudi authorities had to storm that mosque? Mosques are embassies of Islam. A large practical application is how Imams have the authority to declare war. Imams have the authority to issue death warrants into ANY country in the world. Hard to negotiate without using violence in self defense. How else would you deal with a foreign entity that CLAIMS that it should and intends to kill one of your civilians? Justification to attack is rarely needed anyway as Islamic doctrine has plenty of room for lots of violence against it's opponents. Islam tends to hit first after they have been 'offended'. They see it as hitting back at the any number of insults they have suffered. No real excuses required. Justification for war is easy under these circumstances combined with the relative low level decision making Imams represent on a global governmental scale. Combining with nuclear weapons is only a recipe for disaster.

Islamic nationalism is medieval in almost everything. One example is in the medieval behavior of the army it is fielding. Another good cause for war that is left out of the general conversation. If not for anything else but the sheer barbarity of the enemy. You can beat your wife as long as no visible marks are left. Just what can you do to your enemy? (Answer: ANYTHING) As good a reason in and of itself for waging war. Islamic nationalism causes war. It must go the way of the do-do. A reversal to Abraham Lincoln's famous quote: Islamic nationalism must perish from this earth. And don't think for one moment that any attempt in this will NOT cause open violence and warfare.      

Tax the rich, as long at it's not me

This Cyprus deal is a real red flag. Deposits over 100,000 Euros will pay an UNSPECIFIED amount to pay for the bailout. The problem is that this is outright confiscation. If this works, it will enable others to try it out and is it not popular to “make those who can pay, pay”? Desperate situations call for desperate measures and Cyprus is in a desperate situation.

This tax the 'rich' is an easy sell and yet strikes at the core of capitalism. Either you believe that you are better off under a system where you control more of your fate, or else you want to be able to feed off the work of others. Put it to a vote? Of course most people will vote for more goodies for themselves. Hence the danger to our representative government in the first place. Once a government can just take whatever it wants, the next step is to set itself up so elections are of no real consequence.   

Islam causes war: Reason #7

Kill the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land.

This will cause a war EVERY time. An example: The Catholic Church owns the land that a church in Chicago has been built on. If any group of armed people took it over; Catholics from Illinois, Mississippi, Brazil or Canada do NOT go in, form combat groups, negotiate with foreign governments for arms and supplies and then move in to take them out. The U.S. government sends in the army, or National Guard or SWAT team or whatever. Islam has a long history of this type of action. This was how armies were fielded prior to the rise of the nation-state and the professional army. As has been seen so often today, Islam still retains a sizable number of followers who believe that Islam overrides the modern national government. If the means for open warfare is not available, irregular warfare is the natural result. It is only the next step to become what we consider to be a ‘terrorist’. A religion like Islam does not have ‘land’ or ‘waters’ to defend.

The following statement that was declared by Imams that met in Istanbul in March 2008 is a classic example: “The obligation of the Islamic Nation [is] to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.” Please note the use of the terms “Islamic Nation” and “Muslim waters” and “Sovereignty of the nation”. Governments declare war against other governments. The concept of Islam as a national entity is common throughout the Islamic world and contribute greatly to the warfare that is common where Islam is in contact with the nation-states of the world. Today, Islam is fielding an army. No wonder violence and warfare is so common throughout the world where Islam is in contact with other national entities and culture. Two additional parts of this issue I would like to point out.

1) Once land becomes Islamic controlled, it can never revert back to anything else. Otherwise, it is considered to be ‘occupied’. Their is no time limit on this 'occupation'. The Islamic law about the penalty for leaving Islam is death is instructive. Islam has lots of death penalties. You can't get any more one-way than death. Another example of how Islam is a one way street. Once you are in, you are in for life. This same concept applies to “Muslim land” and “Muslim waters”. As can be seen, this concept is one of the basic causes of the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict. All of Israel is sitting on ‘occupied’ land. As are many other parts of the world, like Spain and the Balkans.

2) This would be comparable to Native Americans launching attacks upon the rest of the population of the United States because all of the land that the United States sits on is considered to be ‘occupied’.

I list the killing of 'occupiers' of Muslim land as number 7 of the issues within Islam that causes open warfare.

Palestinians tear down Obama billboard

Palestinian complaints of a lack of 3G technology was one excuse to tear down a billboard put up prior to Obama 's visit to Jerusalem:

I think this is a pretty lame excuse to fight and kill people over. The hatred expressed obviously points to the problem as being much deeper.

President Obama is philosophically more like the Arabs than we are. Yet he is an apostate because he denies that he is Muslim. (At least to the American public) At the same time, his father was Muslim. This automatically makes him Muslim. He must have left Islam. (Unless lying about it, which will exempt him although the Palestinian public does not seem to be buying.) The penalty for leaving Islam is death. You do not argue with Islam. This is why the Palestinians are no friend of President Obama, nor will he ever be able to have Palestinians work with him to help settle any issues. 

This 3G technology bull is a classic example of ANY excuse to hate and kill over. This is Islamic nationalism at work. This is my reason number 8 as to why Islam is the cause of conflict and warfare. (I will go into detail when I reach #8 in the series on reasons why Islam causes war)      

The probability of nuclear attack is higher today

I believe that the possibility of a nuclear attack upon the United States is as high or greater than it has ever been. The threat from the old Soviet Union during the Cold War was massive. A nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union could have arguably ended human life on this planet. At least set it back 500 to 1000 years. However, at the point where nuclear war was most likely, (during the Cuban missile crisis), the Soviets proved that they wanted to live and let their grandchildren grow up. The Soviets literally 'turned their ships around' and avoided the war. Today, the threat is not nearly as massive, but it actually is more likely to occur.

The threat of a nuclear attack upon the United States is greatest from rouge states or Islamic organizations. North Korea comes to mind first. N. Korea is constantly threatening South Korea and the U.S. North Korea has even launched small scale attacks, the sinking of the S. Korean destroyer a couple of years ago comes to mind. North Korea has said that they will launch a nuclear attack upon the U.S. Because of the sanctions that we are helping to apply. They see this as an act of war. N. Korea just may back up this threat with action, but I believe that this is less likely to happen than a nuclear attack from an Islamic organization that was able to obtain nuclear weapons.

The Islamic threat in some way resembles the threat of Japan back in the 1930's and 1940's. The greatest similarity that I see is the repeated suicide attack. Japan initiated this method of warfare for only the first time in all of recorded history. They did not organize this until later in the war when it was clear that they were losing and it was their best chance. Islamic governance and nationalism has been in a state of decline since the late 17^th century. When Israel was formed, this represented a clear and present danger for the simple reason that it is so close to the epic center of Islam: Mecca and Medina. Judea was the first area outside of Saudi Arabia to be overrun by Islam back in the 8^th century. These two facts make it imperative that Islam defeat Israel and lift the 'occupation' in order to protect Mecca and Medina. In other words, Judea is similar to the 'inner defense perimeter' that Japan had established. After the fall of Saipan in June 1944, Japan initiated the repeated suicide attack organizations. They were unleashed during the battle for Leyte Gulf the following October. The time frames are different, but after more than 20 years and 4 conventional wars, it became clear that conventional warfare will not dislodge Israel. Islam then initiated a similar desperate reaction beginning around the time of the Munich Olympics in 1972. As with the Japanese attacks, repeated suicide attacks from the Islamic world has continued to increase in intensity and frequency. One major reason is simply because in both cases, they are seen as being much more effective than anything else that is available. Deployment of nuclear weapons would be a natural step to take.

The very fact that repeated suicide attack is being seen today represents the greatest threat to the use of nuclear weapons or any weapon of mass destruction today. The very use of the tactic gave Japan and Islam a strength that they had lost. The loss of life was incidental. The effectiveness of the method was all-important. The mind set in the culture that spawned these two occurrences are similar. This is where the greatest probability of nuclear attack comes in.

It took the first nuclear attack to end the first occurrence of repeated suicide attack in all of man's history. The two are linked together forever. And it makes sense. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate punitive weapon: They do not discriminate. Nuclear weapons kill and destroy everything. The perfect weapon for anyone bent upon killing as many people as possible with little to no regard for the consequences. Any of the organizations that deploy suicide attackers is not going to hesitate to use any nuclear weapons (Or any WMD) that they are able to get their hands on. What is scary is that this is only a matter of WHEN.  

Islam causes war Part VI (Tribute)

Tribute or ‘poll tax’ is the payments that non-Muslims make to Islamic authorities. Payment of this ‘tax’ exempts the payer from military service. Taxation and conscription are two functions of the modern national government. This issue is another where Islam is in conflict with the modern nation-state. Islam was designed as a system of governance long before the modern nation-state had evolved. Even if the laws of the ‘host’ government allow for this, it is a fact that the origin of this ‘law’ is the Koran. This is another example of nationalism taking a back seat to the ‘Nation of Islam’. I place this issue at #6 in my list of reasons that Islam causes wars. I did this because this issue HAS triggered a war between the United States and Islam in the past.

In 1804, a number of U.S. ships (Including a warship) were seized in the Mediterranean because the U.S. government refused to continue to pay ‘Tribute’. The battle cry in the US was “Millions for defense, not a penny for Tribute!” What was this all about?

For us, the issue was freedom of the seas. For the Muslim pirates, the lands surrounding the Mediterranean were ‘Muslim lands’. Most, if not all of the land that touched the Mediterranean were either controlled by Islamic authorities or else had been in the past. This made the Mediterranean an Inland Sea controlled by Islam, or Muslim ‘waters’. It was a stretch to charge Tribute for ships passing through these waters because the Koran speaks of land, not waters. Nor does the Koran speak of ‘passing through’. However, the nationalistic nature of Islam encourages this belief. After all, Tribute is a combination of two functions of government.

This is actually one of the places where Islamic governance authority can be made to be in agreement with the authority of the nation-state. (Actually, the other way around) Naturally, it discriminates against ALL other religions. Examples abound throughout the Muslim world. This is another appeal for the 'Nation of Islam'. This nationalist link is the key as to why I believe that it causes war because it goes far beyond national boundaries. Islam discriminates against other governments in the same fashion. This has been a cause of wars in the past and will continue to be so in the future. I cannot see any other result except on a temporary basis. 

It really does matter

Secretary of State Clinton, in response to attacks about how she handled Benghazi, said that it did not matter if some people walked around and decided to attack Americans or reacted to a video. The people were still dead. Yes, Mr. Secretary, it does matter. Because it was neither and both you and President Obama knew it. In other words, you lied about it. And are still attempting to lie about it.

No wonder she became angry. Anger is all she has left to defend herself with. I guess it was OK for her husband to lie to her about all the affairs that he had. I have always felt that was between the two of them. And I understand how much people give up to be public figures. Politics is a tough life, and I get that too. But this was an attack upon the sovereignty of our country while she was on duty and she lied about it. And her boss is no less culpable.

Only three days before the attack, President Obama had proudly announced that our enemies were on the run. Their leadership had been 'decimated'. It would look badly on him if only a few days later that very same enemy launched a coordinated attack upon the government of the United States. So they lied about it to blame some obscure video. For something like two weeks they claimed that this was the source of the attack when they knew better. Our ambassador was killed and our enemy raised their flag over our sovereign territory. Well, maybe it does not matter to our Secretary of State the events that actually led up to it, but it matters to me. It was on her watch.

Maybe Hillary does not understand the meaning of this event, but I am certain that our enemy does. It mattered enough for them to plan it out and execute it while President Obama and she had the watch. I guess it does not matter to her who these people were or where they came from. In this case, her holding that post did not matter because she was certainly no worthwhile obstacle for them to overcome. It does not matter to her, but it matters to me. It matters to the United States of America when our ambassador is killed and our sovereignty is violated by an overt enemy attack. Killing is as loud a message as you can send and we are not listening. (What does it mater?) President Obama and his Secretary of State are not defending out country from external enemies. Instead they are covering up the real threat and inventing something else for their political gain. This is called losing the war. Yes, Mr. Secretary, it does matter.  

Islam causes war: Part V. Separation of Church and State

Separation of Church and state.

Islam was designed and built as a system of governance. (In addition to being a ‘religion’.) Islam was around long before the modern national government evolved and became common. Throughout most of the Middle East, Islam has been the ‘law of the land’ since the 8th century, yet many of the modern governments in the Middle East were only established in the 20th century. The Ottoman Empire, which controlled the area for centuries, was based upon Islamic law and is in fact considered by most as being the last caliphate, or true Islamic government. As a result, loyalty to Islamic laws and culture is far more established than any government that has been put in place since. (Bin Laden was a good example. He was loyal to Islamic government, and no other) This is slowly changing, but the loyalty to the ‘Nation of Islam’ is still widespread. We still hear major Islamic leadership refer to the “Nation of Islam” and the “Sovereignty of the Islamic Nation”. We hear of Imams ‘declaring war’ upon the ‘occupiers of Muslim ‘Land’. (Osama Bin Laden and the Imams in Istanbul in 2008 are excellent examples) The modern world has no place for a ‘religion’ that can declare war.

The modern world cannot accept ANY ‘religion’ that can field its own armies to protect its own ‘land’ or ‘waters’ from ‘occupation’. Historically, national sovereignty issues of this type have required open warfare to resolve. These are not issues that people change their minds over easily, nor quickly. (If they ever change their mind at all.) This is why war is required to settle the issue. Islam has no separation of church and state. The very idea of separating the two has been, is and will be, fought violently both spontaneously and in an organized manner. The Islamic ‘army’ (Islamic terrorist groups) is fighting for the implementation of Islamic governance and ideology. Just look at how the terrorist groups get along with the ‘parent’ government of the areas where they operate. Even they don’t get along very well because of the conflict over the national sovereignty issues that separation of church and state resolves.

Wars were fought to rid the Pope of the ability to form and lead armies. People will wage war to protect the power they have. Imams wield REAL political power. Giving this up will not come without a fight. Historically, this is another very common reason for wars being fought. An election was held in Iraq. (2008) One Iraqi who was interviewed had said that his imam had told them to go vote, so he went. If the Imam had said to not vote, he would not have gone. In a sense, this Imam has greater power than the government. Another example: The Catholic Church is against abortion. However, the Catholic Church as NO power to overrule the law of the United States. As long as Catholics obey the law of the U.S., they can obtain abortions. All the church can do is attempt to persuade Catholics (And all others) to NOT obtain an abortion. We need to respect religious leaders, but Islamic leaders have far more power than the modern world can accept. Imams can enforce Islamic ‘law’. One example is Tribute.

Islamic Tribute specifies payment of non-Muslims to Muslim authorities and exempts them from military service. Taxation and conscription are two functions of the modern national government. Islam and Imams have no business being involved in either of these functions. Other examples are numerous, such as the many death penalties and/or chopping off of a hand for stealing or gouging out an eye. (Islamic law is literally 'an eye for an 'eye'.)

One way Imams obtain this power is by fielding their own armies. Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq is a good example of an Imam who formed his own militia and is a political leader today. He can trace his lineage to Muhammad. He was a major religious figure under Saddam Hussein and when the U.S. Invaded Iraq in 2003 formed a militia to resist the 'occupiers'. This fielding of combat units and armies by religions must end, TODAY. (Islam is the only exception to the general rule that this practice ceased more than 400 years ago.)

Another way of looking at it: I keep hearing comparisons of “Islamic radicals” (Islamic nationalists) with our own ‘bible bangers’ or other radicals like Timothy McVeigh. In sheer numbers, there can be no comparison. Even more importantly, in capability, they are even further apart. Just compare the KKK with Hezbollah or any other Islamic nationalist group. Have you ever heard of the KKK fielding its own artillery? Not even close.

Removing the influence and power fielded by Imams has and will result in violence. People do not give up that kind of power by choice. Historically it has been shown that it will take warfare to resolve. Reason number five in my list of why Islam causes wars is the lack of separation of religion and governance. Concerning Islam, they are the same.

HEY! It's a nice day!

I went outside this morning, and guess what? It is a nice winter day!

You know what they say about payback, Mr. President? The thing that I do not like about this is that we are discussing the 'Fundamental CHANGE' or in other words, the destruction of my country.

The day after the stimulus passed in 2009, you said that you had gone outside and 'it was a nice day'. The disaster that had been predicted as a result of the massive spending had not come to pass. Mr. President, it has YET to come to pass as you are predicting a similar outcome to the so-called 'sequestration'. Funny thing, the 'sequestration' was proposed by your administration. OK, it does not matter how we got here, we are here. Disaster is staring us in the face and 4 years later, you now see it.

At least we are making progress.

You see Mr. President, the FED simply cannot raise interest rates because our debt is so large that to raise it will cause the interest on that debt to skyrocket out of control. What is of concern here is that this will happen sooner or later. It will be a great advantage if we could get our debt under control prior to this point and it looks like the 'sequester' is about the only way we can even begin to do this. Please note that this is only a beginning. And not much of a beginning at that.

Payback is a real bitch, Mr. President. You have it coming to you. I don't like being an A-Hole but you have CHANGED my attitude about you. I must admit, you have been successful in making some of the 'fundamental CHANGE' that you are working so hard to implement. Please enjoy. It is only going to get better from here.  

Islam causes war: Part IV

The House of War: 

“In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses, the house of Islam and the house of war.” (Bernard Lewis) Not a great deal to comment on here. If tradition sees the non-Islamic world as being in ‘the house of war’, then few if any excuses are required to start a war against infidels. (Non-believers) I would like to point out how this ‘tradition’ demonstrates Islamic attitudes about government and influences foreign policy.

At least part of the reason why Islam is so hostile is because so many of the ‘laws’ that dictate foreign policy follows this attitude. One example is when the Koran specifies when truces are to be made and when war can commence. Please note how truces are to be implemented, not peace. In other words, not permanent. Truces are to be broken when the situation changes to where Islam will gain an advantage by opening hostilities. In other words, the non-Islamic world can be attacked for any reason whatsoever, because it is infidel. The non-Islamic world truly is the ‘house of war’ simply because war can be waged against it any time Islam has an advantage. This is foreign policy by a ‘religion’, for a ‘religion’ and because of ‘religion’. Once again, execution of people, waging war and making treaties is the responsibility of governments. This is another area where Imams obtain authority from the ‘Nation of Islam’.

This is where Imams get the authority to declare war. Declaring war is the sole authority of the modern national government. You simply cannot have priests or other religious leaders deciding to go to war and mobilizing their own combat units. However, this was how armies were created and mobilized in the 7^th century, long before the modern nation-state and professional armies. As mentioned in other issues, the very fact that Imams have this authority is in direct conflict with the concept of the modern national government. In general terms, wars are to be fought when Islam can win. And when Islam is at a disadvantage or losing, truces can and should be implemented. Please note how peace can only be accomplished when Islam is dominant and the area in question is within the ‘house of peace’ or under Islamic control. In other words, continuous warfare until no other places exist outside of the ‘house of ‘peace’. If this does not supply a full amount of excuses to start wars, I do not know what else will.

Women with conceal and carry

A real catch 22 for gun control advocates: Women obtaining conceal and carry permits. The best defense against assault and rape.

While it is true that some assaults and rapes of women catch the woman by surprise where they would not have the time to take ANY real defensive action, a loaded pistol sure goes a long way toward maintaining a successful defense if given just a few seconds. (The same applies to men who are about to or are being assaulted and/or mugged.) The catch 22 comes in where womens rights are being argued. Did you see that list of 10 things women should do if threatened or attacked? The list has been removed for obvious reasons: They are not nearly effective enough, not to mention insulting. The most notable concept was no mention of a knife or other hand held weapon. Not even mace. Certainly not firearms.

I am not certain that conceal and carry for women is the best move on college campuses today, but the fact is that assault and rape is a real problem on college campuses today. Hell, it was a problem when I was an undergrad back in the early 1980's. I do know that it is such a problem today that it is worth serious consideration. Even a try out, if you will. After all, as President Obama said: “…if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.”

This is a dangerous idea. I do like the fact that it would be more dangerous for would be assailants and rapists than the general population. Of course, this flies in the face of gun control advocates and their ideology. Thus the resistance to ANYTHING that allows for the constructive use of firearms. Not to mention resistance to the idea of applying force to resist force as was demonstrated with the list of 10 things women should do if attacked. Personally, I believe that mace or pepper spray would be effective as well, without being potentially lethal. But this was not mentioned in the list of 10 things. This is where I see the problem with the gun control advocates. They are against the use of ANY effective defense, so much so that they can't even think of any good ideas for conducting a successful defense against ANY violence.  

Islam causes war: Part III

The penalty for leaving Islam is death

The penalty for leaving Islam is death. This ‘Law’ has been enforced for 1400 years. Part of the problem here is that the authority to execute people is supposed to be used only by a national government. Two ways that governments kill people: They execute their own citizens, or the government declares war and the professional army kills the enemy. Islam as a religion must not be allowed to retain this ability to terminate people’s lives. Islam implements the killing of others through the authority that Imams exercise. They can field their own militias. This is in conflict with the idea of governmental enforcement of the laws, not to mention government control of the armed forces. Even when governments enact this penalty for leaving Islam within the legal system, this reinforces the idea that once something is Muslim, it cannot revert back to anything else. This can be (And frequently is) applied to ‘waters’ and ‘occupation’ of land as well. This concept goes well past national boundaries. As a result, this is an international issue that modern nations have and should go to war over. In addition, this law is a major structural problem for Islam.

The penalty for leaving Islam is death is one of the primary factors in the reasons why Sunni and Shiite have not been able to resolve their differences since 690 AD. (Islam was founded in 610 AD) Because the two sides differ in the line of succession of the leadership of Islam, (A major, fundamental difference) each side sees the other as having left Islam. In many of the cases where we hear of ‘sectarian’ violence, this is a major, basic cause. A number of other differences exist in the interpretation of the Koran. (It is human nature for people to differ) When any group interprets the law in any way significantly that is different from others, they see the other side as having left Islam. Very few disagreements exists with the interpretation of ‘The penalty for leaving Islam is death.’ This cannot do anything but assist violent behavior. Historically, when ‘outsiders’ or infidels are involved, Sunni and Shiite will band together to defeat the common enemy before attempting to deal with the other, which is more of an internal problem. Execution of people is the sole responsibility of a modern national government, not a ‘religion’. Once again, Islam is in direct conflict with modern governance. Imams wield the power of governments when they can implement this penalty, along with numerous others that Islamic law requires. People and nations will fight violently to resolve these types of issues. It is about the only way to resolve them. Submission is the other. No wonder it results in violence, on both sides.

Islam causes war Part II: Jihad

Jihad: Many Muslims believe that Jihad is an internal struggle. This is supposedly the ‘greater Jihad’. However, historically this has not been the case. “For most of the fourteen hundred years of Muslim history, Jihad has been most commonly interpreted as ARMED struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power.” (B. Lewis) This is enough time for a concept to actually become culturally based. Cultural change is the most difficult and turbulent of all change. Thus it would be very, very difficult to reverse. The Koran mentions Jihad in the context of ‘internal’ struggle in about 5% to 10% of the references concerning Jihad. The other 90% concern armed Jihad and warfare. No wonder Jihad was (And is by many) most commonly interpreted as armed struggle. In addition, the reward for Jihad is booty in this world and paradise in the next. Booty was generally how armies were paid until the rise of the nation-state and professional armies. This did not occur until Islam had been established for more than 700 years. The concept of booty as it was generally known is inappropriate with the concept of Jihad as an internal struggle. Jihad may have been intended to be an internal struggle, but the reward system in this world makes it a foreign policy. This can and has caused wars. Imams wield the power of a modern government. Jihad is one tool that gives Islamic leaders the powers of a nation-state. Jihad helps provide many Imams the ability to field their own personal militias. Another way of looking at it: If priests were able to form and lead armed combat units, many governments would have to go to war against the Catholic Church. As they should. The waging of war is the responsibility of governments, not ‘religion’. Naturally, wars are fought over issues like this one. The ‘terrorist’ organizations of today are in fact the Islamic ‘army’ in action. These very same organizations speak of jihad in the context of armed struggle. Many have declared war against the U.S. and Israel already. (Declaring war as if they are the leadership of a government) In fact, the ‘Nation of Islam’ is at war against ALL modern governments. Jihad is not the type of issue that negotiation can resolve. People will wage war to resist or resolve. Negotiation could not convince the South to give up slavery. It took open warfare to rid the United States of slavery. Nor will negotiation change the interpretation of jihad. Better health care and better economic opportunities are not going to change anyone’s mind on this issue. Economic opportunity will not revoke the authority that Imams have that enables them to field these ‘jihadist armies’, nor will it win the war against these organizations.

Islam causes war Part I

Stoning people to death. Islam prescribes a number of penalties that modern thought places into a class of barbaric relics of an ancient past. Chopping off hands, gouging out eyes, etc. I mention this as a cause of war because of the violent resistance that is being seen when attempting to get rid of this penalty. I use Nigeria an an example because it is so clear cut. Riots occurred in Nigeria in 2006 because the court refused to have a woman who was convicted of adultery stoned to death. Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 40% Christian. (10% ‘other’) This ‘law’ is an important one because similar problems have been seen in other parts of the world where attempts to ignore this same punishment have triggered responses similar to what Nigeria witnessed. I guess if you can’t throw rocks at someone, then it is OK to throw rocks at something else. After all, that aggressive urge has to be fulfilled somehow. The Koran specifies that the rocks must be small enough not to kill with one blow and large enough to not qualify as pebbles. This medieval concept must end. It is bad enough to still have laws that allow for people to be flogged, but this ‘law’ is about as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment as you can get. (Flogging should be dropped as well) Yet a great risk is run when attempting to get rid of it, or ignoring it. This is another demonstration of how Islam has yet to evolve with modern ideas of human thought and dignity. The elimination of stoning and flogging is being fought with violence. This is a moral issue that is similar to that of getting rid of slavery. It will be almost impossible to stop violence without resorting to organized violence, particularly concerning issues like this. This is a straightforward case of Islamic law being a cause of violence and war.

Talk about a mob mentality. I saw a video of a stoning of a young girl who finally died when a cinder block was dropped on her head. The stoning was bad enough, but the final act was actually against Islamic law. The stones are not to be so small as to qualify as a pebble, and not so large as to kill with one blow. In a mob situation, what rules can be enforced? Clearly, not even Islamic ones.

I toss in beating your wife in on this one as well. Even though different interpretations say different things, the issue is still very large in Islam. How can this be even debated? Oh! No visible marks are to be left. We are not speaking metaphorically. This is actually stated in the Koran. So it makes sense to cover the women up. Besides, this has other controlling advantages.

These 6^th century ideas have come and are long gone. NO more mobs stoning people to death, or else we shoot at you too. And you would have it coming. These are good enough reasons to wage war. I rank this one as number one only as a matter of convenience, not necessarily of importance. Although this one is important enough.