What We’ve Got Here is, “Failure to Assimilate”

A Compulsion to Compel Obedience
[courtesy Google Images]

If you’re old enough to remember the A.D. 1967 movie “Cool Hand Luke” (starring Paul Newman) you might recall that when Luke insulted the warden, the warden (Strother Martin) knocked him down and said “What we’ve got here, is . . . failure . . . to communicate”.

Well, similarly, “what we’ve got here” (today, in America), in relation to devout Muslim immigrants, is “failure . . . to assimilate.”

 

Yahoo News published an article on the recent murders in San Bernardino, California.  I thought the headline—“Mosque members on San Bernardino shooter: ‘He was living the American dream’”—was especially revealing.

 

“Several Muslims who worshiped with the San Bernardino shooter say they were shocked by his killing spree because he had appeared mild mannered and ‘peaceful’.”

 

These Jihadists did not spend their days swinging scimitars above their heads and screaming “Death To America!” over bullhorns.  They didn’t look or sound like “terrorists”—they looked like us.

 

Fire Wars

Fire Wars
[courtesy Google Images]

I recently posted an article about Dr. Bill Warner who described the Muslim’s persistent history of waging war.  Dr. Warner warned that Muslims have waged economic warfare for centuries. This economic warfare can be described as “death by a thousand cuts” and includes a multitude of small attacks on elements of a nation’s economy rather than open and direct attacks on a nation’s military.  Some people may have thought that Dr. Warner’s warnings were “over-the-top” and alarmist rather than reasonable.  The video below suggests that Dr. Warner may be a lot closer to the truth than we might first suppose.

Al Qaeda is the name of a Muslim guerrilla organization that was allegedly created by Osama bin Laden and was accused of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks in A.D. 2001 that killed over 3,000 Americans.  

Based on those attacks, America has since been turned into a goddamned police state to allegedly protect Americans from goddamned terrorists like Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, there are current news reports that the US government is channeling funds to Al Qaeda operatives fighting to overthrow the Syrian government.  Senator John McCain–an alleged “Republican” and former presidential candidate–has recently advocated giving Al Qaeda more weapons.  

 

Intriguing Hypothesis on Islam

[courtesy Google Images]

Dr. Bill Warner is a scientist who’s collated considerable new archeological data that wasn’t previously recognized concerning the Islamic faith and culture. Based on that new data, he offers a new hypothesis concerning the fundamental nature and historical impact of Islam.

I don’t know that he’s right.   As with any new hypothesis–especially one dealing with the fundamental nature of a religion–we’re all hesitant and even anxious about accepting radical new ideas as true.  And rightfully so.  Anyone who comes up with a new “big idea” has to expect that idea will be avoided, ignored, ridiculed and even attacked before it is (if ever) accepted.  These attacks can be painful but they’re a good thing in that they “test” the new idea to see how much of it, if any, is true–and how much is false or idiotic.

Still, the fact that Dr. Warner’s radical hypothesis might be mistaken doesn’t prove that his ideas can’t be fundamentally correct.

 

International Law for Christian Nations

International Law based largely on Christianity?

One of my readers posted a comment that included the following:

“The problem with this is that international law is for Christian nations.  Excerpt from  The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary (verified in Vattel as well):  http://tinypic.com/r/15s7ev5/5

I had no idea of the link between international law and Christianity.  I don’t know that that link is still deemed true today in what passes for “international law”.

But, insofar as I view most of what happens on this earth as evidence of “spiritual warfare,” I’m pleased and excited to see evidence that international law was–and might still be–based on a Christian foundation.

I’m not yet sure how to apply this new insight.  But, if you’ve followed this blog or my radio shows, you might recall that I like to focus on the “man or other animals” definitions of drugs and medical devices.  Insofar as those definitions are subject to a “freedom of religion” challenge, they might also open the door to some challenge in “international law” (provided that “international law” is still founded to some degree on Christianity).

In any case, I’m posting the evidence of the International Law/Christianity “connection” without much commentary simply because I think it’s important and you deserve to see it.  That “connection” is at least consistent with arguments that most of what we see to today is the result of spiritual warfare.

If you have more knowledge on this subject, please let me know.

 

God-given “unalienable Rights” = Individual Sovereignty

Image via Wikipedia

I recently received the following email:

Hi Alfred,

I was just reading your post on the difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable”. I found it quite interesting.

I was also reading an article about President Obama omitting “Creator” when quoting the Declaration (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=237349) when I noticed that he repeatedly uses “inalienable”. The omission of the one word and the incorrect usage of the other in numerous instances can only be intentional. He’s very consistent about it. I was curious about your thoughts on this.

Matt

At the time, I responded briefly. However, here’s an expanded version of my reply:

 

The Story Behind the National Anthem

Image via Wikipedia

A bit of American history.

A cause for national pride.

And a lesson in the significance of the flag.

This is a good one.  It might make your eyes mist over.

video  00:09:37

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Iwa-lSVqA1M&vq=medium

 

To Hell With Democracy II

My first article on “To Hell With Democracy” should be read as preface to this article.  The original “To Hell” article can be found at:  https://adask.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/to-hell-with-democracy/#more-2807

What follows began as my response to one reader’s comment on the original article.  This response grew to a point where I think it deserves to be published as a second article–To Hell With Democracy part II.  It explains the spiritual principles that distinguish the “republican form of government” mandated by our constitutions from the “democracy” that we currently “enjoy”.