More intrusion of religion into state, via 'Obama'

"Faith-based" sections of government are nothing new. They exist, mostly unpublicized, in many branches of the U.S. Government. Nevertheless, I had hoped, but not expected, at least partial change from the Bush Administration policy of using false Christian dogma that has no relevance to the precepts attributed to "Jesus Christ" as a source for policy of the "Obama" administration. [For an explanation of why I place the name "Jesus Christ" in quotation marks, read my book The Case Against 'Jesus,' the first and only book which proves, by documented evidence, that the character identified in English-language versions of the New Testament as "Jesus Christ" is a wholly fictitious character, and even that Anglicized name is a fraud. For an explanation of why I place the name "Obama" in quotation marks, see the next post below titled 'Obama' - not black, not African-American.]

Unfortunately, "Obama," who has been a disappointment to millions of his supporters, has decided to prostitute himself by creating a White House office of "faith-based initiatives," declaring that "there is a force for good greater than government." To head the office, "Obama" has appointed a Pentecostal minister, Joshua DuBois, who put together the part of the presidential election campaign designed to obtain Christian votes for "Obama." Does anyone doubt, then, that "faith-based initiatives" will be based on one kind of "faith"? And, as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others have asked: faith in what? The answer, of course, is faith in what was written by ancient fiction writers who produced the scriptures comprising the Judaeo-Christian bible: "God" (Yahweh, the ancient Hebrews' version of the male deity who creates everything), created the universe and the earth and its creatures in six days; that "God" looks like a man ("God created man in his own image"); "God" himself or "God" as the son of God, or the two combined, put himself in the body of a virgin by inseminating that virgin through the Holy Ghost, remained in vitro for nine months and then waited inferentially until at least his teen years to begin saving humanity from "original sin," and then to accomplish that task had himself executed on a cross.

Are you one of the rare individuals who has actually read that "bible" in any of its thousands of versions (meaning it cannot be construed as a bible, since a bible by definition is the fixed, unchangeable "word of God")? If you are - and if you are a sane, rational, intelligent human being - you must know that if those scriptures were offered for publication today as wholly new writings produced by 21st-Century scribes, they would be dismissed as the ravings of lunatics in a mental institution. Their use today as constituting the book upon which the president and other government leaders swear their oaths of office is the beginning in each instance of the corruption, ignorance, hypocrisy, and bigotry that keep the American people and other peoples locked into the present form of a Cultural Dark Age. That there is undermining of the principle of separation of church from state in the swearing on the bible, and use of "Christian faith" as the source for government initiatives, I hardly need say. Anyone who is not aware of that fact is an individual who has no awareness of reality.

The question I would raise is this: How can any of us put our trust in political leaders and jurists who are ignorant enough to believe in, who are crazy enough to believe in, or who are fraudulent enough to say they believe in, the lunatic ravings which constitute the scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian bible?

'Obama' - not black, not African-American

Persons of dark skin color, misled by the Mass Miscommunications Media (MMM), think that in "Barack Obama" they are getting "the first black president" and/or "the first African-American president." That notion is as false as it is preposterous.

To begin with, the MMM has yet to verify "Barack Obama" as the true name or birth name of the 44th president of the U.S. His Kenyan father abandoned him when he was a bit more than two years old. His mother, a white woman whose last name was Dunham, raised him and called him "Barry," as did all of his friends and classmates in the predominantly white prep school where he was educated. For all we know, the man called "Barack Obama" may be "Barry Dunham."His birth certificate has not been publicly released. What box he checked on the modern U.S. Census form, offering "mixed" as the answer for "race," has not been revealed.

More important than the dubious name for him is the identification of "Barack Obama" as a "black" man who will be "the first black American president." What nonsense. "Black" is the name of a color. It does not and cannot designate a "race" of people, since there is not and never has been any such characteristic of humanity as "race." The concept of "race" was invented by a bunch of 17th-18th Century crackpot German philosophers, and humanity has been stupid and crazy enough to buy into it and the ongoing disastrous results from it. Besides, most individuals identified as "blacks" are various shades of brown or tan or, as I have it in my definition in Lucifer's Dictionary of the American Language, just dark enough to avoid being white. And as for Obama/Dunham, his color is medium brown.

Nor is Obama/Dunham an African-American. That description is used by the MMM as a racial term; but it is not and cannot be so. It is by definition a geographical or dual citizenship term, and a ridiculous one at that. In order to be an African-American, you would have to be born in an African nation or a part of the U.S. and hold dual citizenship in the African country and the U.S. If you can find such a person, he or she may just as well be white as black or brown, since a white person may just as well have been born in an African country and may just as well hold the necessary dual citizenship for African-American characterization as a black or brown person.

You do not see the MMM referring to dark skinned persons in the U.S. descended from English parents as "English-Americans" as though that is a racial term. Indeed, you do not see the term "English-American" used at all. And when such terms as "French-American" and "Italian-American" are used by the MMM, they are not used as racial terms. Why, then, should the term "African-American" be used as a racial term?

If the majority position of modern anthropologists is correct, that position being that there is no such thing as "race" and all of us are descended from "a black woman in Africa" (referred to as "Eve"), we are all African-Americans, and the first African-American president of the U.S. was, yes, George Washington.

The Nazis then, the Islamists now

The following essay comes from a blogger named Paul Marek. It has been wrongly attributed on the internet to Emanuel Tanay, M.D. I do not know how that incorrect attribution occurred. It is one of the thousands of misidentifications and postings of misinformation that are spread on the internet by individuals who fail to check their authenticity. Worst of all is the rewriting of history on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, by amateur would-be scholars.

A German's View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. "Very few people were true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. [They should be identified as genocide bombers. - BHW.]

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the "silent majority," is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. [There was no "Communist Russia." The USSR was a state socialist totalitarian dictatorship. The true "Russian Communists," those who actually believed in true communism, were exiled or executed. - BHW.]

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. [No true Chinese Communist had anything to do with the murder of anyone. The slaughter and repression of freedoms were perpetrated by and continue to emanate from state socialist dictatorial tyrants and their stooges. And I shudder at the phrase "staggering 70 million people." Correctly put, the identification is "70 million persons" - and there is no way of knowing how many of them were "staggering." - BHW.]

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South-East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians: most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our posers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. [There are no such persons as "Palestinians." If there were, everyone living in Israel would be included in the term. The correct identifications are Gazans, West Bankers, or "the stateless inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank." - BHW.]

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

The cloud above the emoticon should have "Bravo!" in it. I cannot get it to come out. - BHW

The global threat from Islam

Peter Hammond is a Baptist minister who has moved among Islamists in Africa and the Near East, and so what he has to say about their religion is not merely from an academic or historical standpoint. Nor does it appear that his analysis of Islam as a global menace stems from a strictly Christian point of view in his book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. Hammond formulates his analysis from factual information, and that is what makes it so compelling and frightening.

Hammond reports that once the Muslim population of a country is between 2 and 5 percent of that country, the Muslims become effective at proselytizing for Islam, recruiting especially from "disaffected groups" and "street gangs." That is now happening, among other countries, in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain. Beyond 5 percent, they begin pushing for observation nationwide of their religious observances. That is now happening, among other countries, in France, Sweden, and The Netherlands. When Muslims reach 10 percent of the population, they begin adding violent acts to their strategies. That is now happening, among other countries, in India, Israel, and Russia.

Once Muslims become more than 20 percent of a country's population, they reproduce in greater numbers than other classes of people and engage in jihad (holy war) in pursuit of their purpose to force their religious views on everyone. They riot, set off bombs, burn churches and synagogues, boycott businesses construed as violating Muslim rules for "clean living," force women to cover themselve and be obedient to men, and replace national law in their communities with Sharia Law, all in pursuit of their ultimate goal: to establish a worldwide Islamic theological state. One of my readers complains that this description from Hammond is not applicable to all Muslims, that many are peaceful and just want to be free to practice their religion for their own purposes. No doubt that is true. The trouble is that genocidal imams, using as their source the parts of the Koran (Quran) advocating attacks on "infidels" in the quest for a world order based on their interpretation of the Islamic bible, are indoctrinating millions of youths in the requirement for jihad. They become the activists who dominate the course pursued by Muslims, while the pacifists are relegated to irrelevance.

Everyone should read Hammond's book and think about what may happen if the genocidal maniacs dominating activist Islam are able to produce nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons with the capacity of decimating whole populations that they will hold hostage or even destroy if their demands are not met. Remember, annihilation does not worry them. They believe Allah will reward them with life in a paradise for ridding the world of infidels. In this way, not only are they the Nazis of the current era, but also they are even more dangerous than the Nazis ever were. In my view, it is woefully inadequate to restrict an attack on Islamists to the activists, including those called "terrorists," who seek global domination in accordance with their view of the religion of Islam. It is the religion itself which forms the base for the growing numbers of Islamists pursuing global domination via genocidal tactics. Consequently, I believe that it is the religion of Islam itself that must be attacked and even destroyed, because if it is not, the religion as now practiced by tens of millions of Muslims will destroy the rest of humanity.

My challenges to 'Barack Obama'

*Provide publicly a copy of your birth certificate showing your birth name.
*Provide publicly a certified copy showing the name under which you were registered at the Punahou prep school in Honolulu.
*In a public statement, reveal which box you marked on the U.S. Census form designated for "race" - black, white, or mixed.
*Hold a press conference in which you explain the reasons why you should be identified as a "black" or as an "African-American" and in which you define those terms.
*Hold another press conference in which you outline your programs to deal with the nation's and the world's major problems, especially overpopulation, the massive inequality of wealth, the violence generated by belief in Islamic religion, the demand of self-professed "Christians" that their values be injected into affairs of state, the loss of American- born persons' jobs to immigrants (legal immigrants or illegal aliens) pouring into the U.S. and employment pouring out of the U.S. to countries where a modern form of slave labor is used, the increasing use of money to make money off the money itself rather than on any production of goods and services, and the growing world lack of control over money owing to more and more use of credit and interest.

History lessons from a Mexican immigrant's child

It was time for a history lesson in the fourth-grade class. The teacher opened her session with the first in a series of questions she had lined up: "Who said give me liberty or give me death?" Only one of the children raised a hand: Pedro Gonzalez, the son of a Mexican immigrant. "Patrick Henry, 1775," Pedro said when acknowledged. "Very good!" the teacher exclaimed. "Now, who said this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth?" Again there was no response from anyone but Pedro, who replied: "Abraham Lincoln, 1863." The teacher snapped at the class: "Class, you should be ashamed! Pedro, who is new to our country, knows more about its history than you do."

One of the pupils said, just loud enough to be heard by the teacher: "Screw the Mexicans!" "Who said that?" the teacher demanded to know. Pedro waved his hand and responded: "Sam Houston, 1836." Another pupil said, "I'm gonna puke." The teacher glared at the class. "All right! Now, who said that?" Pedro shouted: "George Herbert Walker Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991!" Another pupil yelled: "Oh, yeah? Suck on this!" Pedro jumped out of his chair, waving his hand and shouting at the teacher: "Bill Clinton to Monica Lewinsky, 1997! Now beside herself, the teacher screamed: "You Judas! If you say anything more to create a scandal, I'll kill you!" Waving his hand frantically, Pedro yelled: "Ted Kennedy to Mary Jo Kopechne en route to the bridge at Chappaquiddick, 1969!' The teacher fainted, and as the class gathered around her body on the floor, someone exclaimed: "Oh oh, we're in BIG trouble now!" Pedro shouted louder than ever: "George W. Bush, 2006!"