Troops in Africa: Is this why we have a military?

In March, the United States plans to send elements of the Second Brigade, First Infantry Division, to Africa (under AFRICOM) to conduct over a hundred different missions in 34 nations, such as humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and training indigenous forces.  (source: Washington Times) The Second Brigade is a heavy brigade equipped with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and self-propelled artillery, mind you, not a light infantry brigade or Special Forces unit.  As a result of the deployment, their training on these systems in a wartime scenario will most likely suffer.

We are also a bankrupt nation, yet spending millions deploying portions of our military to areas that are not critical to our national security.  Sounds to me like we may have found a portion of the national budget we can cut if our military has nothing better to do than hand out humanitarian assistance and wait for natural disasters in some far off land.

Our tax dollars need to instead be spent on our military defense, not on ambiguous blanket missions of doing everything except the defense of our nation.  We need to get ourselves out of this recession/depression first before we should even consider doing a mission like that of the 2nd Brigade in Africa.  The national debt is the biggest threat to our national security, not some non-existent disaster in Africa.

We must ask ourselves: Are the Armed Forces of the United States serving as the military force of the United Nations/World Government, or are they protecting America and its citizens?

As an organization, the US military is slowly being forced to reject its original foundation of the Christian faith and in its place accept humanism, as evidenced by the removal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy allowing for open homosexual behavior in the ranks.  Even the mere presence of religion in military organizations is under attack from organizations such as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation who espouse a perverted interpretation of the First Amendment.

A key component of humanism is relativism, where there is no absolute truth.  This has in part led to the development of a manual in Afghanistan that blames our own troops' insensitivity to the Islamic culture for causing the green on blue violence in that nation, rather than blaming the true source--Islamic jihad.

Furthermore, our military is confused as to who the enemy is.  They are attacked by a jihadi at Fort Hood and it is called "workplace violence."  Russian military forces are invited in our borders to participate in "counter-terrorism" exercises.  We are aiding and abetting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, an organization that intends to re-establish a hostile Caliphate and destroy America.  One of our Ambassadors is slain in North Africa while the military is forbidden from coming to his aid.  We kill al Qaeda operatives in Yemen (for Saudi Arabia?), while supporting them and their allies in Syria and Libya.

Military leadership has been involved in suppressing the First Amendment rights of United States citizens when it comes to speech against Islam, and have publicly humiliated a fellow officer for teaching the threat that Islam presents.  Then they "pivot to the Pacific," however China is not considered a threat but Iran in the Middle East remains so.  Then some in our government talk about unilaterally reducing our nuclear arsenal to below 300 weapons while Russia is modernizing and exercising their nuclear triad.

Who is the enemy???

We need to get our military back on track and fast.  They are all over the world "chasing Indians," disasters, and handing out humanitarian assistance.  They need to be focused on the one thing they need to get right--defending our nation against existential threats.  They need to be preparing for war, and they need a clear vision as to who are the enemies of America.  With the imminent reduction in the military budget, this becomes all the more critical.

--Against All Enemies

Army plans to shift troops to U.S. Africa Command

Aims for quick crisis response

By Kristina Wong - The Washington Times, Sunday, December 23, 2012

U.S. Africa Command, the military’s newest regional force, will have more troops available early next year as the Pentagon winds down from two ground wars over the past decade, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, Army chief of staff, told The Washington Times.

As part of Gen. Odierno’s Regionally Aligned Forces concept, about 1,200 soldiers will deploy to Africa as early as March in an effort to place troops strategically around the globe to respond quickly to sudden challenges in hot spots such as Libya and to develop ties with the people and officials in host countries.

“It’s about us moving towards a scalable, tailorable capability that helps them to shape the environment they’re working in, doing a variety of tasks from building partner capability to engagement, to multilateral training to bilateral training to actual deployment of forces, if necessary,” Gen. Odierno said in an interview.

Amid budget cuts and with President Obama’s new military strategy downplaying the chances of another major land war, the Army has sought to maintain its relevance among admirals and generals in the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa — likely places for the next flash point. When terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, no U.S. troops were close enough to help.

[...]

Ready, responsive

Beginning in March, small teams of soldiers from the 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, based in Fort Riley, Kan., will conduct at least 108 missions in at least 34 countries in Africa through mid-2014.

The missions could include humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, training host-nation forces in marksmanship, first aid and other skills, and conducting military exercises. To prepare for these missions, soldiers are studying the regions and cultures of countries where they will deploy, and learning Arabic, Swahili, French and Portuguese.

Continue Reading (article continues)... 

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Video: Syrian Rebels Executing Government Loyalists

The following video is graphic in nature, and purportedly shows rebels in Syria executing Syrian government loyalist prisoners (if true, this is a violation of the law of war, or what is more commonly known as a war crime).  These rebels are the people we are (not so) covertly supporting, and the more of these jihadists we support in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria, the sooner they will threaten our allies and be on our shores (some are already here--the Muslim Brotherhood).  As I have said many times now, we should not be involved in Syria, period.  It will be just like supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan...once a group of jihadists defeat their near enemy, they will come after us.
--Against All Enemies

Link to video: http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=11553161317e



Against All Enemies Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Arab Spring Update, 18 July 2012

What follows are all open source reports, so some may be fact, some may be fiction, and some may be downright deception.  Nevertheless, we are witnessing many interesting developments in the Middle East, especially considering that the US Presidential election is coming up in November.  Looking back to the 20th Century, war possibly assisted the advancement of progressive agendas for Presidents like Woodrow Wilson (WWI), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (WWII), and Lyndon Baines Johnson (Vietnam).

Iran:

• United Arab Emirates inaugurated their new 236-mile oil pipeline that bypasses Straits of Hormuz with a capacity of 1.5 million barrels per day.  (Associated Press)  This will help to lessen the impact of any efforts by Iran to shut down the Straits.
• The "floating base" USS Ponce and mine clearing robots (mini-subs) have been moved to the Persian Gulf to prevent Iranians from closing the Straits of Hormuz. (New York Times)
• A 20-nation mine clearing exercise is scheduled in the Persian Gulf for September 16-27 in response to Iranian threats to shut down the Straits of Hormuz.  (NewsMax)
• A third US carrier group (USS John C. Stennis) will be sent to the Persian Gulf months early in order to keep two carrier groups on station.  (Associated Press)
• The US is building a radar site in Qatar that will reportedly complete a defense system designed to protect US and Allied interests in the Middle East from Iranian aggression.  (Wall Street Journal)
• Some speculate that an attack on Iran will happen in October. (speculation from DEBKAFile)

Syria:

• Syria's former ambassador to Iraq claims that Bashar Assad will not hesitate to employ chemical weapons to put down the uprising in Syria. (UPI)
• Bomber kills Assad's brother-in-law, Syrian defense minister, and senior military general.  (Reuters)
• Reports of heavy Saudi Arabian troop movement toward Jordanian/Iraqi borders.  (DEBKAFile; cannot verify with another source)
• Russians moving 11 ships to the Mediterranean. (New York Times)

Libya: Initial Parliamentary election results place the liberal (non-Islamist) alliance of Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril's National Forces in the lead with 39 seats.  The Muslim Brotherhood's Justice and Construction party gained 17 seats.  The other 24 seats were won by other factions.  We have yet to see the results of the liberal and Islamist efforts to build coalitions.  (Haaretz)  This could actually be good news, but we need to see the rhetoric and platform for the National Forces Alliance to truly understand the implications of this election for the security of the West, Israel, and the future of the Caliphate.

Egypt: Tantawi and the ruling generals disbanded the Islamist-dominated Parliament, which the Supreme Constitutional Court upheld.  However, the Muslim Brotherhood President Mursi told the Parliament to reconvene, which they did.  Secretary Hillary Clinton visited Egypt afterwards to voice her support for full civilian rule, the military assuming a pure military role, to encourage the Egyptian government to support women and minority rights, and respect the peace treaty with Israel. (BBC, LA Times)

Tunisia: The government has declared that the hard-line Islamist group, Hizb al-Tahrir, can become a legitimate political party in Tunisia.  Hizb al-Tahrir calls for the restoration of the Caliphate, and attempted to hold a conference in Rolling Meadows, Illinois, to further their cause (see the AAE post on the conference).  In May, the Tunisian government legitimized Islah Front , a hard-line Salafi Islamist group, as a political party.  (EuroNews/Reuters)

Mali: After the coup in March and the attempt by Tuareg rebels in the north to secede from Mali, Islamists linked to al Qaeda have since hijacked the secession effort in the north.  (FoxNews)  So how is it al Qaeda shows up everywhere that Sunni Muslims are fighting either Shia or those outside of Islam?  I contend that al Qaeda is acting as the tip of the jihadist spear for the Muslim Brotherhood, a relationship that has since been strengthened by the death of Osama bin Laden.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Arab Spring Update, 18 June 2012

Syria.  Russia is currently loading two amphibious ships in Sebastopol to send Marines to reinforce its naval base in Tartus, Syria.  (Source article.)  "The United Nations' human rights chief has accused the Syrian government of committing crimes against humanity by attacking towns with heavy weapons."  (Source article.)  On 25 May, over 100 civilians including women and children were murdered in Houla.  (Source article.)  Some blame the government for the massacre, others claim it was a "false flag" operation to bring more world pressure on the Syrian government.  The United Nations has suspended their peacekeeping mission to monitor a 12 June ceasefire.  (Source article.)  In summary, I am seeing a steadily increasing desire by the West, Turkey and the United Nations to intervene in Syria and oust Assad.  This would place the Sunnis and most likely the Muslim Brotherhood in charge.  Russia and Iran appear to oppose any intervention in Syria by outside forces.  As I have stated before, we need to avoid this conflict altogether.  Nothing good can come out of intervention in Syria.

Libya.  On June 11th, a bomb exploded outside the US Mission in Benghazi.  The British Ambassador's convoy was attacked by RPGs on June 12th in the same city.   (Source article.)

Jordan.  Thousands of Jordanians protested the rise in electricity prices (around 2 June), and rumors have it that the rising prices of public services will trigger an Arab Spring-like uprising.  (Source article.)  This comes after the Jordanian government outlawed political parties that are organized on the basis of religion, potentially putting the current government add odds with the Muslim Brotherhood.  The protests could be the first sign of the Muslim Brotherhood beginning to put pressure on the Jordanian government.  This also comes on the heels of the multi-national "Eager Lion 2012" exercise held in Jordan.  (Arab Spring Updates: 15 May and 17 April)

Egypt.  Last week the ruling military government dissolved the Islamist-dominated parliament.  This week the Muslim Brotherhood claimed victory in the Presidential Election (their candidate is Mohammed Morsy).  Their opponent, former prime minister Ahmed Shafik, claims that he is ahead in the votes.  The military continues to hold onto power.  Frankly, I am surprised that the Muslim Brotherhood has not yet attempted to instigate a full revolution to oust the military government.  They could be working within the political system until such a time when they have determined that they cannot obtain power through legitimate means and must resort to force instead.  (Source article.)

Javier Soriano/Agence France-Presse -- Getty Images

Saudi Arabia.  The successor to King Abdullah's throne, Crown Prince Nayef bin Albdulaziz al-Saud, died on 16 June and Defense Minister Prince Salman bin Abdul-Aziz has been selected as the new heir.  (Source article.)  Related to the ruling Saud family, remember that some in Iran believe that King Abdullah must die before the Mahdi will return.  ("Iran Warns of Coming Great Event")

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

The United Nations and the One World Government

When the world is viewed through the lens of traditional nation-state behavior, very little seems to make sense these days.  For example, why is the world so enraptured with "global warming" and "climate change," two problems based on specious evidence?  Why is Islam, the most intolerant and violent ideology on the planet, being actively assisted by the world community to acquire more power?  Why is Christianity under direct and ever-increasing assault in America?  Why are the forces of the United States and its Allies being employed in ways that are not in their best national interest?

I have come to the conclusion that what we are seeing is a deliberate attempt to bring humanity under the control of a One World Government.  Its creation would be a fitting historical bookend to Nimrod's construction of the Tower of Babel during another time when humans rebelled against God, rejected His Word, and sought to do things their way.  Today, we increasingly see a rejection of God's Word for an increasing reliance on ourselves to achieve our own salvation.  This will only end in destruction, and could possibly be leading to the End of Times as relayed to us in the Book of Revelations.

The Tower of Babel
(Please reference Genesis 9:1-17 and 11:1-9)

In the days after the Flood, the Lord instructed Noah and his descendants to "Be fruitful and multiply.  Fill the earth."  (Genesis 9:1)  The Lord also established a covenant with humans promising that he would never again destroy mankind with a flood, placing his signature in the sky as a rainbow to forever remind us of this covenant.  

However, humans under the reign of Nimrod in the area of Babylon refused to scatter and fill the earth, instead seeking to remain where they were and build a tower so that they would make themselves "famous" and prevent their scattering--all in direct opposition to the will of God.  Jewish tradition as relayed by Josephus also describes that through his “leadership” Nimrod turned the people away from God by creating in them the fear of a non-existent problem--that God would flood the world again, even though God made a covenant with humans that he would not.  Therefore, the people had to trust in Nimrod and the construction of a tall, water-tight tower to protect them from God's wrath.  By creating this fear and turning the people from God, he was able to create what was perhaps the very first tyrannical government after the Flood.

Similarly today, we see fear of a non-existent problem being stirred up in humans--the fear of a global catastrophe brought on by "climate change.”  Because humans the world over stand accused of creating the climate change that will bring disaster to our entire planet, this situation will require a world-wide government to control the behavior of all humans in order to stave off our impending doom.  And thus we see the return of the “Tower of Babel” in another device used to frighten humanity into voluntarily accepting its submission to human tyranny in the form of a One World Government.

Mechanism for Control

So at this point let us assume that the establishment of a One World Government is already underway.  For a government, especially a tyrannical one, to function properly, it needs a mechanism to control its subjects that is appropriate to the scope of its duties and the size of the population it seeks to dominate.  As evidenced within “Agenda 21” planning, the One World Government seeks nothing less than total control of humanity.  However, the human population is enormous and growing, so one must subdivide the population into more manageable groupings and work to reverse the growth trend and actively seek its decline. 

Regional Groups

To attempt to control every independent nation of the world from a central point would be extremely difficult, for the span of control would be too great.  It would be much easier to rule a structure that consisted of a hierarchy of national groupings.  If you examine “Agenda 21” planning, they seek to force their ideas on individual nations through the use of intermediate, unelected regional organizations.  

We see evidence of this regionalization in the existence of organizations like NATO, the African Union, the European Union (EU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the theoretical (for now) North American Union.  If you consolidate the maps of all these regional organizations, the resultant map would cover almost the entire world, laying down a layer of intermediate control for the One World Government.

World Military Force

For a One World Government to enforce compliance with its polices and wield power, it must be able to employ military force.  When we examine the United Nations, it does not have a military force of its own, but must rely on member states to take military action on their behalf.  So if the UN is indeed in the process of increasingly consolidating power over the world unto itself, it will be seeking to have more control over the use of military force.

As centralized control increases, the use of unilateral military action to protect the critical interests of only one nation will be condemned.  Instead, action must be taken as a collective to force nations to submit to the will of the One World Government.  For instance, the actions of NATO in Afghanistan, Libya and potentially Syria, and African Union actions on their continent could each be argued as being conducted on behalf of the world body.

When you look at these operations, they are not always in the critical national interests of the states taking military action.  The actions in Libya and potentially Syria are being done with the purpose of deposing Arab autocrats and smoothing the way for the control of the Muslim Brotherhood and the eventual establishment of a Caliphate (to be further discussed in the next section).  So when you see military actions that do not clearly support national security, then perhaps that military force is being employed for the benefit of the United Nations for the maintenance of order within, and the expansion of, their system of global governance.

Islamic Ideology

The Islamic ideology is a curious element within the design of a One World Government, for it actually has the potential to greatly enhance that system.  This enhancement can be done in two ways: (1) the One World Government completely adopts the ideology as a control mechanism, or (2) uses the intolerance and inherent violence of the ideology to instill fear in the rest of the world who needs to rely on the One World Government to maintain order and provide protection.

I will begin with the characteristics of Islam that may lead the One World Government to choose it as the global ideology of control.  First, Islam is designed to be a perfect mechanism for the tyrannical control of humans.  Second, it has its own language (Arabic) intimately tied to it so that can potentially be used as a single world language.  Third, the followers of Islam are instructed to die for their ideology, which provides a ready source of “soldiers” and a useful tool to maintain control over the populations of the world.  Fourth, Islam teaches its followers to slay, convert, or subdue all non-Muslims over the whole planet, which reinforces point three.  Fifth, the followers of Islam are required to submit totally to the ideology.  What more would a One World Government need in an ideology to establish complete dominance?

The threat posed by the violence and intolerance of Islam gives the One World Government a second option to propagate fear amongst the world populations.  The World Government would then be called upon to impose peace and order on the world to prevent open warfare.  The only problem with this option is that the World Government would have to choose between defeating the ideology or forcing the rest of the world to tolerate it.   Based on this, I believe the World Government will adopt Islam as the ideology of world control.

America Must Submit (Or Be Destroyed)

America is the largest impediment to the creation of the One World Government.  First, it is currently the global superpower and enjoys its power.  Second, its citizenry are blessed with a number of freedoms that they will not freely surrender. Unfortunately, these freedoms are in opposition to the very nature of a world-wide control structure that would purposely not answer to the people of any nation.  Therefore, America must be forced to submit to the One World Government or face destruction.

Our belief in the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness given to us by our Creator retard any attempt to establish a One World Government.  Our freedoms of speech and religion, and our right to bear arms, must be eliminated to properly impose a One World Government on the American people.  Our belief in hard work, being rewarded for that work, and then being able to enjoy the fruits of our labor does not fit a one world construct.  Our belief in and trust of the God of the Bible immediately creates a natural distrust and disapproval of even the idea of a One World Government (as you are witnessing here in these words).  Thus you see the deliberate attacks on Christianity to destroy these beliefs.  At the end of the day, if we do not surrender our freedoms voluntarily, the world must destroy us.

The enormous national debt, which appears to be growing exponentially, is a ticking time bomb that, when it explodes, could pull the rug out from under the strength of America.  Agenda 21 is attempting to force America to put the brakes on its free-market capitalism by voluntarily limiting its use of natural resources and  submitting to a One World Government-imposed set of irrational restrictions to combat a non-existent problem (climate change).  Islam is another weapon which can be employed to conduct attacks within America (up to and including nuclear attacks) and facilitate internal collapse.

Israel Must Be Destroyed

By its very nature, the establishment of a One World Government is human rebellion against the God of the Bible.   As the Chosen People of the Living God, Israel must be destroyed because their very existence is an insult to the human One World Government and its faith in human brilliance instead of God’s.  Today we are witnessing the forces that will be used in an attempt to destroy Israel being marshaled.  Once again, Islam provides the One World Government with a useful tool since the Islamic ideology demands the elimination of the Jewish people.  Therefore, Islam will be the primary mechanism used to effect the destruction of Israel.

Conclusion: Resist Tyranny

In my opinion, it is very likely that we are seeing the end of history approaching.  The establishment of a One World Government under the control of humans, and its inevitable failure, will be the final proof that we as humans do not know better than God, and that He is the One in charge of history.
Perhaps I am giving these folks and the idea of the creation of a One World Government too much credit, but I would rather assume the worst case than hope that the problem goes away on its own. 
With that being said, we must resist the establishment of a government that at its very core rejects God and His will.  We must resist a government that denies us our right to determine our own course, our right to have our own elected officials who are answerable to the people and no one else, and the right to enjoy our freedoms.  The One World Government seeks to rob us of these.  The One World Government is our enemy.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department. 

Our Vulnerable Religious Freedoms

Our greatest National strengths can also be our biggest points of vulnerability. I have written earlier that our freedom of expression, freedom of equal protection as citizens, and the “wall of separation” between church and state in the United States, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments, is vulnerable to being undermined for one specific reason. Our nation has never attempted to define what constitutes a religion.

Today Islamists have succeeded in hijacking Islam from Islamic moderates. The voices of the moderate Muslims calling out and condemning these Islamist terrorists is virtually absent or so highly nuanced as to appear deliberately ambiguous. We must therefore conclude that moderate Muslims have lost or given up control of the religion of Islam. There have been many excuses offered as to why this silence exists, but the end result is a fact. Islam is now controlled by those who wish to establish a world-wide government (Caliphate) under Sharia law.

Islam, once a religion of peace, has become perverted by those Islamists who have turned Islam into a terrorist political movement that is inimical to all secular nations. Unless moderate Muslims speak out Now, and speak out loudly against these Islamist terrorists, we must ask this next question. Should Islam even be considered a religion any longer or should it be considered a dangerous and hostile political movement?

Today, Henry Porter, (The Observer) wrote “Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin,” as he reflects on the effect of the Islamists call for a few beheadings in Britain.

ISLAMIC terror cells in Britain have been instructed to carry out a series of kidnappings and beheadings of the kind allegedly planned by the nine terrorist suspects arrested in Birmingham last week.

Porter wrote (bold added by me):

I suspect the lack of outrage has a lot to do with the degree of separate development that has taken place in Britain while so many of us were living the multiculturalist dream. Whatever Muslims say, the standards that most British institutions live by simply do not apply to the missionaries of Saudi fundamentalism who, . . .are attempting to poison relations between Muslims, Christians and Jews in Britain and to establish what amounts to a separate community under Sharia law.

. . . Again, I stress the majority of Muslims wish to live peacefully and integrate into British society. This was emphasised by the Policy Exchange report last week which was written by three researchers, two of whom have Muslims backgrounds. 'The majority of Muslims,' says the report, 'feel they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain as with Muslims abroad.' Nearly two- thirds of Muslims would prefer to send their children to a mixed state school, compared with the 35 per cent who would prefer to use Islamic schools. And well over a third agree that one of the benefits of modern society is the freedom to criticise other people's religions or political views, a much higher proportion than I would ever have guessed.

It is a shrewd and balanced study that needs careful reading. 'By treating Muslims as a homogenous group,' it says, 'the government fails to see the diversity of opinions among Muslims.' So while 84 per cent of Muslims say they have been treated fairly in our society, 75 per cent of young Muslims want women to wear the veil, one in eight expressed some admiration for al-Qaeda and 40 per cent want to live under Sharia law.

Minette Marrin wrote (highlights added by me) “We're far too nice to Muslim extremists”

. . . The usual immigrant experience of gradual integration has failed for more than a third of Muslims. All the exhaustive and intrusive efforts of the race relations industry have been counter-productive.

The Policy Exchange report argues that this alienation is largely due to more than 20 years of official multiculturalism. This benighted orthodoxy has emphasised differences and divisions and promoted a sense of grievance that is sometimes almost paranoid. This amounts to full-blown victimhood, whipped up not just by Muslim spokesmen but also by non-Muslim journalists and commentators and human rights activists in the victim industry, who complain, in defiance of the evidence, of growing Islamophobic attacks and persistent police harassment; they make comparisons with Nazi Germany. The mayor of London, no less, called at a recent conference for an end to the “media’s orgy of Islamophobia”.

Why have we been so reluctant to define religion, or more specifically, to define the difference between a religion and a hostile political movement? The following passage is a good reason, but good reasons (or excuses) now pale to the daunting task ahead. We must make every effort to define religion or watch this great national ship go down to the coming Caliphate. Doubters, what part of “Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States,” don’t you understand?

Is there any way that religion, and the religiousness of people, can be separated from government and the role of people in government? Can religion and government co-exist without crossing over each others' boundaries? What are those boundaries? What exactly is the separation of church and state?

. . .In the end, the 1st Amendment not only prevents the establishment of a national religion, but it also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit.

Jules Crittenden has written “Battlefied Shifts Westward”?
. . .many countries in Europe are on the verge of internal “wars” with Islamic radicals (though many will probably fight them with law enforcement and special anti-terror units rather than predominantly military force). And in fact, I have been long-arguing (most recently, here) that the multiculturalist social philosophy in much of Europe (Britain, Denmark, Germany many other EU countries)—with the hypernationalism (and anti-assimilationist snobbery) of countries like France acting as philosophical outliers—has been laying the groundwork for war from within by Islamists on their host countries. . . .

Here’s why the 1st Amendment just isn’t sufficient!

Let me quote from an earlier article, An “Honest” Terrorist Writes: “No Muslim Can Pledge Loyalty to the Constitution”

Read the words of Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.

I submit that the corollary to Blackmun’s statement might go like this:

(1) When a government fails to define what constitutes a religion it conveys a message to all that any ideology can pass for religion, and that freedom of religious expression supercedes all other freedoms and overrules all duties of government – specifically the primary duty of government to protect its citizens from harm.

(2) When a government fails to define what constitutes a religion, any ideology with intent to destroy the very constitutional protections it enjoys can hide in plain view while actively undermining the very system of government that gives it protection.

In December I suggested a proposed amendment to the Constitution in my article Keith Ellison, Islam, American Sovereignty : Should we Amend the Constitution?

I submit for example: “No person shall hold any office or public Trust under the United States who adheres to or gives allegiance to any religion, ideology, or organization which by word, nature, association, or action has shown intent to undermine the sovereignty of these United States!”

Let me assure the politically sensitive accommodators, the complacent dreamers, the religiously plural, the historically illiterate, the morally relative, the inane multiculturalists, and the useful idiots on the left, that once enough “peace-loving” Islamists masquerading as moderate Muslims gain a foot-hold in our nation’s state legislatures and congress, changes WILL come to our laws – and it won’t be pretty. It will be Sharia!

Trackposted to Wake Up America, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, stikNstein... has no mercy, basil's blog, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Adam's Blog, Pursuing Holiness, and Gone Hollywood, Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.