Stand Up to Anti-Constitution & Anti-Christian Multiculturalists

John R. Houk

© January 2, 2016

Nearly a month ago Attorney General Loretta Lynch told a group of Muslims in a public speech that the Department of Justice would go after anyone that used anti-Muslim rhetoric. After being busted publicly Lynch walked back her anti-Muslim rhetoric speech in a slight of hand clarification saying she meant those who followed rhetoric with acts of violence.

You know after the example of her predecessor Eric Holder looking the other way when the New Black Panthers intimidated voters at a polling station, sent a Federal investigation to Ferguson to manipulate the law on exonerated Officer Darren Wilson as just a few examples. Lynch has just kept rolling along with questionable Constitutional actions.

And yet when the Ferguson riots occurred, More New Black Panther intimidation, Black Lives Matter hatred of local law enforcement, Islamic terrorism more often noted as work place violence and so on; America has endured SEVEN years of a do-nothing Obama and DOJ.

Here is a relevant thought at HotAir.com:

 To be honest, I’m not sure my headline captures what she’s saying. Watch the clip and ask yourself if she’s talking about hateful acts or hateful speech. Not so clear, is it? She mentions speech and rhetoric and the First Amendment but she keeps coming back to prosecuting actions. If all she’s saying is that she’ll charge anyone who acts violently towards Muslims, that’s not newsworthy. That’s her doing her job. If what she’s saying is that she’ll charge anyone who speaks violently about Muslims, that’s something else. (Loretta Lynch: We will prosecute hateful rhetoric about Muslims that “edges towards violence”; By AllahPundit; Hot Air; 12/4/15 4:01 PM)

VIDEO: TRUNEWS VIDEO: AG Loretta Lynch to Prosecute 'Anti-Muslim Speech'

Posted by TRUNEWS with Rick Wiles 

Published on Dec 4, 2015 

 WWW.TRUNEWS.COM 

Attorney-General Loretta Lynch To Prosecute 'Anti-Muslim Speech'
TRUNEWS anchor Kelly Sloan files this report on comments that US Attorney-General Loretta Lynch made at a recent Muslim Advocates meeting, saying that in addition to prosecuting violent actions, she fully intend to go after those that speak 'anti-muslim rhetoric'. In the comments, she boasts about the number of actions already taken by the Obama Administration. 

See AG Lynch attempt to dial back her comments at a later event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4-szKATbN4

Islam by its own nature needs to be ridiculed because its precepts and concepts would not stand up to the U.S. Constitution. That is unless some Leftist Multiculturalist invokes the Living Constitution fallacy that the Constitution must be interpreted by what the State calls culturally common rather than the Founding Fathers Original Intent.

Here is an example of the Quran telling its adherents to act toward non-Muslims who Insult Allah, Mo or Islam:

The Qur'an: 

 Quran (6:93) - "Who can be more wicked than one who invent a lie against Allah?"  If the death penalty is prescribed for lesser crime, then it stands to reason that it should be imposed for the most "wicked". 

 Quran (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and has prepared for them the doom of the disdained” 

 Quran (33:61) - [continues from above] "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." (Insulting Islam; The Religion of Peace)

On a personal level will not be pulling back from what Islam stands for; viz., calling Christianity and its ungodly for being a religion that believes Jesus Christ was the Son of God, crucified to death and arising bodily in a glorified body in the Lord’s Resurrection.

Jesus called Himself the "Son of God" throughout the Gospels, (John 3:16-18), and the disciples also identified Him as the Son of God in their writings, (Rom 1:3). Further, Jesus identified Himself as God revealed in the flesh, (John 8:58), and His disciples identified Him as God, (John 1:1, Phil 2:5-11).  How could Jesus be The Son of God, and God at the same time?  What does this term - "Son of God" mean?  And if Jesus is the Son, in what way is Jesus God's Son?  Did God have physical relations with Mary and get her pregnant? 

 Many Muslims do not understand what this term, according to Christian theology, actually means.  They have asked me these or similar questions.  This paper focuses on what the term "Son of God" signifies in Christian theology with respect to Muslim understanding. 

 MUSLIMS AND THE SON OF GOD 

            Muhammad, the founder of Islam, misunderstood what the term "Son of God" meant with respect to Christianity.  He thought of it only in terms of sexual reproduction, i.e. that God fathered a child through sexual intercourse with Mary.  Therefore he spoke out against it. 

 Christians also reject that God had physical intercourse with Mary, but we understand Christ being God's Son as an analogical term.  We believe that the eternal Son of God, one with the Father from all eternity, united to Him in one Spirit, "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), and took "the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7).  We believe in the incarnation of the Son of God. 

  Muhammad did hear the Christians proclaim Jesus the Messiah as God's Son, but understanding or not, he specifically denied that Jesus was the Son of God. He said in the Quran, … (JESUS THE "SON" OF GOD; By Silas; Answering Islam)

And here is one example of many in the Quran denying the Son of God in Jesus Christ:

29	Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

30	The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

31

They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

32	Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).

33	It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

34

O ye who believe! there are indeed many among the priests and anchorites, who in Falsehood devour the substance of men and hinder (them) from the way of Allah. And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah: announce unto them a most grievous penalty- (Quran 9: 29-34 Search Truth Quran)

This makes Islam an antichrist religion and will continue to criticize the theopolitical religion. By the way, denying Christ as the Son of God is just one example of Islam’s anti-Christian nature.

John’s Gospel 3 

 ¹² If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? ¹³ No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.^[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵ that whoever believes in Him should not perish but^[b] have eternal life. ¹⁶ For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷ For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
¹⁸ “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 

 1 John 2 

 ²² Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. ²³ Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 

 1 John 4 

 ¹ Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. ² By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, ³ and every spirit that does not confess that^[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (John 3: 12-18; 1 John 2: 22-23; 4: 1-3 NKJV) 

This TRUE Word of God illustrates Islam as a demon’s spawn religion. I will thus not fear to criticize Islam due to its threats and will stand against Leftist spewing unconstitutional threats as from Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

I finish with the little over a minute passion of the Joe Walsh Show toward AG Lynch.

VIDEO: Loretta Lynch: "Prosecute Me"

Posted by The Joe Walsh Show 

Published on Dec 5, 2015 

 More at http://www.walshfreedom.comFacebook page at http://facebook.com/joewalshFollow on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/walshfreedom 

The day after Muslim terrorists killed 14 Americans, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed to prosecute anyone who uses "anti-Muslim rhetoric" that "edges toward violence." 

What the hell does that mean? I have a 1st Amendment right, Ms Lynch, to say whatever I want about Muslims. 

You want to try and prosecute me for what I say? I dare you. Here goes: 

Most Muslims around the world are terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Sharia Law. They are our enemy. I don't want them in America. Any Muslim that won't assimilate should get the hell out of America. Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed. If "Moderate" Muslims don't speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country. I hope there is a backlash against Muslims because Islam, as practiced by most Muslims, is not a religion of peace, and all of us who do live in peace should do whatever we can to defeat Islam. 

There Ms Lynch. As an American, I have a right to say everything I just did. And I will continue to speak the truth about Islam in the hopes that others will wake up to this truth and do what we can to defeat this evil in our midst. 

Is that "anti-Muslim rhetoric" that "edges toward violence". Go ahead and prosecute me. I dare you.

JRH 1/2/16 (Hat Tip: Apollo farsyker

American Infidel Alliance)

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Let us embrace our friends

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL-8) just became one of heroes in Congress. I found an article by Caroline Glick extolling a recent Walsh article in the Washington Times proclaiming the obvious – NO Palestinian State should be created because Arabs that call themselves Palestinian are Jew-hating terrorists as a population devoted to Israel’s destruction. Because of this Israel should formally annex the area known to Israelis as Judea-Samaria and encourage the Arabs living there to migrate to Jordan since that nation was originally set up as part of the British Mandate for Palestine and given sovereignty under the Hashemite family as the ruling Monarchy. Really Walsh did not write in that tone. I just took the liberty to add my two-cents due to Walsh’s analysis.

JRH 5/19/12

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 - Donations are not tax deductible but are appreciated to help with the bills.

***********************************

Let us embrace our friends

By Caroline Glick

May 18, 2012, 2:33 AM

CarolineGlick.com

Two weeks ago, US Congressman Joe Walsh published an op-ed in the The Washington Times in which he called for the US and Israel to abandon the two-state solution.

After running through the record of Palestinian duplicity, failed governance, terrorism and bad faith, he called for Israel to apply its sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. In his words, Israel should "adopt the only solution that will bring true peace to the Middle East: a single Israeli state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Israel is the only country in the region dedicated to peace and the only power capable of stable, just and democratic government in the region."

The evidence that the two-state paradigm has failed is overwhelming. The Palestinians' decision to reject statehood at Camp David in 2000 and launch a terror war against Israel made clear that they had not abandoned their refusal from 1947 to accept partition of the Land of Israel with the Jews.

So, too, the Palestinians' election of Hamas in the 2006 elections, and their missile war against Israel from Gaza in the aftermath of Israel's complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, all made clear that they are not interested in a Palestinian state. Rather, their chief desire is Israel's annihilation.

Consequentially, there is no chance whatsoever that the two state paradigm can work.

Indeed, the fact that there is no Palestinian leader willing to recognize Israel's right to exist makes clear that if a Palestinian state is established in Judea and Samaria - in addition to the de facto Palestinian state in Gaza - that state will be in state of war with Israel. All territory under its control will be used to attack the rump Jewish state.

Given the abject failure of the two-state paradigm, it is abundantly clear that for all the complications that may be associated with the application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, it is a better option for Israel than Israeli surrender of the areas.

Walsh's op-ed is not his first statement of support for Israeli annexation. Last September, ahead of the UN general assembly, Walsh authored Congressional Resolution 394 supporting Israel's right to annex Judea and Samaria in the event that the Palestinians asked the UN to recognize a Palestinian state outside the framework of a peace treaty with Israel. Forty-four other congressmen co-sponsored the resolution.

And this makes sense.

The Palestinians' decision to turn the issue of Palestinian statehood over to the UN constituted a substantive breach of the treaties the PLO signed with Israel. Those agreements stipulated that both sides agreed that their conflict would be solved through negotiations and not through unilateral actions. By ending negotiations with Israel and turning the issue of statehood over to the UN, the Palestinians canceled their treaties with Israel. Consequently, Israel is no longer bound by those accords and is free to take its own unilateral actions, including applying its laws to Judea and Samaria as it did in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the past.

FOR HIS unstinting support for Israel, Walsh has been subject to an unbridled assault by leftist American Jews. Ron Kampeas from JTA, for instance, attacked Walsh, accusing him of being no different than Israel's enemies who seek to destroy Israel by ending its ability to define itself as a Jewish state through what they refer to as the "one-state solution."

Kampeas blasted Walsh for suggesting that Palestinians unwilling to live under Israeli rule could move to Jordan which, with its 75-percent Palestinian majority, is effectively the Palestinian state. To back up his condemnation, Kampeas quoted Robert Wright's excoriation of Walsh in The Atlantic.

There Wright wrote, "Offhand, I don't recall a member of Congress in my lifetime saying anything so grotesquely at odds with American ideals about ethnic relations and for that matter basic human rights."

For its part, the Jewish-run anti-Israel lobby J Street is mobilizing its supporters to bring about Walsh's defeat in the November elections by soliciting contributions to his Democratic challenger. J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami wrote that "Walsh's prescription amounts to a call for an end to Israel as the democratic home of the Jewish people."

It is hard to know where to begin a discussion of this assault in which Jewish Americans attacked one of Israel's strongest supporters simply because he had the temerity to recognize reality and call for the US to support an Israeli victory against our enemies who seek our destruction.

First, it is important to consider the claim that Walsh went against the grain of American ideals by suggesting, "Those Palestinians who wish to may leave their Fatah- and Hamas-created slums and move to the original Palestinian state: Jordan. The British Mandate for Palestine created Jordan as the country for the Palestinians. That is the only justification for its creation. Even now, 75% of its population is of Palestinian descent."

The fact of the matter is that the two-state paradigm rests on the assumption that the Palestinian state will be ethnically cleansed of Jews before it is established. Whereas Walsh somehow stands in opposition to American ideals for suggesting that the Palestinians may voluntarily immigrate to Jordan, Kampeas, Ben- Ami and their cohorts have no problem with the concept of a Jew-free Palestine and the forcible expulsion of up to 675,000 Jews from their homes in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem simply because they are Jewish.

Aside from their pernicious hypocrisy and moral blindness, what stands out in their assaults on Walsh is that they cannot tell the difference between Israel's enemies that seek its destruction through the so-called one-state solution, and Israel's friends, who want it to defeat its enemies and live with security and peace. For the likes of Kampeas and Ben-Ami, there is no difference between Walsh and Israel's worst enemies.

PART OF this problem is their apparent unquestioning acceptance of the myth of a demographic time bomb. They seem not to have noticed that the Palestinian claim that by 2015 there will be an Arab majority west of the Jordan River is a complete fabrication.

The truth is that if Israel applied its laws to Judea and Samaria tomorrow and all the Palestinians in those areas received Israeli citizenship, Israel would still retain a two-thirds Jewish majority. Moreover, all the demographic trends for Israel, including increasing birthrates and positive immigration rates, are positive. And all the demographic trends for the Palestinians, including decreasing birthrates and negative immigration rates, are negative. According to Israeli demographic researcher Yoram Ettinger, by 2030, Jewish will likely comprise 80% of the population of Israel, Judea and Samaria.

So Ben-Ami's argument that Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria means the end of Israeli democracy is simply incorrect.

But aside from their hypocrisy and refusal to accept simple arithmetic realities, what stands out most clearly in these leftist American Jews' assault on Walsh is how they have become addicted to the fable of the two-state solution. Their addiction to this fable - that argues that after a century of Palestinian devotion to the annihilation of Israel, the Palestinians are suddenly willing to meet Israel halfway - is what propels these Jewish activists to attack anyone who points out reality. It is what drives them to brand as a foe anyone with the temerity to suggest a better way forward.

The beauty of the two-state fable is that it puts the onus to make peace on Israel's shoulders.

If it is true that the Palestinians want to make peace, then Israel must make peace. And if all the Palestinians require to make peace is for Israel to quit Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, then that is what Israel must do, together with the 675,000 Jews who live there.

The real tragedy is of course not that the likes of Kampeas and Ben-Ami maintain faith with the fairy tale of Palestinian willingness to live at peace with Israel. The real tragedy is that this myth has been the official policy of the government of Israel for the past 19 years. Since then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin launched the peace process with Yasser Arafat in September 1993, to greater or lesser degrees, every Israeli government has kept faith with the two-state solution lie.

It hasn't mattered that the Palestinians rejected statehood and peace not once, but twice. It hasn't mattered that the Palestinians received Gaza lock, stock and barrel with no strings attached and used the territory to launch an illegal missile war against Israeli civilians. The fact that both Arafat and his supposedly moderate successor Mahmoud Abbas rejected partition and maintained their devotion to Israel's destruction did not stop Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from bowing to US pressure and embracing this fool's game.

People like Kampeas are the first to bemoan Israel's sorry state in the realm of public diplomacy. They decry Israel's hasbara efforts as pathetic and failed. But what they fail to acknowledge is that it is the two-state trap that makes the construction and execution of an effective public diplomacy strategy impossible.

To maintain faith with this failed policy, Israel's leaders and representatives are not merely required to ignore the history of the past 90 years of Palestinian rejection and aggression.

They are required to ignore current events.

They are forced to ignore not just what happened in 1947, but what happened at 7 o'clock in the morning.

And this brings us back to Rep. Walsh. There may be things to criticize about Walsh's policy argument. For instance, he calls for the conferral of "limited voting power" on the Palestinians under Israeli sovereignty. In truth, there is no reason for them to receive anything but full voting rights.

But you have to be blind to reality to view him as anything other than a friend of Israel.

Happily, not everyone in Israel remains paralyzed. Members of Knesset have launched repeated attempts in recent months to debate legislation calling for Israel to apply its sovereignty over all or parts of Judea and Samaria. Next Wednesday, MK Miri Regev is holding a conference to launch a new Knesset caucus calling for the adoption of this policy.

IN RECENT years, poll after poll has shown that the majority of Israelis do not believe that the two-state paradigm will bring peace or that if a Palestinian state is formed, it will live at peace with Israel.

And yet, because of the choke-hold that Kampeas and Ben-Ami's Israeli counterparts have held over the national discourse, the Israeli people have been given no other option to consider. Rather, we have been told over and over again that giving our enemies a veto over our rights, land and security is the only alternative.

Walsh and the 44 congressmen who co-sponsored his resolution are Israel's friends. We should take heart in their willingness to buck consensus and support us. And we should give careful and responsible consideration to their reasonable and supportive policy recommendations.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

____________________________

© 2012 Caroline Glick

About Caroline Glick

I grew up in Chicago's ultra-liberal, anti-American and anti-Israel stronghold of Hyde Park. Hyde Park's newest famous resident is Barack Obama. He fits right into a neighborhood I couldn't wait to leave.

I made aliyah to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving my BA in Political Science from Beir Zeit on the Hudson -- otherwise known as Columbia University. I joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years.

From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, I served as Coordinator of Negotiations with the PLO in the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In this capacity I was a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians.

After leaving the IDF at the end of 1996, I worked as the assistant to the Director General of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

I then returned to geo-politics serving as … Read the Rest