First Amendment Horns of a Dilemma Concerning Islam

John R. Houk
© July 22, 2010

Islam is as much political as it is religious. Because of this there is a Constitutional dilemma pertaining to Islam with the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment via Cornell University)

The First Amendment clauses that makes Islam a dilemma are the “… making no law respecting an establishment of religion,” making no law “… prohibiting the free exercise” of religion or making any law that abridges “… the freedom of speech.”

The First Amendment clause has often been misinterpreted (via judicial fiat) that religion and State must be separated in an absolute sense. I have riled on this judicial fiat that nowhere exists in the Constitution neither is it found in the defining intent of the Federalist Papers about the Constitution.

Hence I have argued that Congress (ergo the Federal government) cannot establish a State Religion (the actual intent is not establishing a Christian Church) as the religion of the United States of America. Religion (particularly Christian) on the other hand can be an influence on the direction of the rule of law nationally and the communities in which local (city and county) customs that religiously encourage better citizenship morally and ethically via employment of public prayers in publicly supported institutions, historically revered words such as the Ten Commandments, the symbolism of the Cross on public land, pictures of Biblical law givers such as Moses or community supported festivals that effect peace on earth and individual comfort such as Christmas or Easter.

Yes I am pushing Christianity for it was Christians seeking liberty in worship and proselytizing without worry of persecution which became the foundation of the rule of law in the 13 Colonies and then the new Constitutional United States of America. Thus the First Amendment restricting the establishment of a State Church does not restrict any Christian Church from influencing government on a Federal, State and local level.

So here is where I get controversial. Islam and its Sharia Law are in no part in the Original Intent in the framework as the rule of law in the U.S. Constitution. Islam frowns on Freedom of Speech. Islam frowns on the free interaction of individual choice of religion. Islam is politically a Supremacist religion to the point of calling for the death of those who refuse to convert, for those that decide Islam is not for them (apostates), institutes the male gender as superior politically and culturally over the female gender (meaning women are chattel to their husbands to be sexually as the male please or no equal rights politically and raped women are punished among other demeaning assertions toward women) and any criticism of Mohammed, Islamic faith and Allah is viewed as an insult worthy of death.

So you see the political aspects of Islam are diametrically opposed to the American way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. In Islam the political ideology of that religion are coeval to the theological aspects that teach inner peace and decent moral practices on an individual basis. In this aspect Islam is prohibitive of individual Liberty and is all about mandating a collective will of action.

The American dilemma is that Islam is a religion and our society is based tolerating all religions even if it is inimical to the Christian foundations of America. We Americans want to believe the best for Islam in that it is a faith that offers spiritual comfort and a way of life that betters humanity in general. Thus as America has evolved past prejudices of other cultures; a general dislike dissolved for say Buddhism, Hinduism or the multiple other religions that seek an inner peace via a personal god or a release from a perceived circle of life that merely perpetuates suffering until some kind of enlightenment kicks one off the repeating wheel toward an ascension to a higher being that eventually merges with the ONE.

The problem of Islam is that adherents are told to spread their faith on a peaceful invitation followed by political action to force an enveloping supremacism in which the non-Muslim lives in a state of humiliation, opts for Islamic conversion or physical death.

Muslims living as a minority in the West and America emphasize the peaceful religious fulfillment aspects of their faith but rarely share the full intent of Mohammed’s global spread of Islam which is not pretty. Islam as a religion represents everything European Christians fled from in which to avoid State Church persecution for divergent practices of the Christian religion.

Islam is an anti-First Amendment religion utilizing the First Amendment to gain a foothold in America. Islam is an anti-First Amendment religion that preys on the idiocy of America’s Left that multicultural diversity is better than E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, ONE). Islam is a classic example of how multicultural diversity enshrines cultural enclaves in America that refuse to join the great melting pot that has unified America rather than fracture our culture.

For Islam to become a First Amendment protected religion, the coeval political aspects that subvert the American way of life must be viewed legally as an ideology intent on overthrowing the American Constitution rather than supporting it as the rule of law in America. Can that be done?

Most on the Left will be horrified at such a lawful separation of the theological from the political. The Right would not be horrified but reluctant to pursue such an action because it could open a can of worms toward suppression of legitimate religions looking out for the individual spirituality rather than the illegitimate political collective that specifically seeks physical rule of peoples and nations.

That is the horns of a dilemma America faces with Islam.

Perhaps this Ryan Mauro article about American Muslim enclaves existing in a multicultural diverse manner exhibiting the political aspects of Islam rather than the E Pluribus Unum aspects of American unity might narrow the gap between the horns concerning Islam in America.

JRH 7/22/10
*****************************
Muslim Enclaves U.S.A.
Building the American Caliphate, One Enclave at a Time

By Ryan Mauro
Islamist Watch
Originally: FrontPage Magazine
July 9, 2010

It seems almost unthinkable, but Islamist groups are, as we speak, hard at work creating Muslim states-within-states in the U.S. Indeed, this process has been unfolding for a long time across the Western world, through the creation of isolated Muslim enclaves in both rural and urban areas, as well as through the designation of "no-go zones" where governments admit to having little authority over Muslims living there, essentially leaving them to function as autonomous regions.

Daniel Pipes has tracked numerous examples since 2004 of Muslim groups working to create communities based solely on Islam and run by Shari'a law. As discussed by David Kennedy Houck in 2006, "Although such concepts are antithetical to a free society, U.S. democracy allows the internal enclave to function beyond the established boundaries of our constitutional framework."

For example, one such community, Gwynn Oak, has been created in Baltimore, Maryland, consisting of Muslim immigrants and African-American converts. The project is led by John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative. Cason explained that the neighborhood is a response to the problem that "Muslim communities are ruled by Western societal tenets, many of which clash with Islamic norms." In his opinion, there is a need for communities with "the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure." As such, the Gwynn Oak enclave follows specific moral rules based on Islam and people there speak Arabic. On September 13, 2009, the construction of its three-story mosque began. Approximately 400 Muslims now live in the vicinity.

Another example involves the Islamic Center for Human Excellence, which receives funding from the United Arab Emirates. In August 2004, it was granted permission to build a Muslim neighborhood in Little Rock, Arkansas, complete with a mosque, school, and 22 homes; it would not allow the presence of alcohol. The goal was for Muslims to find an area to escape the alleged crime and depravity of American life, although the imam behind the effort said that non-Muslims are welcome to join.

Far more radical groups than these are now taking the lead in promoting and creating Islamic enclaves on U.S. soil.

One such organization is As-Sabiqun, headed by Imam Abdul Alim Musa, who is very honest about his disturbing objectives. The group's website calls for installing Islamic law worldwide, fighting for "oppressed" Muslims, and "build[ing] model communities where Islam is lived." The website contains a point-by-point plan to assemble mini-states in America, beginning with the construction of a mosque and finishing with "establishing geographical integrity by encouraging Muslims of the community to live in close proximity to the masjid [mosque]" and "establishing social welfare institutions."

The ideology espoused by Musa and As-Sabiqun is undeniably radical. The website boasts about Musa's early endorsement of Ayatollah Khomeini and the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. It also is unafraid to say that As-Sabiqun members follow people like Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood; Maulana Mawdudi, who called on Muslims to wage jihad until Shari'a law is in place over the globe; and Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood member whose preaching inspired Osama bin Laden. Musa himself has argued that the CIA and Israel were behind the 9/11 attacks. He has admitted that he "like[s]" bin Laden, calls Hezbollah "a great organization," and says Hamas members are "very nice people."

Muslims of the Americas, led by Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani in Pakistan, is a very similar group with very similar aims, though its focus is more rural than urban. It admits to owning at least 22 "villages" around the country that are dozens of acres large and operate under names like "Islamberg," "Holy Islamville," and "Aliville." These Muslim-only lands are open to outsiders solely during planned outreach events and sometimes to journalists.

This group has received considerable media attention due to allegations that its isolated compounds are used for paramilitary training, an accusation bolstered by a videotape released by the Christian Action Network. On that tape, a speaker is seen declaring the U.S. a Muslim country and pledging that Muslims of the Americas will defend American Muslims from foreign and domestic enemies.

The ideology of Muslims of the Americas is comparable to that of As-Sabiqun, although it is more centered on following Gilani as a representative of God who is capable of creating miracles. Gilani is very anti-Semitic, describing Jews as "an example of human Satans"; like Musa, he insists that a Jewish-Zionist conspiracy is behind the attacks of September 11, 2001, and other schemes to harm Muslims. He calls bin Laden a "Saudi activist," while claiming to meet with Jesus and personally to have introduced the Mahdi to a select few.

The Department of Homeland Security says that Muslims of the Americas is linked to Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani terrorist group. The State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism report (original link broken) in 1998 described ul-Fuqra as an "Islamic sect that seeks to purify Islam through violence." Other fronts for the group include the International Quranic Open University, the United Muslim-Christian Forum, the Islamic Post newspaper, the Muslim Scouts of America, the Hands to Hands charity, Muslim Vets, the American Muslim Medical and Relief Team, and the Islamic Naat Group.

Another collective aspiring to create autonomous Muslim regions in the U.S. is called the Ummah. On October 28, 2009, the FBI tried to arrest one of its leaders, Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah, for his involvement in criminal activity alongside some of his followers. A shootout ensued that took the life of Abdullah and one police dog. Like Muslims of the Americas, Abdullah offered his flock martial arts training and, in some cases, firearms instruction. He also had his own armed security team and preached war against the U.S. government and solidarity with bin Laden, the Taliban, and Hezbollah.

The FBI describes the Ummah as a "nationwide radical fundamentalist Sunni group consisting mainly of African-Americans" and says that its goal is to create "a separate, sovereign Islamic state ('the Ummah') within the borders of the United States, governed by Shari'a law. The Ummah is to be ruled over by Jamil Abdullah al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown." The death of Luqman Ameen Abdullah did not destroy this aim.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood and its American affiliates are not directly trying to create Islam-based towns within the U.S., they are helpful to the efforts to do so. The Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan branch rushed to Abdullah's defense and the American Muslim Taskforce demanded an investigation into his death. In addition, various Brotherhood affiliates have given Musa speaking platforms, including at major universities.

Also involved is Kenny Gamble, a major music producer who now goes by the name of Luqman Abdul Haqq. Gamble has been accused of trying to create a "black Muslim enclave" in Philadelphia, closely following the plan put forth by As-Sabiqun. Notably, he has a leadership position with the Muslim Alliance in North America; Abdullah also served as a leader of MANA and Musa's name was once listed there, but has since been removed. This suggests some level of cooperation among these groups and individuals for their common goals.

The possibility that Muslim-only towns and urban enclaves could be created inside the U.S. seems like a fantasy to most Americans at the moment, but there is precedent in Europe. The French government actually has a website where it tabulates 751 "sensitive urban zones," which have been accurately described as "no-go zones." In these areas, which are mostly populated by Muslim immigrants, there is a high level of crime and hostility to any governing authority, including law enforcement. Police officers do not regularly patrol the areas and they are as close to being autonomous regions as possible without the erecting of an actual parallel government.

The construction of the building blocks for similar Muslim enclaves and "no-go zones" in the U.S. is one of the most disturbing programs of Islamist groups. If successful, these territories will be the first to establish Shari'a law in the country, thus offering a profound challenge to America's constitutional order.
___________________________
First Amendment Horns of a Dilemma Concerning Islam
John R. Houk
© July 22, 2010
________________________
Muslim Enclaves U.S.A.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). This article was sponsored by Islamist Watch.

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

© 2007 - 2010 The Middle East Forum.

The Bully in the Playground of Nations

Norma Zager disparages President Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats and blind Jewish Democrats for still supporting BHO and the Dems in campaign contributions after BHO Foreign Policy denigrates Israel and its leader Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Zager is pleased (and so am I) that some Jews of means are refusing to contribute to the BHO and Dem election cause seeing the light of BHO’s anti-Israel policies. Zager is saddened that a great number of Jews of means place their Leftist politics above the survival of the Jewish National Home Land of Israel.

THIS IS A GOOD READ!

JRH 7/21/10

Attention Christians: This is a call for a New Christian Crusade to Defend the Faith

John R. Houk
© July 21, 2010

I have been very hard pressed to walk the line of being disgusted with the religion of Islam while giving Muslims the benefit of the doubt of being deceived people by a religion that is as political as it is theological. There is a saying among Christians: hate the sin and love the sinner.

The point is in hating the sin; the sinner will have the opportunity in their life to turn their life to faith in Christ even if it is their last breath. Believing that Jesus arose from the dead in bodily form (as opposed to spiritual) making a show openly in victory over Satan’s unjust evil world system leased to him by the First Adam thus defeating death. From death God the Father reasserted Life in the son of man from Mary’s lineage and the Son of God by the Incarnation of God the Second Person of the Triune God. Triune meaning God is ONE. Belief in the Resurrection is the New Covenant of Life by the loving God who was willing to risk the Second Person on the ONE Godhead by an emptying of divine attributes to become a man. The only way for God to save the World he so loved was to have an absolutely Just, sinless and righteous man sacrifice his life as payment to redeem the actions of the First Adam who subleased his charge to Satan. The sublease was an act of disobedience that separated Adam and Eve and their descendants from Union with God. Thus Adam felt naked for God’s Glory no longer clothed Adam.

The Last Adam Jesus Christ sacrificed His Life and Blood on the Cross to die with the sins of humanity imputed upon Him. The death of Jesus was an unjust act perpetuated by the lord of darkness. The Justice of God thus judged Satan’s lease over humanity had been broken. The Father enabled Life in Jesus returning His Perfect Spirit to be reunited with his human body in life. The human body of Jesus the Christ then became transformed as the Divine attributes that left at the Incarnation were reinstalled at the Bodily Resurrection in which eventually sat Jesus at the Right Hand of the Father as the Last High Priest. This High Priest Jesus is the Priest-King to both Jew and Gentile thus uniting humanity by the Blood of Christ.

In Islam hate and intolerance abrogate peace, love and tolerance. In Christianity the Love of God and the Good News of Deliverance and the joint-heirship with the First Born from the dead (AKA the Last Adam, the Christ) is made available to human beings in the flesh by tossing the old man aside and becoming a new creation in Christ Jesus. The process of growing in one’s new creation in Christ life leads away from the fleshly desires and temptations to walk in hate, violence, intolerance and all acts of humanity antithetical to a Godly Life made possible by faith in Christ.

Mohammed’s later life is all about carnal relations with women which can be insinuated to gratify the baser desires of unredeemed through lust for sex slaves. The women that became the wives of Mohammed did not do so because his Allah said there would be some divine benefit for humanity. No my friends: Mohammed’s dalliance with multiple wives and sex slaves was the bad old fashioned carnal lust to satisfy the hunger for sex. Mohammed’s first wife died. The whole time she was alive the paradigm for Mohammed was one wife and one husband. After Kadijah’s death, Mohammed took on multiple wives which included gorgeous Jewish gals captured in war, a wife or two of a companion who Mo could not resist and even the marriage to a seven year little girl whose marriage was consummated when she was the ripe old age of NINE.

Beyond the carnal desire for women, Mohammed’s later life had become consumed for the bloodlust of Jews, Christians and the marketing caravans loaded with wealth to be stolen. Why?

The Jewish Arab tribes of Medina resisted Mohammed’s theopolitical cult as NOT compatible with Judaism. Mohammed did not fit the bill of a prophet that Judaism was specifically looking. The Jewish punishment: Conquest, genocide, theft, sex-slavery and eventually banishment or death from the Arabian Peninsula. Mo’s later life directive toward Jews (and Christians) differed from Mo’s early life of calling Jews (and Christians) the people of the book who were to be respected and not forced to become Muslims. Although that respect was for Mo a little deceptive: For Jews and Christians to live peaceably among Muslims then Jews and Christian had to pay a protection tax which turned out to be humiliation tribute that was to be collected in the most humiliating way possible. The protection tax (jizya) only protected Jews and Christian from summary death or execution for rejecting Islam. There is no compulsion in Islam – Yeah Right! To choose to remain a Jew or Christian entailed a subhuman existence with zero rights vis-a-vie Muslims. Jews and Christians have the right NOT to practice their religion in front of a Muslim without facing death. Jews and Christians cannot build new Churches and Synagogues let alone repair old ones without facing death. Jews and Christians cannot wear the same clothes as Muslims without facing death. Jewish and Christian females are open targets for Muslim rapists who do not have to worry about prosecution because a Jew and Christian are not allowed to testify against a Muslim. For that matter a woman that is raped can be punished by being in a position that her family is not protecting her (that goes for Muslim women as well). Easy targets are deserving targets in Islam. There is more that can be directly linked to Islam’s perfect man’s examples in the Quran, Hadith, Sunna and Sira. All the examples are not good for non-Muslims.

On the other hand the example of Jesus emerges to greater degrees of righteousness right up until the time of His Crucifixion on the Cross. Just prior to the death of Christ, one of two thieves crucified with Christ asks to join Jesus in His Kingdom. He was promised a place in Paradise with Jesus. Jesus’ last breath to His Father in Heaven was to forgive those who Crucified the Son of God for they knew not what they had done. Mohammed’s last breath was to kill all Jews and Christians in the Arabian Peninsula because they refused to acknowledge Mohammed as the last Prophet and his god he called Allah as God Almighty.

Do I have a problem with Islam? Yes.

Christ commands me to love my enemies and pray for those who persecute me. Hence I do so for Muslims.

The Word of God Inspired by the Holy Spirit tells me to pray for unrepentant sinners and disbelievers. For Christians do not wrestle with flesh and blood but with different levels of spiritual beings under the command of Satan. All that is evil is influenced directly or indirectly by Satan, Satan’s minions and by anti-Christ spirits that will culminate eventually in the two men that are the Anti-Christ and his False Prophet.

It is time for Christians to rise up and keep their eyes upon Jesus. It is time for a Holy Crusade that more than likely will not be supported by any Western government especially in America. In America Muslims that are attempting to follow the purist revival of the Mohammed example has used the American Constitution to become aggressors against Judeo-Christian spiritual values and have convinced politicians (especially of the Leftist persuasion) that American Muslims are poor victims of Islamophobia. God help that it would become true that Islamophobia would take a hold of Americans; HOWEVER not because of irrational fear or to act out hatred against the physical person of a Muslim. God’s Word tells us that Godly Love overcomes fear. Also a physical attack based on hatred sucks a Christian into the same credo of Theopolitical Islam: kill that which offends Mohammed and his Allah. Regardless of the history of Christianity in which Christian embracing Sovereigns would slaughter Jews, Muslims and those considered heretical Christians in the name of Jesus Christ; that slaughter was definitely contrary to the example of Jesus Christ and the Word of God.

The Modern Christian Crusade should be all about confronting Islam head on publicly even if Muslims attempt to paint such action as racism. Christians should NOT engage in violence, but share the Good News of Jesus Christ the Son of God even though they may be provoked to respond to Islamic violence. American Muslim organizations have used their definition of Islamophobia to use law enforcement to disperse Christians exercising their right of Free Speech and Religious Freedom. Muslims have deceitfully used the U.S. Constitution to use the money from foreign Muslim billionaires to engage in Legal Jihad (aka Lawfare). There was a time in Europe and Asia Minor that Christians were thrown in the slammer, to the lions and to the torture chambers to get them to recant their faith in Christ (long before Islam for those were the days that Romans persecuted Christians). Now that is real martyrdom.

Muslim martyrdom is dying in battle spreading Islam or in a homicidal suicide bomb designed to strike fear in non-Muslims in the death of men, women and children. The reward for dying a martyr in Islam: eternal access to the carnal sexual pleasures of 72 eternal virgins that satisfy a martyr's every sexual desire. What does a Christian martyr look forward to?

8 And Stephan, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. 9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. 10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. 11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. 12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him and brought him to the council. 13 And they set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: 14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. 15 And all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel. (Acts 6: 8-15 KJV)

1 THEN said the high priest, Are these things so? 2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, … (Acts 7: 1-ff)

Steven proceeds to tell the council the history of the Hebrews from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and the other Eleven Patriarchs, Moses, David, Solomon and the Prophets as the Scripture points to Jesus the Christ as the Messiah promised by Moses. Then:

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels and have not kept it. 54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened , and the Son of man standing on the right of God. 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord. 58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge, And when he had said this , he fell asleep. (Acts 7: 51-60 KJV)

Now that is what true martyrdom is: A culture of Life willing to die to be an example of Life. This is as opposed to a culture of death that divinizes death to receive carnal sexual pleasure for all eternity in Paradise.

Even from a human perspective, which theological perspective of the afterlife promises the Holy Bliss of Union with God? Is it a martyr with a vision into an afterlife that ends all human suffering or a martyr who glorifies death with expectation of sensuous carnal sex to fulfill human lust?

JRH 7/21/10

Sex Revolution Father a Homosexual Pedophile?

John R. Houk
© July 20, 2010

Alfred Kinsey is the Left Wing father of the Sexual Revolution. Research he worked on in 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s led to the degeneration of accepted sexual morals in America. Kinsey’s research stretched from heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophilia and many more aberrant behaviors. Kinsey’s research sent his conclusions to the public as well as to science. Many of those conclusions gave the green light to behavior to sexual lifestyles beyond heterosexuality. Some would say, hence the blight of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, transgender and pedophilia sex on course to cultural acceptability over traditional Christian Morality.

Since the majority of scientists tend to filter their research through Left Wing thought patterns, Kinsey’s research is still cited by the majority scientific community as ground breaking discovery in sexual mores of the American. Unfortunately the acquisition of Kinsey’s data has pretty much been withheld from the public. For instance Kinsey’s homosexual subjects were recruited from an area of homosexual debauchery and not exactly a representation of America’s general population. Child sex and man/boy sex was observed of children forced into sex by noted pedophiles who exacted sex from both boys and girls. Sex crimes law enforcement in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s was focused on prostitution with the overt investigation of pedophilia being nearly non-existent as an embarrassment of society to be buried out of sight.

The gal that has dedicated her life to exposing Kinsey as a morally corrupt man was on a mission to justify lifestyles that personally subscribed to. That gal is Dr. Judith Reisman. Reisman has written books and articles exposing Kinsey’s research as fraudulent. Thus Reisman has become a darling to social Conservatives as I. From my brief Google searching Dr. Reisman I discovered that scientists or psychiatrists/psychologists in general has condemned her research on Kinsey methods and life as a Right Wing political agenda insinuating that Conservative affirmation is good enough to discredit her. As if Kinsey’s Left Wing agenda to socially transform America into the acceptance of immoral and/or deviant lifestyles was a justifiable political path that science must accept as valid.

Here are the sentiments of Dr. William Simon on an earlier expose of Dr. Reisman’s mission to enlighten the public of the reality of Alfred Kinsey:

The second speaks to impact of this kind of "inflated" exposé on our research efforts. The impact of this work on the general public will be minimal, despite the excessive endorsement of a knowledgeable critic like Patrick Buchanan. At best it will have a short life in book displays typically also featuring works on Communist-inspired conspiracies involving fluoridation of drinking supplies, attempts to demasculinize North American men by lacing their food with excessive amounts of estrogens, and the martyrdom of Ollie North. The real damage will occur were we to take such critics too seriously, were we to any degree to avoid the controversial, were we to lapse into the needlessly mystifying and obscuring mumbo-jumbo jargon that researchers have too often used in the past to protectively cloak their vision of the sexual experience. This book should be granted nothing but contempt.

Simon’s conclusion reeks of distaste of Conservatism.

Here are a few excerpts of a 2004 review by Daniel Radosh writing for The New Yorker about Reisman opinions on Kinsey:

“Dr. Kinsey’s most egregious fraud is that he wasn’t a scientist,” Reisman said the other day. “He was an ideologue who was most importantly a sex offender at best, and, beyond being a sex offender, he was certainly a child sexual abuser and/or solicitor and guide in the perpetration of that abuse.” At the root of this accusation is an interview that Kinsey conducted with a sexual predator who kept detailed records of his activities with hundreds of women, men, and children.


But it is not simply Kinsey’s neutrality toward such people that upsets Reisman. She claims that Kinsey actively solicited pedophiles to molest children and report back to him. In fact, she said, “there is absolutely no reason to believe that Kinsey himself was not involved in the sexual abuse of these children.” (None of Kinsey’s four biographers have turned up any evidence that he was.) Reisman also believes that Kinsey died not from heart failure but from what she calls “brutal, repetitive self-abuse.”

To a reader of Reisman’s scholarly papers, it sometimes appears that there is little for which she does not hold Kinsey responsible. In her research on gays, for instance, she has written that the “recruitment techniques” of homosexuals rival those of the Marine Corps. The Kinsey paradigm, she holds, created the moral framework that makes such recruitment possible. Reisman also endorses a book called “The Pink Swastika,” which challenges the “myths” that gays were victimized in Nazi Germany. The Nazi Party and the Holocaust itself, she writes, were largely the creation of “the German homosexual movement.” Thanks to Alfred Kinsey, she warns, the American homosexual movement is poised to repeat those crimes. “Idealistic ‘gay youth’ groups are being formed and staffed in classrooms nationwide by recruiters too similar to those who formed the original ‘Hitler youth.’ ”

…

Ultimately, Reisman and her colleagues hope to discredit not only Kinsey but the entire field of sexology which he created, and what she calls “the sexindustrial complex” that has grown out of it. “One doesn’t measure American sexual habits,” she said. “That’s not a science.”

I look upon Dr. Judith Reisman as a heroine fighting the crusade to reestablish Judeo-Christian American values reversing the curse of Secular Humanism. I do suspect Dr. Reisman be uncomfortable with the “Judeo-Christian” accolade; nonetheless a fight to expose Kinsey will results in points for Judeo-Christian Morality. In fact I urge you to buy Dr. Reisman’s new book, “Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America”.

Two YouTube videos exposing Kinsey: HERE and HERE.

JRH 7/20/10
***********************************
Meet ‘sex sugar daddy’ to Polanski, pedophile priests, predators everywhere

About Dr. Judith Reisman
Sent by: WorldNetDaily Blogger Email
Sent: 7/20/2010 3:00 AM

Sex Crimes against Humanity

Behind the vaunted ‘research’ that incorporated, encouraged and justified the sexual abuse of children

They are the voiceless victims whose horror in many ways mirrors what children in concentration-camp “experiments” suffered during the Holocaust. But the mastermind behind such horrid crimes of sexual abuse and rape of children—some as young as 2-months-old—touts a legacy that’s lauded, lionized, bankrolled and celebrated in literature, science, industry and the arts.

Still, the perpetrator escapes even the scorn heaped on pedophile priests—though his work provides direct cover to the abusers.


So charges a shocking new book by an author who’s never allowed her critics’ tactics of ridicule and blackballing to silence her from exposing the darkest secrets of Alfred Kinsey’s sexual “research.” Dr. Judith Reisman’s relentless commitment to revealing Kinsey’s documented—yet studiously whitewashed—methodology will culminate Tuesday with the publishing of WND Books’ latest, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America.


Kinsey’s career, asserts Reisman, was founded on such unfathomable crimes against innocent children that its true nature must no longer remain unknown to the masses. Reisman aims straight for Kinsey’s watershed work—“Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.” Released 52 years ago, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” attained academic acclaim and sparked mass shock and intrigue, selling 200,000 copies in its first two months of release.

“’Sexual Behavior in the Human Male’ and ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Female’ provide abundant evidence of child sexual torture by Kinsey’s ‘researchers,’ who engaged in brutal, sexual experiments on children,” Reisman reports. “’Kinsey says ‘the only ‘abnormal’ sex is no sex; that the ‘human animal’ needs orgasms; and that the earlier boys and girls have orgasms, the better for them.’”


Reisman recently lifted the veil on the “global pedophile movement” in condemning the Swiss refusal to extradite Roman Polanski, the film director and three-decade fugitive who fled conviction for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl. Reisman’s devoted much of her life’s work to telling the truth behind Kinsey’s research and revealing how he provides academic cover to sexually abuse—psychologically as well as physically—children.

Even in death, Kinsey’s sexual torment of children persists today, Reisman warns, citing the controversial sex-education curriculum pending in Montana. The Associated Press reports that in the Helena school district, “kindergartners would be taught proper anatomical terms, first-graders would learn sexual relations could happen between two men or two women, and fifth-graders would learn the various ways people can have intercourse.”

“Montana,” Reisman told EducationNews.org, “is seeking to impose an unscientific, Kinseyan ideological model of pathological sexual instruction on the undeveloped, immature brains of vulnerable children. …Their imposition of sexplicit and indeed deviant forms of sexual conduct on captive schoolchildren is institutional child sexual abuse. Were a man or woman to stop a child on the street and whisper the same information teachers will force on these school children, he or she could be arrested for child molestation.

“Since sex education only existed as ‘hygiene’ before 1950, (cleanliness habits and instruction to wait until marriage for sex unless one wanted to get VD),” she continued, “all sex ed had to come from some ‘expert.’ That ‘expert’ was Alfred Kinsey and his books.”

While many pinpoint the nation's seismic morality shift to the 1960s, Reisman presents different origins. Youthful rebellion, the rise of the counterculture and the Sexual Revolution remain mere symptoms of the cynicism that sprouted from the Kinsey Reports. The "Greatest Generation," Resiman (sic) maintains, absorbed a slander so damaging no jury could calculate the costs, as it inspired Boomers to see thier parents as perverted hypocrites.

“The World War II generation was trained to honor God, country, and family—and was thus trained to build a secure life for their children and, indeed, for us all,” she writes. “Kinsey … reported that nearly all American men—our ‘better angels’—were actually sex offenders, though he also claimed that no women or children were harmed by rape or incest.”

With attention lavished on Kinsey’s salacious charges of seldom-discussed sexual behavior as the closeted norm, few paused to ponder just how Kinsey drew such definitive conclusions about the sexual behaviors of children. Few except Reisman.

“’Sexual Behavior in the Human Male’ reports data “on 214 male children,” Reisman’s “Sexual Sabotage” reports, “the youngest only one year old. .. Kinsey asserted, ‘Of the 214 cases . . . all but 14 were subsequently observed in orgasm.’ Observed?! Who ‘subsequently observed’ (defined as ‘occurring or coming later or after’) these infants and boys being—yes—sexually tortured, timed, and recorded? Who, of Kinsey’s team, did this under his direction? The youngest boy tested to ‘climax’ is ‘2 mon.’ old.”

The pervasiveness of Kinsey’s research is pandemic, Reisman states, and even informs key advisors to the Catholic Church on matters of child sex abuse. One such advisor, Fred Berlin, MD, co-founded the celebrated Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, with his mentor, John Money, PhD.

Money, “a dedicated Kinsey disciple” who mentored an early Kinsey Institute director, reports Sexual Sabotage, “said that their clinic was designed to offer ‘leeway to judges’ to free convicted child molesters.”


Tellingly, the Rev. Michael Peterson, founder of St. Luke’s Institute, warned clergy that they “should avoid potential abuse suits by following the well-qualified Money and Berlin.”
________________________
Sex Revolution Father a Homosexual Pedophile?
John R. Houk
© July 20, 2010
______________________________

Meet ‘sex sugar daddy’ to Polanski, pedophile priests, predators everywhere

Dr. Judith Reisman is a consultant and former president of The Institute for Media Education, and is the scientific advisor for the California Protective Parents Association. While her research and testimony prompted 7-Eleven to stop stocking Playboy and Penthouse magazines, she’s endured numerous attempts—including three congressional investigations—to squelch her findings on the dangers of pornography. A sought-after expert in the field of Media Forensics, Reisman served as a consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations. Having been interviewed on countless major media outlets, she’s also authored or co-authored several titles, including:

* Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People

* Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences

* Soft Porn Plays Hardball: Its Tragic Effects on Women, Children and the Family.

Copyright 1997-2010 WorldNetDaily.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.

NAACP and CAIR Racist Hypocrisy

John R. Houk
© July 19, 2010

I knew the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had become a Leftist tool to cast the Tea Party Movement in a bad light as a racist movement.

It is an irony that the NAACP has used one of the favorites of the Leftist arsenal: THE RACE CARD. I mean look at the name of the organization. The NAACP spells out it represents an association that advances “Colored People”. Again the irony is that the NAACP was created by the Republican Party to assist African-Americans from the racism which was once highly pervasive in America particularly in the South and urban centers. Of course groups like the NAACP, the Jesse Jackson group, the Al Sharpton group and the pervasively racist Nation of Islam of Louis Farrakhan have accomplished more to economically enslave African-Americans to a Leftist welfare-like dependence and look out for whitey for he is against you mentality. Instead promoting racial harmony these groups are still ensconced in portraying African-Americans as victims of retrograde Black Slavery and White enslavement.

Cynthia Tucker listed four criticisms of the NAACP (Emphasis is mine):

First off, few will remember the word “elements” expected to be included in the final wording, so the resolution will be roundly interpreted as smearing all tea partiers. (There really is no such thing as The Tea Party. It’s not an organization; it’s a movement of loosely affiliated activists who detest Obama and rally around lower taxes and limited government.) … Still, it leaves the impression that the NAACP believes all tea partiers are racist — a stereotype that the NAACP should abhor.

Second, the resolution further arouses well-justified suspicions that the NAACP is nothing more than an arm of the Democratic Party. NAACP President Benjamin Jealous has said the anti-tea party resolution will, among other things, motivate his members to vote in the mid-term elections. That suggests the organization’s chief concern is supporting Democrats in the fall. (Does the IRS know?) It is perfectly appropriate for the NAACP to rally around specific political issues, such as comprehensive immigration reform.

However, according to NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, “The NAACP along with it allies and partners will show America that a solid majority of this nation is ready, willing and able to fight back to ensure that all the change we voted for is made a reality for all of our children.” That sounds suspiciously like a vote for Democrats, period.

Third, it’s awfully hypocritical for the NAACP to call for the tea partiers to purge their ranks of racists, as Jealous did. It’s a rare day, indeed, that the NAACP purges its ranks, no matter how inappropriately some of its members behave.

And, fourth, this resolution just draws attention to the tea partiers — who represent, at most, about 20 percent of the electorate — and gives the demagogues something to rally around. Already, tea partiers and their supporters are having a field day with the resolution, calling NAACPers reverse racists and insisting they withdraw the statement.

I should not be surprised but I recently discovered that the Islamic Supremacist Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has become an NAACP bedfellow in also calling the Tea Party Movement a racist movement.

Joseph Farah has sent out a blog ready editorial condemning both the NAACP and CAIR as anti-American tools.

JRH 7/19/10
******************************
NAACP, CAIR ‘through the looking glass’ on racist labels

Commentary
by Joseph Farah
Sent: 7/19/2010 3:11 AM
Sent by: WorldNetDaily

Pot to kettle: 'You're a racist'
Author indicts audacity of accusations from professional ‘victims’ who traffic in intolerance

I often suggest we are living in a world where up is down, black is white, right is wrong and left is … well, no, left is still never right.

That would be "bizarro world," that parallel universe, where everything is backward is what I think about with regard to the groundless, baseless, irresponsible, false, unjustifiable and unsubstantiated accusations of racism against the tea party movement by a group seeking the advancement of non-whites – the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

About the meanest, most hurtful, most ruthless smear you can make about someone in American in 2010 is to label that person a racist – and rightfully so. If anyone hates other people and wishes them ill because of the color of their skin, that person deserves to be vilified and berated.

However, when that accusation is unfairly, inappropriately and cavalierly hurled at people, those doing the smearing are the ones who should be vilified and berated. In fact, they are actually in service to the cause of hate and racism when they cheapen the label and simply use the accusation to attack those with whom they simply have a political disagreement.

And that's really what's going on here with the NAACP. I suspect even the leaders of the organization have some regrets about promoting the resolution condemning the tea party movement for racism without the slightest trace of evidence. It's backfiring on the group. No sooner was the ink dry on the resolution than the backtracking began.

Ben Jealous, the chairman of the NAACP, suggested the resolution did not actually indict the tea party for racism (which it did). It was more of a warning, he said. Now he demands the tea party movement repudiate racism.

It's like the old interrogation line, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Exactly who at the tea party movement is supposed to do that? There are no prominent national leaders of this decentralized movement. This is a spontaneous, grass-roots effort – barely 18 months old. Are the tens of millions of Americans who identify with this movement supposed to denounce racism in unison?

For what it's worth, I'm going to do something historic right now. As the author of "The Tea Party Manifesto," a book that seeks to give the movement a mission statement upon which to build a consensus, I'm going to take the liberty speak right here and now for the tea party movement – just this once.

"The tea party movement that seeks to promote the proper role of government in America – namely as the protector of all peoples' individual, God-given, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, without regard to race, color or creed."

I have met hundreds of tea party activists across this country and, I believe, that every single one of them would approve of that statement.

However, I don't believe for a moment that those hurling the racial accusations would.

The NAACP, for instance, still clings to the Marxist notion that only whites can be racist. Why? Because whites have the power, they say, and racism is about using power to victimize racial minorities.

Think about this: We have a black president. We have a black attorney general of the United States. We have sworn testimony from a former U.S. attorney accusing the Justice Department of pervasive racism in the dismissing of cases against black defendants charged with victimizing whites. But the NAACP couldn’t care less about that. Instead, the NAACP is concerned about the mere potential for racism in politically disenfranchised grass-roots activists who have demonstrated no racist attitudes at all.

Make sense to you?

But the hypocrisy and double-standards get worse.

Another group has rushed to the defense of the NAACP. It's the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Communications director Ibrahim Hooper says the tea party activists have "failed to repudiate elements within the movement who use racist or bigoted language." He says CAIR is now tracking incidents it claims show tea partiers are "Islamophobic," whatever that means.

As I stated earlier, I believe the tea party movement is characterized by deep commitment to the inherent, inalienable and God-given rights to all people – and that includes the right to worship freely or not worship at all.

Does CAIR?

If so, has CAIR ever repudiated the government of Saudi Arabia for banning Bibles, banning churches, banning worship of any kind other than Sunni Islam, banning the travel into the city of Mecca by any except Muslims?

I don't think so.

Has CAIR ever sent back any of the millions of dollars it has received from Saudi Arabia, the most religiously intolerant nation on Earth?

I don't think so.

Has CAIR ever called for opening the city of Mecca to people of all faiths?

I don't think so.

Has CAIR ever humbly apologized for the wanton destruction of Christian churches throughout the Islamic world?

I don't think so.

Has CAIR ever used its influence within the Islamic world to stop the brutal persecution of Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims?

I don't think so.

Pot to kettle: "You're a racist!"
_____________________
NAACP and CAIR Racist Hypocrisy
John R. Houk
© July 19, 2010
_____________________________
NAACP, CAIR ‘through the looking glass’ on racist labels

Joseph Farah - founder, editor, and CEO of WorldNetDaily, the world's leading independent Internet news source - joined Sarah Palin as one of two nationally televised keynote speakers at the first national Tea Party Convention in Nashville in February. His 2003 bestseller, Taking America Back, prophesied the movement today known as "the tea party." The former daily newspaper editor has authored, co-authored, or collaborated on more than a dozen books, including Rush Limbaugh's "See, Told You So."

To interview Joseph Farah, or [ask for copies] of Tea Party Manifesto, contact Tim Bueler at (530) 401-3285 or media@wnd.com

Copyright 1997-2010 WorldNetDaily.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Radical Islamic Ground Zero Mosque

John R. Houk
© July 18, 2010

I received a heads up a few days ago when I was not able to access my email about this article by Alyssa A. Lappen writing for Family Security Matters concerning what anti-Islamists as I call the Ground Zero Mosque and what Muslim propagandists call the Cordoba House.

In case you only watch the liberal Mainstream Media (MSM) a group of radical Muslims are attempting pass themselves off as Muslim moderate pacifists by expressing the desire to build their Cordoba House in the very shadow of what once was the Twin Towers taken down in a radical Islamic terrorist sneak attack declaration of war on the United States of America on September 11, 2010. These radical Muslims call their Islamic program the Cordoba Initiative which makes the claim that they are a Muslim group trying to build an interfaith bridge between Islam and non-Muslim faiths.

The reason Lappen’s article strung a cord in my mind is I listened to Brigitte Gabriel of ACT for America and a blue-eyed American-Muslim convert debate the actual intentions of the Cordoba House. The brief debate was on Sean Hannity’s show of FOX News. Unfortunately for the Muslim apologist both Hannity and Gabriel had the facts of the Cordoba Initiative honcho and every time they would correct the Muslim apologist she would look into the eye of the camera and say the quotes read by Hannity and Gabriel were not true or that famous obfuscation – taken out of context. The funny thing is when Hannity made efforts to read the quotes for the television audience the Muslim apologist would shout Hannity down enough that he could not continue to get past one or two words. So Hannity and Gabriel simply in a nicer way than I would have, called her defense blatantly not true. I would have looked into the camera’s eye and called her bald-faced liar. But I guess all that litigation would follow from the legal jihad if Hannity would have taken my path.

Lappen’s article focuses on “Muslim Pledge for Religious Freedom and Safety from Harm for Former Muslims” and that the Cordoba Initiative Grand Pooh-Bahs Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan refused to sign it. Lappen also throws in some Quran and Hadith exposing the Cordoba Initiative and its purist Islamic agenda is to take down the USA by Rauf’s analogies with said Islamic writings and Islamic goals.

JRH 7/18/10

Dada Takes Issue of Pedophilic Depiction of Mohammed

John R. Houk
© July 17, 2010

It is not uncommon that I receive comments from Muslims vainly attempting to set me straight. I received a comment from a person who goes by the name “dada” on VOX. He took umbrage to a drawing of Mohammed obviously displaying an erection through robes (okay, I don’t know the Arabic/Muslim name for such a robe) leading the child wife Aisha by the hand who had a doll in her hand. There are about six comments there. VOX removed one of the user profiles or the user opted out, that is the reason a line is drawn through name. The drawing with the comments can be found HERE.

Dada left a comment in broken English followed by another comment in Arabic. I sense the Arabic comment represents his thoughts better. For those of us that Arabic language deficient here is a Google translation of dada's case. Take note the Google translator kind of messes up some words; nonetheless it is a very readable translation.

Arabic to English translation

Arab newborn would be the best g Muhammad peace and perhaps carry burden of his friend Abu Bakr took the fear that is his daughter captive and contaminate his honor where abounded battles and the fighting between tribes at this time and women were taken prisoners Kjary.

As well as the marriage of Aisha to honor her father, as every man wishes he married his daughter Smbkra as well as Muslims and honor marriages of the Prophet Mohammad peace be upon him.

Girls at the age of Aisha are not as young as some people say that medicine has supported Alghtyat young they can marry and have children at a younger age from the age of Aisha, may Allah at the time of her marriage.

Girls in those times they were prepared to bear all the burdens of the family they are Mndhu Sgrhn Ehtmin management and help their mothers in matters of tent or at home.

Do not believe the people who want to harm others to benefit from Lkm understanding of Islam and the failure to recognize the right of it is not due to non-Muslim in modern Islam and try to read the traffic actually not false positives, which revises the enemies of Islam to mislead others from the truth, which must appear.

Yeah I have heard this argument before about Mohammed's marriage and subsequent conjugal consummation was and is a cultural thing for Middle Eastern Muslims.

Reading from "An Examination of Muhammad’s Marriage to a Prepubescent Girl And Its Moral Implications" it becomes evident that Mohammed purposely chose a child-female in order to have a virgin to fondle and eventually have sex with (Mo waited until age 9). Subsequent stories that vainly attempt to explain Mo married Aisha to protect her from marrying another undesirable to Aisha's aged father in case he died in battle is poppycock. Mohammed wasted no time in sexual foreplay with Aisha and actual sex at 9. So protecting Aisha from what? Another pedophile?

Mohammed was not simply a pedophile though. He had sex with married women (not married to MO) and to other women that in Judeo-Christian theology (even in MO’s day) would be incestuous. Check this out from the Quran courtesy The Religion of Peace:

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you;" This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that this "revelation" was meant to assuage some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad's hedonism.

Here are some quotes from the Hadith on Mohammed and Aisha (Incidentally Bukhari and Tabari are among the Hadith that are evaluated by Muslim Scholars as most reliable)

From the Hadith:

Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234)

Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.

Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her).

Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her.

Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she could sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead.

Bukhari (4:232) - Muhammad's wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it's a wonder he found the time to slay pagans.

Bukhari (6:300) - Muhammad's wives had to be available for the prophet's fondling even when they were having their menstrual period.

Bukhari (93:639) - The Prophet of Islam would recite the 'Holy Qur'an' with his head in Aisha's lap, when she was menstruating.

Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives." Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally - and it isn't hard to guess why.

Bukhari (5:268) - "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.'"

Bukhari (60:311) - "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given 'Allah's permission' to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly).

Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty." Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God's gift to him.

Tabari VIII:117 - "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims." He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself.

Tubari IX:139 - "You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer." Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had 'offered' herself to Muhammad.

Some Muslims make the attempt to pooh-pooh the age of Aisha as married at 6 and copulated at 9. These Muslim apologists suggest that Aisha was really 16-18. The Quran and Hadith throws the lie of mud in the face of these certain Muslim apologists. Ali Sina (former Muslim turned atheist) writes:

Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama.

In another part Ayesha claims that as long as she remembers her parents were always Muslims.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245

Narrated 'Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),

If Ayesha was older i.e. 16 or 18 as some Muslims claim, she would have remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims.

Now someone may still claim that all these hadithes are lies. People are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for those who have eyes.

No sane person would be aroused by a 9-year-old child. Decent people wince at the thought of this shameful act. Yet some Muslims deny them. The question is why so many followers of Muhammad would fabricate so many false hadithes about the age of Ayisha, which incidentally confirm each other?

Get over it dada, Mohammed was a lustful womanizing pedophile.

JRH 7/17/10